LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 10/07

Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 16,13-23. When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

Opinions
Why Military Jihad in Modern Times Is Illegal-Family Security Matters. August 9/07
A parliamentary seat as harbinger of presidency?Gulf News -By Joseph A. Kechichian. August 9/07

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August 9/07
Syria reveals army deaths from militant campaign-Washington Post
Syria planning to attack Israel - military expert-Israel Today
Shimon Peres says conflict with Syria possible-Journal of Turkish Weekly
Welch: No Deal with Syria at Lebanon's Expense-Naharnet
Army Kills Six Fatah al-Islam Terrorists, Loses Two Soldiers-Naharnet
Government to Probe Phone Networking Set Up by Hizbullah-Naharnet
Gemayel Seeking to Restore Relationship with Armenians-Naharnet
By-election blow for Lebanese Government-Times Online
Beirut power play.Guardian Unlimited
Gemayel tries to make peace with Armenians-Daily Star
Sayyed questions motives of Hariri probe prosecutors-Daily Star
Sunni clerics expect presidential vote to be held on time-Daily Star
Army exchanges heavy fire with Fatah al-Islam-Daily Star
UN to help get farmers back on their feet following war with Israel-Daily Star
Made in Lebanon - a recipe for peace-building-Daily Star
US expert speaks out against cluster bombs at conference-Daily Star
US makes list of Lebanese engaged in 'anti-democratic actions-Daily Star'
Lebanon telecom authority promises solution to DSL woes-Daily Star
Victim of Israeli air strike recalls horrid ordeal of being trapped under rubble-Daily Star
Work on Sidon dump stalls over 'breaches of contract'-Daily Star
Residents of Ain Al-Hilweh fear rival militants could turn their refugee camp into new Nahr al-Bared-Daily Star
French Socialist opposition calls for inquiry into Franco-Libyan arms deal.By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Welch: No Deal with Syria at Lebanon's Expense
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs David Welch said Washington would not cut a deal with Syria at Lebanon's expense.
The daily An Nahar on Thursday quoted Welch as saying that a conference in Damascus aimed at restoring security in Iraq does not reflect a change in policy towards Syria. Welch was referring to a two-day meeting which opened in Damascus on Wednesday and which groups delegates from Iraq's neighbors and the global community, including the United States and its arch-foe Iran. Welch assured Lebanese that there was "no need for concern" over the possibility that the U.S. would discuss Lebanon during the Iraqi conference. "There is no deal at Lebanon's expense," Welch told An Nahar's Washington correspondent Hisham Melhim in Arabic. He stressed that the U.S. was attending the conference as an "observer," adding that the meeting was devoted to discussing security matters along the Syria-Iraq border."Is it possible that we enter into a bargain over a security matter?" Welch wondered. Beirut, 09 Aug 07, 07:58

Gemayel Seeking to Restore Relationship with Armenians
Former President Amin Gemayel sought to restore his relationship with the Armenian community which impaired over the Metn by-election.
"Let us not forget that the Armenian Martyrs Statue lies right next to the statue of Sheikh Pierre," Gemayel told reporters on Wednesday after meeting Armenian Catholicos Aram I Keshishian at his summer home in Bikfaya. The late Pierre Gemayel, who is the ex-president's father, is founder of the Phalange Party.
Gemayel, whose supporters blamed his loss on the large ethnic Armenian community in the Metn district, declined allegations that he said anything offensive to the Armenian people. The Armenian Tashnag Party allied itself with Gen. Michel Aoun in the Metn by-election. "Some people confused what I said with what others said," Gemayel said. Gemayel said that he had filed a complaint at the police station over certain irregularities that took place during the Metn votes at Borj Hammoud polling stations, adding that he was following up on the issue. Gemayel, however, stressed that the Armenians are "dear to his heart," stressing on the economic, social and cultural ties with the Armenian society in Lebanon. Lawmaker Hagop Pakradounian explained that a lawsuit filed by Armenian deputies was not directed against Gemayel but against Gabriel Murr for comments he made. Beirut, 09 Aug 07, 09:23

Wahab: Aoun for President to Follow Lahoud's Path ... Or Vacant Office
Ex-minister Wiam Wahab, a staunch ally of Syria, on Wednesday proposed Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun for president of Lebanon to follow the path of present head of state Emile Lahoud.If such a successor could not be elected, better leave the office vacant for a while, Wahab stressed.
The state-run National News Agency said Wahab, who heads the Lebanese Unification Movement, made the proposal in an address at a Hizbullah-sponsored rally in the southern village of Qsaibeh marking the party's "victory" over Israel in last summer's 34-day war which killed 1.280 Lebanese citizens, displaced one million and demolished the nation's infra structure. "Henceforth, Gen. Aoun is a serious candidate for president," Wahab said.
Aoun's Cadidate, Camille Khoury, won the Metn by-elections with a narrow margin on Sunday, beating the March 14 alliance candidate, ex-President Amin Gemayel, who tried to reclaim the seat that went vacant on Nov. 21 when unidentified assailants gunned down his son, Pierre, an outspoken critic of Syria's policy in Lebanon.
"Aoun was loyal to his political allegiance in this (Metn) Battle. The opposition should be loyal to its alliance with him in the presidential campaign," Wahab said.
"I think he (Aoun) will be the choice of the opposition in the near future," Wahab added. Syrian-backed Wahab was environment minister in the cabinet that ruled when ex-Premier Rafik Hariri was assassinated by a powerful explosion on Feb. 14 2005. That administration collapsed under the mounting popular pressure demanding its resignation and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon ending a three-decade deployment.
The Hariri crime and the serial assassinations that targeted anti-Syrian politicians have been blamed on President Bashar Assad's Regime. Damascus has denied the charges. Lebanon's new president, according to Wahab, "should be like Gen. Emile Lahoud: a resistance fighter and a believer in Lebanon and not in the orders of foreign embassies, a believer in the state and a believer in his people."Lahoud's controversial extended term expires on Nov. 22. If a head of state similar to Lahoud could not be found, Wahab said, "it is better to keep the presidency office vacant, for a while, until understanding (is achieved) on a president and early elections are held." He said Aoun "confronted a World War" in the Metn by-elections end emerged victorious. The Hizbullah-led opposition, which is backed by Syria and Iran, is facing "a global war," according to Wahab who believes that "the Americans use Lebanon as a card to exert pressure on Syria and Iran.""He who says that Syria and Iran are using this card is mistaken," Wahab concluded. Beirut, 08 Aug 07, 17:03

Why Military Jihad in Modern Times Is Illegal
By Walid Phares
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
One of the strangest, but not unexpected, battles of words and ideologies is over the claims made about the Muslim perception of Jihad and Jihadism and their impact on public speech. Although there are various clashes on this level, it is appropriate here to introduce the essence of this ideological confrontation.
In the three Wars of Ideas from 1945 to 2006, the heart of the Western engagement in the conflict was the understanding of two issues: what Jihad was historically and what Jihadism is in modern times. These are two different but related phenomena.
Jihad, like a number of other historical developments throughout the world, was a religiously-based geopolitical and military campaign that affected large parts of the world for many centuries. It involved initial theological teachings and injunctions, followed by 14 centuries of interpretations by adherents, caliphs, sultans and their armies, courts, and thinkers. The historical reality of Jihad has been intertwined with the evolution of the Islamic state since the seventh century. It is emphatically not a modern, recent, and narrow creation by a small militant faction. It has to be seen in its historical context.
But on the other hand, this giant doctrine, which motivated armies and feelings for centuries, also inspired contemporary movements that shaped their ideology based on their interpretation of the historical jihad. In other words, today's jihadists are an ideological movement with several organizations and regimes who claim that they define the sole interpretation of what jihad was in history and that they are the ones to resume it and apply it in the present and future. It is equivalent to the possibility that some Christians today might claim that they were reviving the Crusades in the present. This would be only a "claim" of course, because the majority of Christians, either convinced believers or those with a sociological Christian bent, have gone beyond the Christianity of the time of the Crusades.
Today's Jihadists make the assertion that there is a direct, generic, and organic relation between the jihads in which they and their ancestors have engaged from the seventh century to the twenty-first. But historical Jihad is one thing, and the jihad of today's Salafists and Khumeinists is something else.
As with all historical events, literary, analytical, and documentary efforts to interpret and represent past episodes frequently influence the psychology, imagination, and passions of modern-day humanity. Textbooks across the world detail battles, discoveries, and speeches that are the benchmarks of the formation of the national or civilizational identities of peoples.
But even if the events in some nations' eyes are proud episodes, they are often considered disasters by other nations. The Native Americans obviously do not celebrate the Spanish conquests; the British Empire is a matter of pride to the English but not to the colonized peoples; and Napoleon's "liberations" are not fondly remembered by those who were conquered.
And this is the perception of Jihad among classroom pupils in the Arab and Muslim world: it is a matter of historical pride. For example, in the books from which I was tested for my history classes, a famous general of the Arab Muslim conquest, Khalid Ibn al Walid, is treated as a hero because he conquered Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon's shores. But to Aramaics, Syrians, and Jews, he was a conqueror. He was what Cortez was to the Mexican Indians – an invader.
In the same textbooks, Tariq bin Ziad, the general who led the Muslim armies into Spain, is presented as the hero of heroes; but in the eyes of the Iberians, he was a conqueror, and in the modern lexicon, he would be described as a colonial occupier.
So, historical perception is really in the eyes of the beholder.
This is about Western guilt here. While the latter culture has largely demythologized its own conquerors and ideologies, once described as heroic – Napoleon, Gordon of Khartoum, "Manifest Destiny," etc – it has accepted docilely ideas like the "spread of Islam," the benevolence of Arab occupation, etc. Westerners are schooled to repudiate the errors of the past in their own culture, but to overlook those of other cultures today. This is where the jihadi propaganda campaign deliberately harps on "Muslim resentment of the Crusades," in order to play upon this "guilt complex."
Historical Jihad doesn't escape this harsh rule of history. Those who felt their ancestors' deeds were right – including military invasions and their violent consequences – see jihad as a good thing. And those who felt their ancestors were conquered and victimized see it as a disaster. This is the drama of the invading Arabs on the one hand and the conquered Persians, Assyro-Chaldeans, Arameans, Copts, Nubians, and Berbers on the other; of conquering Ottomans and conquered Armenians, Greeks, and Slavs.
It should be noted that many of the conquered had been conquerors earlier, such as the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. World history is made up of such reversals. But the emotional perception of the past should stop at contemporary reality. Feelings and passions about the tragedies of the past cannot be erased and should not be forgotten, but they have to give way in the end to international law and doctrines of human rights.
Many Christians today may believe that the Crusades were warranted at the time, but that cannot become a basis for military action under today's international consensus. The religious legitimacy of the Crusades or the Spanish Conquista no longer exists. Even the theological ground upon which many European Christians settled North America, although studied as an historical phenomenon, is irrelevant after the Constitution. And despite the fact that many Jews invoke religious Zionism as a basis for the re-creation of modern-day Israel, and that this is a deep conviction of many evangelical Christians, international law doesn't allow it as a component for the recognition of the state of Israel.
In essence, twenty-first-century world society does not and cannot function as an extension of past centuries' theologies and philosophies. There is a full freedom of religion and thought for individuals and communities to believe in their faith's tenets regarding questions of land, nations, war, and peace. But these beliefs have standing under international law only insofar as they correspond to, and fall within, the world consensus on peace and coexistence.
From this perspective, the question of contemporary Muslims and jihad cannot be an exception. Today's Muslim individuals and communities may have their feelings, passions, and readings of past historical jihads. Some may attach a religious value to them. But even if in the past jihad was a tool of the state and considered a legitimate form of warfare led by the caliphs (in the same way the Crusades and biblical wars were legitimate in the eyes of their peoples), under international law today there are no legitimate jihads. The theological authority of Charlemagne and Caliph Haroun Al Rashid, and of Louis XIV and Suleiman the Magnificent may have been mainstream during their times, but not anymore. Hence neither French president Nicholas Sarkozy nor Iranian president Ahmedinijad can invoke religion in his defense or when discussing international policies.
Thus the Muslims' relationship with this old and historical Jihad is in the domain of past events and emotions; however, it can be reinterpreted to fit the form of modern society in such a way that it does not violate international law. Jihad as a personal "spiritual" dimension can exist, but only as different, separate, and distant from the historical jihad.
The new proposition advanced by scholars in the West that a nonviolent, inner, and personal jihad is the "real one" can be tested only in the wake of a cultural, widely accepted principle that the historical, theologically endorsed jihad warfare is over, and not just suspended or hidden. Short of this fundamental reform in jihad perception, similar to the modern repudiation of the Crusades and biblical wars by Christians and Jews, any current political affiliation with the ancient jihad would be in contradiction with contemporary international law. Hence the argument that the Muslims have "sensitivities" regarding the issue of historical jihad, which therefore cannot be criticized or maligned, is at odds with the current structure of international relations and laws.
As long as a world consensus exists on the nonreligious nature of international relations, the political and legal dimensions of the historical Jihad cannot be played out in the international or public policy affairs of modern society.
One cannot argue, for example, that Jihad is the equivalent of self-defense in the modern international system. Self-defense doesn't relate to any theological concept. But if self-defense in Islamic religious law covers oral insults to Islamic values, then Muslim governments or a future caliph could declare wars of "self-defense" based on mere statements made by individuals and groups (thus, the Danish cartoons would have justified jihad against Denmark in the name of "self-defense").
Similarly, if to some Christian sects self-defense could be linked to an "end-time" theology, or if future religious groups through self-defense could be a response to a divine order to reshape humanity by force, these interpretations could lead to a collapse of the planetary order.
In sum, the basis of twenty-first-century peace is to abandon the racial, religious, and cultural legitimization of wars. International society, with its various nations and cultures, including the Muslim ones, has agreed on this since 1945, at least in principle.
***FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Walid Phares is the director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy, and the author of The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.
read full author bio here
© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

A parliamentary seat as harbinger of presidency?
By Joseph A. Kechichian, Special to Gulf News
Published: August 08, 2007, 23:08
The Michel Aoun 2005 political tsunami was downgraded to a hurricane a few days before the August 5 by-election in the Metn District of Lebanon.
After final results were posted on Monday morning, it was demoted to a mere tropical storm and, while still very dangerous, eliminated Aoun from the coveted presidency. How Lebanese leaders weighed the new balance of power highlighted inevitable reassessments and probably clarified the identity of the next head of state.
Because Aoun fought the wrong battle - fielding the candidacy of an unknown physician, Camille Khoury, among a population that rejected his alliance with Syria - he doomed his chances to win the support of a majority of parliamentarians whose votes are required.
Maronites in particular rejected him in droves, as Khoury won with a tiny majority of less than half a per cent, due to a combination of the Murr/Tashnag machine that stands accused of ballot stuffing.
In a comic twist, citizens naturalised by then interior minister, Michel Murr, were bussed in from Syria, believing they would vote for Hassan Nasrallah, before being reminded that he was not a candidate.
Aoun now faces at least two major dilemmas.
First, sophisticated Hezbollah leaders will contend that Aoun is no longer the overwhelming Maronite politician and, consequently, will wait for the first opportunity to sever their relations with a blemished candidate.
What Nasrallah ultimately wants is power and he knows that it will only come through effective alliances not by association with a depleted front. For Hezbollah, Aoun is no longer capable of delivering, now that the old canard that the former military strongman speaks for a majority of Maronites/Christians is no longer true.
Second, mature Hezbollah officials are more likely to seek a rapprochement with Sa'ad Hariri and his Mustaqbal Party (as well as Prime Minister Fouad Siniora), to agree on a compromise candidate.
Remarkably, Nasrallah recently emphasised the need to fully implement the Ta'if Accord, and to decentralise the administration of government. Indeed, the bloodied Ta'if Accord and the 1943 National Compact, are legitimate agreements accepted by most.
Moreover, the quest for decentralisation is a goal espoused by the Siniora government, to redress grievances throughout the country's outer provinces. Parallel to these meetings, few should be surprised to hear that Nasrallah and former president Ameen Gemayel met yet again, to further coordinate their respective agendas.
This will be their third meeting in a year, at a time when few non-Shiite Lebanese, including Aoun, undertook such contacts.
If Aoun faces specific challenges so do two main losers: the Maronite hierarchy and the Armenian Tashnag Party.
Because Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir wished to bring the two Maronite contenders under his wing, and because he failed to broker a working accord, Bkerke is probably far weaker today than anyone in Lebanon wishes.
Consensus
In the past, Church leaders managed to force consensus but Sfeir no longer has that capability, especially as secular factions gain ground. In fact, a third of Maronites in the Metn stood with Aoun because they sincerely believed that their candidate was independent of the religious hierarchy.
Equally important is the utter confusion expressed by the Tashnag Party, even if Aoun referred to himself as "Michel Nasrallahian".
Aside the accolade, Armenians who voted the Tashnag Party preference did so out of revenge against the late Rafik Hariri who, allegedly, divided them in the 2000 elections. Even if that were true, post-2005 Lebanon is a different country, so Armenians can ill afford to side against their historical position: with the "state".
Aoun thus won on the basis of an Armenian vote that, though with the opposition in 2007, may switch back to the majority in the upcoming 2009 parliamentary plebiscite. How Tashnag leaders extract themselves from the Syrian-backed resistance is now their challenge.
Given these new realities, the only remaining source of legitimacy is the army, and that is why few should be surprised if its commander, General Michel Sulayman is elected the next president of Lebanon.
Ironically, he will probably receive an overwhelming majority of votes, including the explicit support of Hezbollah. Unlike Aoun, who was and remains a polarising figure more comfortable at divisions than alliance building, General Sulayman reunited the military.
Unlike Aoun, General Sulayman has the support of Christians and Muslims and is, therefore, a unifier, which is precisely what Lebanon craves for.
While the Aoun tsunami withered at the proverbial vine, and because everyone wishes for a departure from the status quo, both opposition and majority groups will be inclined to diligently work on a nationalist compromise figure.
Since the time is not ripe to change complex election rules, and because no Lebanese will dare question the loyalty of the military - especially after Nahr Al Bared - the groundwork for the upcoming presidential elections is now firmly set.
This means forming alliances, drafting accords and agreeing on detailed plans to tackle the nations two pressing challenges: security and the economy.
In politics, timing is everything, and one should not miss too many opportunities if one is ambitious. Last Sunday, Aoun missed his, while Sulayman probably sealed a six-year mandate.
****Dr. Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.

Beirut power play
A hotly contested byelection in Lebanon foreshadows a much bigger struggle over the presidency this autumn.
James Martin
About Webfeeds August 7, 2007 7:00 PM |
Lebanon's political stalemate reached a boiling point last weekend, as opposition candidate Camille Khoury won a hotly contested parliamentary seat in Metn, a predominantly Christian area north of Beirut.
Sunday's byelection, which was to fill a seat left vacant by the assassination of Christian MP Pierre Gemayel last November, pitted Pierre's father - former president Amin Gemayel - against the relatively unknown Mr Khoury, a member of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) which is led by another prominent Christian, Michel Aoun. Since forming an alliance with Hizbullah last year, Aoun's party has played a key role in the opposition to Fouad Siniora's ruling coalition, taking part in massive anti-government protests last December that shut down Beirut and left the government teetering.
The results of Sunday's election in Metn could be a prelude to more chaos: with Syrian-backed President Emile Lahoud scheduled to step down by November 23, the presidency - a post that has to be filled by a Maronite Christian - will be left open for contest between Siniora's forces and the opposition. With many predicting that the victorious party of Metn's elections will hold the key to winning the presidency in the autumn, Khoury's success seems to bode well for the ambitions of Aoun. With Aoun as president, the opposition would be firmly ensconced in the state and could thus be emboldened to force a complete takeover of the government.
But not everyone in Beirut is convinced that Khoury's victory will translate into success for Aoun in the autumn. Given that Gemayel's defeat came by less than 500 votes, it is far from clear that Lebanon's Christians have given the FPM a clear mandate to rule; in fact, the elections saw a huge drop in popularity for Aoun's party, which won 70% of the Christian vote in parliamentary elections in 2005. Furthermore, given low support for the FPM in Sunday's vote among Maronite Christians, Lebanon's largest Christian minority, Aoun's claim to being the indispensable Christian candidate no longer seems credible to many. Gemayel himself took this line in a Beirut news conference yesterday, saying that a "majority of Maronites voted for us, 75%, and only 34% for Aoun ... So now let us talk about the true Christian representative."
This could make a serious difference in coming weeks, when the successor to Lahoud will be chosen by parliament. And, according to analyst Michael Young, the fact that Aoun has so divided Lebanon's Christian community - and the country at large - means that he most certainly is not presidential material.
"He has lost support and so polarised the Christian atmosphere that many people today have a bitter feeling in their mouths," Young told me yesterday. "There is really no momentum today for Aoun. I believe [Sunday's results] could be a pyrrhic victory."
Others even described the outcome of Sunday's vote as a clear victory for the ruling coalition of Siniora, pointing out that with the decrease of support for Aoun among Lebanon's Maronite community, Hizbullah and the opposition no longer have a Christian ally strong enough to make a difference in their battle against the government. But this may be premature.
Despite Aoun's poor showing with Metn's Maronites, the dearth of strong pro-government alternatives within the Christian community means that he could still come out on top in November. And given the fact that the hitherto unknown Khoury was able to beat Geyamel, a leading Christian figure in Siniora's coalition and the patriarch of one of Lebanon's most prominent Christian families, claims that the FPM has lost its mandate seem greatly exaggerated.
But with both sides now claiming victory, and with the country stuck in political deadlock, it seems unlikely that either will be able to push through its candidate for president this fall.
The deadline for the presidential contest will be a turning-point: if there can be some compromise between the government and the opposition on who is to fill the presidential slot, then a violent showdown between the opposing camps can be avoided. If not, expect the worst.