LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 21/2007Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 5,1-3.5-16. After this, there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is in Jerusalem at the Sheep (Gate) a pool called in Hebrew Bethesda, with five porticoes. In these lay a large number of ill, blind, lame, and crippled. One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been ill for a long time, he said to him, "Do you want to be well?" The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; while I am on my way, someone else gets down there before me." Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your mat, and walk." Immediately the man became well, took up his mat, and walked. Now that day was a sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who was cured, "It is the sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to carry your mat." He answered them, "The man who made me well told me, 'Take up your mat and walk.'" They asked him, "Who is the man who told you, 'Take it up and walk'?" The man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away, since there was a crowd there. After this Jesus found him in the temple area and said to him, "Look, you are well; do not sin any more, so that nothing worse may happen to you."The man went and told the Jews that Jesus was the one who had made him well. Therefore, the Jews began to persecute Jesus because he did this on a sabbath.Latest News Reports From miscellaneous sources For March 21/07
Israel Pledging A Harsh Response to Terrorists-CNSNews.com
Saniora Slams 'Illegal' Downtown Sit-in-Naharnet
Lebanese MPs rally to call for Hariri murder trial-Middle East Online
Legislators to Persuade Berri to Convene Parliament-Naharnet
New Poll: 76% Of Israeli Arabs Call Zionism Racist -- 48% Support ...Zionist Organization of America
Israeli police, soldiers stage exercise-Houston Chronicle
Israel holds major civil defence exerciseMonsters and Critics.com Saddam's former No. 2 faces the gallows-USA Today
Crucial turning point in the UN investigation of Hariri murder
Berri Accuses Majority of Blocking Lebanon Settlement-Naharnet
Gunbattles Shake Nahr el-Bared Camp-Naharnet
Assad Adamant that Unity Cabinet Resolves Crisis-Naharnet
Israel Declares Lebanon Conflict a 'War' But Still Searching for Name-Naharnet
Palestinian factions clash in Lebanon, one dead-Reuters
UN forces celebrate 29 years in Lebanon-Kuwait News Agency
Majority of Israeli Arabs back Hezbollah-PRESS TV
Syria backs Hezbollah call for Lebanon unity government-Ya Libnan
France denies Chirac encouraged Israeli attack against Syria-Ya Libnan
Hezbollah condemns militant attack on opposition-PRESS TVBerri Accuses Majority of Blocking Lebanon Settlement
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri accused the ruling majority of blocking efforts for a settlement to the ongoing political crisis that has crippled Lebanon for nearly four months. "Their objective is to end dialogue," Berri told a news conference from his Ain el-Tineh mansion.
"As long as their aim is to terminate the dialogue … my answer is: 'continuation of dialogue and out-stretched hand," Berri said at the little over than 90-minute conference. He said that progress had been made during talks with MP Saad Hariri, in his capacity as representative of the pro-government March 14 coalition, over the past two weeks. However, Berri said that the only point of contention was the formation of a new cabinet based on a 19-11 formula, a demand repeatedly rejected by the majority. His remarks came after pro-government legislators rallied inside the parliament to urge Berri to convene a session to endorse the formation of the international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri.
Hizbullah lawmaker Ali Ammar also said it was the pro-government camp which was "disrupting all initiatives, settlements and ongoing dialogue in the country." MP Walid Jumblat earlier accused Berri of "hijacking" the parliament upon orders from Syria and Iran. Jumblat said he hoped Berri would open the first ordinary parliament session for this year "without having other countries, such as Iran and Syria, dictate to him" not to convene the assembly.
"Here is (the place) for dialogue," Jumblat told reporters upon arrival at parliament building in Nijmeh Square at 10 a.m. He said parliament is "where the fate of the international tribunal and other laws is decided." MP Antoine Andraos said the legislators "came to parliament to request the opening of an ordinary session in order to allow MPs to ratify the convention between Lebanon and the U.N. to set up the international tribunal." March 14 has accused the opposition of blocking the creation of the court under pressure from Damascus which has been blamed for Hariri's February 2005 assassination. Parliament convenes twice a year in two ordinary sessions -- the first starts mid-march until the end of May and the second from the middle of October through the end of December.(Outside photo shows Berri during the press conference and inside AFP photo shows pro-government legislators sitting on the stairs outside the parliament hall) Beirut, 20 Mar 07, 07:50
Gunbattles Shake Nahr el-Bared Camp
Rival Palestinian factions clashed in the northern refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared on Monday, shaking it with explosions and wounding at least two gunmen, officials at the camp said.The state-run news agency (NNA) said as many as five were wounded in the battle.
The gunbattle between Fatah Islam and Fatah Uprising started after an argument between members of the two groups in the camp near the northern city of Tripoli, said Palestinian officials in the camp. The fighting lasted less than 30 minutes, wounding a fighter from each group, the officials said. The Fatah Islam member was seriously wounded. NNA said the clashes left at least five people wounded, two of them members of Fatah Islam. It added that officials of Palestinian factions were holding meetings to try end the tension. But within several hours, clashes resumed in the evening. Residents said they could hear explosions, though the cause was not known. The situation has been tense in the camp, which is home to about 30,000 Palestinians, since Lebanon's Interior Minister Hassan Sabaa announced last week the arrests of four Syrian members of Fatah Islam — an offshoot of the Damascus-based Palestinian Fatah Uprising. Sabaa said those arrested had confessed to being behind the Feb. 13 twin bus bombings in Ain Alaq northeast of Beirut that killed three people and wounded 20.
Hours after Sabaa's announcement, Lebanese troops took security measures around the camp setting up checkpoints and searching every vehicle leaving or entering the area. Sabaa also blamed Syria's intelligence agency in the bombings and claimed that Fatah Islam's alleged split from the Damascus-based group was a cover and that the two were essentially the same. Fatah Islam denied Sabaa's bombings charges, as did Fatah Uprising and the Syrian government.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 20 Mar 07, 07:36
Assad Adamant that Unity Cabinet Resolves Crisis
The solution to the crisis between Lebanon's opposition and the government of Premier Fouad Saniora is a national unity cabinet, Syrian President Bashar Assad said in remarks published on Monday. In an interview with the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, Assad also said that Syria was ready to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon once political relations return to normal. "I think that a government of national unity is the logical and constitutional solution," Assad said.
It could be implemented in a way in which there would be "no victor and no vanquished," he added.
Speaker Nabih Berri of the opposition and legislator Saad Hariri as representative of the pro-government March 14 forces have held several rounds of talks in recent days. The meetings sparked hopes of a breakthrough in the standoff which began with the resignation of six pro-Syrian ministers from the cabinet last November. However, no solution has been reached yet. The main bones of contention are the opposition's demand for a veto in the government and the majority's insistence on the ratification of an international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 murder of former premier Rafik Hariri and related crimes. Assad also said that Syria had "no objection" to exchanging ambassadors with Lebanon once political relations are restored.
He said he told Lebanese officials just before Syrian troops pulled out of Lebanon in the wake of Hariri's murder that he did not object to the establishment of embassies in the two countries if they thought this would benefit them. But there was subsequently "a rift between us and the incumbent Lebanese government... As I said, I proposed the idea, but the opening of an embassy requires positive normal circumstances at least between the two governments, and of course between the two peoples," Assad added. The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution last year "strongly encouraging" Syria to establish diplomatic ties and delineate a common border with Lebanon.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 20 Mar 07, 07:23MP for Jbeil-Kesrwan Neematallah Abi-Nasr: ‘The BRC, a different parliamentary bloc from the FPM’
Monday Morning 20/03/07
“The Free Patriotic Movement is a political current different from the Bloc of Reform and Change (BRC), comprising MPs representing various constituencies and currents of ideas”, notes Neematallah Abi-Nasr, member of Parliament for Jbeil-Kesrwan and affiliated to the Aounist parliamentary front. Our principal objective was to serve as a link between the various blocs in Parliament and try to promote the setting up of a government of national unity”. Regretting that the “game” was now beyond the control of the Lebanese, a fact that was causing the crisis to drag on, he told us that he welcomed initiatives aimed at settling it, be they Arab, regional or international. MP Abi-Nasr expressed satisfaction at the seizure of arms and ammunition held by certain parties or paramilitary groups, since he believed that “only the legal authorities should possess such an arsenal”.
Why do Lebanese politicians persist in looking abroad for solutions to their problems. Aren’t they able to manage their own affairs?
Lebanon’s problem lies in the fact that certain parties and politicians are influenced by external political currents, regional and non-regional. And as long as they don’t place the higher interest of the country above all other considerations, the rules of the game will be out of their hands.
In any case, we welcome any reconciling initiatives, whether they come from Arab countries or abroad.
Following the seizure of weapons of various calibers over the last few weeks, people have again been feeling fear for the future. What is your view?
Despite the proliferation of arms, all the groups that have them are committed not to use them on the internal level, in spite of the series of attacks and attempts to provoke clashes.
Yes to a cabinet of unity
Do you think formation of a cabinet of national unity will dispel tensions and resolve our problems?
It would be a first step in the right direction, and it would defuse the crisis. Unfortunately, since the Taef conference [of 1989] until now, no real cabinet of national unity has been formed. National unity cannot be achieved as long as the Christians remain marginalized.
When will the tribunal of international character be approved by Parliament? And if it is not so adopted, isn’t there reason to fear that it will be adopted by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter?
The international tribunal must be formed at all costs. It is the right of the families of the martyrs to know the identities of those who perpetrated the attacks. In addition, it will serve as a force of dissuasion to terrorism and those who practice it without undergoing an exemplary punishment.
Naturally, it’s preferable to have the tribunal ratified by Parliament since its approbation by the Security Council under Chapter VII would give the United Nations the right to interfere in our affairs, at least from the security standpoint.
What role should the legislature play in this difficult stage?
Its role must be that of an enlarged committee of dialogue because it’s the most appropriate place for the Lebanese to discuss their contentious issues through their legally-elected representatives.
How are your relations with General Michel Aoun, which some observers have described as tepid?
I’m often asked this question, as if it was forbidden to have a diversity of opinions within the same parliamentary bloc.
In fact my relationship with General Aoun is perfect. I continue my role as a member of the Bloc of Reform and Change in accordance with my national convictions. It’s a sign of vitality and of adherence to democratic rules. Of course, the BRC is not a political party, but rather an alliance between MPs who form a bloc of solidarity working for specific objectives.
How would you describe the visits made by certain Lebanese leaders to foreign countries?
In the wake of foreign interference coming from East and West, Lebanese politicians are making trips abroad to boost their positions at home. Unfortunately, this proves that the rules of the game have escaped the national will and that all possibilities are open. Foreigners seek to serve their own interests, not those of Lebanon and its people.
But I look positively on any consensual initiative, be it Arab, regional or international, aimed at relieving tension or bringing a solution to the crisis.
Acquisition of weapons
What about the buying of arms by certain Lebanese parties?
I’m against Lebanese parties acquiring arms and against the trade in weapons. Arms should be held exclusively by the legal authorities. I approve of their seizure by the authorities and the prosecution of arms-traffickers, whoever they are.
Can the alliance between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezballah hold out against regional and international pressures?
The “Document of Joint Action” reinforces certain points, most if not all of which were agreed at the table of dialogue, such as the delineation of the frontier between Lebanon and Syria, diplomatic representation with that country through the exchange of ambassadors, the Shebaa Farms. But application of these clauses is not a matter for Lebanon alone; it also requires the approval of the other side, that is, Syria. Nothing prevents us from reaching an understanding with other Lebanese parties, because many of the joint national points bring the FPM together with other parties that believe in the sovereignty, freedom and independence of Lebanon.
Is there a consensus on what persons might represent the Free Patriotic Movement in the cabinet?
This question has not yet been raised. But we need to distinguish between the Free Patriotic Movement, which is a party set up and authorized in accordance with the rules, and the Bloc of Reform and Change, which includes MPs of diverse confessions placed under the leadership of General Michel Aoun.
Future Jihad
Interview with author Walid Phares
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 20, 2007Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Walid Phares, a Professor of Middle East Studies and Religious Conflict at the LLS Program of Florida Atlantic University and a visiting Professor at National Defense University in Winter 2007. Dr. Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He has served as an Analyst on Terrorism with MSNBC since 2003 and is now a contributor to Fox News. He is the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America, which has just come out in paperback and includes a new chapter which discusses some of Phares’ predictions that have already proved accurate.
FP: Walid Phares, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Phares: Thank you Jamie for inviting me to this Frontpage Interview and for giving me the opportunity to discuss an important aspect of the War on Terror.
FP: Tell us a bit about the present jihad and the future jihad. How will the future one differ?
First, and by historical order let me make an intellectual distinction between the historical Jihad practiced throughout centuries by heads of empires, dynasties, governors of provinces, emirs and other clerical and military commanders within the Muslim world and the contemporary Jihadist movement which, since the 1920s has been trying to resume the religiously-inspired wars of the previous 13 centuries.
Indeed, few commentators can challenge the fact that since the 7th century AD/CE, and for more than a millennia, Caliphs of the Umeyad, Abbasids, Mameluk, Ottomans and other dynasties, as well as their Walis (Governors) have waged holy wars, military campaigns, signed treaties, broken conventions, and conducted state affairs, based on the concept of Jihad. The latter injunction was a theologically-grounded, but politically practiced set of marching orders to attack, defend, invade or conquer for the sake of the Caliphate.
As I underlined in Future Jihad, historically, there was no Jihad outside the state-sanctioned policies and decision-making systems. Hence, while many of today's academics in the West try to find some "exotic" meaning to Jihad, not without ideological and political agendas, the 1,200 (or so), Caliphs, Sultans, Walis, Emirs and Commanders who led and managed Jihad from Baghdad to Istanbul weren't experiencing some "spiritual yoga" when they decreed Jihad and requested fatwas for their entreprises. As for all other empires, including Christians, war decisions were simmered in religious licensing. The Jihad of History wasn't an exception at all: The Caliphs and their representatives were "military commanders" as well.
Hence, from the 7th century AD/CE till the abolishing of the Caliphate in Istanbul in 1924 by the secular founder of the Turkish Republic, a whole body of laws, regulations and practice of Jihad has been accumulated through 1,300 years. But as the international society formed on the basis of secular international law with the League of Nations and on the Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, historical Jihad and other religious wars were supposed to have ended.
But as of 1920s, a Salafi school of thinking (return to the early stage of the Sunni Islamic state) emerged out of Arabia with Wahabism and of Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. In the 1970s, another ideological school emerged out of Iran under Khomeini calling for the establishment of a Shiia Imamate. Both movements can be defined as "Jihadist."
FP: So what is new about the new ideological school?
Phares: In short, the ideological school that emerged under the Muslim Brotherhood and Khomeini has been calling in modern times for the resuming of the "old Jihad." They seek the reestablishment of the Caliphate (Salafists) or establish an Imamate (Khomeinists). This means a relentless campaign to destroy 21 Arab and 51 Muslim Governments as we know today to replace them with an "empire" stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans.
So today's Jihad (as perceived by the Jihadists) is an unstoppable, non negotiable, and relentless campaign to achieve these goals. But while the Jihad of the 7th and 15th centuries was a conflict phenomenon in contemporary historical stages, and while religious wars were practiced by many other nations and civilizations from their own theological perspective, the Jihadists' "Jihad" of 20th and 21st centuries is in full contradiction with all aspects of international law and principles.
FP: Can you crystallize this contradiction? What makes this Jihad mutually exclusive with all aspects of international law and principles?
Phares: The Salafists and Khomeinists are not bound by any limits and regulations, excepts those they draw for themselves. Unlike what Western academics allege about modern Jihad, today's Jihadists, from al Qaeda to Ahmadinijad's regime, have a comprehensive ideology, strategic plans and multiple evolving tactics to implement these radical doctrinal visions.
Nowadays Jihadists aren't just individuals and groups "frustrated" with US, Western or other foreign policies, but they have policies of their own, goals they want to achieve and tools they have developed to reach their objectives, including mainly terrorism. Modern Jihadism is not about some "spiritual yoga," as many in the intellectual elites assert; it is about a determined and rationally designed set of strategies aiming at winning the War against moderate Muslims in the East and democracies in the West.
FP: Expand a bit more for us on what it is that the West does not understand about the threat it faces.
Phares: Today's Jihadism uses history and theology as roots for their mobilization and action, but the Jihadists have developed plans as of the 1980s and 1990s which have been taking shape in the Middle East and within the West before and after 9/11.
The West was misled by its own elites in reading and understanding the threat. Hence, I argue in my book Future Jihad, that they have at least one decade lead ahead of the West, if not more.
On 9/11, most Americans didn't understand that they were attacked in a War waged against them as of the 1990s. Since 2001, the Government has been attempting to catch up with the Jihadist penetration of the country, albeit with limited successes. The infiltration of the system is deep and wide for any federal government to address without a full fledge public awareness. And this is where the battle is today: the ability of Americans to understand the threat and to support policies that can win the conflict.
You can see clearly that the Jihadists have been able to affect this understanding through their past and current successful campaigns to mollify the national analysis in America. As for Europe, the battle is much harsher and the stakes are much higher: European governments are under tremendous pressures by the oil producing regimes in the Arab and Muslim world on the one hand and a European network of Jihadist cadres.
In short, today's Jihadism has been planned and waged as of the 1990s at the least. Tomorrow's "Jihad" though, is been planned and launched today. The level of infiltration by al Qaeda and the neo-Wahabis within US and Western systems, for example, will be seen years from now.
The 9/11 design will be topped and bypassed by today's Jihadi strategic planners. I invite readers and analysts to look hard at the cases of terror arrests within the West, but also in the greater Middle East. Those planning strikes of aggression in the US, Canada, the UK and other countries in Europe, are what we call "home-grown," but with an ideology which is Jihadi in nature.
Future Jihadism will be native and lethal, if not addressed quickly by the international society in general and America's leadership in particular. Future terrorists will be citizens, protected by laws, and attempting to create domestic crisis, while the Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah of the world were "aliens" who had been simply successful in infiltrating the security system.
FP: What are some of the predictions you made that have come true?
Phares: Let me mention a few:
[1] Penetration of the system: Jihadists will be trying to penetrate the U.S. system: Multiple cases have shown that they have attempted to infiltrate the U.S. military, intelligence and other agencies. In the chapter "Mutant Jihad," I predicted the rise of the so-called second generation (homegrown) Jihadists in America and the West. The capture of these cells have shown that most members were citizens, born in the country and speaking the language, etc.
[2] That Wahabi funds have been and continue to be used to take the control of Middle East studies in the United States. Emir Talal Bin al Waleed offered 40 million dollars to US universities lately. (Chapter: The Clash of Strategies)
[3] That al Qaeda wanted to crumble the US national security in 2001 and to pull American task forces from the region. It still project to do so: documents captured on terrorists (Abu Musaab As Suri) demonstrated this objective. (Chapter: The Road to 9/11)
[4] Chapter 13 (the scariest) shows what type of Future Jihad is in the making: establishment of urban Jihadi units within each city, etc. The arrests in UK and the US showed that this trend is now happening.
FP: Can we avoid the Future Jihad? Are we ready for it?
Phares: The Jihadists, Salafists or Khomeinists, are determined to prepare for and implement a Future Jihad, should it be via regimes (Iran, alliance with Syria, Sudan, possible others) or via organizations (al Qaeda, neo-Taliban, Jemaa Islamiya, Mahakem of Somalia, Janjaweed in Darfur, Hizballah, others).
They have been waging campaigns and preparing for future ones, within the Muslim world and inside the West. They have the resources (including oil dividends) and the manpower (through madrassas and other endoctrination tools). When you contemplate this whole global and gigantic apparatus you ask yourself: can you avoid the Jihad of the future and how?
Answers aren't easy, especially in view of the fact that Western governments (including the US) who have the resources, lack the will of strategic resistance. And within the East (Arab Muslim world), dissident and anti-Jihadist forces have the will, but lack the resources.
Hence yes, theoretically a future Jihad can be stopped if we can consolidate the will within the West and provide the resources to Muslim dissidents around the world. These measures can stop the holy wars of the future waged against democracies and free societies. But do we have the energies to implement such a revolution in the War on Terror? I am not sure yet. Citizens in the West who have understood the challenge will rise to the level of decisions needed to win the Jihadi wars of the future. But a failure in public education will lead to a disaster in the coming years. For the Jihadists' relentlessness has proven itself several times.
If the West and America let down their mobilization, the future 9/11s will exceed the consequences of the 2001 terror attacks in America and the strikes in Madrid and London. This equation is quantitative and statistical in essence: there is little margin of error.
The Jihadists who are produced today in the madrassas, are being prepared to bring down Western democracies as we know them. It would be difficult to predict the various tactical moves, but the strategies can be projected.
In Chapter 13 of my book I simply used the various cases known by the public: 9/11 hijackers, dirty bomber, sniper, domestic cells, infiltrated within the military, etc. The scenario projected for 2008, had the attacks of 2001 not occurred showed a mass disruption of national security in America and a cataclysmic growth of Jihadi regimes in the East (had the Taliban, Saddam and the Somali Islamists for example) not been taken out.
The public can only be ready for what the government and establishment ready it for. The war with the Jihadists is not a private enterprise, but a state business. Homeland security for example should not be limited to respond to disasters and to find the Jihadi terrorists, just before they trigger the bombs. A sound Homeland Security must begin by educating the public as to the nature of the enemy, its ideology, its strategies and tactics.
This is how you should prepare the nation to face future Jihadism, not by avoiding a national debate on the real issue under the pretext that Jihadism is some sort of theological matter. Precisely, the enemy wants you to believe that Jihadism (the enemy's profound nature) is just a matter of academic and theological debate. It would be the equivalent of having the propagandists of the IIIrd Reich convincing the Allies, that Nazism is a cultural issue. The West cannot avoid future Jihad unless it rises to a level of an advanced understanding of the enemy's ideology and tactics. And unless that new well-prepared international society equips itself with all the necessary tools, including education and outreach to fellow resisters in the East, the clash with future Jihadists is unavoidable and will last longer.
FP: Dr. Phares, thank you for joining us.
Phares: My pleasure as always.