LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
DECEMBER 22/2006Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 1,39-45.
During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."Free Opinions & Studies of the Day
The Death of Cedars-FrontPage magazine.com
Iran: The Islamofascist Terrormasters-By: Christopher Holton. The Family Security Foundation. 22.12.06
Tactics for Dangerous Issues-By: Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 23/12/06//
A challenge to Muslims in the West Charter to subordinate Sharia introduced to European Union -© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 22.12.06
Giving to Bashar Assad, and taking away -By Michael Young 22.12.06
Stopgap measures won't save Lebanon from its own fatal flaws -Daily Star 22.12.06Latest news from The Daily Star for December 22/06
No joy - yet - for MPs trying to force session on Hariri tribunal
Lebanese police arrest 7 members of pro-Syrian party, seize explosives
Assad 'fully supports' bid to end crisis in Beirut - Moussa
Former security chiefs' lawyers want their clients released 'as per UN instructions'
Al-Manar: Plane came to Beirut from Tel Aviv on day of Gemayel assassination
Emie lauds efforts to defuse crisis in Beirut
Canadian PM rules out talks with Hizbullah and Hamas
Qabbani condemns Iran's 'blatant intervention'
Belgian premier arrives to visit troops, Siniora
Israeli official claims army does not possess maps of cluster-bomb sites in Lebanon
Lebanon's IDAL says Paris III will boost investment
Downtown sit-in hits retailers across capital
Beirut-based writers garner awards from Christian peace group
Three years on, justice continues to elude victims of fatal Cotonou crash
UNIFIL adds Santa role to peacekeeping duties in SouthLatest news from miscellaneous sources for December 22/06
US believes arms smuggled to Lebanon via Syria-Reuters
Lebanon seizes explosives from pro-Syrian group-Scotsman
Syria flirts with the West-Asia Times Online
US challenges Syria to open embassy in Lebanon-Jerusalem Post
Arab mediator focuses on written Lebanon deal-Reuters
Alarm sounded over economy, crisis-United Press International
Lahoud must stay: Moussa-Gulf Times
Report: Olmert, Siniora met in secret-Ynetnews
Bush vows to support embattled Lebanese PM-Xinhua
US believes arms smuggled to Lebanon via Syria-Reuters
Bush: Iran's leader taking country 'out of step'-Reuters
Radical Islamic Groups Exploit Internet for Jihad-FOX News
Norway to assist Lebanon in developing oil and gas reserves-People's Daily Online
'Let them reach a deal and relieve us'-Gulf News
LEBANON. D'ALEMA: UNIFIL MISSION RISKS BEING ATTACKED-Agenzia Giornalistica Italia
US confirms strengthening Assad opposition in Syria-Journal of Turkish Weekly
Israel persistently rejects Syria's outstretched hand-Aljazeera.com
Russia comes to Syria's aid-Times of Malta
Syria may close Lebanese border-Jerusalem Post
Israeli Freed by Hizbullah Admits he Went to Lebanon for Drug Deal-Naharnet
Arab mediator focuses on written Lebanon deal-Reuters
Cluster bomb blast in south Lebanon kills Hezbollah fighter-Ya LibnanLatest news from The Daily Star for December 22/06
Italian foreign minister warns Damascus to meet demands of world community
Israeli says lure of drug deal led to capture by Hizbullah
Moussa says Lahoud should finish term
Hamas-Fatah standoff bubbles up in camps
Parliamentary committee calls off meeting over squabble between MPs
Druze Religious Council calls for 'language of love'
LF blasts Lahoud for refusal to sign by-election decree
Gemayel criticizes Aoun for inconsistency on presidency
Charges laid in break-in at flat of Hariri witness
Qabbani meets Mubarak, says Siniora should stay on
D'Alema visits troops, underlines Al-Qaeda threat
Leftover ordnance kills Hizbullah fighter
University students help keep protests going
EU signs pact to help establish agro-food school in Bekaa
Civil Service Minister speaks on general budget
CDR chief promises more to come as new bridges open to traffic in Chouf
Beirut Port inks three-year transshipment deal with French cargo giant CMA CGMIn Mideast, Blair says Iran is main foe
By JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 56 minutes ago
British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrapped up a Middle East tour Wednesday with a blunt speech warning that the world faces a monumental struggle between moderates and extremists — and labeling Iran the main obstacle to hopes for peace.
In an address to business leaders and journalists in Dubai, Blair said combating extremism and the violence it foments was the greatest challenge of the 21st century. He said the lesson he had drawn from his five-day Mideast trip was "startlingly real, clear and menacing."
"There is a monumental struggle going on worldwide between those who believe in democracy and moderation, and forces of reaction and extremism," Blair said. "We have to wake up. These forces of extremism — based on a warped and wrongheaded misinterpretation of Islam — aren't fighting a conventional war. But they are fighting one, against us — and us is not just the West, still less simply America and its allies," Blair said.
"We must therefore mobilize our alliance of moderation in the region and outside of it to defeat the extremists."
Blair has repeated that message throughout his trip — in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, the Palestinian territories and the United Arab Emirates.
He identified his chief foe in the region — the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran is a sponsor of the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Western countries claim Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and Blair has accused Iran of backing Shiite insurgents in Iraq.
Blair said there were "elements of the government of Iran, openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process; trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon; flaunting the international community's desire for peace in Palestine — at the same time as denying the Holocaust and trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability; and yet a large part of world opinion is frankly almost indifferent. It would be bizarre if it weren't deadly serious. "We must recognize the strategic challenge the government of Iran poses," Blair added. "Not its people, possibly not all its ruling elements, but those presently in charge of its policy."
Blair's language differed slightly from excerpts of the speech released in advance by Blair's office, which called Iran a "strategic threat."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini called Blair's speech "hostile" and "obvious intervention" in the region's affairs.
"The negative and discordant tendencies of Britain, along with the warmongering and unilateral policies of (President) Bush and Blair, have been the reason for tension and extremism and the cause of public hatred in the region," Hosseini told the state news agency IRNA.
Each stop on the tour played a role in Blair's vision of an "arc of moderation" that could work to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and defuse the anger that helps fuel international terrorism. He backed Turkey's bid to join the European Union, praised Egypt's role in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians, and urged support for the fragile Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
On Tuesday, he praised the oil-rich United Arab Emirates and its booming commercial hub, Dubai, as a model of economic openness that could set an example for the wider Arab world — even claiming the UAE's model "is what Basra or Gaza could be, were there people not so savagely let down by the politics of their countries."He said the fate of the Middle East, "for good or ill," would be felt around the world. While Blair's rhetoric was strong, the concrete achievements of the trip have been few. Blair called for an "early meeting" between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the relaunch of the peace process and support to bolster Abbas' authority in his struggle with the Islamic militant group Hamas. But he announced no new commitments or agreements on that front.
Blair, who has said he will step down by mid-2007, is on one of the last big foreign tours of his 10-year premiership, seeking to cement a foreign-policy legacy that goes beyond his role as the chief U.S. ally in Iraq.
A report released Tuesday by the influential Chatham House think-tank concluded that Blair's foreign policy ambitions have stalled because he is unable to exert real influence on the White House, despite offering the United States almost a decade of unflinching support.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
U.S. Snaps Back at Assad, Calls for Syrian-Lebanese Diplomatic Ties
The U.S. has rebuffed an offer of talks from Syrian President Bashar Assad but urged Syria to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon.
Assad said during a visit to Moscow Tuesday that he was "open to dialogue" with Washington about ways to help end spiraling violence in Iraq and wider unrest in the Middle East. But he added that the United States would "have to differentiate between a dialogue and giving instructions" for the talks to succeed. "They don't have to take instructions from the United States," replied State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, saying it was up to Damascus to respond to demands by the leaders of neighboring Iraq and Lebanon to stop supporting anti-government forces in those countries.
"They can make a -- give a positive reply to what their neighbor has asked them to do and that is to open an embassy in Beirut and that would be a signal that they have completely renounced and given up on the idea of getting back into Lebanon," McCormack said.
Lebanon's top rival leaders agreed earlier in the year during roundtable talks to establish diplomatic ties with Damascus after the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country in the aftermath of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination in February 2005. But Syria hasn't responded to the Lebanese demand. "If they haven't gotten the message yet, they can hear it again. We're not going to trade on the freedoms of the Lebanese people or anybody else to achieve our other foreign policy objectives," McCormack said.
He also said that Syria should stop "manipulating" the Saniora government and supporting Hizbullah without having to take instructions from the U.S.
"They could help the Lebanese people realize their aspirations for a more stable, prosperous Lebanon by not trying to manipulate the Lebanese political system, not helping Hizbullah sponsor marches in the street, not stand in the way of finding out who is responsible for the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri and seeing those people brought to justice," McCormack said.
Premier Fouad Saniora and the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority accuse Damascus-backed Hizbullah, which is holding an open ended anti-government sit-in in Beirut, of trying to obstruct the formation of an international tribunal to try Hariri's suspected assassins.
McCormack also said that Hizbullah was still receiving weapons via Syria despite U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 which brought an end to the war between Israel and the Shiite group. "I don't have any specific information I can offer you, but I think there's been some reporting. I think (U.N. special envoy Terje Roed) Mr. Larsen came out with some statements talking about this a couple weeks ago about some transit of arms flowing into Hizbullah," McCormack said. He said the Bush administration is trying to help the Lebanese army which has deployed south of the Litani river after the July-August war and is manning the border with Syria to prevent any arms smuggling.
"They don't have as robust a capability as I think they would want to see…that's one of the reasons why we are trying to help out in terms of supplying them with equipment and training and so forth," McCormack said.Beirut, Updated 20 Dec 06, 10:18
A challenge to Muslims in the West
Charter to subordinate Sharia introduced to European Union
Posted: December 20, 2006
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Gerald Batten
WASHINGTON – An initiative challenging Muslim communities living in the West to subordinate their interpretations of Sharia law to the laws of the land has been launched at the European Parliament.
The Muslim Charter, written by Islamic law expert Sam Solomon and sponsored by Gerald Batten, a British member of the European Parliament, is designed to encourage Muslims to state that they reject extremist interpretations of religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the modern world. Groups purporting to represent Muslims were encouraged to sign the charter to affirm that they reject violence and discrimination against non-Muslims, value the freedoms of the West and want to live as law-abiding citizens.
The 10-article charter calls on the Muslim community to issue a fatwa prohibiting the use of violence or threats to their followers.
It also asks that Muslims promote understanding of the precedence of national laws over Sharia law. In fact, the charter requires Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Quranic verses that call for jihad and violence against non-Muslims.
"We call on all organizations representing the Islamic faith to endorse and sign this charter as an example to all European Muslims," said Solomon. "By doing so they will make it clear that Islam really is a religion of peace and that acts of terrorism carried out in its name are acts of misguided individuals who have misunderstood and misinterpreted its teaching."
Batten, who has written a foreword to the charter, said: "The views of so-called fundamentalists who believe in Islamic theocracy are simply incompatible with Western liberal democracy, and we have seen how dangerous they are. But the vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet every day are hardworking, decent and law abiding, and we must offer them support while standing firm against extremists. This charter is a great step forward in that process."
Solomon, a human rights activist, was born in the Middle East, became a renowned Islamic scholar and went on to become a leading imam and emir with the authority to issue fatwas. He is an adviser to various governmental departments on issues relating to Islam and acts as a legal adviser to Christians suffering persecution in Islamic countries.
In 10 detailed articles, the charter calls upon Muslims to:
Respect non-Muslim religions and issue a fatwa prohibiting the use of force, violence or threats to their followers.
Respect all civilizations, cultures and traditions and promote understanding of the precedence of national laws over Sharia law.
Respect Western freedoms, especially of belief and expression and prohibit violent reaction against people who make use of these freedoms.
Prohibit the issuing of any fatwa that would result in violence or threat against individuals or institutions.
Request Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Quranic verses calling for jihad and violence against non-Muslims.
"The Western European view of religion, achieved after centuries of bloodshed, conflict and division, is that religion is a matter of private belief and conscience," wrote Batten in the foreword. "Islamic fundamentalists do not share this view. They do not believe in the nation state, democracy, the equality of women or toleration. They believe in Islamic theocracy, a universal Muslim society, the Umma, based on political rule according to the Quran and Sunnah."
He added "the West has been amazingly lax in recognizing the threat posed to its security, freedoms, values and the cohesiveness of society by Islamic fundamentalism."
George W. Bush's last chance in Iraq: an Israeli view
By Shlomo Ben-Ami
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Though triggered by the need to devise an exit strategy from the Iraqi quagmire, the Iraq Study Group's grim report is a devastating indictment of the Bush administration's entire foreign policy. The report challenges the core principles of a faith-driven administration and of a president whose political gospel led him to a sharp departure from the culture of conflict resolution in favor of a crusade based on raw power.
A war that cannot be ended is sometimes worse than a war that is lost. Therefore, the Iraq report is more than a plan to rescue Iraq; it is a road map for extricating America from the mayhem of an unwinnable war. However much the study group shunned recommendations for a precipitous withdrawal and avoided strict timetables for disengagement, their report is not only an unequivocal repudiation of Bush's "stay the course" obsession, but also a counsel to cut and run.
Indeed, there is no realistic chance that the Iraqi Army and police will be able to take over combat responsibilities and effective policing any time soon. The entire security apparatus in Iraq is corrupt and infiltrated by insurgents. Nor is it at all clear to what degree the Iraqis retain a stake in the idea of a united Iraqi state worth fighting for. The report practically calls for ending all support to the Iraqi government if it fails to assume its responsibilities.
None of the Middle East's problems has a military solution, and none can be solved through unilateral action. The report is therefore right to challenge Bush's insistence on discarding both Iran and Syria as interlocutors for a more stable regional order. Iran has the most leverage inside Iraq, and Syria has become a vital crossing point for weapons and insurgents into the Iraqi battlefield. There is simply no way that Iraq can be stabilized without America moving from a policy of disengagement to one of engagement with these two major regional spoilers.
The report thus stands as a rebuke to Bush's entire "axis of evil" philosophy. It refuses to ascribe to Iran's secretive state an ideological rigidity that might not exist. Indeed, Iran has shown its ability to behave with startling pragmatism more than once, not least in its links to Israel and the United States during its war against Iraq in the 1980s, and in its assistance to the Americans in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
But it is not only Iraq that requires regional support groups to reach a modicum of stability. All the problems of the Middle East - Iraq, the Arab-Israeli dispute, the need for political reforms, and Islamic terrorism - are interconnected. The interconnectedness of the problems in the outer circle of the region and those pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the inner circle was shown by the first Bush administration, which, in October 1991, following the first Gulf war, organized a major international conference aimed at securing an Arab-Israeli peace.
Neither the Israeli government nor its intimate ally in the White House can be expected to applaud the Iraq Study Group's call for a repetition of that logic, for it contradicts everything the Bush administration has championed. The report's recommendation for an international conference in the style of the Madrid peace conference is not only a timely indication of the linkage between the Israeli-Arab conflict and the region's other troubles; it is also a long overdue reminder that bilateral negotiations between the parties cannot produce an agreement. That realization prompted the all-Arab peace initiative of 2002, which established the conditions for an Israeli-Arab comprehensive settlement.
Alas, however bipartisan the Iraq Study Group's report may be, it is too much to expect that Bush will endorse all of its recommendations and admit the bankruptcy of his entire foreign policy. In fact, Bush has already expressed his objection to unconditional direct talks with Iran and Syria. Nor does he seem eager to open a rift with Israel by dragging its government to an international conference, the way his father did with Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1991.
Bush will find it especially difficult to change his policy with respect to Iran. In order to ensure that the US is too harassed to be able to threaten it, Iran has consistently obstructed Bush's mission of regional transformation. The report urges the president to understand that the spoilers will not cease to be spoilers as a precondition of negotiations, but only as a result of them. At stake is a painful choice for Bush: to lead America into coexistence with what he considers a repugnant Islamic theocracy.
But Bush does not have many choices if he is to save his presidency from going down in history as an utter failure. His was a suicidal brand of statecraft from the outset. If he does not change course in Iraq and beyond, his presidency might draw the curtain on long decades of American hegemony in the Middle East - to the detriment of its closest allies in the region.
**Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, was the chief negotiator of the Camp David and Taba peace talks in 2000 and 2001 respectively. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org).Tactics for Dangerous Issues
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 20/12/06//
What is the common denominator between Hezbollah's victory in the war last summer and the Lebanese M.P Nasser Kandil?
The answer: the two were pulled, instantaneously, from circulation.
Nonetheless, the withdrawal of a former deputy is one thing, while the withdrawal of the 'divine victory' is something else altogether. It is strange that this war, which had been bestowed with epic and holy qualities, promising to be an 'unprecedented' turning point in Arab history, is now in limbo after a number of months that are fewer than the fingers on one hand?
Still, we can say a lot about this peculiar forgetfulness, and we can find many reasons for it in our political and cultural heritage. But what is beyond doubt is the hidden magic of Lebanon's composition. Here, initiative and daring go hand in hand with frustration brought on by the limits placed by this composition. This is what emerges from the impasse of considering the success to be absolute, while seeking to exploit this victory to the very last drop.Let us remember that a few weeks passed between what Kamal Jumblatt used to describe as the falling of 82% of the population and 75% of the land into in the hands of the 'National Movement', and murdering Jumblatt himself and the fading away of the 'National Movement' that never rose up again afterwards.
Let us remember that another few weeks separated the selection of Bachir Gemayel as President of the Republic, the outcome of the largest invasion of an Arab country, and the first invasion of an Arab capital, and the death of Gemayel that paved the way for the demise of his political team in the Mountain and Beirut, and elsewhere.In face of this 'law', it is not useful to ideologize decisive victories, or what is at least described in those terms. This is because the Lebanese condition is, both fortunately and unfortunately, the wall which 'the support of the Palestinian Cause' crashes into, just as the hasty rush to reconcile with Israel does.
There is no reason to assume that what applies to the 'divine victory' is not applicable to the protesting. Here, also initiative and frustration coexist in an 'authentically' Lebanese garb. It may be argued, with genuine or fake sincerity, that the demand for a 'national unity government' is much too modest to be considered decisive. But what is the meaning of decisiveness, according to the conditions of the Lebanese, if not a political challenge to the status of one of the communities for the first time, by the public following of another community, as a prelude to a resolution? What does decisive resolution mean when the objective is to circumvent the intended International Tribunal that will investigate the assassination of a national and sectarian symbol, or reconsidering what decision 1701 has settled on when it comes to the international borders?
The situation is that resolution in Lebanon does not consist of taking over authority, as is the case in countries with homogenous populations. Even if Kamal Jumblatt and Bachir Gemayel could complete their successes, none of them would have been able to govern the country without some kind of partnership with the other sectarian communities. Closer to the truth, consequently, resolution in Lebanon means success in the disruption of authority and deterring it from exercising its authority, as the situation was precisely, for example, with the imposition of the Cairo Agreement in 1969.
How harsh and bitter the game of reality and ideology in Lebanon is. For the most important Palestinian symbol in Lebanon to stand up in a trench opposite to the trench of Hezbollah, which is a party that does not stop emphasizing its support for all things Palestinian. This truly is replete with meanings; meanings that hold up the specter of imminent danger. Unfortunately, the fact is that the same applies to Palestine, as we can see nowadays between 'Fateh' and 'Hamas'.Giving to Bashar Assad, and taking away
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 21, 2006
While in Beirut this week Senator John Kerry remarked, in reference to any future discussion between the United States and Syria: "Lebanon is not on the table, nor is the Hariri tribunal. So what do you do with Bashar Assad? What does he want?" The statement was reassuring on Lebanese sovereignty, but also showed why wondering about what to do with Assad can often end up being another way of saying: What do you give Assad?
That resigned logic was entrenched in the Iraq Study Group report, drafted largely by a onetime US ambassador to Syria, Edward Djerejian. Like James Baker, his former boss, Djerejian is nostalgic for when the United States could cut deals with a reliable despot in Damascus. That the despot's son is entirely unreliable when it comes to respecting his engagements has done little to discourage Baker or Djerejian. Basing themselves on a shallow assumption that Syria wants to avoid civil war in Iraq (even though it may be the state most responsible for triggering one), the "engagers" have put little effort into showing how Assad might be compelled to end his destabilization of Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. Particularly for a Lebanon threatened by a Syrian return, more clarity is vital.
But then again, when it comes to Lebanon, neither the Bush administration nor the ruling March 14 coalition, Syria's prime prey, has convincingly outlined the kind of leverage that might prevent the Syrians from reasserting their control over the country. When Kerry asked Lebanese interlocutors for their views on Monday, few of the responses were practical from the perspective of a Democrat-led Congress eager to have more of a say in the Bush administration's regional policies.
Syrian insecurity is often cited as an obstacle to a kinder more generous Syria. For example, writing in The Financial Times last week, Robert Malley and Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group saw insecurity as a reason for Syrian intransigence: "Damascus and Tehran want a different relationship with Washington. But at a time when they believe the US seeks to weaken them, they are unlikely to bend to its requests."
That may be true. But the question that the authors and others have not answered is whether a heightened sense of security will make Assad more willing to surrender valuable political cards that he feels his intransigence has allowed him to accumulate. Syria's support for Hamas, its blunt refusal to recognize Lebanese sovereignty as outlined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, and its destabilization of Iraq, have all paid handsome dividends as far as Assad interprets things, though the reality is doubtless more complicated. The president can also see that his "insecurity" is what brings people to his door with political offerings and words of comfort - even as his behavior has changed not at all.
Perhaps a more promising avenue isn't to reduce Assad's sense of insecurity, but to heighten it so that his regime will make damaging mistakes that can be exploited. This is fraught with risks, but the Syrians, like many others, only really respond when their interests are at stake.
Take their decision to back the Lebanese opposition's campaign to overthrow or neuter Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government. The fact that the bulk of the opposition is Shiite unfortunately, though predictably, has led to an angry Sunni counter-reaction. Yet as any follower of Syrian politics will tell you, Sunni mobilization, whether in Lebanon or Iraq, might one day consume the minority Assad regime. In that case, why shouldn't the international community and Syria's Arab adversaries use the potential dangers of such mobilization as a stick to effect behavior-change in Syria, in a way that reassurances could never do?
From the Lebanese perspective, the greatest difficulty with Syria today is arriving at a modus vivendi on bilateral ties that can satisfy both sides. The Syrians simply won't negotiate. They haven't hidden their desire to return to Lebanon and still refuse to deal with the country as a sovereign entity. When it comes to the Hariri tribunal, Assad has put no prospective exchange on the table, though there are those in March 14 who would probably be willing to swap watering down the tribunal's statutes for verifiable guarantees of Lebanese independence and their own personal safety. In the absence of Syrian flexibility, however, March 14 will stick with the tribunal as the only weapon it can deploy, and for the moment it has the backing of the international community.
A third source of leverage that could be used to alter Syrian behavior is Arab antagonism toward Syria's alliance with Iran. It would be naive to suppose that so beneficial a relationship would be abandoned by Assad for the uncertain prospect of negotiations over the future of the Golan Heights. If anything, the Syrian leader will assume that the Iranian connection is what brought the Golan back to international attention. On the other hand, as Assad watches developments in the Palestinian territories, he knows that somewhere in there lies an ominous message: The Sunni Arab states are striking back against Iran's Arab allies - such as Hamas. While Assad will not soon discard his Hamas comrades, if that Arab counter-attack gains momentum, it would be unwise of the Syrian leader to remain on the wrong side of the fight, particularly if the latter is increasingly defined by sectarian identification.
Assad has overestimated his vulnerabilities, but in so doing has underestimated Syria's ability to shape and benefit from a stable region. By refusing to give up on Lebanon, the Syrian leader has hardened the wall of anti-Syrian hostility in the country, whose leading proponents are now Sunnis backed by an Arab world anxious about Iranian intentions. By encouraging Hamas' rejectionism, Assad has made the task much harder for those advocating renewed Golan negotiations. By tying Syria's fortunes to those of Tehran, he has eroded the earlier Arab consensus that would have better protected his regime from the Hariri tribunal.
It may be valid for the United States and Europe to engage Syria, but not from a position of weakness - which the Iraqi Study Group recommendations would almost certainly lead to. Assad has pushed his country into dangerous corridors that his father would have never contemplated entering. This should make for a more pliable Syrian regime, as it begins to grasp the perils that it has created for itself. Maybe it's time to think about taking advantage of this situation.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.
The Death of Cedars?
By Mordechai Nisan
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 20, 2006
Hezbollah (“The Party of God”) was established in 1982, three years after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran, to facilitate the infiltration of the Khoumeini radical Shiite doctrine into Lebanon. With a native population base grieved by years of deprivation, the new party would advance the community’s welfare while serving as a proxy for Islamic imperialism in the Middle East.
In 1980, Iran and Syria formed a strategic alliance against Iraq in the context of the Persian Gulf War. Instead of supporting its neighboring Arab sister-state, Syria’s Baathist regime joined with Persian Iran against Iraq. The Alawites under the Assad family, in power in Damascus since 1970, are a mysterious sectarian offshoot of Shiism formed about a thousand years ago.
The triangular ‘Shiite’ axis was now in place. Syria never accepted Lebanon as an independent country, considering it the Syrian hinterland and coastline. Hezbollah, coinciding with Syria’s historical aspiration to crush Lebanon by weakening and manipulating its Maronite Christian community, winced under Christian domination of Lebanon. Syria also wanted Hezbollah to destabilize the security situation with Israel. Iran, for her part, aspired to Islamicize Lebanon while acquiring a staging-ground across Israel’s northern border for attacks against the ‘Zionist entity’.
In 1989, the Syrian-orchestrated Taif Accord called for the disarming of all militias in Lebanon. Indeed, all disarmed – except Hezbollah. Syria as the power-broker of Lebanon saw in Hezbollah an agent to prevent the national institutions of Lebanon from exercising political sovereign rule. This converged neatly with Syria’s grandiose ambition to dominate Lebanon.
Ever since, Lebanon’s decline has been irreversible.
Recent events in Lebanon indicate that Hezbollah, as a Syrian and Iranian surrogate, has no intention of fulfilling either the Taif Accord or United Nations resolutions – 1559 from 2004 and 1701 from 2006 – to disarm. Hezbollah does not recognize the Lebanese republic’s national authority and legitimate government. Its party adherents want to obliterate the country’s special national and very liberal ethos in favor of a monolithic Islamic religious identity and loyalty.
The argument, that Hezbollah needs weapons to defend Lebanon from Israel, is grossly fallacious. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in May 2000, and hoped for a quiet border with Lebanon. Hezbollah refused to honor the border, and attacked Israeli territory, murdering its civilians and killing its soldiers on numerous occasions. The attack of July 12 near Zarit, including the kidnapping of two soldiers, led to the summer war with Israel. Thereafter, Israel again withdrew its army from southern Lebanon without any desire to control any Lebanese territory at all. But Hezbollah argues tendentiously that it needs its weapons to defend Lebanon from Israel.
The weapons that Hezbollah keeps are not for defending Lebanon from Israel, but for subjugating and bludgeoning Lebanon into submission to its pan-Islamic plans.
Hezbollah’s purpose in remaining armed is to shift power away from the Christians and the Sunnis into Shiite hands. This usurpation is a step toward capturing full control of political power, intimidating and demoting other communities, and Islamicizing the entire country. Hezbollah’s lethal threat to the national fabric of Lebanese society is ominous and long-term, and backed by two regional powers.
With Syria responsible for the assassination of Lebanese personalities, Christians in particular, Hezbollah’s intimate alliance with Syria is directed against fellow Lebanese compatriots. It is in bed with the Syrian devil in order to consummate the demise of the Lebanese state.
Considering the confrontational political climate in Lebanon, no domestic compromise with Hezbollah may be feasible at this point. A trade-off of greater power-sharing for the Shiites, with Hezbollah disarming in turn, could be a reasonable arrangement. But this would not satisfy the goals of Iranian and Hezbollah jihad – against Lebanon and Israel. The stakes are far higher than how many Shiite ministers sit in the Lebanese cabinet.
Two formidable points buttress Lebanon at this point in time. The first relates to the impressive unity of political ranks characterizing the March 14 Cedars Coalition, including the integrity and unity of the army. And the second concerns the international political trajectory demanding the establishment of a court to try the suspected assassins of Rafiq Hariri, as well as Pierre Gemayel, Gibran Tueni, Samir Kassir, George Hawi, and others, while the political noose tightens around the neck of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.
Hezbollah knows that if Assad falls, it cannot stand.
**Dr. Mordechai Nisan teaches Middle East Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has written The Conscience of Lebanon: A Political Biography of Etienne Sakr (Abu Arz).Exclusive: Iran: The Islamofascist Terrormasters
Author: Christopher Holton
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: December 20, 2006
In this stunning piece, Family Security Matters' Contributing Editor Christopher Holton details why Iran is the premium terror master of them all. In an explicit count-by-count indictment, Holton leads us through the labyrinth of facts we all need to master as we get closer and closer to a showdown with this terrorist-sponsoring nation state run by "Atomic Ayatollahs."
The U.S. State Department has for years described Iran as the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.
However, in recent years, it has suddenly become fashionable in some circles to downplay Iran’s role in Jihadist terrorism. Most notably, Richard Clarke, the former terrorism advisor in the executive branch, has begun insisting that Iran’s support for terrorism is largely something of the past, and as long as we don’t interfere with their nuclear ambitions, Clarke believes they will continue to behave. On the other hand, if we do take a stand against Atomic Ayatollahs, Clarke says we can expect terrorism worse than anything Al Qaeda is capable of from Iran’s favorite terrorist organization, Hezbollah.
All of this hogwash was recently detailed and refuted nicely by Thomas Joscelyn in the Weekly Standard, in an article entitled “Iran’s War on the West.”
Other observers, notably Gary Sick writing in the Autumn 2003 issue of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ The Washington Quarterly, insist that Iran would not establish an alliance with Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shiite (never mind all the evidence to the contrary, such as Iran’s longstanding support for Sunni HAMAS and close relations with the Sunni Islamofascists in Sudan). In that article Sick even stated that “U.S. charges of Iranian association with terrorist activities brought potentially constructive contacts to a halt.” In other words, it was American accusations of Iranian involvement in terrorism that was hurting relations between the two sides!
As Charlie Brown might say, “Good grief.”
The Iranian constitution includes a clause calling for spreading the Islamic revolution to other lands. Terrorism is one of the chief means through which they have been fulfilling this mandate.
For more than 26 years, the radical Islamist regime in Iran has been the godfather of Jihadist terrorism. They have never stopped their support for such warfare and are even now actively recruiting, funding, sheltering, training and arming Jihadists to attack U.S. and other Western interests and, of course, to kill Israelis.
This terror war waged against the West began in earnest on 4 November 1979, when Iranian militant “students”, likely including a young man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took its staff hostage.
In reality, the U.S. war with terrorism began on that day, and not on 11 September, 2001.
Over the next two and a half decades, Jihadist terrorists backed in some way by the Ayatollahs in Iran continued to attack and kill innocent Americans, Israelis and other Westerners.
Among the terrorist groups that Iran sponsors are Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Iran and Al Qaeda
Iran’s relationship with Al Qaeda may be the most intriguing and important aspect of their involvement in terrorism at this point simply because of denials by some that the two could and would never form an alliance due to the fundamental split between Shia and Sunni Islam.
It is high time that this quaint notion be put to rest forever.
Shi’ite Iran’s support for Sunni Wahhabi Al Qaeda was probably first brought to light in a book written by The Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz which was published in 2002: BREAKDOWN: How America’s Intelligence Failures Led to September 11.
In his book, Gertz revealed that Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Kie Fallis had discovered in 2000 that Al Qaeda “was intimately linked to the government of Iran—namely to agents of Iran’s intelligence and security services.”
And thus began a series of reports from authoritative authors detailing the Iranian-Al Qaeda relationship:
• Also in 2002, in his bestseller, See No Evil, retired CIA agent Robert Baer revealed that the CIA had become aware of contacts between Osama Bin Laden and Iran way back in 1995 and that Bin Laden had met with an Iranian intelligence officers in Afghanistan in July 1996 to “hammer out a strategic relationship.”
• In 2004, in Shadow War, journalist Richard Miniter cited two Iranian sources who told him that Bin Laden himself was being harbored in Iran, along with many other Al Qaeda terrorists.
• In 2005, in Iran’s Nuclear Option, author Al J. Venter, a distinguished journalist who has written for Jane’s Defense Group, discussed two startling revelations about Iranian involvement with Al Qaeda. First, he reported that an Iranian defector, Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former Iranian intelligence official, had been present for two meetings in Iran between “top Al Qaeda operatives and Iranian officials only months before September 11.” Additionally, Venter provided a report indicating that Hezbollah terrorist leader Imad Mugniyah, who is a member of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list, traveled from Iran to Lebanon to “coordinate links between Hezbollah and Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network.”
• Also in 2005, Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, wrote Countdown to Terror, in which he quoted a source as telling him that Osama Bin Laden was indeed in Iran as an “honored guest” of the regime and that Iran was supporting Al Qaeda.
• Finally in 2005, America’s foremost authority on Iran, Kenneth Timmerman, in Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran, succinctly explained the role that Iran played with Al Qaeda: “Today, Iran’s leaders are plotting new attacks on the West with Osama Bin Laden, whom they are sheltering inside Iran, and are continuing to finance Abu Musab Zarqawi, the terrorist who became infamous for beheading his victims in Iraq.”
But perhaps no published authority has provided as complete a summary of Iran’s ties to Al Qaeda as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the September 11th Commission. In its report, the Commission said that it had found “evidence of a significant and continuing relationship between Al Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
• The Commission found evidence of Iranian involvement in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen.
• The Commission found evidence that Iran provided training to Al Qaeda operatives “for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.” This included training in Sudan up until 1996, training in Lebanon in 1993 and training in Iran itself off and on during the 1990s. So much for the Shia-Sunni division being a barrier to cooperation.
• The Commission found evidence that Iran had provided safe transit for Al Qaeda operatives traveling to and from Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden relocated there in 1996.
To sum things up, the same Iran that is working on nuclear weapons and building and acquiring ballistic missiles, is in league with America’s most strident Jihadist terrorist enemies: Al Qaeda.
Iran and the Iraqi Insurgency
No analysis of Iran’s terrorist activities would be complete without mention of Iran’s extensive involvement in the insurgency in neighboring Iraq. All the available evidence shows that Iran is up to its ears in the violence in Iraq. In fact, without Iranian support, one wonders whether the insurgency could hold up more than a few months.
Perhaps that is why, as WorldTribune.com recently reported, the new Iraqi government has announced its intention to construct 45 forts along its border with Iran to stem the flow of terrorists and arms.
Iran’s role in the Iraq insurgency has been known for some time. Back in November of 2004, U.S. News & World Report published an excellent cover story on this issue, entitled The Iran Connection. The magazine revealed that “secret CIA and Pentagon documents” showed that Iran was largely “behind the trouble in Iraq.” Among the specific findings from USN&WR’s investigation:
• Iran has set up a large intelligence network in Iraq. That network spies on the U.S. military and recruits insurgents.
• Iranian intelligence agents are believed to have taken part directly in attacks on U.S. forces and have smuggled weaponry into Iraq and distributed them to insurgents.
• Iran has trained Iraqi insurgents inside Iran and facilitated their safe passage back into Iraq. This includes the group Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of Al Qaeda leader of Abu Musab Zarqawi.
• In the southern parts of Iraq, Iran has been the chief sponsor of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia, known as the Mahdi Army.
There would surely still be an insurgency in Iraq without Iran’s involvement, but that insurgency would almost certainly be smaller, less deadly and more vulnerable to coalition forces without Iran’s money, weaponry, training and safe harbor.
Iran and Hezbollah
Before September 11th, 2001 the Jihadist terrorist group that boasted the highest body count of American victims was Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a Shiite terrorist group based in Lebanon. Hezbollah gets its money, weaponry, and training from Iran. They also receive aid from Syria, mostly in the form of safe haven in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, which Syria has controlled for decades.
According to some observers, including former CIA director George Tenet, former US Senator Bob Graham and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Hezbollah is more capable and dangerous than Al Qaeda.
Historically, Hezbollah has targeted Americans with bombs, suicide attacks, hijackings and hostage-taking. These attacks started in 1983 and seem to have subsided in the 1990s, however, some counterterrorism experts believe that Iran and Hezbollah have just been biding their time and making plans for future attacks. Among Hezbollah’s more significant terrorist attacks have been:
• On April 18, 1983, a Hezbollah terrorist crashed a suicide truck bomb into the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 49 and wounding more than 100.
• On October 23, 1983, a Hezbollah terrorist crashed a suicide truck bomb into the U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport, killing 241 Americans. At almost the same time a French Army barracks across town was attacked in a similar manner and 58 French soldiers were killed.
• Starting in 1984 and going into 1991, Hezbollah began kidnapping U.S. citizens in Beirut. These kidnappings involved dozens of victims. Some were eventually released, but others were killed. Among those murdered by Hezbollah were CIA officer William Buckley and Marine Colonel William Higgins.
• On September 20, 1984, yet another Hezbollah bomb exploded at the U.S. embassy annex in east Beirut, killing 23 and wounding more than 50.
• On December 3, 1984, Hezbollah terrorists seized a Kuwaiti airliner which they evidently knew was carrying two U.S. diplomats. They murdered the two diplomats and forced the airplane to land in Iran, where they were granted safe haven. To this day, no one has ever been known to have been tried for this crime.
• In June 1985, Hezbollah terrorists hijacked a U.S. TWA airliner destined for Rome and diverted it to Beirut. Before they are forced to surrender, the terrorists murdered one of the passengers, U.S. Navy diver Robert Stetham. The leader of the attack, Hezbollah terrorist Mohammed Ali Hamadei was later arrested and imprisoned in Germany. Though he was given a life sentence, he was released from prison in Germany in 2005. It is thought that he returned to Lebanon, but his whereabouts are not known.
• On September 19, 1989 a French airliner was destroyed in flight over Chad by a bomb planted by Hezbollah. 171 passengers and crew were killed.
• On March 17, 1992, a Hezbollah car bomb killed 20 and wounded 200 at the Israeli embassy in Beunos Aires, Argentina.
• In June 1996, a truck bomb killed 19 American servicemen and wounded hundreds more at the Khobar Towers Air Force barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It was believed, and then-FBI director Louis Freeh later confirmed, that the attack was carried out by a Hezbollah cell in Saudi Arabia, with possible Al Qaeda cooperation and direction from Iran.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers attack, it appeared that perhaps Hezbollah and Iran had decided to curtail operations aimed at America and the West in general. This is a subject of heated debate in intelligence circles, however, and the FBI has admitted that there are Hezbollah cells in the United States. One such cell uncovered in the late 1990s was the subject of the excellent book, Lightning Out of Lebanon.
Another item of concern is Hezbollah cooperation with Al Qaeda. It has been documented that Osama Bin Laden met with Hezbollah operatives in Sudan way back in the first half of the 1990s and sought information on the type of truck bomb that Hezbollah used to kill 241 Americans at the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983. However, even more extensive ties are feared.
Finally, there have been persistent reports of Hezbollah operatives surfacing in Iraq, mainly in support of Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. British Army officers in particular have speculated that the number and type of Improvised Explosive Devices indicate, to them at least, that Hezbollah is active in Iraq.
Iranian Support for HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Iran openly provides funding to the Palestinian Jihadist terrorist groups HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.
Iran has also openly exhibited hostility to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which is no surprise given the statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel’s destruction. The extent of Iran’s involvement in Palestinian terrorism is probably best illustrated by the seizure by Israeli forces in January 2002 of a cargo ship sailing from Iran with a cargo destined for Palestinian terrorists. The ship, the Karine-A, held more than 50 tons of weaponry and munitions, including everything from AK-47s and small arms ammunition to 122mm rockets and 1.5 tons of C4 explosive.
Other Iranian Terror Actvities
Iran has been involved in other acts of terrorism that go beyond sponsorship of Jihadist terrorist groups. Two come to mind, one very well known, and the other a very worrisome event that has gone largely forgotten.
In 1989 author Salmen Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, was published. The book contained material that was thought as insulting to the prophet Mohammed and the supreme leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, or religious decree, calling for Rushdie’s death. Khomeini’s successor, the Ayatollah Khameini, upheld the fatwa after Khomeini died and it has never been lifted. Rushdie has lived in almost constant fear for his life ever since and rumors of terrorist cells and assassins stalking him have persisted. International appeals to have the fatwa lifted have fallen on deaf ears and efforts by Rushdie to express regret have been equally ineffective. So far, Rushdie has escaped assassination, however, in view of his experience, the recent controversy surrounding the cartoons of Mohammed published in Europe should have come as no surprise.
Back on June 29, 2004, something happened that caused a brief media stir, but all too quickly was forgotten and has completely faded from America’s memory now. On that day, the U.S. expelled 2 Iranian security guards stationed at Iran’s UN mission in New York. The FBI and NYPD had observed these guards repeatedly photographing and videotaping New York City subways, buses, tunnels, skyscrapers and landmarks. Almost shockingly, at the time of the incident, the State Department reported that this was the third time such activities by Iranian security personnel at their UN mission had resulted in their expulsion from the United States.
For their part, the Iranians claimed that their personnel were just sightseeing, but law enforcement personnel were convinced by the nature and scope of their videography and photography activity that it was something more sinister. This incident two years ago is even more worrisome now given the burgeoning confrontation with Iran over their nuclear program. When the world’s most active sponsor of Jihadist terrorism sends agents out to conduct surveillance and target acquisition of key locations within America’s largest city, one has to wonder how far we will be willing to let the Ayatollahs go. Their recent threats to retaliate against the U.S. for any action taken against Iran for its nuclear activities should prompt all Americans to sit up and take notice of their terrorist activities.
***FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor, Christopher Holton, heads the Center for Security Policy's Divest Terror Initiative (http://www.divestterror.org). He can be reached at holton@centerforsecuritypolicy.org
© 2003-2006 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved
If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to Miramx1@aol.com.
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.