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.