LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 01/07

Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 4,18-22. As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen. He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him. He walked along from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.

Releases. Reports & Opinions
How Bin Laden Outsmarts the US with al Qaeda Propaganda.By: Walid Phares. November 30/07
Clear as mud-By: Sami Moubayed-Al-Ahram Weekly. November 30/07

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 30/07
Bkirki Criticizes Opposition-Naharnet
Jumblat Supports Election of Suleiman-Naharnet
Saudi Arabia Supports Suleiman's Nomination-Naharnet
Tent City To Celebrate First Anniversary-Naharnet
Army Chief Suleiman respected as Neutral Figure-Naharnet
Signs of Growing Warmth in US-Syrian Relations Pay off in Lebanon-Naharnet
US Seems to Soften Syria Stance-Wall Street Journal
A leader for Lebanon-Los Angeles Times
UNIFIL reiterates demand for end to Israeli overflights-AFP
Berri delays election again as all sides rally behind Suleiman-Daily Star
S. Korean foreign minister arrives for one-day visit-Daily Star
Washington 'okay' with Suleiman as president-Daily Star 
Suleiman can learn a lot from Lahoud's mistakes-Daily Star 
Bank of Beirut trots out new credit cards for class-conscious professionals-Daily Star 
Lebanese can now pay phone bills at post office-Daily Star 
Lebanon scores Arab first near top of Junior Chamber-Daily Star 
Old Israeli rocket kills Lebanese man-AFP
Actress Carla Butros injured in deadly car crash-Daily Star 
Caritas recounts efforts to assist migrant workers-Daily Star 
Medical establishment signals risks from hepatitis A, bird flu-Daily Star  
Seminar takes up issue of suicide in Arab world-Daily Star 
Philippine ambassador accused of abusing funds-Daily Star 
Over-taxed Naameh landfill 'could explode at any time-Daily Star 
'The sketch or the concept: Which comes first?-Daily Star 
Organic movement slowly catching on in Lebanon-Daily Star 
Bin Laden urges Europeans to quit Afghanistan-AFP
Presidential Election Postponed till December 7-Naharnet
Saudi Arabia Supports Suleiman's Nomination-Naharnet
Opposition Cautious of March 14 Offer to Elect Suleiman President-Naharnet
Berri Ready to Amend Constitution to Facilitate Suleiman Election-Naharnet
Aoun Supports Gen. Suleiman's Nomination Conditional to His Initiative-Naharnet
Lebanon to delay vote again, army chief in focus-Reuters
Palestinian Source: Arab Countries Undermined Syria-Iran Alliance-MEMRI
Hundreds of Refugees Return to Iraq From Syria-Voice of America
Syria frees 18 Jordanians: witness-AFP
In search of a government-Economist

Bkirki Criticizes Opposition
The Maronite Church on Friday criticized the Hizbullah-led opposition for closing parliament, boycotting presidential election sessions and the resigned ministers.
A strongly-worded statement issued by secretariat of the Maronite Church noted that "the constitutional rule states that MPs should go to parliament, review names (of candidates) and elect one of them for the presidential office."
"Closing down parliament during the past months puts the great responsibility for this move on whoever closed the house, irrespective of the pretexts," the statement said.
It noted that "Parliament is the place where MPs in all nations of the world meet to tackle national issues and take decisions regarding them."
The statement said ministers "who have abstained from attending government meetings are not less responsible than others. They, at the same time, abstain and head to their respective ministries' offices to process whatever actions they want … This is deplorable and denounced."
The statement recalled that French officials had asked Bkirki to propose a list of candidates, stressing that it is better for the Maronite Church to propose such a list to prevent the nation from heading to chaos.
The French officials, according to the statement, informed Bkirki that a candidate from the list would be elected.
However, the statement noted that after the list was proposed Bkirki was asked to propose a second list of candidates or to add an extra candidate to it, but the seat of the Maronite church responded by saying: "This is what we could do. You are free to add or drop any candidate, and the list remains lost."
It called for "the speedy election of president before it is too late. This is the responsibility of all deputies." Beirut, 30 Nov 07, 13:49

Jumblat Supports Election of Suleiman
Druze leader Walid Jumblat, who is known for his harsh objections to having a military figure run for president, hailed army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman for his role in protecting the resistance and democracy. "We should overcome the issue of amending the constitution," Jumblat told the daily An Nahar in remarks published Friday.
"…What is important now is Lebanon's stability through a person who has had a key role in uniting the army, keeping it away from politics and protecting both civilians and institutions under the worst of conditions," Jumblat said, in reference to Suleiman. "This decision (to back Suleiman) was purely Lebanese … Gen. Suleiman's nomination deserves (support) to overcome all sensitivities," since the army commander, Jumblat went on, is known for his "clean record in protecting the resistance and safeguarding (both) democracy and (public) institutions."The constitution bans senior public servants from seeking the presidency until two years after they have left their posts. Any amendment would have to be drafted by the government and then presented to parliament for ratification. Jumblat uncovered that he took part in the decision to back Suleiman alongside with Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and MP Saad Hariri. Beirut, 30 Nov 07, 09:10

Army Chief Suleiman respected as Neutral Figure
Gen. Michel Suleiman has seen many crises in his nine years as the chief of Lebanon's military. He fought Islamic militants, calmed sectarian violence and deployed his army in Hezbollah strongholds along the Israeli border for the first time in decades. Perhaps most important is what he hasn't done: Take sides in the bitter struggle for power among Lebanon's anti- and pro-Syrian politicians. For many, that has made him the ideal compromise candidate to become president, a post that was left dangerously empty after Emile Lahoud's term ended last week with Lebanon's divided factions unable to agree on a successor.
Suleiman, 59, was appointed head of Lebanon's army in 1998 and was considered a supporter of Syria, which dominated the country through thousands of troops stationed in Lebanon. But as Damascus' power diminished, Suleiman emerged more independent, earning respect from supporters of both Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and the opposition, led by the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hizbullah.
His reputation as a neutral protector began two years ago, when massive street demonstrations against Syria's rule were sparked by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Some blame Syria for Hariri's killing -- a claim Damascus denies. Suleiman refused to use the military to put down the rallies, which helped force Syria to withdraw its troops, ending its 29-year control of the country. But since then, Lebanon's sectarian tensions have increased, with Sunni Muslims largely backing Saniora's anti-Syrian government, Shiites supporting the pro-Syrian opposition and Christians divided.
Suleiman, a Maronite Catholic, won praise for keeping the army together and deterring violence. In January, he imposed a curfew to put down a flare-up of Sunni-Shiite clashes that killed 11 people. He earned admiration over the summer for the army's defeat of Fatah Islam, an al-Qaida-inspired militant group that fought in a Lebanese Palestinian refugee camp. He also distanced himself from Hezbollah, which once had close cooperation with the military. Last year, he raised the country's flag on a ridge overlooking the Israeli border and vowed to prohibit attacks from Lebanon that could undermine the cease-fire that ended the 34-day Hezbollah-Israel war.
But he is not without his detractors. The military, lacking equipment, stayed on the sidelines of that war, unable to counter either Israel or Hezbollah. Others accuse the military of not doing enough to stop weapons smuggling to Hezbollah along the Syrian border. Still, Suleiman's popularity continued to rise after he pledged to maintain security amid the political deadlock over replacing Lahoud. He called on his 56,000-strong army to ignore the politics "and listen to the call of duty.""The nation is at stake and you are its defenders. Do not be lenient and do not be inactive," he said. (AFP) Beirut, 30 Nov 07, 11:30

Signs of Growing Warmth in US-Syrian Relations Pay off in Lebanon
A thaw in U.S.-Syrian relations could have helped break a political impasse in Lebanon over election of a new president although the latter left the Annapolis peace conference without promises from Israel to restart stalled talks. The Associated Press said that the Bush administration is softening its diplomatic hard line against Damascus, which resulted in Lebanon's top Christian opposition leader, Michel Aoun, joining an emerging consensus to name Lebanon's army chief as a compromise president.
Better U.S.-Syrian ties might also dilute Iran's influence in the region. Iran, which does not have a border with Lebanon, Hamas or Syria, will find it hard to reach out to the groups it supports there without Syria's role as a go-between. Syrian delegates received warm handshakes and words of thanks from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose administration has largely shunned Syria since early 2005.
At the close of Tuesday's speeches and meetings focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Rice walked over to the Syrian delegates, said Imad Moustapha, Syria's ambassador to Washington. "She shook hands with us and thanked us for participating," Moustapha told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Thursday. "She also asked us to pass our greetings to Foreign Minister Waleed al-Muallem."Syria sent a deputy foreign minister instead of al-Muallem, while other invited nations sent their top diplomats. Syria's move was widely viewed as a subtle snub to the U.S. hosts, but U.S. officials said they took no offense.
Rice's handshake may have been a small gesture. But coming on top of the U.S. invitation to Syria to attend the one-day session, and Syria's willingness to attend, it could indicate a slight thaw in the diplomatic chill between Washington and Damascus.
After repeatedly saying there was no point in talking to Syria, Rice has met twice this year with al-Muallem. She has described the meetings as businesslike and focused largely on U.S. demands that Syria do more to stop foreign fighters from crossing its borders to fight in Iraq, where they threaten U.S. forces.
Afterward, the U.S. made a point of saying that Rice raised U.S. complaints about alleged Syrian meddling in Lebanon and Syria made a point of saying it asked Rice to return an American ambassador to Damascus. U.S.-Syrian relations frosted over following the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, an attack which many blamed on Damascus. The U.S. yanked its ambassador and clamped a diplomatic boycott on Syria, accusing it of destabilizing Lebanon, sending insurgents to Iraq and supporting the militant anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas.
"We have called upon the Syrian government to change their behavior in a variety of different ways. I don't think at this point I can offer you a definitive assessment," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Thursday. "But the fact that they did come to the conference, the fact that they did participate in such a way that added to the conversation, indicates to me that they understand that there is another pathway that they can choose to take, a more constructive pathway." Moustapha said nothing concrete emerged at the conference toward reviving talks with Israel, which shares a border with Syria. The two nations do not have diplomatic relations but have shown interest in reaching a land and peace deal. The main point of contention is the Golan Heights, strategic territory that Syria lost to Israel in the 1967 war.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told reporters that no talks are imminent, but he is not opposed to the concept. There is strong backing for diplomacy with Syria elsewhere in Olmert's complex coalition government, particularly from defense chief and potential Olmert rival Ehud Barak. Israeli officials said this month that Olmert has sent messages to Syrian President Bashar Assad that he is interested in reopening peace talks and suggested Israel would return some territory.
The United States, Israel's strongest ally, has taken a hands-off approach to the Syria question in public. In private, officials have been cool to the idea, out of fear that Syria would use any diplomatic overture as leverage in other disputes. "That is going to be up to the Syrians and the Israelis to see ... if they see an opening that they believe that they can exploit," McCormack said. Israeli-Syrian peace talks broke down in 2000 with an Israeli offer on the table to return part of the Golan Heights. Syria insisted on further territory.
Tensions between Israel and Syria have been high following an Israeli airstrike two months ago against a suspected nuclear site in northern Syria. Syria has denied developing a reactor. Moustapha said the Annapolis conference gave Syria a chance to remind the world about the Golan. That was the implicit price of the invitation for the United States, which wanted to keep the focus of the session on Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. "At least we were very realistic, and we didn't waste such an opportunity to remind the world of such an issue," Moustapha said. A follow-up conference tentatively scheduled for Moscow sometime next spring may address the Israeli-Syrian conflict directly. The idea of a follow-up session "received support" at Annapolis, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Russia, whose close ties with Syria go back to the Soviet era, has long called for a broad conference including Israel's neighboring Arab states. McCormack called a follow-up Russian conference "an interesting concept," but not one that all parties have yet agreed on.(AP) Beirut, 30 Nov 07, 11:12

Saudi Arabia Supports Suleiman's Nomination
Saudi Ambassador Abdul Aziz Khoja on Thursday said Riyadh would support the nomination of Army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman for president if it was backed by consensus. Talking to reporters after a meeting with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Khoja said: "If consensus was reached on Gen. Suleiman, the kingdom would support this issue.""If our Lebanese brethren agreed on this we would be happy. What we are interested in is for stability to prevail over Lebanon," Khoja added.
Beirut, 29 Nov 07, 17:28

un Supports Gen. Suleiman's Nomination Conditional to His Initiative
Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun on Thursday declared vague support for the nomination of Army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman for president.
"What is important today is our stand that supports the nomination and election of Gen. Suleiman. God willing they will not be shocked by our stand," Aoun told reporters.
"We deal seriously with the nomination of commander Michel Suleiman and, with time, we'll find out how honest their stands are," Aoun added.
Aoun stressed that "there is no objection to the nomination of Gen. Suleiman. However, there are constitutional obstacles that should be surpassed because the government is illegitimate. Details cannot be tackled in public.""We hope to overcome the constitutional obstacles and we are ready to overcome them," he added. However, in answering questions, Aoun said: "We hope that Gen. Suleiman would be president in line with the initiative that we had proposed." He did not elaborate on the remark, but said he would call for a meeting by the Hizbullah-led opposition to adopt a decision on the issue. Aoun's initiative had called for an interim president for a term of less than two years pending general elections in the summer of 2009 in line with a new election lat. It also had called for the naming of a "consensus" prime minister.
Aoun said popular protests would start by "next weekend." Beirut, 29 Nov 07, 19:24

Tent City To Celebrate First Anniversary
The Hizbullah-led opposition on Saturday marks the first anniversary of its central Beirut sit-in that has sent 2,700 people unemployed and forced closure of 75 restaurants and coffee shops. Nevertheless, the protestors vowed to maintain their Tent City for years if need be to force the resignation of Premier Fouad Saniora's majority government.
"The sit-in began because there is a government that we consider illegitimate, and as long as our goal has not been achieved we will stay there indefinitely," Hizbullah spokesman Hussein Rahal told Agence France Presse. The continued protest comes as the country grapples with a dangerous political vacuum that has left the presidency vacant because of a standoff between pro- and anti-Syrian factions. The year-long sit-in has transformed a large swathe of Beirut's usually bustling downtown into a ghost town and led to the shutdown of some 200 businesses and thousands of job losses.
And although the sprawling tent city pitched by the protestors on streets leading to Saniora's offices is now empty for the most part, it is a sore reminder for passersby of the crisis pitting the government against the Shiite militant group and its ally, opposition leader Michel Aoun.
Groups of young men mill outside the tents at night, some smoking water pipes and others chit-chatting about politics, reading a newspaper or watching television.
Several of the militants interviewed by AFP said they work in shifts manning the tents -- which they said number 600 -- with some going to work during the day and returning to the camp at night. "When we started we thought the government would fall quickly but the days have gone by and now I think it will take a while," Emile Hashem, a spokesman for the militants loyal to Aoun, told AFP.
"Still, we are ready to stay until Saniora leaves and if that takes 10 years so be it," he added. "We are here 24 hours a day and we are staying," chimed in a Hizbullah militant who did not wish to give his name. Hashem and a Hizbullah official said a rally was planned Saturday to commemorate the year-long sit-in.
The prime minister for his part has ignored the protestors camped under his windows and refrained from removing them by force to avoid an escalation.
"Mr. Saniora respects their right to demonstrate but what they are doing is infringing on people's freedom and it is translating into millions of dollars in losses for businesses," his spokesman Aref El-Abed told AFP. Ralph Eid, who owns a shoe store in the downtown area and is a member of the merchants' association, said the Hizbullah-led standoff with the government had spelled the death knell for many businesses. "They have taken us hostage by their action," he said. "If they want to make a political statement, they can do so for a day, two or 10 days, but it's been a full year and they are killing everybody's business," he said.
Tarek Barakat, a member of the local restaurant association, said of the 105 restaurants, snack bars and coffee shops that operated in the downtown area, only 30 were still in business and some 2,700 employees had lost their jobs. "It's been more than a disaster because a disaster has an end," Barakat said. "And here there is no end."(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 30 Nov 07, 15:12

A leader for Lebanon
Beirut's top general, who has ties to Syria and Hezbollah, is in line to be president. Will democracy follow?
November 30, 2007
The bewildering crisis in Lebanon has taken another perplexing twist with reports that the gridlocked parliament has agreed to choose the country's top general, Michel Suleiman, as its next president. The question is whether Suleiman represents a genuine compromise among Lebanon's intractable factions or whether his ascension would signal a betrayal of the 2005 "Cedar Revolution," which ended in the promise to kick Syria out of Lebanese politics and give real democracy a chance.
The presidential selection process has been anything but free or fair. Under Lebanon's tortured constitution, parliament chooses the president. But the power balance in parliament isn't based on election results; rather, it tracks the tally of assassinations. After four anti-Syrian lawmakers were murdered, their colleagues have been holed up since September in the Phoenicia Hotel in Beirut, trying to hang on to their slim parliamentary majority by the simple expedient of staying alive. President Emile Lahoud's term expired last week, and Lahoud left office with no successor in sight. The vote to replace him has been delayed six times and is now scheduled for Dec. 6.
The United States and France have supported the pro-democracy movement that drew more than a million people into the streets in the Cedar Revolution that succeeded in driving Syria from Lebanon in 2005. But the West has not done enough since then to keep Syria or Hezbollah from paralyzing political progress. Hezbollah's punishing war with Israel, its rapid rearmament and its successful intimidation of parliament have proceeded apace, while the United Nations tribunal charged with investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has dragged. Now Beirut's beleaguered moderates fear that the West is once again willing to turn a blind eye to Syrian meddling in Lebanon if Damascus will participate in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Peace in the Golan Heights would be a prize, but giving radical Islamists veto power over the Lebanese government would be a tragic price to pay in return.
Enter Suleiman, who is no white knight but who might be able to keep Lebanon from a new civil war. Originally handpicked by the Syrians, Suleiman refused to use the army to crush pro-democracy demonstrators. He became a national hero for routing a radical faction that had seized control of a Palestinian refugee camp. Yet he enjoys close ties to Hezbollah and, as army chief, has allowed the smuggling of weapons from Syria to the Islamist fighters. In truth, a leader opposed by Hezbollah cannot control Lebanon today or prevent renewed civil strife, and the West will probably recognize Suleiman. But it should not allow Lebanon to again become ground zero in a proxy war sponsored by Syria and Iran.

Clear as mud
As political jockeying continues in Beirut, Sami Moubayed considers the Syrian options
Last Christmas, the Maronite Patriarch Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir told Lebanese Christians, "Do not be afraid." At first glance, the Lebanese did not seem afraid, not a bit. Despite all the turmoil they were going through, they still managed to put up their Christmas trees, go to nightclubs, dine at fancy restaurants and attend Fayruz. At second glance, however, the Lebanese had every reason to be afraid back then, and even more so today, one year later. Lebanon continues to suffer from the Israeli war in 2006, and the continued assassinations that have badly hit Lebanon's economy -- and tourism -- since 2005. Then came the massive sit-in launched by the Hizbullah-led opposition starting 2 December 2006 which at the time of writing, continues, with the aim of bringing down the cabinet of Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora. Now comes vacancy at the Presidential Palace.
On 23-24 November 2007, Beirut seemed divided between those rejoicing at the exodus of President Emile Lahoud and those paying homage to a man whom they considered a great struggler, due to his nine-year alliance with Hizbullah and the Syrians. Lahoud left a vacant post at Baabda Palace. After weeks of negotiations, the Lebanese were unable to agree on a replacement. Neighbourhoods loyal to parliamentary majority leader Saad Al-Hariri celebrated with fireworks and young people dancing in the street. Those occupied by Hizbullah and the Amal movement of Nabih Berri were quiet, filled with glowing images of the ex-president. In nearby Damascus, the mood was strongly pro-Lahoud. Syrian television aired a special documentary about him, saying that he was the man who helped unite Lebanon, in his capacity as army commander, in the 1990s. He helped liberate South Lebanon in 2000, and prevented Lebanon from becoming a satellite state of the United States and Israel.
Very few in Lebanon remained as loyal to the Syrians as Lahoud. Other strong examples are Maronite chief Suleiman Franjiyeh, former prime ministers Omar Karameh and Najib Mikati, parliament speaker Berri, and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah. All of them upheld Lahoud as a constitutional president, after the Syrians departed in April 2005. Shortly before that, Nasrallah gave a memorable speech, which was much appreciated in Damascus, saying, "Beirut was destroyed by Sharon, rebuilt by Rafik Al-Hariri, and protected by Hafez Al-Assad!" Ever since entering Lebanon in 1976 and unceremoniously leaving in 2005, Syria has had few loyal friends. Former allies like Fouad Al-Siniora and Walid Jumblatt immediately turned against Damascus when it became clear that the Syrians were not staying long in Lebanon. They had actually been the ones, headed by Rafik Al-Hariri, to support and legitimise the Syrian presence in Lebanon during the 1990s. All of them had supported the election of Lahoud in 1998, handpicked by Hafez Al-Assad. Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV aired footage this weekend of Lahoud's 1998 inauguration speech, showing Nayla Mouawad, one of the figures of 14 March who at the time was pro-Syrian, clapping with pleasure at the new pro-Syrian president coming to power in Beirut. Mouawad and 14 March are now the strongest anti-Syrian voices in Beirut, described by the world as "historically" anti-Syrian statesmen who "struggled" for the liberation of their country from Syrian "occupation." The Syrians know better, however, and so does Lahoud. Lahoud was not like that and that is why the Syrians are sad to see him go, remembering, too well, that they had brought him to power in 1998 and renewed his mandate in 2004, at the expense of their friendship with Rafik Al-Hariri. The former prime minister, however, had eventually said yes to renewing Lahoud's mandate at Baabda Palace. Lahoud's friendship with the Syrians led to numerous accusations against him, with 14 March claiming that he was responsible for the murder of Al-Hariri in 2005, as reported in the first UN commission enquiry, known as the Melhis report. At the time of his exodus from Baabda in 2005, his top generals remain behind bars in connection to the Melhis report.
But as far as the world is concerned, all of that is now history. What matters is the new president of Lebanon. Despite all the bickering, and French heavy-handed diplomacy, the Lebanese have indeed created a power vacuum for themselves. Saad Al-Hariri is frantic. For one reason, if chaos returns to Lebanon his investments in Beirut will suffer. Setting politics aside and speaking purely in business terms, he cannot sit back and watch civil war erupt in Lebanon. Currently, the Maronite seat is vacant and the Shias, formerly represented in government, are also now in opposition to Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora. This leaves Saad Al-Hariri's Sunnis in temporary control of Lebanon. That is alarming for the Syrians. Saad Al-Hariri has ambitions to become prime minister of Lebanon after a Christian president is elected. Constitutionally he can do that, although advisors are telling him that this would be political suicide. Saad Al-Hariri cannot tolerate a strong Christian president who would overshadow his Sunni prime minister. That is why he preferred keeping Lahoud (although he detested the former General and accused him of conspiracy in the killing of his father in 2005), rather than bringing somebody like Aoun to Baabda.
Many wrongly believed that due to his alliance with Hizbullah, the Syrians wanted Aoun for president. That was trumpeted by the 14 March coalition in an attempt at tarnishing Aoun's image in the Christian streets. The truth is the Syrians would be very uncomfortable with somebody like Aoun. They do not forget his war of liberation against the Syrian army during the final stages of the civil war, and that he had led the Lebanese opposition in exile in the 1990s, calling for withdrawal of Syrian troops. Aoun also played a pivotal role in getting the US to pass the Syria accountability law of 2003. He is only allied to Hizbullah because he realises that he cannot rule Lebanon without the support of the 40 per cent of its population who are Shias. True that would end his reputation as a Christian leader -- something Aoun never strove to become -- and establish him as a cross-confessional Lebanese leader. The Syrians have no idea how he would act as president. He would certainly be better however, than either of the 14 March candidates Boutros Harb or Robert Ghanem.
But if the Syrians are able to get their way, they would opt for Michel Suleiman, the current army commander. Washington DC is not too enthusiastic about him because he is politically independent; too independent for Washington's taste. He is committed to combating Israel, supporting Hizbullah, and friendship with Syria. His one slogan has been "Israel is the enemy", something that greatly pleases Damascus but is frowned upon by 14 March. If elected, he would certainly work for a greater role for Hizbullah in the government, and might even turn a blind eye to their activities in south Lebanon, as did Elias Hrawi in the early 1990s, and Lahoud in 1998-2006. Also to the displeasure of 14 March was a recent remark by the army commander, "Fatah Al-Islam is linked to Al-Qaeda not Syria."
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Future Jihad: How Bin Laden Outsmarts the US with al Qaeda Propaganda
By: Walid Phares
November 30/07
What is interesting about the latest audio message of Usama Bin Laden, carried by al Jazeera, is its delayed argument. Strangely he is trying to convince the Europeans - seven years later - that they are wrong to have followed the United States into Afghanistan. Why?
In his speech - irrespective of the ritual investigative questions regarding its location, technology and other details - the central issue appears to be his growing concern with the European role in Afghanistan, and perhaps because of it, the potential growth of that role in the fight against the forces of Jihadism worldwide. As a reader of the Jihadi strategic mind, I believe that the speech writers (Bin Laden himself or his “advisors”) are looking ahead in their evaluation of future European involvement in the so-called War on Terror, and are positioning al Qaeda to “own” it. The significance of this is, as al Qaeda’s war room has showed in the past, they are skilled at anticipating trends.
Don’t we remember how in February 2003, way before the US Marines brought down the Saddam statue in April, a Bin Laden audio tape called on the Jihad fighters to begin heading to Iraq, “for Baghdad, the second capital of the Caliphate would be falling into the hands of the Kuffar (infidels)”? In a sense, this is how I read this new Bin Laden tape: he is asking the Europeans to leave the battlefield of Afghanistan now, because he is projecting that events may push the nations of Europe to expand further their involvement overseas. The hidden message in his speech is by far greater than the words aired on al Jazeera, or even the entire text his followers are claiming the Qatari-funded channel “didn’t air.” We’ll come back later to the al Qaeda/al Jazeera labyrinth. The question now is about the essence of the message.
The commander of the Jihadi mother ship says the Afghans sustained the Soviet occupation for many years; hence he warns the European governments that their forces deployed in that country will be continuously attacked. That was the first salvo. Then he “informed” them that they’d made a tremendous mistake by deploying along with US troops and dislodging the Taliban in 2001. He argued that since he was the man behind the massacre of Manhattan, the regime of the Taliban had nothing to do with it. “I am responsible for the attacks of 9/11,” said Bin Laden. (I suggest making sure this declaration is well saved to document future trials and respond to current allegations that Jihadists have nothing to do with it.) He added - the classic refrain – that 9/11 “was in response to aggression in Palestine and Lebanon.” Usama insisted that Taliban ministers didn’t even know that he was launching this operation.
That part, I must admit, came as a surprise to me. Why is he attempting to distance his protectors from the Ghazwa (Jihadi raid) seven years later? We’ll come back to this later as well.
Meanwhile, US administration spokespeople rushed to “explain” that the Afghani people are “happier now because they are better administered.” I disagree with this PR logic. Nations wouldn’t be happier with foreign forces just because richer governments can distribute goodies. This argument won’t buy support among the public there.
Washington’s spokespeople must be clear on the principles, seven or seventy years afterwards: the US removed the Taliban regime because this regime was responsible for the acts of the terror group al Qaeda, executor of the massacres in New York and Washington. The Taliban - under international law - had the opportunity to arrest al Qaeda leaders and dismantle their camps, but it didn’t. As such, the Greater Middle East audience must hear solid counter arguments coming out of America and the free world about this particular issue, not “explanations” about what the Coalition is doing now in Afghanistan. After the democratic elections in that country, the legitimate government is responsible for the presence and deeds of NATO and UN troops anyway. But In the war of ideas, no allegation should be allowed to fly unchecked.
Bin Laden alleged that the Taliban didn’t know about the operation, but he ignored the fact that the Jihadi regime and its spokespeople “blessed” the attacks afterward, and that they continue, even today, to do so in their media. Usama has forgotten that in one of his videotapes he boasted that even his close comrade Sleiman Abul Ghais didn’t know about it. But even though the preparation for the terror “operations” weren’t shared with all levels of power among the Taliban or even al Qaeda, the war against America has been declared since 1998. These are simple counter arguments but they need to be made in response to this statement by the leader of the War on Terror.
Future recruits will be fed with Bin Laden’s rhetoric about the innocence of his Taliban brothers and hence, we may find these arguments made by future suicide terrorists blasting against targets in European cities. “This is in response to your illegitimate and unjust attacks against Afghanistan,” would scream the Shaheed in his or her prepared videotape before they spread mayhem. A strong and direct response to today’s false arguments, delivered in Arabic via satellite channels, would have been the appropriate response, minutes after the al Jazeera airing. What is important is not how we satisfy our perception of a good image, but how we affect the perception of those who are about to be indoctrinated or recruited to the other side.
Back to Usama’s Euro concerns. In short, he is preparing the psychological terrain for an escalation on European soil. Remember Madrid. His cells struck the trains while claiming it was because of the unjust presence of Spanish troops in Iraq. It is very possible that future strikes in Europe would be accompanied with claims related to French, British, Spanish, Danish, Dutch and other military presence in that part of central Asia. The potential forthcoming attacks are being prepared now with al Qaeda propaganda.
Interestingly Bin Laden mentions Blair, Brown, Aznar and Sarkozy. While the first three past and current prime ministers have ordered troops into and within Iraq, the French President has inherited a previous military policy in Afghanistan. What links all these leaders in the mind of Bin Laden? In my estimate, it is not only the past; rather it is the future. The Jihadi supreme commander has been advised by his operational emirs and advisors in Europe that the fight is coming to that continent. Many combat Salafists are already deployed and preparing for violence in Britain, Spain, Scandinavia, Germany and the Benelux. The so-called youth gangs in French suburbs – manipulated by the radical clerics - are already in a state of war against the French state.
Global Jihad in Europe has begun. Al Qaeda wants to claim it, own it and boast about its coming spread. That’s what is on Bin Laden’s mind.
As a classic leader of Jihadism, he wants to warn beforehand that what is to come in Europe is “because” of its alliance with the US and its military presence in Afghanistan, an “occupied Muslim land.” In reality, the dice has already rolled: the Jihadists have already waged their campaign on that continent but the al Qaeda master wants to father it and widen it.