LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September 19/06

Biblical Reading for today
Commentary of the day : Saint Francis of Assisi
“I am not worthy to have you enter my house.”
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 7,1-10. When he had finished all his words to the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave who was ill and about to die, and he was valuable to him.
When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and save the life of his slave. They approached Jesus and strongly urged him to come, saying, "He deserves to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us." And Jesus went with them, but when he was only a short distance from the house, the centurion sent friends to tell him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof. Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word and let my servant be healed. For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." When the messengers returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

Opinions

The Republic's Guide (and Understander Aoun)-Dar Al-Hayat - Beirut,Lebanon
 

Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 18/06

Shock and Awe in Lebanon-Washington Post

Bomber kills 4 Canadians-Toronto Star

Hizbullah's Political War-The Media Line

Moderate voices in Lebanon urge people to read what the Pope said-AsiaNews.it - Italy

Syrian border may be problem for Lebanon-Herald News Daily

French Peacekeepers Face Lebanon Ghosts-Forbes

Keeping Hezbollah is a must for more than Israel-Albany Times Union

Lebanese PM calls on people to abandon differences-Xinhua

Families of Hezbollah martyrs envy their dead-Khaleej Times

Israel 1: Hezbollah 0- On Line opinion - Australia

Hezbollah chief calls for˜victory rally in Beirut-Khaleej Times

Hezbollah Fighters Return To Normal Life-All Headline News

Hezbollah, Palestinians can't turn back clock on Israel-Allentown Morning Call

China confirms increasing peacekeepers in Lebanon-Reuters.uk

Turkish Peacekeeping Contingent Will Arrive in Lebanon-Focus News

Israel indicts three members of Hezbollah arrested in Lebanon-International Herald Tribune

Interrogation and 'connecting the dots-By: COL. GEORGE JATRAS The Washington Times

Saudi Arabia-Syria rift widens after Lebanon war-Al-Bawaba

Let Bishara go on praising them-Ha'aretz

Benedict XVI's background is theological, not diplomatic-Jerusalem Post
Archbishop backs Vatican apology Guardian Unlimited

Chirac calls to end Iran sanctions threat-Aljazeera.net

Chirac Proposes International Conference On Lebanon-Playfuls.com

Bomber kills 4 Canadians, Other troops, civilians also wounded
Sep. 18, 2006.
AP-Afghanistan - Four Canadian soldiers were killed and several wounded Monday by a bicycle bomber while on patrol in southern Afghanistan, the head of NATO forces in the region said. Brig.-Gen. David Fraser refused to disclose the number of wounded, but said none of their injuries were life threatening. Names of the dead and injured were not disclosed, pending notification of their families. Earlier reports from other NATO officials said the soldiers had been handing out gifts to children when the bomber struck. Asked about the report, Fraser said only that the Canadians were on patrol. He did say two children were among the wounded. The attack happened in the Kandahar province district of Panjwaii, the scene of a two-week anti-Taliban operation led by Canada that ended Sunday. An Afghan official said the bomber targeted Canadian troops handing out candy and other gifts to children. Reports said the explosive device was attached to a bicycle. Maj. Luke Knittig, a NATO spokesman, said the blast killed four soldiers and “wounded a number of others, including civilians.”
Some 2,200 Canadians are in Kandahar province.

Israel files criminal charges against Hizbollah men
Mon Sep 18, 2006
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel prosecutors indicted three Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas on Monday on a raft of charges including helping carry out the deadly operation to snatch two soldiers that sparked a war with the Jewish state. The three men, all in their early 20s, are also charged with murder, attempted murder and belonging to a terrorist group. The trial opening in Nazareth District Court reflects Israel's refusal to recognise Hizbollah as a legitimate fighting force, despite the Shi'ite group's broadbased support in Lebanon and representation in the Beirut government and parliament. "These are members of a terrorist organisation," police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said. The defendants were named as Mahmoud Ali Suleiman, Mohammed Srur and Maher Qurani.
Officials said the men were captured in southern Lebanon by Israeli forces during the war, launched after Hizbollah seized the two Israeli soldiers and killed eight in a July 12 ambush. All three were accused of having support roles in that raid.
Srur and Qurani were charged with attempted murder. Suleiman was charged with murder for being assigned to provide covering fire, though the indictment said he did not actually shoot. Prosecutors also said the guerrillas received weapons training in Iran, Israel's arch-foe and a Hizbollah patron, and that two of them fell prisoner while preparing to attack Israeli forces that swept through south Lebanon during the 34-day war. The charges carry lengthy prison sentences. Trying the three in open criminal court rather than in a military tribunal may signal a desire by Israeli authorities for a public reckoning that could offset unhappiness in the Jewish state with the war's inconclusive end in an August 14 truce. While killing some 1,200 people in Lebanon, most of them civilians, Israel's armed forces failed to crush Hizbollah or stop its cross-border rocket salvoes. Israel lost 157 citizens, most of them soldiers. In past wars with Arab states, Israel held captured enemy troops until they could be swapped for its own prisoners. Like the United States, Israel considers Hizbollah -- which advocates the Jewish state's destruction -- a terrorist group. The European Union does not. Israeli political sources have predicted the release of Lebanese prisoners in exchange for the two soldiers held by Hizbollah. Even if convicted, the three Hizbollah captives could expect to be included given Israel's past decisions to free jailed Palestinian militants as part of rapprochement moves.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Archbishop backs Vatican apology
Peter Walker and agencies
Monday September 18, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The Archbishop of Canterbury defended the Pope today over his remarks about Islam and violence, saying Muslim protestors were taking the pontiff's use of a medieval quotation out of its wider context. "The Pope has already issued an apology and I think his views on this need to be judged against his entire record, where he has spoken very positively about dialogue," Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Pope Benedict made a personal expression of regret yesterday, saying he was "deeply sorry" for offending some Muslims and insisting that his quotation from the controversial text during a lecture in his native Germany last week, in no way represented his own views. However, his apology risked criticism from another source by citing a passage from St Paul calling the crucifixion of Jesus a "scandal for the Jews". Protests against the Pope continued today, with even officially atheist China complaining that its Muslim population had been upset. Dr Williams said the row illustrated the ways in which religious teachings could be distorted to create conflict. "There are elements in Islam that can be used to justify violence, just as there are in Christianity and Judaism," he said.
"These religious faiths, because they are held by human beings who are very fallible, can be distorted in these ways and we all need to recognise that."
He added: "There is always a temptation for Christians to say to Muslims: 'I will tell you what your history is about', just as Muslims sometimes say to Christians. Sometimes they get it deeply wrong. "The example the Pope took from the Middle Ages shows in its phrasing how in the Middle Ages people got it wrong on both sides and Muslim distortions of Christian history are just as laughable as Christian distortions of Muslim history. "The big question that comes out of this for me is how much are we prepared to listen to the other person telling their story and how much are both sides prepared to be self-critical in discussing aspects of their history that are not pretty and not edifying."

In the southern Iraqi city of Basra around 150 demonstrators burned an effigy of the Pope, along with German, US, and Israeli flags, Reuters reported. A similar sized crowd chanted "Death to the Pope" and burned another effigy in Muzaffarabad, the capital of the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. Meanwhile, the president of the Islamic Association of China said Benedict had "insulted both Islam and the Prophet Muhammad", according to China's state-run Xinhua news agency. "This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen Guangyuan said. Although China's ruling Communist Party is atheist, the country permits religious worship in government controlled places of worship. The Vatican does not recognise the country's state-run Catholic Church, which appoints its own bishops and refuses to adhere to Papal authority. Benedict has been trying to mend ties with Beijing.
 

The Republic's Guide (and Understander Aoun)
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 18/09/06//
The Lebanese resumption of bickering (but more intense than it was before the war) presents new and dangerous facts. One of these facts is that 'fighting Israel' is no longer a rupture in history or a currency that can be exchanged in all markets. One should not expect that because he 'fights Israel' his rivals will overlook what they see as his mistakes or flaws. His supporters are only using 'fighting Israel' as a new argument for their support for him.
On the other hand, this means that the rift between the Lebanese can by no means be concealed by the so-called 'national Cause'. However, it also means that the case in question, and because it was frequently misused, has lost its sanctity and is no longer sufficient to install its symbol as an impeccable leader of all the Lebanese.
This was evident in the fact that many Lebanese believe the war brought nothing but havoc and destruction. After the war, many among them have grown more cautious and fearful that sectarian relations are edging closer toward eruption. It goes without saying that this contradicts the simple theoretical assumption that 'fighting Israel' unites everyone. This also requires extraordinary wisdom and an end to using the language of incitement and mobilization, as well as, of course, the need to keep the means of violence exclusively in the hands of the state. Continuing to have some people armed and some unarmed could be more dangerous than any time before.
Hezbollah, however, acts like one who sells a Syrian currency outside Syrian borders, unmindful that this currency cannot be exchanged beyond Qamishly. He believes the lie of 'national cause', and then he demands others to treat him accordingly. He wants them to honor him with the title of the infallible leader of all Lebanese, simply because he had 'fought Israel '.
This was at least suggested in the recent TV interview with Hassan Nasrallah, in which he insulted every one who have the least sense of personal dignity or those who have just caught the scent of freedom and democracy from afar.
The Hezbollah Secretary General decides intemperately and arrogantly what is permissible and what is not. He distributes medals based on his classification of people into supporters and traitors. He put an end to periods of tolerance and began a new one where he gives certificates and awards as though he is the 'Guide' (murshid) of the, until now, sinful Lebanese Republic. As for his spokesmen, they tear a strip off their critics, setting an example of their eloquent understanding of politics and the relation with the 'other'.
There is no doubt that Nasrallah found, and finds, several applauders, just as he found an 'understander' (not an ally!), such as Michel Aoun, who strengthens his belief of being the Republic's Supreme Leader. There is also no doubt that the pretext of 'fighting Israel' is still deceiving those who fell for it in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982 - and that they will continue to fall for it until Judgment Day.
But all the Lebanese are not of low intelligence, as shown by understander Michel Aoun. And, of course, they are not all aspirants to imaginary presidency, which is up for grabs at any price, as is the case with understander Aoun.
The Lebanese in their short history have seen many politicians whose supporters elevated them to the rank of prophets while their rivals continued their criticism-turned-slander campaigns. This is applicable to Fouad Chehab, Kamal Jumblatt, Moussa al-Sadr, Bachir Gemayel and Rafiq Hariri, who bore more than a sarcastic TV show.
It is also applicable to Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ayatollah Khomeini, and others who understood that the history of this country does not start from scratch and cannot be made by a false founder.
The characteristic of the current Republic, which was founded on freedom and was a safe haven for persecuted fugitives from dictatorial and semi-totalitarian regimes, is that it is a Republic without a 'Guide', and when it does appoint one, it will no longer be the Lebanese Republic.
 

The Washington Times
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
September 18, 2006
Interrogation and 'connecting the dots'
Regarding the Friday article "Republicans defy Bush over detainees" (Page 1), it is a fact that this country has not been attacked since September 11, 2001. This could only have happened because of information extracted from incarcerated terrorists.
It appears that those Republicans who wish to weaken the CIA's ability to rigorously interrogate terrorist detainees have adopted the Democratic mentality left over from the Clinton days that considered terrorist attacks a law-enforcement issue, not a war for our national survival. These senators are putting more emphasis on the treatment of our enemy, an enemy who has vowed to destroy us in the name of Allah, than on the security of our nation.
It is reported that concerns are that President Bush's approach to detainees would give more power to the CIA, and would not pass muster with the Supreme Court or would offend some in the international community. Apparently the senators would prefer to give more power to the terrorists. Furthermore, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's statement that the administration's policy would put our military personnel at greater risk can only be considered naive --thinking that if we treat terrorist detainees according to the most restrictive interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, the terrorists will behave likewise.
I agree with Mr. Bush that we should not use extreme physical torture. He has asked Congress to spell out what interrogation techniques are unacceptable. Instead, the Senate, by vague wording, is on the verge of restricting interrogators to methods milder than most college fraternity initiations, the interrogation resistance training given to our own military or the methods the Clinton Justice Department considered acceptable for use against American men, women and children at Waco. I'm sure Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda buddies are getting a good chuckle over this.
We are fighting an enemy who thinks they must, according to the Koran, "... fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)," (Sura 9:5).
While those who would do us harm are focused on that goal, we find ourselves hamstrung by lawyerly efforts to dissect the Geneva Conventions and concern that we don't risk, in Mr. Powell's words, the "moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
If there is another September 11 because our illustrious senators succeed in passing a bill that weakens our ability to get information vital to stopping such an attack, how will they explain to the next September 11 commission why we didn't "connect the dots?"
COL. GEORGE JATRAS

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060917-093205-6396r.htm

Air Force (Ret.) Camp Hill, Pa.

Israel 1: Hezbollah 0
By Gary Brown

posted Monday, 18 September 2006
Notwithstanding numerous claims to the contrary, it seems clear that on any purely realistic set of criteria Hezbollah has suffered a significant reverse in the recent war with Israel. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese Hezbollah leader, in apologising to the shell-shocked populace for the disaster his organisation had inadvertently brought down on them, said that he would never have authorised the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers had he realised the nature and magnitude of the military response. In fact this amounts to an admission that the Israelis successfully surprised Hezbollah at the outset, responding in such strength as to catch Hezbollah tactically unprepared for conflict on the scale now unleashed. In the course of the war the Israelis have inflicted significant casualties on Hezbollah’s military arm and, via their campaign against infrastructure and communications, greatly complicated its operational problems. At the same time it has been forced to expend large quantities of ammunition and ordnance in combat with Israeli forces or in rocket attacks on cities and other targets. It must now try to resupply along damaged or destroyed routes under the watchful eye of Israeli (and of US) intelligence gathering. Moreover, to sustain its support base, it must devote significant resources to civilian relief and reconstruction.
Indeed, the Hezbollah position has been shaken, though by no means destroyed, by the widespread realisation that it was its actions alone which brought on this latest disaster. This is not to say that the Israelis have achieved their heart’s desire - the elimination of Hezbollah as a significant military force. Nor did they succeed in stopping the rocket attacks. But it is on this issue nevertheless that they may have won their most significant victory of the conflict.
The random rocketing of Israeli targets by Hezbollah has been one of its most effective military options; to do this on a sufficient scale requires the ability to site large numbers of rockets close to their targets. But the postwar settlement installs in south Lebanon a powerful UN force of largely Western troops to secure the area in collaboration with the Lebanese Army. As this settlement is implemented, Hezbollah will lose its easy access to much of the Israeli border.
This will push Hezbollah’s rocket launchers back to positions where larger and more elaborate weapons are needed to strike Israeli targets. This in turn means launchers which are larger, more costly, easier to detect and attack from the air, harder to import and less easily transportable in the field. It will also make it much harder to launch small-scale cross-border raids.
All in all, if the settlement as agreed is fully implemented - granted, always a questionable matter in the Middle East - the net military outcome for Hezbollah can only be rated a costly reverse. To what extent this will spill over into an undermining of Hezbollah’s significant position in the Lebanese body politic is harder to say. But it does appear unlikely that many Lebanese, whatever their views on the wider issues, would welcome developments which threatened yet another war like that just concluded. To this extent, the power and widespread nature of the Israeli response can be seen as the execution of a deterrent strategy whose principal aim was the erosion of Hezbollah’s Lebanese support base (that Sheik Nasrallah felt it necessary to say what he did suggests he at least feared this outcome). It probably went beyond the Israelis’ wildest dreams that they would secure the installation of a largely Western force with a UN mandate on the very ground Hezbollah has long used as a platform for its attacks.
Hezbollah’s loss of this ground would be bad enough, but beyond that there is threat of disarmament, of conversion into a purely political party with no combat arm. This could happen if the lines of communication to Hezbollah’s backers in Iran and Syria cannot be effectively restored - not just for civilian use, but to a condition where covert military shipments to Hezbollah are again possible without detection or interference.
Overall, of course, this nasty little war is just another episode in the ongoing self-torment of the Middle East. The wider conflict has in some senses been going on for millennia: its modern incarnation has continued - with a mix of hot, cold and unconventional warfare - since the late 1940s, almost six decades. It is well to consider the implications of so long a period of deadly conflict.
It means that two generations, and that now growing up, have known nothing but conflict. For the Israelis, this experience follows hot on the heels of the ghastly Nazi Holocaust. For both sides, it means societies, economies and governments distorted by ceaseless pressure with no end in sight. Generations of Palestinian children have been denied access to a secure and stable learning and developmental environment; instead, 14-year-olds toting AK47s is not an uncommon image. Conflict has become the regular way of life for all involved.
Nor, given both the intractability of the issues and the lack of any real will to permanent peace in hawks on either side, can one honestly say that there is any real prospect of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement as the keystone of a stable Middle East. This conflict is the 20th century’s greatest long-term failure of diplomacy, a poisonous legacy handed down to us. Until some way is found to cut the Gordian knots of Jerusalem, refugee return and the Golan heights (and solutions require more than just goodwill, something really creative is needed) there can be no peace. In the meantime, the people of the region will continue to suffer, and the Middle East will remain one of the world’s most dangerous regions. Unfortunately, it appears that this conflict is not going to be resolved any time soon, so participants and allies of either of either side had best recognise that they are caught up in what appears to be a semi-permanent state of armed confrontation.

The Slip, the Regret and the Dialogue
Ghassan Charbel Al-Hayat - 18/09/06//
Pope Benedict XVI cannot act as if he is a mere university professor, granting himself the liberty to make conclusive and erroneous judgments on highly sensitive issues that could offend symbols and sentiments. Had the Pope's remark been that of a university professor eager to stir an outcry, attention, or promote a book, it would not have had the negative impact we have seen.
No speaker on a sensitive issue can isolate himself from his capacity or status or what people expect of him. Pope Benedict XVI should have borne in mind, while preparing and delivering his lecture, his capacity as Head of the Catholic Church, with all what the status entails for the West and the World.
The first question that came to mind after the publishing of the Pope's remark was: Did the Pope contemplate what reactions his statements on Islam and the Prophet might instigate? He probably had never expected that his speech would raise the ensuing storm, echoed by voices known for their moderation and usually advocating inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue.
Such a misjudgment is serious when attributed to the bearer of such an eminence. However, if stirring storms was the motive - while we rule out this intent, which is at odds with the Vatican's decades-long policy of calling for dialogue, understanding and seeking closeness and common grounds with the 'Other' - then it is even more serious.
Another equally serious question is: Is a person in such a position as that of the Pope's, entitled to tackle sensitive issues pertaining to another heavenly religion without considering the international situation that has been marred by tensions for years?
It is not unreasonable to assume that the Pope, as well as his advisors and those in his inner circle, are well aware of notions that surfaced in the aftermath of the reverberating collapse of Communism, among which was the notion that the world has fallen into a 'clash of civilizations', and rising sentiments of hatred and rejection, in addition to the notion that Western and American circles are obsessed with the search for a 'new enemy' after the collapse of Communism, in which the late Pope John Paul II assumed a significant role.
It was also supposed that the Pope had put into consideration what the world has been experiencing since the September 11 attacks that largely aimed at inflaming the border line between the Islamic World and the West.
Those who planned these attacks believed they could, via the deluge of ensuing reactions, create a chasm between the West and the Islamic World, igniting infernos that could eventually be exploited to lure Muslim youth and create a change within fundamental areas of the Islamic World.
There is little doubt that these attacks, the following invasion of Iraq, and the developments in the Palestinian territories, have lead to tensions which on some occasions took on a religious, sectarian and ideological nature as the calls for clash rose among fanatics within all 'camps'.
For all these reasons, it was natural for the Pope to express his deep regret yesterday (September 16) that certain passages of his lecture "could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful."
Today's world is in dire need of constant consideration of the 'Other' and respect for beliefs, convictions and cultures.
The first and foremost function of dialogue is to deepen understanding of the 'Other' and consolidate common areas, particularly after the 9/11 attacks and some of President George Bush's policies contributed in flaring up various sensitivities and fears.