LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِSeptember 16/2011

Bible Quotation for today
1 Corinthians 15:42–53: "So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.  It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.  But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.  The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.  Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.  Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.  For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. "

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Lebanon’s troublesome political priest
/By: Michael Young/
September 15/11
Turkey’s familiar tactics/By: Tony Badran/September 15/11
Erdogan of Arabia…but!/By Tariq Alhomayed/September 15/11
MENA Christians and political maelstroms/By: Harry Hagopian /September 15/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 15/11

Israeli-Greek defense pact invoked versus Turkish naval and air movements

Nadim Gemayel: Suleiman, Al-Rahi’s Stance on Weapons Encourages Others to Turn to Arms

Report: The Vatican to Study, Evaluate al-Rahi’s Statements

Bishop Abou Jawdi, Al-Rahi's Representative: Are Arms Part of Dialogue or Part of Playing with Fire?

Geagea: Cloud of Uncertainty on al-Rahi’s Statements Has Passed
Future bloc MP Atef Majdalani says Rai’s clarifications are “sufficient”

French ambassador Denis Pietton  to Visit al-Rahi Amid French Disappointment with his Remarks

PSP Dismisses Deterioration of Jumblat-Hizbullah Ties

Miqati: Lebanon Will Not Meddle in Affairs of Any Arab State

Maronite Patriarch Rai meets with FM, Mansour

Lebanese Taxi Drivers Suspend Strike as Cabinet Expresses Readiness to Deliver Fuel Subsidy

Syrian TV to reveal alleged plot behind Mugniyah assassination
Lebanese FM working for Syria, Future bloc MP Amin Wehbe
Palestinians back off UN Security Council statehood bid

Palestinians: We will seek full UN membership on September 23

Egypt's Islamists criticize Erdogan over calls for secular state

Syria launches huge sweep on protesters: activists

Russia Warns 'Terrorist Organizations' May Rise in Syria

Real steps needed to protect Syrian protesters: March 14

Karam's lawyer appeals court's verdict

Asarta Denies Report on Possible Ending of UNIFIL Mission

Karami to Miqati: Centrism Doesn’t Work

Kuwaiti Activists Support Demand for Constitutional Monarchy

Libya's New Leaders Welcome Cameron, Sarkozy

U.S. Vows Action against Pakistan-Based Insurgents

 

Nadim Gemayel: Suleiman, Al-Rahi’s Stance on Weapons Encourages Others to Turn to Arms

Naharnet /Phalange Party MP Nadim Gemayel condemned on Wednesday the possession of illegitimate arms in Lebanon, saying that President Michel Suleiman and Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi’s positions on Hizbullah’s weapons won’t change the fact that they are illegitimate. He said after a mass commemorating the 29th anniversary of the assassination of his father, former President Bashir Gemayel: “They believe that the army cannot protect Lebanon and therefore allowing one faction to carry arms encourages others to turn to arms as well.”
“These weapons have been used on the internal scene and at every major political moment in order to terrorize the people and impose their ideology and state on them,” he added.
“We have learned from Bashir and all martyrs not to hesitate in defending the nation,” he continued. Gemayel said: “We refuse to be ruled by the power of the arms and those who claim to be defending the country.” “I am issuing a final call to them to retract their stances so that they don’t drag us back to the time of Syrian hegemony and into wars that have destroyed the country,” he stressed. On the developments in Syria, he said: “The Syrian people are striving for freedom and the Lebanese state does not have the right to defend the Syrian regime at the U.N. Security Council and Arab League as massacres are being committed against the people.” “We cannot forget that it is this same regime that committed the ugliest massacres against our people and economy …. This system cannot defend anyone and it must step down,” he declared. “I would like to remind some spiritual and secular Christians that Christianity was built on martyrdom and sacrifice and had the early Christians succumbed to dictators, there would be no Christians in Syria today,” the MP added. “We cannot trivialize the martyrdom of saints by calling for submission to the rule of tyrants such as Syrian President Bashar Assad,” Gemayel said. “We have a major and historic opportunity to achieve real reconciliation between the Syrian and Lebanese people,” he remarked.

Nadim Gemayel: Rai’s position on ‘illegitimate’ arms does not change reality

September 14, 2011
Kataeb bloc MP Nadim Gemayel said on Wednesday that President Michel Sleiman and Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai’s positions on Hezbollah’s arms “do not change reality,” adding that Hezbollah’s arms are illegitimate.
“[Hezbollah’s] arms were used domestically and throughout each political phase [in order for Hezbollah] to impose their ideology and state on the Lebanese people,” Gemayel said during a mass marking the 29th anniversary of the assassination of former President Bachir Gemayel.
The patriarch has faced criticism by some figures of the Western-backed March 14 coalition after his recent statements in France supporting the Syrian regime and Hezbollah’s arms.
However the patriarch clarified the aforementioned statements on Tuesday during his visit to the Metn town of Al-Arbaniyya saying “You should forget all the statements that were taken out of context and have nothing to do with my personal opinion.”
March 14 has been calling for disarming non-state parties, including Hezbollah. However, the Shia group ruled out any dialogue that is to address its weapons.
Gemayel also said that the phase Lebanon is going through is “hard and dangerous.”
“This [stage] might be the most dangerous. Independence, freedom and our existence are in danger, and this situation cannot bear… justifying the statements of some figures, no matter how important their positions are.”
Gemayel called for “retreating from positions,” in reference to Sleiman’s and Rai’s stances, in order for Lebanon to not be involved in wars.
“When certain people are allowed to carry arms, we should be encouraging all Lebanese people to carry arms. We will not allow anyone to govern us by the power of arms and claim, at the same time, that they are defending [Lebanese] lands.”
Addressing the current Syrian situation, the MP said “The Syrian revolution is that of people who [want] freedom.”
“The [current] Syrian regime is the same one which committed massacres against our people… This regime can [never] protect anyone, and it is important that it goes away.”
He added that there is an opportunity today for a “real reconciliation” between the Lebanese and the Syrian people.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops have cracked down on protests against almost five decades of Baath Party rule which broke out mid-March, killing over 2,600 people according to the UN Human Rights Committee, and triggering a torrent of international condemnation.
-NOW Lebanon


Nadim Gemayel calls for strong state
September 14, 2011
Kataeb bloc MP Nadim Gemayel on Wednesday called for the formation of a strong state that is able to protect its citizens. “It is time to implement the slogan of [former President] Bashir Gemayel to build a strong state that is able to protect its citizens’ security and stability,” he told Voice of Lebanon (93.3) radio. “We can’t remain silent amid the injustice that the Lebanese people are facing while Hezbollah’s illegal arms are still present.”Gemayel also ruled out that the role and presence of Christians in the Middle East is diminishing. Bashir Gemayel, Nadim’s late father, was assassinated on September 14, 1982 only 22 days after being elected president. -NOW Lebanon
 

Bishop Abou Jawdi, Al-Rahi's Representative: Are Arms Part of Dialogue or Part of Playing with Fire?
Naharnet/Is reliance on the clout of outside forces and arms outside state control part of national dialogue or part of playing with fire, Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi’s representative at a mass commemorating the 29th anniversary of the assassination of ex-president Bashir Gemayel asked rhetorically. Slain president Gemayel “strived throughout the crisis to restore the unity of land, the sovereignty of people and the prestige of the state,” Patriarchal Vicar General Roland Abu Jaoude said at the ceremony in the Beirut district of Ashrafieh on Wednesday. “His patriotism pushed him to sacrifice himself for the sake of what and whom he loved. His body turned into an offering for Lebanon’s salvation and he rightfully became the martyr of martyrs,” Abu Jaoude said of the late leader. “The land he loved will not forget his blood and we sense a dire need for politicians of Bashir’s caliber who would end the hypocrisy and work for the sake of dialogue and harmony,” al-Rahi’s representative added.
 

Report: The Vatican to Study, Evaluate al-Rahi’s Statements
Naharnet /The Vatican has made an official request to Bkirki to review the latest controversial statements that Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi made to take the appropriate stance from them, informed European sources said. The sources told al-Liwaa daily published Thursday that the Vatican would study and evaluate the statements which al-Rahi claimed were taken out of context. During his visit to Paris, al-Rahi allegedly linked the fate of Hizbullah’s arms to the liberation of occupied Lebanese territories. He also said that the international community should pressure Israel into withdrawing from the Shebaa Farms. On the situation in Syria, the patriarch called for giving President Bashar Assad the chance to introduce reform for fears that the collapse of the regime would lead to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power threatening the existence of Christians there. The European sources said that the Vatican has expressed frustration at the controversy that erupted over al-Rahi’s statements which contradict the long-standing stance of Bkirki and the Vatican.

French ambassador Denis Pietton  to Visit al-Rahi Amid French Disappointment with his Remarks

Naharnet /French ambassador Denis Pietton unveiled on Wednesday that Paris was disappointed with the statements made by Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi following talks with top French officials. In remarks to AlKalima Online website, Pietton said that the officials were “surprised and disappointed” with the remarks of al-Rahi who linked the fate of Hizbullah’s arms to the liberation of the remaining Israeli-occupied Lebanese territories. The patriarch also expressed fear on the fate of Christians in Syria if the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power. He called for giving Syrian President Bashar Assad the chance to introduce reform. Al-Rahi’s “statement did not reflect the stance of French authorities regardless of the patriarch’s personal point of view and his way of thinking,” Pietton said. He also unveiled that he would visit the patriarch soon upon the request of French authorities to inquire him about his statements.
The dispute that erupted among Lebanese parties over his remarks, led to “unsatisfactory expectations among the Lebanese, particularly that they see the patriarchate as a moral authority in addition to being a political and religious” authority, the ambassador added. Pietton stressed to the website that following talks with Premier Najib Miqati he didn’t describe al-Rahi’s visit to Paris as “successful.” He said the trip was “important.”
 

Geagea: Cloud of Uncertainty on al-Rahi’s Statements Has Passed

Naharnet /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Wednesday expressed relief at Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi’s confirmation that his statements on Syria and Hizbullah’s arms were taken out of context. In remarks to Free Lebanon radio, Geagea said that he faced “uncertainty” when he heard al-Rahi’s remarks during his visit to Paris. “I know well the church’s stance and al-Rahi’s stand from humanitarian principles, core values, human rights, humanitarian dignity, the freedom of people, democracy and the right of self-determination.”
Geagea also said that the church believes a society cannot rise if it doesn’t have control on the defense strategy and the weapons. The controversy that erupted over al-Rahi’s statements is “a cloud of uncertainty that has passed,” he said. The patriarch is “the guardian of Bkirki’s heritage and this is comforting.” Asked about the situation in Syria, Geagea said that the rejection of the Syrian regime of the Arab League initiative proves that Damascus doesn’t want to introduce reform. He expressed regret at the Lebanese state’s official stance, wondering whether Lebanon supports the violent crackdown in Syria. Geagea advised President Michel Suleiman and Premier Najib Miqati to review the foreign ministry’s policy because Lebanon shouldn’t appear as a state that supports violence against the Syrian people.


Future bloc MP Atef Majdalani says Rai’s clarifications are “sufficient”
September 14, 2011 /Future bloc MP Atef Majdalani told Future News television on Wednesday that Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai’s clarifications, regarding his recent statements on Syria, are “sufficient.”“I do not think the Patriarch will stand by the oppressor against the oppressed,” the MP also said, adding that Rai is concerned with the patriarchate’s principles. Majdalani added that the issue, related to Rai’s statements, should not be exaggerated. The patriarch has faced criticism by some figures of the Western-backed March 14 coalition after his recent statements in France supporting the Syrian regime and Hezbollah’s arms. However the patriarch clarified the aforementioned statements on Tuesday during his visit to the Metn town of Al-Arbaniyya saying “You should forget all the statements that were taken out of context and have nothing to do with my personal opinion.” Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops have cracked down on protests against almost five decades of Baath Party rule which broke out mid-March, killing over 2,600 people according to the UN Human Rights Committee, and triggering a torrent of international condemnation.-NOW Lebanon

Debate over Rai remarks eases
By Thomas El-Basha/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The debate over Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai’s controversial statements on Syria and Hezbollah eased Wednesday, a day after the religious leader stressed his remarks had been taken out of context. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, in an interview with a local radio station Wednesday, expressed “relief for the clarification by Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai of his stances, particularly after his speech Tuesday where he said his statements had been taken out of context.” Geagea’s statement came after reports earlier in the day hinted at tension between the LF and Bkirki and put into doubt whether a top-level meeting among Christian party leaders sponsored by Rai would take place.
An LF source told Al-Liwaa newspaper that “all options are on the table,” regarding the expected gathering at Bkirki, “especially given that what Patriarch Beshara Rai said constitutes a dangerous turning point, one that contradicts Bkirki’s national stances.” Speaking to reporters in Paris and in an interview with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite channel last week, Rai warned that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria would threaten the presence of Christians there. He said that President Bashar Assad – once the arch-enemy of Lebanon's Maronites –should be given a chance to carry out political reforms in the face of protesters demanding his ouster.
Commenting on Rai’s remarks that the unrest in Syria could escalate Sunni-Shiite tension in Lebanon, al-Jamaa al-Islamiya MP Imad Hout said the Maronite patriarch had realized he had made a mistake. Rai “has realized his mistake with the remarks he made in France and is now gradually backing down on his statements,” Hout told Asharq radio station Wednesday.
Hout said Rai’s statements had “fueled sectarian sentiments that contradict the patriarch’s motto: ‘partnership and love.’”
The Maronite patriarch Tuesday said his statements in the French capital had been taken out of context and stressed that he would not abandon his church’s historical principles.
"It was a big mistake for the patriarch to go to France, which has a history of hundreds of years of support for Maronites, and say the Assad regime must be protected at a time when the Assad regime is breaking down," said political commentator and author Elias al-Zoghbi.
In an interview to be published Thursday in As-Sayyad magazine, Deputy Parliament Speaker Farid Makari, another member of the March 14 coalition, voiced his hope that the patriarch would repair the impression left by the statements he made in Paris.
Rai’s statements last week sparked debate between the country’s rival March 14 and March 8 coalitions, the former voicing surprise, concern and regret, the latter solidarity with the patriarch. The most prominent criticism of Rai’s statement came from Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, who said he seeks to remain a centrist in a wide alliance with March 8.Jumblatt Monday assailed Rai’s linking of the fate of Hezbollah’s arms to a Middle East peace settlement, saying Lebanon could not remain hostage to regional conflicts.
The PSP leader also disputed Rai’s warning that regime change in Syria and the possible emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood would pose a threat to the Christians there.
In remarks to Al-Joumhouria published Wednesday, Jumblatt said he would meet Rai in “in the coming few days.”

Karam's lawyer appeals court's verdict
September 14, 2011ظThe Daily Star
BEIRUT: Fayez Karam's lawyer Rashad Salameh Wednesday appealed the two-year hard labor prison sentence handed to the retired brigadier general earlier this month for collaborating with Israel. Salameh also requested a retrial at the military court of appeals. No further details regarding the basis of the appeal were released. On Sept. 3, the military court, chaired by Brig. Gen. Nizar Khalil, issued its sentence against Karam, a senior official of the Free Patriotic Movement, “for collaborating with the enemy,” pursuant to Article 278 The tribunal’s indictment had demanded that Karam be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison with hard labor. Karam, who returned to Beirut from Paris in 2005 with FPM head Gen. Michel Aoun, was charged in August 2010 with collaborating with Israel and providing the intelligence agency Mossad with information about the FPM, its ally Hezbollah, and the meetings held between the two sides, as well as information about other Lebanese parties in return for money.


Lebanese FM working for Syria, Future bloc MP Amin Wehbe
September 15, 2011 /Future bloc MP Amin Wehbe said on Thursday that “he is ashamed that the [Lebanese] Foreign Ministry has become a department in the Syrian Foreign Ministry.”
“[Adnan Mansour] acts like the shadow of Syrian Foreign Minister [Walid al-Mouallem], which is humiliating for Lebanon,” Wehbe told As-Sharq radio.The MP also called on Prime Minister Najib Mikati not to act like Mansour “because he would humiliate himself and the Lebanese state.”The Arab League on Tuesday demanded an end to “the bloodshed” and called for "immediate change" in Syria, but Lebanon’s envoy to the meeting, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour, did not vote in favor of this decision. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops have cracked down on protests against almost five decades of Baath Party rule which broke out mid-March, killing over 2,600 people according to the UN Human Rights Committee, and triggering a torrent of international condemnation.-NOW Lebanon

Syrian TV to reveal alleged plot behind Mugniyah assassination
September 15, 2011 /SANA news agency announced on Thursday that Syrian national television will broadcast on Saturday an interview with “an Israeli spy who will… confess how he contributed to the [2008] assassination of Hezbollah official Imad Mugniyah in Syria.”Imad Mughiyah, who was a high-ranking Hezbollah official and used to run military operations in close collaboration with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force, was assassinated in 2008 in Damascus. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops have cracked down on protests against almost five decades of Baath Party rule which broke out mid-March, killing over 2,600 people, according to the UN Human Rights committee, and triggering a torrent of international condemnation.-NOW Lebanon

Maronite Patriarch Rai meets with FM, Mansour
September 15, 2011 /Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai met with Foreign Affairs Minister Adnan Mansour on Thursday, the National News Agency (NNA) reported.
Rai and Mansour discussed the results of the former’s visit to France, the report added. The NNA also said that Rai met with a delegation from the Baalbek-Hermel bloc.
The MPs, on behalf of Hezbollah, discussed with Rai his upcoming visit to Baalbek over the weekend, the NNA added.-NOW Lebanon

Turkey’s familiar tactics

By: Tony Badran/Now Lebanon
September 15, 2011
Throughout the 2011 Arab popular revolts, much ink has been spilled over the positive role the so-called “Turkish model” was supposed to have on the course of the protesters’ quest for democracy. However, as evident from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Egypt and his Nasserist performance there, the role Turkey is settling on is one of inflammatory demagogy, heating up tensions and potentially threatening US interests at a critical moment in the region.
Much like how Iran has sought to paint the Arab revolts with the brush of “resistance,” Turkey is in the process of refocusing the narrative of the Arab Spring back on the conflict with Israel. As with Tehran, Ankara’s objective is the promotion of its own bid for regional primacy. The arena for this power play is Egypt.
For all the hype around Turkey’s “soft power,” to advance his brand, Erdogan has fallen back on a familiar tactic: addressing the region’s masses over the head of their governments, and rousing their emotions with calculated anti-Israel rhetoric. As Michael Doran wrote a few months ago, Gamal Abdel Nasser wrote that playbook, but it is Iran that has made it its modus operandi since the Islamic Revolution took power.
Turkey is now following this well-trodden path. In explaining Ankara’s ambitious drive, Erdogan’s chief adviser, Ibrahim Kalin, offered these heady words: “We have made it clear we never had any kind of imperial intentions, but there is demand from the Arab street.”
For a government whose foreign minister has wondered why Turkey shouldn’t “rebuild its leadership in former Ottoman lands in the Balkans, Middle East and Central Asia,” Kalin’s pronouncement on imperial intentions is rather rich. But it was the reference to the “Arab street” that reveals the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) strategy—a strategy former US Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey understood all too well, noting, in a 2010 cable, “the AKP’s outreach to populations over the heads of conservative, pro-US governments.”
Projecting the image of an “authentic” regional leader with street cred, as opposed to pro-American lackeys (as Erdogan portrayed former President Hosni Mubarak), was always part of the Turkish premier’s game and remains a critical component of his domestic sales pitch as an independent leader who marches to his own beat, not the Americans’. Take, for instance, the August fracas between Erdogan and the main opposition party when the latter (surreally) accused the prime minister of “being a subcontractor of the Western powers in the Middle East.”
But this image requires a corresponding confrontational narrative. And it is here that Turkey’s game becomes most destructive, as it effectively promotes a version of the “resistance” narrative and seeks to reframe the Arab Spring accordingly.
Witness the shift in Turkey’s rhetoric about the meaning of the Arab Spring. In a May op-ed, Kalin talked about transition to “a pluralist democracy,” emphasizing freedom and prosperity. This emphasis quickly changed giving way to prioritizing the conflict with Israel as the primary value of the Arab Spring. “Policies of occupation, dispossession and humiliation will no longer be covered up and justified by petty dictators in the Middle East,” he wrote in an op-ed on the eve of Erdogan’s visit to Egypt.
And that is where Kalin’s words are specifically aimed: post-Mubarak Egypt, where both Turkey and Iran are making a power play. Egypt is the prize, especially for its access to Gaza—not to mention the potential for turning the heat on Israel, which could embroil Cairo and threaten its peace treaty.
Erdogan’s desired itinerary in Egypt reveals as much. He had hoped to use his visit to address Egyptians in Tahrir Square and to cross into Gaza, hitting both birds with one stone. Tellingly, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt nixed his plans. Given the fragility of the border situation, Erdogan’s plan was particularly pernicious. It is one thing for a hostile Iran to attempt to light the fuse between Egypt and Israel. But to have a NATO member threaten the stability of two US allies is a different matter entirely.
Turkey’s destabilizing push in the eastern Mediterranean, all while it continues to maintain an ambiguous posture toward Syria (which Erdogan failed to even mention in his address at the Arab League), conflicts with US interests. However, as Lee Smith noted, so long as Erdogan feels he has little to worry about from Washington and believes he can have it both ways, he will press ahead with his irresponsible actions.
The stakes are too high for the US to maintain a passive posture. It must assert leadership and remind regional middle-range powers like Turkey of their natural place before they cause serious damage.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.

Lebanon’s troublesome political priest

By Michael Young The Daily Star
September 15, 2011
If reverse had multiple gears, Beshara Rai would be shifting into fourth about now. Since his return from France last weekend, the Maronite patriarch has tried to qualify what he said during his trip, while blaming everyone but himself for his irresponsible statements. With bad grace (pun intended), on Tuesday Rai declared that his remarks had been taken out of context, probably intentionally.
Here was a useful insight into the man – a readiness to resort to self-pity and demagoguery when cornered. In recent days Rai and his bishops have said much that is incoherent to detract from the patriarch’s endorsement of the Assad regime, his implicit willingness to accept Hezbollah’s weapons until the Palestinian issue is resolved, and his fear that if the Syrian opposition were to win, this would profit Sunni Islamists. We’ve been told that Rai was misunderstood; that the partial rendition of his words did not reflect his real views; that the Maronite Church’s decisions are taken after deep reflection, unlike the superficiality of those criticizing the patriarch, and so on.
Perhaps Rai was misunderstood, but if so, he was misunderstood by those on all sides of the political spectrum. The followers of Michel Aoun and Sleiman Franjieh have rushed to the patriarch’s defense, as have members of Hezbollah. What can we conclude from this ecclesiastical mess, beyond its immediate political ramifications?
Rai’s problems greatly transcend the split between March 14 and March 8 and the Aounists. The patriarch did alienate the supporters of March 14, but in that sense he was only as guilty as his predecessor, Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, who took positions that clearly leaned toward those of March 14. True, Sfeir’s opinions were more attuned to the traditional outlook of the Maronite Church – its support for national sovereignty, its rejection of armed groups outside the control of the state, and, specifically, its hostility to Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. But it is equally true that before stepping down, Sfeir presided over a hopelessly divided community, and that this was a black mark against him as far as the Vatican was concerned.
Then again, Rai took only six months to wreak havoc. For those without strong political affiliations, the patriarch sinned in three ways. He foolishly and unnecessarily split the Maronites, when one of his principal duties is to unify them; he gratuitously insulted the Sunnis by presuming that all they could produce was Islamists; and he implicated his community in a foreign crisis when he was under no obligation to do so. Worse, he placed Maronites on the side of a Syrian regime that has been engaged in barbaric repression.
It is astonishing that Rai could not have foreseen where his comments would lead. The patriarch is notoriously verbose, and plainly prefers his politics to religion. However, surveying the wreckage of the last few days, we can conclude that he is really not particularly good at politics. Rai was reportedly told by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that President Bashar Assad is finished, therefore that Rai had to prepare Christians for the aftermath. That the patriarch persisted in bolstering the Assads after that exchange was a sign of hubris from a denizen of the sacristy who yearns for the governor’s chair.
Some outraged Maronites are seeking to persuade Rome to push for Rai’s resignation. That’s no solution. It would only throw the Maronite Church into disarray while resolving none of its outstanding problems. And who would replace the patriarch? The upper echelons of the clergy form a vale of mediocrity and moral wretchedness. Rai may be contentious, but he’s better than most of his bishops – as condensed a compilation of shifty characters as one is likely to uncover.
Instead, Rome must press Rai to play less politics and reform his institution. The Maronite Church is being torn apart by greed and petty factionalism. What it needs urgently is an injection of less politicized, credible, younger clergy to replace the gargoyles in office. If Rai and his acolytes looked closely, they would see that while Maronites will go through the motions of their religion and fiercely defend its traditions, when one digs deeper, they also have profound contempt for the corruptions of their higher clerics. The alacrity with which many of Rai’s coreligionists turned against him was a sign that the church does not enjoy unlimited credit among the faithful.
If the patriarch wants to rebuild his reputation, the only way for him to do so is to convince believers that he can rejuvenate their church. That means giving Maronites confidence in the future rather than playing on their fears of political and demographic decline. It means thinking in the long term how the community can coexist peacefully with both Sunnis and Shiites, not one or the other. It means ensuring that the vast network of institutions that the church controls – schools, universities, social institutions, sporting clubs and much more – serves those ends. And it means defending pluralism, liberty, democracy and openness, for only a society imbued with such rights and values can safeguard the Christian presence in Lebanon.
For believers, and even unbelievers, a church that sustains a butcher is a contradiction. What kind of sordid religious establishment is it that takes the side of a despot against his own people? How can Rai pontificate about Christian love and communion, then with a straight face warn of the potential dangers if the Assads are removed? If he’s unsure, then the patriarch has the option of remaining silent. Rai mentioned the fate of Iraq’s Christians as a path to be avoided by Maronites. Unfortunately, that community is suffering today precisely because it was identified with Saddam Hussein’s brutality. Is that the outcome Rai seeks for Syria’s Christians, or Lebanon’s?
Beshara Rai would do himself and us all an immense favor by pausing, taking a break from politics, and exploiting his ubiquity by reconnecting with, and listening to, his Maronite base. Maronites expect more from their church than a patriarch who divides them and bishops who despoil them. In this time of uncertainty, the church, for better or worse, has a role to play in communal renewal. Rai may not be the best man to lead that effort, but it’s his job to begin trying.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster). He tweets @BeirutCalling.
 

Israeli-Greek defense pact invoked versus Turkish naval and air movements
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report/September 15, 2011/

Israel and Greece have invoked the mutual defense pact they signed secretly only 12 days ago in the light of heavy Turkish sea and air movements in the eastern Mediterranean. debkafile's sources report that this was decided in a long nocturnal phone conversation Wednesday night Sept. 14 between the Israeli and Greek prime ministers, Binyamin Netanyahu and George Papandreou, and at Israel's expanded cabinet of eight, which was called into session over the Turkish threat to its off-shore oil and gas rigs.
The Greek Prime Minister added to the information recorded so far on Turkish fleet movements in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. He was particularly concerned by the observation flights suddenly increased in the past 48 hours over the Greek island of Kastelorizo in the southeast Mediterranean just two kilometers from the Turkish coast. Those flights are escorted by Turkish combat jets.
Athens fears a Turkish attack on the island, whose population is fewer than 1,000, and an attempt to damage or seize it. Israel suspects that a Turkish attack on the Greek island will be the signal for Turkish military aggression against its oil and gas platforms located in the Mediterranean between Israel and Cyprus. Papandreou said the Turks are capable of surprise attacks on additional Greek islands near the Turkish coast.
Ankara would be acting on the pretext that Israel and Cyprus have no right to mark out and exploit the gas and oil zones of the eastern Mediterranean – a fuel-rich region known as Block 12 – without the consent of Turkish Cyprus (the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus – TRNC). Turkey also backs Lebanon's complaint that Israel is robbing it of its natural resources. Talks between Lebanon and Cyprus to resolve this issue broke down. Beirut refuses any discussion with Israel.
Neither Jerusalem nor Athens has disclosed in what way they have invoked the new defense pact.
debkafile's military sources surmise that in the first stage, Israeli navy and air forces are to be posted at Greek Mediterranean bases. The two intelligence agencies are already sharing input.
Up until now, Israel could only respond to a Turkish threat from its own borders. With a presence at Greek military bases, Israel will be able to operate from the rear of Turkish forces in the event of an attack by those forces in the Mediterranean.
Monday, Sept. 12, Ankara dictated conditions for Israel to obey in order to keep its navy afloat free of Turkish aggression:
1. Israel vessels are prohibited from taking action against Turkish ships heading for the Gaza Strip. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has declared "null and void" the UN report confirming the legality of Israel's blockade of Gaza.
2. Israeli warships crossing the 12-mile line bounding its territorial waters will be challenged by Turkish warships, which are instructed to approach them to within 100 meters and "disable their weapons."
This threat covers not only shipping bound for Gaza but also Israel's oil and gas drilling platforms which are more than 60 miles out to sea.
Israel's political and military spokesmen have been trying hard to downplay the Turkish menace. On Wednesday, Sept. 14, they brushed aside reports of Turkish naval and air movements in the eastern Mediterranean. After the cabinet of eight's meeting, the official line was that Israel is practicing "restraint in contrast to Turkish wildness" and they should be given time to cool down. In any case, the US and NATO were closely monitoring the crisis Ankara is generating with Israel, Greece and Cyprus, and won't let it degenerate into Turkish military action.
But both Israel and Greece appear to know better: They decided to invoke their mutual defense pact – not before obtaining a green light from Washington – because they believe the Turkish threats indicated by its military movements are real and tangible.
 
Palestinians back off UN Security Council statehood bid
DEBKAfile Special Report /September
The tempest which Israel had tensely anticipated for September in the wake of a Palestinian bid for unilateral UN recognition of their state looks like fizzling out before it begins as a result of a massive US campaign to avert it, backed by Saudi Arabia, Europe and Egypt.
Early Wednesday, Sept. 14, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas decided crucially not to submit his application to the UN Security Council. He also notified Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and European Union foreign executive Catherine Ashton in Cairo that he was considering watering down his application to the UN General Assembly – possibly by dropping the "state within 1967 borders" provision from the text.
Abbas said he would make his final decision known in a public address from Ramallah Friday, Sept 16 before flying to New York to join world leaders at the UN General Assembly's 66th session which began Tuesday.
But first, he meets Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair in Amman for a conversation which debkafile's exclusive sources term critical, because Blair will hand him a document termed by senior Washington sources "an outline" of a new format designed to oil Palestinian wheels into unlocking the long-stalled Palestinian dialogue with Israel.
This outline has been endorsed by Washington, the EU and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. It is now subject to acceptance by Israel and the Palestinians. Moscow has not yet indicated whether it approves the document or wants changes.
By Wednesday morning, the Israeli government had not yet received a copy. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has no doubt that he will be called upon for concessions extreme enough to lure the Palestinian leader back to the table. Blair is expected to deliver the document to Netanyahu some time Thursday after Abbas has seen it. To tie up the ends, senior White House envoys, Dennis Ross and David Hale, are due back in Jerusalem and Ramallah Wednesday.
During his visit to Cairo, Mahmoud Abbas was sternly warned by Saud al Faisal, Ashton and Egyptian leaders of the grave consequences awaiting the Palestinians if he forced the US to exercise its veto against their statehood at the UN Security Council. US President Barack Obama Tuesday made it crystal clear that he "objects very strongly" to the Palestinian statehood motion as "counterproductive" and "a distraction from solving problems that can only be addressed through negotiations."
US sources report that the US President has refused to talk to Abbas for the past eight months owing to his refusal to join Israel for direct peace talks. He was advised by the Europeans, the Saudis and Egyptians this week that the US presidential boycott would almost certainly extend to fellow Palestinian leaders and US financial aid. The Palestinian Authority would thus be placed under American sanctions. However, if he withdrew his statehood bid from the Security Council and accepted the new position paper, Obama would consider restoring communications. Tuesday, Sept. 13, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "The path to creating an independent Palestinian state lies through direct talks between Ramallah and Jerusalem – not New York," she said. Early Wednesday, the General Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser of Qatar reported that the Palestinians had not yet submitted their request to the General Assembly. It would therefore not come up for debate before October.
debkafile's sources report that while Mahmoud Abbas appears to have been hassled into a partial climb-down from his original plan to bypass talks with Israel by gaining UN approval of Palestinian statehood, he may not have caved in completely. Neither is it clear whether Netanyahu will swallow the new blueprint Tony Blair is about to dish up.
 

Egypt's Islamists criticize Erdogan over calls for secular state
Turkish PM gets cool reception from Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood after expressing hope that Cairo will adopt secular constitution. Muslim Brotherhood spokesman says other countries' experiments should not be cloned
Reuters and Ynet Published: 09.14.11,
Egypt's most powerful Islamist group warned Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday that his country should not seek to dominate the Middle East despite his enthusiastic welcome at the start of a regional tour. Erdogan was also criticized for his calls for a secular Egypt.
After his widely praised call for democracy in the Arab world, Erdogan was given a more reserved reception by officials of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose old guard do not share the admiration of the group's younger generation for the Turkish leader.
Earlier this week, and prior to his visit in Cairo, the Turkish prime minister said, “A secular state respects all religions. Do not be wary of secularism. I hope there will be a secular state in Egypt.” He stressed that people have the right to choose whether or not to be religious, adding that he is a Muslim prime minister for a secular state.
According to a report by Al-Arabiya, Dr. Mahmoud Ghuzlan, the spokesman for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, considered Erdogan’s comments as interference in Egypt’s local affairs.
He was quoted by an Egyptian newspaper as saying that the experiments of other countries should not be cloned.
“Turkey’s conditions imposed on it to deal with the secular concept,” he said.
The Turkish leader was also criticized for his leadership ambitions in the Middle East. "We welcome Turkey and we welcome Erdogan as a prominent leader but we do not think that he or his country alone should be leading the region or drawing up its future," said Essam el-Erian, deputy leader of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party.
The Brotherhood's cautious comments contrast with the rapturous reception Erdogan has had so far, including cheering and flag-waving crowds, on the first stop of a tour of three Arab states that is aimed at bolstering Turkey's regional role. "Democracy and freedom is as basic a right as bread and water for you, my brothers," Erdogan told an enthusiastic audience in Cairo on Tuesday. Arab causes. Erdogan's party, with its Islamist roots and election success, has become a model for much of the Brotherhood and other political groups as they prepare for the first free vote since Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule was ended in February.  But the Brotherhood and other groups are wary of outside involvement in a home-grown uprising. A senior Turkish official said Turkey did not want to dictate but offer help. "Arab states do not need outside projects ... This has to come from the new internal systems of the Arab countries which after the revolutions ... will be democratic ones," said Erian, who was jailed under Mubarak. Erian, however, praised Erdogan's political success at home in free elections and his achievement in building a strong economy and supporting Arab causes. "He has successfully invested in the Arab and Muslim world's central case which is the Palestinian case," he said. Erian said Erdogan had met members of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party. A senior Turkish Foreign Ministry official said Erdogan had offered help if requested. "We are not saying we will come and teach you what to do, we are saying we can help if you want," he said.

Erdogan of Arabia…but!

By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made an enthused speech in the “Arab House”, i.e. the Arab League, without saying a single word publicly about Syria. Instead the focus was all on the Arab-Israeli conflict!
Although Erdogan invoked the name Bouazizi, saying that he “reminded the world once again of the value of human honor”, he neglected to talk about the thousands of Bouazizis in Syria, who have been murdered, kicked and booted, had their throats slit, and much more, at the hands of the security forces of the al-Assad regime. Erdogan devoted his vehement speech to talking about Israel and Palestine, and the need to lift the blockade on Gaza. It is well known that the issue of Palestine can be used by leaders to overcome obstacles in our region, i.e. it is a leadership trump card, and the fact is that Erdogan used this tool well in his speech. But the problem was not in his speech, and here lies the story.
The problem is that the Arab reality today has gone beyond the stage of slogans about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. All the Arab countries that rose up with their revolutions and uprisings did not burn a single foreign flag. They only called for dignity, freedom and social justice. These popular demands have remained the same until now, despite all attempts to tarnish them with regional conflicts, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, as is happening in Egypt today. The Arab masses have grown tired of vague slogans, and they are convinced that the Palestinian cause is the easiest subject for some leaders in the region to turn to when they need to score points, and this is what the al-Assad regime is doing today.
Of course, the intention here is not to belittle the Palestinian issue, but unfortunately it is used by some as an escape from dealing with reality, and is a readymade peg [to pin problems on]. How sad was it that while Erdogan was speaking about Israeli hostility, demonstrators gathered outside the Arab League condemning the al-Assad regime’s hostility towards its own people. Even the Syrians are now demanding that the al-Assad regime use rubber bullets, along the lines of the Israel, instead of live bullets and artillery. Here it appears that Mr. Erdogan has forgotten an important lesson from Arab cultural heritage, namely that “injustice from those who are close brings more pain and suffering than the blade of a sharp sword”. Today the Arabs have become occupied with protecting their unarmed Syrian brothers from a bloodthirsty regime, more than they are occupied with Israel and its crimes, and this is no different for the Syrians themselves.
Mr. Erdogan also did not pay attention to another problem with the Palestinian cause, namely that it has become a vehicle for each aspirant to manipulate. It has become complicated and contaminated. The simplest example here is that immediately after Erdogan finished his speech to the Arab League, demanding the need to lift the Gaza blockade and for UN recognition of a Palestinian state, deputies from Hamas issued a statement demanding Mahmoud Abbas not to resort to “unilateral steps” to recognize the Palestinian state, and this is the same language as Israel! Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the Arab-Turkish coalition, but it must go beyond slogans and leadership trump cards. If Erdogan wants the Arabs to believe him then he should move significantly on the Syrian issue. As for Israel, we have heard speeches against it with more tact than what Erdogan said, whether in the Arab House itself or elsewhere!

MENA Christians and political maelstroms
Harry Hagopian, /Now Lebanon

September 14, 2011
Egyptian Coptic Christians hold a cross high during a joint communal gathering of anti-government protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square. (AFP photo/Mohammed Abed)
Just imagine this scenario: I am an EU citizen, Armenian by ethnicity, Christian by faith, and living in the UK. The country is going through turbulent and perhaps even violent times. There are popular revolts sweeping across many major towns and cities as men and women rise up against an authoritarian government that has ridden roughshod over their rights, freedoms and collective dignity and has been ruling them almost by diktat for long years.
As someone belonging to a small community—ethnically and also religiously—in the UK, I and my fellow Armenians have largely played the political game of cozying up to the government of the day by staying out of politics, supporting the establishment, uncritically endorsing its initiatives and pretty much keeping a low profile. We have clearly been aware of the grave injustices besetting society, but our religious and community leaders have nonetheless opted for the perceived wisdom of pragmatism over principle. In return, the government has left us alone to pursue our own rites and businesses.
But now, as many citizens are demonstrating against the power elites, the British army, police, intelligence services and unidentified agents are attacking those demonstrators by killing, maiming, arresting, detaining, mauling and muzzling some of them. The regime is being relentless in its pursuit of all demonstrators everywhere, as are the ordinary men and women relentless in their counter-demonstrations.
Do I and my community keep mum and hope that the storm stays in the teacup so we can avoid making hard choices? Do I support those entrenched in power in the hope that they succeed in quelling the demonstrations, and then we all revert to the status quo ante that had supposedly kept us safe? Or do I risk “everything” by joining the masses against the cruel oppression and violence, even when we are unsure of the political designs and religious intentions of all those out in the streets challenging our politicians now corralled in London? Are we not caught between a rock and a hard place?
In some sense, it is very hard to make a choice: The unfortunate psychology of my upbringing as part of a small community would probably argue that I lie low and hope the demonstrations will die down. After all, do I really wish to risk my safety and my sparse “privileges” by helping import the unpredictable vox populi into my neighborhood? But then, what about my principles? If I recall the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus uttered to his followers his classical statement on Christian ethics, I must surely stand on the side of the poor, disenfranchised, gaoled, mourning and powerless members of society and help them reclaim their citizenship rights and dignities. Besides, faith and peacemaking matters aside, would I really wish to become a tyro and accept the tutelage of a government that no longer represents me but instead subjugates most of my inherent rights? I am in a pickle, aren’t I?
Thankfully, I do not face this quandary since there are checks and balances—political and juridical—within the EU today that would safeguard my individual rights in a comparably peaceful society. Moreover, no religious leader any longer possesses the political sway to hinder the process of human emancipation the way Cardinal Richelieu, for instance, did during the French Revolution or Prince John exercised pitilessly during the Middle Ages in England.
But alas, this is still occurring in the MENA region today. Whether in Iraq, Israel and Palestine, Egypt, or Syria and Lebanon (with its own confessional setting), Christians who were once the bellwethers of healthy Middle Eastern societies are feeling exposed, menaced and insecure. Their churches are being burned down, relatives or friends are at times being killed, beaten up or abducted, voices are being snuffed out, job opportunities are being denied them, and they are almost facing a dhimmitude that had become defunct with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. No wonder their numbers are dwindling as some of them feel that their choices lie simply between putting up with fearful discrimination and emigrating elsewhere.
But they are the relatives of Christian Arabs from the region who once fought hand-in-glove with Muslim Arabs against the Turks, against Western colonialism and, more recently, against Israeli expansionism. They are full and equal members of Arab societies, and those who would wish to see them leave or die are not only practicing dubious ideologies that are divinely uninspired but are also patently irreligious and solely interested in procreating serfdom.
So what about a MENA region pockmarked with popular revolts? For a majority of indigenous Christians, the ideal model of governance remains one of citizenship rights within a democratic, secular and plural society. However, they also dread—based on experience—the thought of those ongoing uprisings establishing a majority rule that becomes even more restrictive and handcuffs their rights even further. That might well happen, but Christians should also stand up for their rights rather than seek their shells or hide under the whooshing pantaloons of those rulers who supposedly protect them against worse fates. After all, what will happen when any of those regimes fall—tomorrow, next year, in a decade? Or conversely, how will they react when the same despots decide to scapegoat them simply to ensure their own survival?
True, my British case is a virtual one. In the MENA region, however, freedom could overtake fear, since what applies to an Orthodox in Egypt, a Chaldean in Iraq or an Anglican in Lebanon would also apply mutatis mutandis to a Shia in Bahrain, a Druze in Syria or a Baha’i in Iran. After all, was it not Dietrich Bonheoffer who admonished us in his Letters and Papers from Prison that action comes not from thought but from a readiness for responsibility?

Question: "Why does God allow evil?"

Questions.org/
Answer: With people thinking about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the tenth anniversary of the horrific event, many are again asking the age-old question: "Why does God allow evil?" The Bible describes God as holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous (Psalm 7:11), just (Deuteronomy 32:4), and sovereign (Daniel 4:17-25). These attributes tell us the following about God: (1) God is capable of preventing evil, and (2) God desires to rid the universe of evil. So, if both of these are true, why does God allow evil? If God has the power to prevent evil and desires to prevent evil, why does He still allow evil? Perhaps a practical way to look at this question would be to consider some alternative ways people might have God run the world:
1) God could change everyone’s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be “programmed” to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.
Instead, God made Adam and Eve innocent but with the ability to choose good or evil. Because of this, they could respond to His love and trust Him or choose to disobey. They chose to disobey. Because we live in a real world where we can choose our actions but not their consequences, their sin affected those who came after them (us). Similarly, our decisions to sin have an impact on us and those around us and those who will come after us.
2) God could compensate for people’s evil actions through supernatural intervention 100 percent of the time. God would stop a drunk driver from causing an automobile accident. God would stop a lazy construction worker from doing a substandard job on a house that would later cause grief to the homeowners. God would stop a father who is addicted to drugs or alcohol from doing any harm to his wife, children, or extended family. God would stop gunmen from robbing convenience stores. God would stop high school bullies from tormenting the brainy kids. God would stop thieves from shoplifting. And, yes, God would stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings.
While this solution sounds attractive, it would lose its attractiveness as soon as God’s intervention infringed on something we wanted to do. We want God to prevent horribly evil actions, but we are willing to let “lesser-evil” actions slide—not realizing that those “lesser-evil” actions are what usually lead to the “greater-evil” actions. Should God only stop actual sexual affairs, or should He also block our access to pornography or end any inappropriate, but not yet sexual, relationships? Should God stop “true” thieves, or should He also stop us from cheating on our taxes? Should God only stop murder, or should He also stop the “lesser-evil” actions done to people that lead them to commit murder? Should God only stop acts of terrorism, or should He also stop the indoctrination that transformed a person into a terrorist?
3) Another choice would be for God to judge and remove those who choose to commit evil acts. The problem with this possibility is that there would be no one left, for God would have to remove us all. We all sin and commit evil acts (Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8). While some people are more evil than others, where would God draw the line? Ultimately, all evil causes harm to others.
Instead of these options, God has chosen to create a “real” world in which real choices have real consequences. In this real world of ours, our actions affect others. Because of Adam’s choice to sin, the world now lives under the curse, and we are all born with a sin nature (Romans 5:12). There will one day come a time when God will judge the sin in this world and make all things new, but He is purposely “delaying” in order to allow more time for people to repent so that He will not need to condemn them (2 Peter 3:9). Until then, He IS concerned about evil. When He created the Old Testament laws, the goal was to discourage and punish evil. He judges nations and rulers who disregard justice and pursue evil. Likewise, in the New Testament, God states that it is the government’s responsibility to provide justice in order to protect the innocent from evil (Romans 13). He also promises severe consequences for those who commit evil acts, especially against the "innocent" (Mark 9:36-42).
In summary, we live in a real world where our good and evil actions have direct consequences and indirect consequences upon us and those around us. God’s desire is that for all of our sakes we would obey Him that it might be well with us (Deuteronomy 5:29). Instead, what happens is that we choose our own way, and then we blame God for not doing anything about it. Such is the heart of sinful man. But Jesus came to change men’s hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit, and He does this for those who will turn from evil and call on Him to save them from their sin and its consequences (2 Corinthians 5:17). God does prevent and restrain some acts of evil. This world would be MUCH WORSE were not God restraining evil. At the same time, God has given us the ability to choose good and evil, and when we choose evil, He allows us, and those around us, to suffer the consequences of evil. Rather than blaming God and questioning God on why He does not prevent all evil, we should be about the business of proclaiming the cure for evil and its consequences—Jesus Christ!
Recommended Resource: If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question by Norman Geisler.