LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September 20/06

Biblical Reading
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 7,11-17.
Soon afterward he journeyed to a city called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd accompanied him.
As he drew near to the gate of the city, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. A large crowd from the city was with her. When the Lord saw her, he was moved with pity for her and said to her, "Do not weep." He stepped forward and touched the coffin; at this the bearers halted, and he said, "Young man, I tell you, arise!" The dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, exclaiming, "A great prophet has arisen in our midst," and "God has visited his people." This report about him spread through the whole of Judea and in all the surrounding region.

Interview with the Jordanian King

King Abdullah II of Jordan to Al-Hayat: "Let's leave Iraq to the Iraqis and Lebanon to the Lebanese. I cannot the least claim that the Jordanian-Syrian relationship is perfect. A potential military confrontation with Iran will be catastrophic. Regional parties are fomenting the confessional sedition." (By Ghassan Charbel)

Opinions

When We Isolate Ourselves Voluntarily-Dar Al-Hayat - Beirut,Lebanon

Facts and Myths About the Israel-Hezbollah War-Washington Post

Latest New from the Daily Star for September 20/06

Bush addresses Muslims, saying US 'desires peace'
Benedict XVI has been liberal with assumptions and innuendo
Euromoney names Salameh best central bank governor
Jewish state's top soldier says last troops should be out of South by Friday
Resistance 'never hid plan to snatch Israeli troops'
Snags in UNIFIL deployment should be cleared by weekend
Lebanese team to question bomb-plot suspects in Berlin
Hamade sees progress on multiple fronts at UN summit
Ex-PMs draw up new political pact

Israelis use bulldozers to wreck crops in South

Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 20/06

Bush appeals to Muslims in U.N. speech-AP

Bush Says Stable Mideast Was a MirageABC News

Annan paints grim picture to U.N. assembly-AP

Rice reaffirms stand on Iran-NDTV.com

French troops begin deployment in south Lebanon-Jerusalem Post

Facts and Myths About the Israel-Hezbollah War-Washington Post

Israeli military chief says all troops to leave Lebanon by weekend-International Herald Tribune

UNESCO: Lebanon's Ancient Ruins Damaged by War-Voice of America
The blame game-Ha'aretz

UN human rights body to discuss situation in Lebanon-People's Daily Online

Chirac proposes int'l conference on Lebanon's rebuilding-People's Daily Online

France: UNIFIL deterrent and credible-United Press International

Canadians fault US for its role in torture case-International Herald Tribune

Syria seeks warmer relations with US-Houston Chronicle

Israeli soldiers to leave south Lebanon by end of week-Southern Star

Israel cluster bomb use in Lebanon "outrageous": UN-Reuters

Solidarity Campaign For Lebanon Comes To An End-All Headline News

Avoiding religious slings and arrows-Yahoo! News

Bush to Engage Skeptical UN on Mideast-ABC News 

France Now Opposes Iran Punishments-Los Angeles Times

Turk workers urge pope's arrest-CNN International

Chirac to Pope: Don't Confuse Islam with Islamism-Zaman Online

Pope calls for mutual respect of religions as he mourns nun slain ... International Herald Tribune
Pope deplores killing of nun in Somalia-Ninemsn, Australia

Police begin investigation of MK trips to Syria, Lebanon-Jerusalem Post

Sister Leonella Sgorbati,
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:24:31 -0400
"I forgive, I forgive," she whispered in her native Italian just before she died Sunday in the Somali capital, the Rev. Maloba Wesonga told The Associated Press at the nun's memorial Mass in Nairobi on Monday. Sister Leonella Sgorbati, 65, was shot in the back four times by pistol-wielding attackers as she left the Austrian-run S.O.S at lunch time after finishing nursing school for trainee medics. The nun had been in Somalia since 2002 helping to train nurses at a children's hospital.
This occurrence happened because of what the pope quoted. However this action proves the point of that quote. These Muslims had no right to kill a nun and they only further proved that they are not part of peaceful religion.  Sister Leonella, a nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa, used to joke there was a bullet with her name engraved on it in Somalia. When the bullet came, she used her last breaths to forgive those responsible May the God of the entire world Jesus Christ bless the soul of Sister Leonella "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" John 16:33

 Annan paints grim picture to assembly

 By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - Addressing world leaders for the last time as secretary-general, Kofi Annan painted a grim picture Tuesday of an unjust world economy, global disorder and widespread contempt for human rights, and appealed for nations and peoples to truly unite.
As the annual General Assembly ministerial meeting got under way, the 192 U.N. member states faced an ambitious agenda including trying to promote Mideast peace, curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, get U.N. peacekeepers into conflict-wracked Darfur, and promote democracy.
In a new blow to global stability, Thailand's military launched a coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra even as Annan spoke. The Thai prime minister, who was in New York, switched speaking slots with Montenegro so he could address the General Assembly on Tuesday evening, a day earlier than planned.
President Bush took the podium for a speech aimed at building bridges with people in the Middle East angry with the United States over Iraq and Lebanon.
On the sidelines, Bush pressed Iran to return at once to international talks on its nuclear program and threatened consequences if they do not.
His speech was less confrontational on that subject, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who was scheduled to speak to the body later Tuesday — was not in the hall during the U.S. address.
Annan, whose second five-year term ends on Dec. 31, said the past decade had seen progress in development, security and the rule of law — the three great challenges he said humanity faced in his first address to the General Assembly in 1997.
But the secretary-general said too many people are still exposed to brutal conflict, and the fear of terrorism has increased a clash of civilizations and religions. Terrorism is being used as a pretext to limit or abolish human rights, and globalization risks driving richer and poorer peoples apart, he said.
"The events of the last 10 years have not resolved, but sharpened, the three great challenges I spoke of — an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law," Annan said. "As a result, we face a world whose divisions threaten the very notion of an international community, upon which this institution stands."
"I remain convinced that the only answer to this divided world must be a truly United Nations," he said.
In his annual report, Annan touched on some of the most difficult issues confronting the leaders from countries large and small assembled in front of him.
He said the Arab-Israeli conflict is the most potent and emotionally charged conflict in the world today.
"As long as the Palestinians live under occupation, exposed to daily frustration and humiliation, and as long as Israelis are blown up in buses or in dance halls, so long will passions everywhere be inflamed," Annan said.
The secretary-general warned that as long as the U.N. Security Council is unable to end the conflict and Israel's 40-year occupation by bringing both sides to accept and implement its resolutions "so long will respect for the United Nations continue to decline."
"So long, too, will our impartiality be questioned," he said. "So long will our best efforts to resolve other conflicts be resisted, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose peoples need our help just as badly, and are entitled to it," he said.
Annan also decried the continuing conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region, "where the continued spectacle of men, women and children driven from their homes by murder, rape and the burning of their villages makes a mockery of our claim, as an international community, to shield people from the worst abuses."
As he neared the end of his speech, Annan's voice rose with emotion, describing his "difficult and challenging but at times also thrillingly rewarding" job.
"Together we have pushed some big rocks to the top of the mountain, even if others have slipped from our grasp and rolled back. But this mountain with its bracing winds and global views is the best place on earth to be," Annan said.
He said he would "miss the mountain" and "when all is said and done, the world's most exalting job."
"I yield my place to others with an obstinate feeling — a real obstinate feeling — of hope for our common future," Annan said, again visibly moved.
The presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, ambassadors and other diplomats in the chamber then burst into loud applause and rose to give Annan a sustained standing ovation. Even before the start of the so-called General Debate, ministers were meeting on some of the key issues.
A Security Council meeting on Monday focused on overcoming Sudan's resistance to allowing the United Nations to take control over peacekeepers in Darfur. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas late Monday, and the Security Council was to hold a meeting Thursday that Arab leaders hope will help revive the Mideast peace process. Shortly before coming to New York, France's President Jacques Chirac proposed a compromise to kick-start talks between Iran and the international community, suggesting the threat of U.N. sanctions be suspended in exchange for Tehran halting its uranium enrichment program. The African Union's Peace and Security Council is scheduled to meet Wednesday in New York to discuss breaking the deadlock over Darfur, with the Sudanese government refusing to allow U.N. peacekeepers to take over the security situation from the AU.
But the undercurrent of this year's debate will be the race to succeed Annan. The six candidates were already making appearances Monday, and many more were planned.
 

Bush appeals to Muslims in U.N. speech

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - President Bush on Tuesday appealed directly to Muslims to assure them that the United States is not waging war with Islam as he laid out a vision for peace in the Middle East before skeptical world leaders at the United Nations.
On the sidelines, Bush pressed Iran to return at once to international talks on its nuclear program and threatened consequences if they do not.
But his speech to the United Nations General Assembly was less confrontational and aimed at building bridges with people in the Middle East angry with the United States."My country desires peace," Bush told world leaders in the cavernous main hall at the U.N. "Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam."
Addressing Iraqis specifically, Bush said, "We will not abandon you in your struggle to build a free nation."Bush said Iran "must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak to the body later Tuesday, but he was not at the country's table in the hall when Bush spoke. Speaking to Iranians, Bush said their country's future has been clouded because "your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons."
On the crisis in Sudan's violence-wracked region of Darfur, Bush delivered strong warnings to both the United Nations and the Sudanese government, saying that both must act now to avert further humanitarian crisis. Bush said that if the Sudanese government does not withdraw its rejection of a U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur, the world body should act over the government's objections. The U.N. Security Council last month passed a resolution that would give the U.N. control over the peacekeeping mission in Darfur, now run mostly ineffectively by the African Union. But Sudan has refused to give its consent.
"The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force," Bush said. "If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act."With more than 200,000 people already killed in three years of fighting in Darfur and the violence threatening to increase again, Bush said the "credibility of the United Nations is at stake."
Iran's defiant pursuit of a nuclear program was at the top of the agenda when Bush met earlier with French President Jacques Chirac at the Waldorf Astoria hotel where the U.S. delegation was staying. The French leader is balking at the U.S. drive to sanction Iran for defying Security Council demands that it freeze uranium enrichment. "Should they continue to stall," Bush said of Iranian leaders, "we will then discuss the consequences of their stalling." The president, speaking after his meeting with Chirac, said those consequences would include the possibility of sanctions. Chirac proposed on Monday that the international community compromise by suspending the threat of sanctions if Tehran agrees to halt its uranium enrichment program and return to negotiations. The U.S. and other countries fear Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its uranium enrichment program is to make fuel for nuclear power plants.
Bush said that Iran must first suspend uranium enrichment "in which case the U.S. will come to the table."But he also stressed that he and Chirac "share the same objective and we're going to continue to strategize together.""Time is of the essence," the president said. "Now is the time for the Iranians to come to the table."
Both Bush and Chirac stressed they are working together, and the French president said twice that they see "eye to eye."
Chirac also said the European Union would not negotiate with Iran until it suspends uranium enrichment. "We cannot have negotiations if we do not have on one hand prior suspension," Chirac said. Bush's challenge is to build international support to confront multiple problems in the region: the Iran issue, a stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, armed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and unabated violence in Iraq.
Bush planned to meet later Tuesday with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
Bush's speech was the last in a series on the war on terror, timed to surround last week's fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to set the tone for the final weeks of the U.S. midterm elections. Bush was speaking in the same room where four years and one week ago he made another plea for action in the Middle East. On that day, Bush said Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of deadly chemical and biological agents that the United Nations must confront.
He was wrong, but still forged ahead with war against Iraq without the support of many other nations. And he is still trying to rebuild credibility with the body, experts say. "The sense outside of the U.S. is that the United States is responsible for many of the failures in Iraq, first by going in mostly alone and then by incompetent administration," said Jon Alterman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"The problem with the way he's talked about democracy in the Middle East is not that people see it as undesirable," Alterman said, "it's that people see it as naive. He needs to persuade cynical people that not only is he sincere, but it's achievable, and here's what they need to do to make it so."

Syria hoping for warmer U.S. relations

By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 19, 06-DAMASCUS, Syria - Syria's policy during more than a year of isolation by Western countries has been constant: Stick it out and hope the other side bends. Now, a week after an attack on the American Embassy, the regime apparently is betting that violence will be one more factor that could make the United States blink first. Syria has portrayed the surprise attack on the embassy last Tuesday by suspected Islamic militants as proof that American policies in the region are not working and are only fueling extremism. The answer, it argues, is for Washington to stop trying to force Syria to change and instead to open a dialogue — giving Damascus the chance to press its demands. Syria's strategy of digging in is not new. The closed, authoritarian regime has staunchly resisted American pressure on a slate of issues. Washington wants Syria to stop its backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon and ensure a halt in weapons to the guerrillas. It wants Damascus to establish diplomatic ties with Beirut as evidence that its decades-long domination of its neighbor is officially over.
The U.S. also seeks an end to Syrian support of Palestinian militants and help in cracking down on insurgents crossing the border into Iraq.
The West's lever has been mainly to shut Damascus out. An August visit by Spain's foreign minister was the highest-ranking visit by a Western official in months.
President Bashar Assad's regime appears to be counting on the U.S. eventually having to crack and pay attention to what it wants: recognition of its role in Lebanon and a resumption of a peace process with Israel. Syria wants to retrieve the Golan Heights, seized by Israel in 1967.
Syria's ambassador to the U.S., Imad Moustapha, said this week that the embassy attack proves Washington will have to change.
"The ball now is in the court of the American administration .... There is an opportunity to develop these relations," he told the state-run daily Al-Thawra.
The assault on the Embassy brought a rare U.S. thanks to Syria for defending the embassy. But the little glimpse of warmth stopped there.
Meanwhile, Assad's regime looks as strong as ever despite major humiliations since the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.
International pressure and huge anti-Syrian demonstrations in Lebanon forced Syria to pull its troops from its smaller neighbor in April 2005, ending a 29-year presence. Washington also pulled out its ambassador in response to the Hariri killing, while U.S. and European Union leaders stopped visiting.
A U.N. investigation into the slaying has implicated top Syrian security officials, but Syria denies any involvement.
Interior Minister Ghazi Kenaan, one of several top officials questioned in the Hariri case by U.N. investigators, died mysteriously in October. The government said he committed suicide. Vice President Abdul-Halim Khaddam left the country last year and called for regime change from Paris. Khaddam later joined forces with the Muslim Brotherhood, the top domestic enemy of Assad's government. On June 28, Israeli warplanes buzzed Assad's summer residence. Israel appeared to be telling Syria to urge Hamas militants to release an Israeli soldier captured in Gaza days earlier by Palestinian militants close to Damascus.
But the international pressure only made Syrians gather behind Assad — as did the Lebanese-Hezbollah war that broke out in mid-summer.
Earlier this year, authorities detained several human rights activists and intellectuals who had signed a document that called on Syria to improve relations with Lebanon. Now in the wake of the Israeli-Hezbollah cease-fire, Assad has been sounding out possibilities for peace.
Jamal Zahalka, an Arab Israeli lawmaker who recently visited Syria, says Assad told him Syria is ready for peace with Israel providing Israel returns Arab lands.
Israel's Defense Minister Amir Peretz raised the idea of dialogue with Syria after the war between Israel and Hezbollah ended on Aug. 14, and Israel's foreign minister appointed a team to look into the Syria channel. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert played down such moves.
Meanwhile, Syria's isolation has grown to include even some of its Arab neighbors. Syria had hoped to be asked to use its influence to end the Israel-Hezbollah war. The cold shoulder it received instead could be the reason behind Assad's harsh speech last month: He referred to some Arab leaders as "half-men" for their opposition to Hezbollah.
 

Israel to fully withdraw from Lebanon in days -MP
19/09/2006JERUSALEM, (Reuters) - The Israeli army will pull out of Lebanon within a few days, a legislator quoted the military's chief of staff as saying on Tuesday.Ran Cohen, a legislator with the left-wing Meretz party, said Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz told him all troops would return to Israel by the Jewish New Year, which begins at sunset on Friday."He told me unequivocally that he estimates, that if everything goes well, all Israeli soldiers will be out of Lebanon by the eve of the Jewish New Year," Cohen told Israel Radio after Halutz appeared before a parliamentary committee
 

When We Isolate Ourselves Voluntarily
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 19/09/06//
Hezbollah wants Lebanon to strain its relations with Germany, because the German Chancellor linked the presence of her country's troops to the defense of Israel's existence. The Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, denounced Tony Blair's visit to Beirut, condemning it in the strongest terms, because Britain had taken an inappropriate stand during the war. In turn, France seems to be repugnant to Hezbollah, which does not conceal its hatred toward it because it accuses the French of being hostile to the Movement. Naturally, the US is the 'Great Satan', which Israel, according to Nasrallah, was carrying out its desire to eradicate Hezbollah!
If these criticisms are taken one by one, some of them may probably reflect some truth. But when they are taken collectively, they will only mean a call to isolate Lebanon from the Western powers and turn itself, willingly, into a rogue country in the eyes of the West.
However, Hezbollah does not conceal its desire to strain Lebanon's relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well, because they disapproved of Hezbollah and its war. In this way, the Lebanese government is required to pursue a policy opposed to some of the largest and most influential and capable Arab countries. If we add Turkey, the prominent regional force in the Middle East, the self-isolation will be complete.
In other words, Hezbollah wants Lebanon to burn its bridges with the Arabs, the Turks and the West simultaneously. This is at a time when the Lebanese are in dire need of economic, financial and political support from all of them, hoping to overcome the disasters inflicted on them by Hezbollah's war with the Israelis.
Here, too, we glimpse another aspect of the disasters caused by Hezbollah. Lebanon will lose much of its value if it is not on the best terms with the Arabs and the West. Lebanon always aspired to be a model for openness and cooperation. This era, described by some as an age of the 'clash of civilizations', gives its traditional aspiration a higher sense of urgency. But what is suggested is that the country should not be the total sum of two positive elements; on the contrary, it should be the total sum of two negative ingredients and two ruptures. This suggestion is inherently fatal, not only to what the country is worth, but also to its economy, education, enlightenment, and to everything that closely or remotely relates to it.
In this way, Hezbollah is hastening the creation of the totalitarian State, where the state obeys the party without any hesitation. Its President (a Podgorny, Ahmadinejad, Emile Lahoud, or perhaps Michel Aoun) will be just the executor of the wishes of the Secretary General or the Guide (a Brezhnev, Khamenei or perhaps Hassan Nasrallah). This is because totalitarian ruling party makes the interests of the country subservient to its own, and sees things from its own perspective. Accordingly, Hezbollah wants to guide the State into adopting a futile policy, which it would have to adopt in light of the party's quandary in the Arab and Western worlds. Lebanon, whose people have never been unanimous over Hezbollah's war, should not be interested in punishing itself twice: once because of Hezbollah, and another because of its solidarity with it.
However, these visions are very remote from 'innocent' ideological perceptions. When Lebanon's relations with Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, the US, France, Germany and Britain collapse, it will have ties with only Syria and Iran (and, of course, Qatar ). Thus, an isolated, despotic country will join hands with two other isolated, despotic countries. If its people face starvation, they will eat rockets, and if they need ideas they will be provided with the principle of the Velayate Faqih (the governance of the learned Islamic scholar). If we remember that Hezbollah's perspective on the domestic front is as intolerant as its attitude toward the outside world, and if we adhere to the Movement's views, we will end up besieged of our own free will like Hamas, or become another isolated Cuba, where people run away and the intelligentsia is imprisoned.
Was it for this purpose that Emile Lahoud visited Havana? Does he hope to bring to his allies some 'useful' lessons from that experience, which might end up a Lebanese future?
 

Avoiding religious slings and arrows The Monitor's View
Tue Sep 19, 4:00 AM ET
Furor over Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam last week has thankfully not morphed into the deadly mayhem over last year's Danish Muhammad cartoons. But the case shows that once again, the Christian and Muslim worlds are talking past each other when, more than ever, they need to talk with each other.
Unlike the case of the cartoons, the Roman Catholic pontiff has apologized relatively quickly. On Sunday he said he was "deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries" caused by the remarks, in which he had quoted from a Byzantine emperor. While he did not apologize for the content of the offending citation, which characterized some of the teachings of the prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," he did say the quote was not "in any way" an expression of his views.
Actually, the pope's talk was mainly directed against the West. He criticized modernist thinking that relegates religion to a "subculture" (a point on which many Muslims might agree), arguing that such thinking erroneously concludes that faith and reason can't coexist.
Unlike after the Muhammad cartoons, the Muslim response has been more measured. Hundreds of people died and were injured in rampages after last year's illustrations were published. This time, protests have been far less violent, with government and religious leaders calling for an apology. And the pope's planned trip to Turkey is still on - if tentatively.
And yet, bridge-building between Christians and Muslims would certainly be easier if both sides in this case took more care. The Pope's talk could have been more sensitive. For instance, in its denunciation of violence as a means of religious conversion - certainly a valid warning - it singled out Islam, never mentioning Christianity's own historic failings. And the talk played down the stature of the Koran's message of no religious compulsion by inaccurately placing it in time.
Meanwhile, Muslim reaction in some quarters reinforces the image of a violent, intolerant religion. Palestinians attacked several churches. Demonstrators in India and Iraq burned an effigy of the pope. A Somali cleric said anyone who offends Muhammad should be "killed on the spot," and shortly after a nun in that country was shot and killed.
Openings for better interfaith communication do exist. In an unusual visit to the US earlier this month, former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami called for cooperation among Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which have common roots. If Turkish leaders resist pressure to cancel his fall trip, the pope can revive messages of mutual respect and reconciliation. Government leaders in Muslim nations should tone down religious rhetoric, and the Bush administration would do well to drop terms such as "Islamo-fascists."
Both Christians and Muslims can, and must, do a better job of understanding each other. But a general caution about taking offense is also in order here. A perceived or real insult can do no harm when the recipient ducks its blow. For this lesson, another Byzantine figure, Emperor Constantine, is an example. When told that a mob had destroyed the head of his statue with stones, he reportedly replied, putting his hand to his head, "It is very surprising, but I don't feel hurt in the least."

Muslim anger begins to abate as leaders meet in Rome
(AFP)19 September 2006
VATICAN CITY - Muslim anger at Pope Benedict XVI’s comments linking Islam with violence showed the first signs of abating on Tuesday as Iran’s hardline president voiced his ‘respect’ for the pope and religious leaders met for inter-faith talks in Rome.
Rome’s top Muslim religious official said the pontiff’s apology to Islam had opened the way for fresh dialogue between religions.
Sami Salem, the imam of Rome’s Grand Mosque, said the pontiff had ‘stepped back’ with his apology on Sunday for linking Islam with violence, and this was a ‘positive signal for the development of dialogue.’
‘Now the time is ripe for a dialogue between the different religions,’ the imam said in an interview with Rome’s radio 101.
Salem was speaking before an inter-faith meeting in the afternoon with Vatican cardinal Paul Poupard and Rome’s Chief Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, hosted organised by Rome city hall.Salem said he hoped Tuesday’s meeting would open ‘a new phase of love and understanding between the religions.’
His words were in marked contrast to a statement on Monday in which he said the pope’s statement had ‘set back by years’ the progress of inter-religious dialogue. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck a conciliatory tone during a visit to Roman Catholic-majority Venezuela, saying the pope had ‘modified’ his remarks that had offended Muslims worldwide. ‘We respect the pope and all those interested in peace and justice,’ Ahmadinejad told a news conference before departing Caracas. ‘I understand that he has modified the remarks he made.’ On Sunday, the pope said he was ‘deeply sorry’ for the reaction to a speech he made last week in which he quoted an obscure medieval text that criticised some teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as ‘evil and inhuman.’
The speech sparked several days of protests in Muslim countries against the leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Roman Catholics.
Though anger appeared to be subsiding, police in Britain were bracing for violence against Christian targets and possible anti-Muslim reprisals, stepping up their patrols of both churches and mosques, a spokeswoman for London’s Metropolitan Police told AFP.
There have been no incidents of violence in Britain as a result of the anger caused by the pope’s remarks, though London police are investigating whether a Muslim protest outside Westminster Cathedral breached laws on incitement to violence.
Australia, with a growing Muslim population, has also escaped violence, but Sydney Archbishop George Pell said the reaction in parts of the Muslim world to the Pope’s remarks bore out fears over the link between Islam and violence.
‘The violent reactions in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict’s main fears,’ Pell said in a statement late Monday.
‘They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence.’
Ameer Ali, who heads the group of moderate Muslims set up to advise the government, rejected Pell’s criticisms.
‘The point is, Pope Benedict quoted a most inappropriate quote at a most inappropriate time,’ he said.
Rome left-wing mayor Walter Veltroni said Tuesday’s inter-faith initiative was intended to be ‘a new contribution from Rome to the affirmation of the values of living together peacefully and reciprocal respect’.
Other well-known Jewish, Muslim and Catholic figures are also to take part in the meeting.
Cardinal Poupard last week called on ‘the good-willed Muslim friends’ to read the whole of the pope’s controversial speech before reacting to it.
To that end, the Vatican mouthpiece ‘L’Osservatore Romano’ departed from tradition by printing the pope’s speech in Arabic on its front page on Monday night.
The Italian language daily also printed Sunday’s papal apology in Arabic and in English.

Suspicious package grounds Air-India flight
TERRY WEBER -Globe and Mail
An Air-India flight bound for India from Toronto was turned around shortly into its trip and forced to return to Pearson Airport after a passenger found a suspicious package in the jet's washroom. Peel Regional Police said the package was removed from the plane by the explosive disposal unit once craft had landed and been cleared of its 149 passengers and 11 crew members. Flight 188, which had been destined for India with a stop in Birmingham, England, returned to Toronto about 11 p.m. on Monday. Constable Peter Brandwood told reporters during a Tuesday press conference that after the package was removed, it was detonated by the explosives unit. He could not say what was inside, but he noted that, at this stage, there was nothing to suggest passengers were in any danger.

Shock and Awe in Lebanon
Washington Post - Sept 18/06
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The southern neighborhoods of Beirut bear a resemblance to some primitive terrain: rubble strewn, broken and scarred
Entire city blocks are devastated. Ten-story apartment buildings are gutted and reduced to concrete stacks.The scenes in Beirut are stark; they invoke Dresden or Tokyo and a certain brutality.
I just returned from a week touring Beirut and southern Lebanon, and from visiting northern Israel.
What struck me about the bombing, in both countries, was that you could see the destruction and completely misread what it meant. In Beirut, the destruction in reality is efficient and impressive. The destruction in Israel, on the other hand, is random and scattered. When Hezbollah rockets were fired on Israel, landing meant success.
So here is the truth: Israel did not do anything close to what it was capable of doing. Hezbollah did all it could.
Because Israel is hyper-modern and it has the technology to exact such a concentrated result, it is capable of creating visible and jarring images.
nd, of course, Israel is Israel. That is why the non-aligned countries condemned "Israeli aggression in Lebanon" this weekend, befuddled about Lebanon and Hezbollah: Such an easy target.
I recognize that one can’t analyze what happened in Lebanon in the 34-day, Israel-Hezbollah war without walking into a minefield.
Also, what happened can’t be reduced to 1,000 words. There is complex history, the players are not necessarily as they represent themselves, there are intramural battles going on about military force and politics, there are secrets and there is even the difficulty of reading what one is looking at accurately.
One could reduce the conflict to shock and awe: Success on the one hand in what could be exacted in such a short period of time, failure on the other by Israeli political leaders and commanders’ intent on doing the job on the cheap.
There is no question though that Israel seems in awe of its effort and its precision. Even though a national commission of inquiry begins a bruising and painful analysis today of government and military shortcomings, Israel’s social and cultural demand is for offense and victory. Government officials speak of “annihilating” the enemy: Bush rhetoric that invokes those earlier images of total war and is so jarring to international ears. They will now be assessed on their performance to achieve the goal.
On the other hand, Lebanon is shocked. It is not just the destruction wrought but the powerlessness of the owners of the country. The Lebanese government complains of the destruction and the cluster bombs and the environmental devastation, exaggerating what happened to IT because it can not bear to say that most of what was destroyed was Hezbollah’s assets, assets that indeed resided and flourished inside their own country under their own noses with their consent. By focusing outward, on the “other,” Lebanon conveniently ignores its failures. Yet the government of Lebanon, a bickering alliance of non-war lords, is fully culpable. The shock seems play-it-again-Sam-style, shocked that there is gambling going on in the casino.
The international community meanwhile is also shocked. It equally complains about cluster bombs and levels of destruction, suggesting that there is an alternative military strategy that could have been pursued. One can’t help but be a little cynical that they are really just interested in finding the best arguments to condemn the dominant belligerent. Somewhere in here is an effort to protect the civilian population and the environment from the scourge of war. I wonder though whether the right lessons can be learned to get there.
Hezbollah meanwhile touts its own “divine victory,” bloodied and dislodged from its territory yet opaque enough that it can hide the real wounds. The Hezbollah military, because it is largely invisible, is neither accurately assessed nor is it not really held accountable for the war crimes it committed. Worse still is that Hezbollah believes, as do many on the “Arab street,” that the attacks on Israel and its citizens were justified, justified and no worse than anything Israel did because Israel in its actions preys upon the civilian population.
No worse, of course, depends on the narrative of vengefulness and indiscriminate attack by Israel. Because of Israel’s means, thousands of apartments are gone, selected and meticulously excised by a high-tech military force.
Only a very short drive from the neighborhoods of southern Beirut though, you are back to bustling boulevards; a few neighborhoods over and there are luxury stores and five star hotels. Beyond the “Hezbollah” neighborhoods, the city is normal. Electricity flows just as it did before the fighting. The Lebanese sophisticates are glued to their cell phones. Even an international airport that was bombed is reopened.
An accurate reading of what happened and what south Beirut means might produce a different picture. Israel had the means to impart greater destruction, but that does not mean intrinsically that it is more brutal. If Hezbollah had bigger rockets or more accurate ones, it would have done not only the same, but undoubtedly more.
Israel may have made a grave error in attacking Hezbollah as it did, it may have used the wrong weapons and hit the wrong targets, it may have completely misread the enemy, it may have made its security worse for years to come.
But the fact that one can drive a short distance from Dresden-like south Beirut and return to modern life itself should signal that this is something very different: Israeli bombers did not fly over Beirut and unleash loads of bombs. Each individual building was the quarry; the intent was there, and the technology existed, to spare the rest.
So Israel “won” -- literally a technical knock-out -- and Hezbollah “won” as well.
Hezbollah is weakened and strengthened at the same time.
Israel achieved its military objectives and yet worsened its strategic outlook.

Facts and Myths About the Israel-Hezbollah War
Washington Post- Sept 19/06
By William M. Arki
I received lots of hate mail yesterday in response to my "Shock and Awe" piece, some accusing me of working for the Israelis, the CIA or -- even worse -- the State Department. Others called me a tool, a puppet, an errand boy, or a plain fool.
My guess is that there is little I could say to “prove” my views on the Israel-Hezbollah war. The camps are pretty well established; their positions hardened.
Yet I want to write a “myths and facts” column to try to establish some baselines, regardless of their popularity. My observations on the ground in both countries and my discussions with experts and government officials paint such a different picture to the dominant we-have-the-answer-to-what-this-all-means position, officially as well as among the public.
I don’t mean to promote a morally relative take on what happened, or suggest Hezbollah and Israel are equivalent because both went to war. To me, the issue isn’t that one man’s massacre is just another’s military success.
The problem is the massacre itself. We have grown exaggerated in describing war. The words "massacre," "genocide" and "war crimes" flow too freely.
I didn’t see any massacres, period. I didn’t see any wholesale killing of civilians. There was no genocide.
Before my laptop blows up with screaming comments about what I didn’t see, didn’t want to see, couldn’t see, about the number of children killed, about Qana, about that Canadian family, or Red Cross convoys and hospitals attacked, environmental devastation worse than Exxon Valdez, depleted uranium, hundreds of this or that destroyed. Please.
What happened is bad enough. The truth suffices.
Fact: Hezbollah operated from southern Lebanese villages and towns, virtually owning their controlled areas. They managed to fire almost 4,000 rockets into Israel and another 1,000 anti-tank missiles against Israeli forces on the border and in southern Lebanon. This means hundreds if not thousands of combatants, scores if not hundreds of launch and supply points. To say Hezbollah was nowhere near villages where the Israelis killed civilians or that Israeli attacks were unconnected to Hezbollah is false.
Israel unleashed a pre-planned military campaign to destroy Hezbollah. I believe it used archaic justification to define legitimate action against Hezbollah, and Israel's reasoning in attacking Hezbollah "infrastructure" -- particularly in Beirut -- was sloppy. But Israel didn’t bomb the Lebanese electrical power grid, Lebanese water or sewage infrastructure, Lebanon’s “refinery,” hospitals or schools. Yes some were damaged in in the fighting, but the fact is, there was some attempt to discriminate, Lebanon wasn’t systematically destroyed.
Were there roads and bridges, factories, financial institutions, fuel storage, airports and apartment buildings in Beirut that Israel bombed in their pursuit of contorted military missions: threats to Lebanon, signaling, escalation, coercion and leadership and crony-attack? There were. Israel was “indiscriminate” in these endeavors only in the sense that it did not make a holistic analysis of the military benefit relative to the human (and political) impact. Someone should have said, "Enough already," for what is being achieved militarily. Someone should have said the accumulation of buildings or bridges begins to tell a different story, and that story, if it is not the intent, is one to be avoided. Such argument, however, would necessitate adhering to the facts and distinguishing between what happened and what was imagined.
I’m interested in a far more fundamental critique of the use of military force, one that relates to the weakness of internal military justification, one that pushes in the future for militaries to reconsider dominant strategies in order to minimize harm to civilians and preserve the fundamental distinction between military and civilian.
This is an almost impossible task given public views I’ve observed, both in Lebanon and Israel, and in the blogosphere.
Two dominant narratives emerge in the comments on this site: One is anti-Israel and holds to the view that Israel planned and prepared aggressive war against Lebanon well before the July kidnappings. Hezbollah, in this narrative, was small and ineffective, and the true Israel target was the Muslim world, which was devastated intentionally: for harboring Hezbollah, for fronting Iran, and because Lebanon represented modernity and accommodation and needed to be set back. In this conspiratorial narrative, factories in Lebanon were bombed because they had the potential to compete with Israeli companies or because the United States asked they be bombed because they had the potential to compete with American ones.
As the Israel-haters get lost in their denunciations and conspiracies, they further conclude that no reason is possible in dealing with the Israelis. Their view is that they have always been shown to be aggressive and indifferent to human life; they need to be eliminated.
On the other end of the spectrum is the Israeli smoting section. Israel may have erred by failing to fight more aggressively, go in on the ground sooner, train its reservists to super-status, get hot meals to the front, react earlier. When it comes to the anti-terror narrative about the enemy, there is no consideration for what could have been different or how the enemy could be better or more compassionately understood. There is one story: Hezbollah abused the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon to build up offensive arms and create a state within a state, all done under the watchful eye of Lebanon, and with the support of Syria and Iran, for the purpose not of filling a political vacuum, nor for defense against Israel, nor for recovery of territory or of Lebanese prisoners. Hezbollah, in this narrative only exists to destroy Israel. What it wants is Jerusalem and elimination of the Jewish state. These are terrorists with whom one cannot reason; they prey upon civilians; they only understand military force and must be eliminated.
Israeli military types and political leaders hail their success in eliminating Hezbollah’s long-range missile threat, killing more than 500 Hezbollah fighters, setting back Hezbollah’s military capabilities and infrastructure “two years,” dislodging Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, demonstrating that the country is no longer hesitant to respond to individual provocations, creating a high “price tag” for anyone who attacks Israel.
Meanwhile, Israel did not achieve some of top objectives: the return of the captive soldiers, “annihilation” or elimination of Hezbollah; or destruction of Hezbollah's rockets. U.S. intelligence now believes that Hezbollah possesses about 9,000 rockets, even after the fight.
Hezbollah did not defeat Israel on the battlefield, but they won the hearts and minds of many. Hezbollah’s own narrative as it moves forward will be that it survived the best that Israel could throw at it, that only a few of its fighters were killed, that only civilians were hit, that only it stood up to Israel and was victorious.
Oh, there are facts, and they poke holes in both the Israeli and Hezbollah lines, and demolish most of the unwashed presumptions about the war. It just doesn’t seem that many engaged in the debate are too interested in facts getting in the way.
By William M. Arkin | September 19, 2006; 9:20 AM ET |

Lebanese Detainees in Israel
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 19/09/06//
By putting the three Hezbollah detainees on trial, Israel premeditatedly disrupts the implementation of international Resolution 1701. In addition to being a violation of international laws and treaties regarding the prisoners of war, this step is making the UN Secretary General's mediation far more difficult. However, he has actually started mediating to exchange prisoners between Hezbollah and the Jewish State.
The situation of the three prisoners, and others that may have been captured by Israeli forces in Lebanon during its assaults, is covered by the international Resolution's article on prisoners. With the prisoners referred to the Criminal Court, and regardless of the charges and justifications, the whole situation will change. Israel's political authorities may also insist on waiting for a verdict in case Annan's efforts are a success. It is most probable that Israel resorted to this trick to complicate the exchange of prisoners and to stall the issue regarding the prisoners. However, Israel knows that releasing the Lebanese prisoners, who are being kept in Israeli prisons, is one of the main commitments of the Lebanese government, having approved Resolution 1701.
This conclusion is supported by the behavior of Israel on the ground in southern Lebanon, and even before this simulated complication of the issue regarding the prisoners. Israel violates Lebanese territories every day. Not only does Israel delay the comprehensive withdrawal, but it also creates crises through minor aggressions on the Blue Line. Israel moves the barbed wires of the borders a few meters forward and backward. Nonetheless, it knows that it will eventually have to leave what it has tried to seize because of the clear-cut Blue Line demarcated by the UN a few years ago. Moreover, Israel is violating Lebanese airspace, and is evading the proposed solutions for the occupied Shebaa Farms. Sometimes Israel says it is studying Annan's proposal to place the Farms under UN trusteeship, and at other times, it completely denies the Farms' Lebanese identity to maintain its occupation of them.
Israel's continuous challenges of Resolution 1701 are primarily aimed at Lebanon's government and sovereignty. The government has taken hold of the South, and is thus responsible for the full implementation of the international Resolution. This Resolution gives the government the right to ask for help from the UNIFIL forces in matters of security. It also provides it with the chance to ask for help in matters of politics in order to accelerate the implementation of the Resolution.
The key opportunity now is to call on the States participating in UNIFIL and the UN Secretary General to pressure Israel to deem the three men as war captives, not criminal prisoners. They are not criminals. They are Resistance elements who were captured in the war on Lebanese territory.
If the Lebanese government is not controlling the elements for the exchange of prisoners process, which Hezbollah or whoever speaks on its behalf holds the exclusive rights, then Israel's treatment of the Lebanese prisoners in its prisons and their legal status fall outside the framework of this file. This file stands alone, thus, it should be the Lebanese government's priority to seize control of the issue. The government should also use all of its capabilities and international relations to restore the prisoners' status as prisoners of war.
Any leniency in this regard will not only affect the credibility of the Lebanese government's commitment to the Seven Points, but will also worsen the differences with Hezbollah. Leniency will also heighten the mutual doubts and tension, serving Israel's ultimate goal.

King Abdullah II of Jordan to Al-Hayat: "Let's leave Iraq to the Iraqis and Lebanon to the Lebanese. I cannot the least claim that the Jordanian-Syrian relationship is perfect. A potential military confrontation with Iran will be catastrophic. Regional parties are fomenting the confessional sedition." (By Ghassan Charbel)
Ghassan Charbel Al-Hayat - 18/09/06//
Amman - The Jordanian Monarch, King Abdullah II called for an end to all foreign interventions in Iraqi affairs, expressing his deep concern for the attempts to destabilize Lebanon. He warned of the worse if the Israelis and the Palestinians do not launch comprehensive negotiations in the next few weeks and months, hoping that the row over Iran's nuclear file would not end up in a military confrontation. He also denied Jordan's attempt to join in a regional axis, especially that its continuous coordination with Saudi Arabia and Egypt comprised other Arab States.

In parallel, he ascertained that there were no detainees imprisoned in Jordanian prisons for the United States. Then he raised the issue of renewing Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal's passport via the Jordanian embassy in Doha. These are, in a nutshell, the statements the Jordanian King made in a comprehensive interview with Al-Hayat on all the major issues in the Middle East.

King Abdullah II to Al-Hayat: Khaled Mashaal's passport has been renewed in Doha, the United States keeps no detainees in Jordanian prisons… Critical years are looming unless the Palestinians and the Israelis embark as soon as possible on negotiations with regional powers seeking to fan the conflict and to pit the Sunnites against the Shiites.

The Jordanian King makes no secret of his concern that the region might endure hard times unless actions are swiftly taken to revive the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, especially that the last opportunity is measured in months rather weeks.

In his interview with Al-Hayat, the Jordanian King emphasized the need to elaborate a united Arab vision to the regional challenges. Otherwise, the superpowers will search for an alternative negotiating partner other than the Arabs. "Then we will all regret it." Obviously, this desired united vision has driven the King during the past months to Riyadh, Cairo, and other Arab capitals, with the Israeli assault on Lebanon highlighting the failure of unilateral solutions and the dire need for a just and comprehensive peace.

In addition, the King voiced his concern over the current situation in Iraq, where "violence most often takes a confessional aspect". Nonetheless, he hailed the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "and his program designed to end the cycle of violence in the country. So, we are all urged to support this program and ensure its success." He also hoped that the escalation of the Iranian nuclear file would not wind up in a military confrontation. "For our region cannot bear a new catastrophe, the price of which we will all pay." In addition, he explained how the passport of Hamas politburo chief, Khaled Mashaal, was renewed in the Jordanian embassy in Doha, pointing out that the problem is not with the man but with his policies. Furthermore, the King addressed the major issues on the Jordanian scene, affirming that the United States keeps no detainees in the Jordanian prisons.

Here is the full transcript:

Al-Hayat: Many fear a potential all-out civil war in Iraq. Do you equally harbor such fears? Has Jordan started preparing itself for such a possibility?
King Abdullah II: With no doubt, the current events in Iraq alarm us, especially that the ongoing violence there most often takes a confessional aspect. But at the same time, I bet on the Iraqis' awareness of the dangers threatening their country. I also appreciate the attempts of the Iraqi Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, to preserve Iraq's unity and territorial integrity. I have recently met with him and sensed his concern for Iraq's unity. He also mapped out a program to break the cycle of violence engulfing the country. Hence, we are all called to support him and make a success of his program for Iraq's future and the future of the whole region. Besides, all the Arabs are urged to stand beside Iraq and to prevent interventions of all kinds. Let's leave Iraq to the Iraqis so that they decide by themselves the fate of their own country. I have repeatedly warned against the repercussions of the increasingly deteriorating security conditions in Iraq, which hinder all our sincere efforts to salvage the country from the overwhelming confusion, violence, and blind fighting, and to spare it a civil war which might, God forbid, destabilize the whole region. As Iraq's neighbors, and given our close historical brotherly ties with the Iraqi people, we will be obviously the first to be affected by the developments unraveling there. For this reason, it is in our interest to help the Iraqis build a united and safe Iraq with protected sovereignty, independence, and will.

Al-Hayat: You will attend Your Majesty the annual meetings of the UN General Assembly. Will you table any Jordanian or Arab project to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict?
King Abdullah II: We have no Jordanian project but some ideas jointly prepared with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, some Arab countries, and the Palestinian President Abu Mazen to revive the peace process based on the resolutions of the international legitimacy, the Arab Peace Initiative, and the Road Map.

Al-Hayat: The assault on Lebanon has apparently undermined the trust in negotiations and peace. What steps need to be taken to revive the peace process?
King Abdullah II: The peace ensuring the rights of all parties and establishing an independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territory is the lasting peace the future generations will protect and safeguard. As for the incomplete peace that does not consecrate the rights of all peoples, it will remain fragile and liable to flounder. We have tried since Oslo many initiatives but they remained incomplete and have soon crumbled. As enshrined in the Arab peace initiative endorsed in Beirut, peace must rest on the international legitimacy and its resolutions, i.e. all Arab rights must be consecrated in exchange for security guarantees for Israel to live in peace and security side by side with the Arab countries.

Al-Hayat: Why do you believe that the unilateral and partial solutions do not help restore peace?
King Abdullah II: Because we have all beheld what happened in Gaza following the Israeli unilateral withdrawal and in Lebanon, the country Israel liberated in 2000 to reoccupy again. Lasting peace is the one all parties believe in and cling to after negotiations and international agreements…As for the so-called unilateral peace, it has proven to be a fiasco on the ground.

Al-Hayat: Over a year ago, you said Your Majesty that peaceful settlement would take two years. Do you need now more time or less?
King Abdullah II: Unfortunately, this period has shrunk. So has the margin of optimism. A gloomy future is likely to be in store for the region unless we take actions on clear acceptable bases in the next weeks in order to reach a solution convincing to all peoples.

Al-Hayat: You have ascertained, in the aftermath of the aggression against Lebanon, that there exists no military solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and that occupation breeds resistance. But Israel has aborted peace. So where does the solution lie now?
King Abdullah II: In returning to peace, to the negotiating table. After the war on Lebanon, Israel realized like the United States and the whole world, that unilateral solutions were doomed to fail…Israel's sole future lies in ensuring a just peace consecrating the rights of all eligible parties. Neither Israel nor the region can bask in peace unless the Palestinians enjoy stability…The time has come for us to tackle the roots of the conflict, the core of the problem, i.e. the Palestinian cause. In fact, if no just solution is found, one recognizing the rights of the Palestinian people and consecrating a viable Palestinian state on the Palestinian territory, the peoples of the region will neither enjoy security nor stability. I am warning now that if we fail in the next weeks and months to initiate comprehensive negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians leading to an independent geographically connected Palestinian state in a fixed time limit, then the peoples of the region will be fated to critical and violent years.

Al-Hayat: There is a tendency towards forging a Palestinian national unity. Will this contribute to the efforts to promote negotiations and find adequate solutions?
King Abdullah II: We hope that this step will, if coupled with enough components, revive negotiations. The Palestinian situation was difficult in the past months and I even fear a gloomy future if no attempts are made in the next few weeks or months to find just solutions. The time left is short, the Palestinian problem is the basis, we must move forward towards finding a solution to dispel despair and frustration, which foment terrorism and destabilize the region. This issue was at the centerpiece of all the recent meetings I held with the Arab leaders in order to unite our vision and to muster the Arab weight to prod the international powers to reengage in the efforts to erect a Palestinian state. The current stalemate portends many dangers to the Palestinians and the entire region. By contrast, any progress in resolving the Palestinian cause will help settle the other problems boiling in the region. Hence our continuous and ongoing coordination with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Al-Hayat: All eyes in the region are riveted to the Iranian nuclear file. Do you fear that this file will trigger a nuclear confrontation?
King Abdullah II: We hope not. Our region cannot bear another catastrophe, the price of which we will all pay. The peoples of this region are fed up of war and can no longer bear further violence, catastrophes, and destruction. The international community must nowadays settle the Iranian nuclear file through dialogue and diplomatic means - an option that needs to remain open. For it does not only fall in Iran's interests but also in the interest of the international and regional peace and stability. What is needed today is the resumption of negotiations to reach mutually acceptable results leading to regional peace and security.

The First Role

Al-Hayat: Arab parties fear the so-called Iranian attempts to snatch the first role in the region by military, political, security, and financial expansions. Some also address the endeavors to "Shiitize" some Sunnites in the region. What do you think Your Majesty?
King Abdullah II: Regrettably, some regional powers and parties try to stir up the conflict and create a strife between the Sunnites and Shiites. As I belong to the Ahlul-Bait school, I care for all Muslims, Shiites and Sunnites, wherever they were. Anyone who tries to harm the relationship between Muslims is said to betray his religion and nation. Driven by our concern over the developments in Iraq, we held in Amman the 2005 International Islamic Conference for all Muslim imams, Shiites and Sunnites. While reaffirming the common denominators between all Muslims, the said conference equally admitted the legitimacy of the 8 well-known Muslim schools. In the same vein, we have previously launched Amman Message through which we meant to face the extremists' false claims and to grant moderate Islam the voice and importance it deserves globally. In addition, Amman will host in the next couple of months a conference bringing together all Iraqi scholars and clerics, irrespective of their schools, in order to deepen the Iraqi unity and to forge a religious then a political consensus, which will eventually rein in violence and confessional fighting. This will equally help us channel the potentials of all Iraqis towards building their safe and stable country. We indeed fear any foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, we fear Iraq will become a fertile ground for violence. The Iraqis alone have the right to determine their future away from any intervention or foreign greed.

Amman-Damascus and "the good intentions"

Al-Hayat: How do you describe the present Syrian-Jordanian relations? Why haven't the two young leaders in the region forge the close ties some have expected years ago?
King Abdullah II: Frankly, I cannot the least claim that our relationship is perfect. I have strived, since the election of President Assad, to open with Syria a new page of mutual trust and cooperation, especially that positive relations must, in our opinion, unite all Arab countries. We also believe that the success of any Arab state is a success to Jordan too. But unfortunately, the oft-heard good intentions have not been materialized on the ground. We really want Syria to preserve its momentous role among the Arab countries in entrenching the concepts of security and stability. We also want to cooperate with Syria. To this end, our bilateral institutions have maintained their normal relations, while our governmental delegations exchange visits.

Al-Hayat: You have apparently tried at some stages to ease the US-Syrian dispute. What does the US currently wants from Syria, mainly with respect to its alliance with Iran? Does it favor a regime or a policy change?
King Abdullah II: We have repeatedly tried to alleviate the row between the US and Syria. We advised the Americans to listen to the Syrian standpoint and to open a diplomatic dialogue with the Syrian leadership. But after the regional developments, especially the Syrian-Lebanese dispute and the assassination of the late PM Rafik Hariri, the gap widened further and the issue grew more complicated in the past months. We wish Syria all welfare and prosperity. For every damage it incurs - God forbid - affects us.

Al-Hayat: Why did you decline to contribute troops to the international forces in Lebanon?
King Abdullah II: Such a participation requires both an Arab support and cover. For this reason, I think that the Arab League is the most capable institution that can rule whether Arab troops are to participate in the international forces in Lebanon.

Al-Hayat: You are striving to build a united Arab strategy to face the challenges in Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon. What are the bases of this strategy?
King Abdullah II: Our strategy rests on uniting the Arab stance and forging a united Arab vision to the regional challenges. Without a united Arab stance to make our voices heard, the greedy parties will certainly plunder the region. Even more, as I have recently feared, the Arab role might be marginalized. The superpowers, if they find no clear and united Arab stance, will search for an alternative negotiating partner instead of the Arabs. And then, we will all regret it. For this reason, I have exerted in the past months sincere efforts and met the Arab leaders to elaborate an Arab stance, one that can reinforce our strategy to protect the future of all Arabs.

The Tripartite Coordination

Al-Hayat: Does this mean that the tripartite Jordanian-Saudi-Egyptian coordination is heading towards creating a new axis in the region?
King Abdullah II: Jordan is far away from the policy of axes. Its coordination is not limited to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but encompasses other Arab countries. We have cooperated with our brothers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and some Arab countries to handle the regional crises with united stance and vision away from the policy of axes. But alas, this has discontented some regional powers and brothers who doubted our goals. Here I ask: if the coordination with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Yemen, and Sudan is unacceptable, is it acceptable for us then to coordinate and enter into alliance with regional powers that bode no good for the region? Is this acceptable?

Al-Hayat: In your view, what are the lessons drawn from the offensive on Lebanon?
King Abdullah II: The most important one is the failure of the Israeli policy to impose unilateral solutions, the failure of force as a means to settle the conflict in the region, the failure of the policies adopted by superpowers that haven't seriously tried to help the Middle Eastern countries find a just and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and finally the failure of the policies to meddle in Lebanon's affairs. By leveling cities and villages and striking Hezbollah's infrastructure, Israel cannot avoid the rise of another "Hezbollah" maybe in another country this time. Most importantly, no regional peace and security are possible unless we tackle the roots of the conflict, i.e. the Palestinian cause, unless we strive to end the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory and establish the Palestinian State on the Palestinian soil.

Al-Hayat: Does the situation in Lebanon stir up your concerns?
King Abdullah II: Very much. You know how much we personally - and the Jordanians at large - cherish and value Lebanon. I was very optimistic about Lebanon in the past 6 years with respect to the political, economic, and social development. I considered that Lebanon could be a model for all Arabs in its openness and yearning for development and reconstruction. We hoped to establish this trend here. The assassination of martyr MP Rafik Hariri, may his soul rest in peace, shocked and moved us a great deal in Jordan. Then came the latest war, which bounced Lebanon back 30 years. Despite what we have offered to our brethren in Lebanon, we always feel that it is not enough since Lebanon means a great deal to the Jordanians and all the Arabs. We are in daily contact with our brothers in Lebanon to inquire on the ways through which we can provide assistance. We sent a field hospital and the air force contributed to the reopening of the airport. We are considering ways to help the private sector again and entice Arab investments to head to Lebanon. We are in constant contact with the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and we believe that helping Lebanon to overcome this ordeal is an Arab obligation.

Lebanon and the International Umbrella

Al-Hayat: Are there any risks of deterioration in the process of implementing resolution 1701 and potential flaws in the international umbrella?
King Abdullah II: Today, the Europeans, the Americans, and a large number of Arab countries seriously feel that there is a need to protect the Lebanese stability. This acknowledgement of the gravity of the Lebanese situation was not as strong during the first week of the war. Today, the situation is much better. I am particularly concerned that there will be a rift among the Lebanese and that these political conflicts will transcend the political and media clamor, especially that there are people who want to keep Lebanon unstable or disrupt the stability steps achieved so far. Of course, these parties should realize that we will not allow them to play such a detrimental role in Lebanon and the region.

Al-Hayat: Do you mean the interferences in the Lebanese affairs?
King Abdullah II: I think that it is time to let Lebanon be the sole concern of the Lebanese and to allow the Lebanese to decide their own affairs and future without interferences or pressure. Should this take place, the Lebanese people are characterized by a vitality that will secure Lebanon's return to the reconstruction and revival journey. What we mean by halting all interferences applies to all parties that could have an impact on the Lebanese situation. In this respect, we should also pressure Israel regarding the issue of Shebaa farms. Solving this issue is an important matter for the future relations between Lebanon and Syria. We are taking action in this respect, paralleled by a European initiative. The issue of the detainees also needs follow-up. We need some time but these issues are important. Once these are solved and the interferences are hindered, Lebanese will surely rise again and the Lebanese will move forward. I am optimistic and confident that the Lebanese people have the potential to outrun the aftermath of the war.

Al-Hayat: Can the results of the work of the international probe committee into the assassination of PM Hariri represent a new spur liable to flare-up the situation?
King Abdullah II: I think that it is the Lebanese people's right to know the truth about what happened. It is also the right of the Arabs to know. The attempts to eclipse the truth are not utterly beneficial. The motives and the accompanying circumstances of such a massive assassination should be unveiled for the sake of Lebanon and stability in the region. The investigation committee is operating with the support of the international legislation. It should shed light on this terrorist crime so that each involved party or accomplice could be held accountable. The investigation should take its course.

Al-Hayat: Do you believe that Hariri's assassination was part of a major scheme?
King Abdullah II: Since the assassination, questions have been raised as to the motives of targeting Rafik Hariri? He is a moderate Lebanese, Arab, and Muslim. He is a man of dialogue, cooperation, and construction. He used his large-scale international relations for the benefit of his country and the Arabs and for construction and stability efforts. Was he targeted because he is endowed with all these characteristics or because his role contributes to instilling moderation, openness, and stability? This is the question.

"Disregarding moderation and seizing the region"

Al-Hayat: Do you believe that some mistakes stemming from the US regional policy boost the status of terrorist groups and the parties supporting them?
King Abdullah II: This is unfortunately true. Since 9/11, the US reactions towards the attacks that the Americans have been subjected to have contributed to boosting the status of terrorist groups. We warned, following 9/11, that some will attempt to create a rift between East and West and exploit the US mistakes in the region in order to promote hatred and rift, thus limiting the scope of moderate people. This is what stirs our concerns. The moderate voices have been cast aside. The region has been seized for the sake of agendas, whose drafters do not foresee the future of the people of this region. They don't want the unity of our Arab nation. This is why we summon today that moderation should achieve a noticeable progress, so that the people can embrace it, because otherwise, people will adopt other methods to defend their rights. These are methods that we are all familiar with, and we have experienced their danger and the damages entailed thereby.

Al-Hayat: How do you perceive the course of the "war on terrorism" and what are the main terrorist challenges that Jordan is facing? Are there countries that seek to disrupt its stability?
King Abdullah II: Jordan and all countries of the region are today in a constant war with terrorism, especially that most terrorist victims are Arabs and Muslims. Thus, the sources of the problems that the terrorists are using as a pretext for their criminal acts and that reinforce the stances of the parties and individuals that support them should definitely be dried up. We have many challenges ahead. If the Palestinian situation remains without a solution and Israel continues to enforce the blockage policy on the Palestinian people and pursue the killing that leads to despair and frustration, as well as the daily killing in Iraq, the despair and frustration feeling will become more powerful and will bring with it radicalism and terrorism. As you see today, Jordan is caught between a war in Palestine, an increasing violence in Iraq, and regional forces that work hard to disrupt the stability in the entire region. This is a significant challenge.

Al-Hayat: There are voices amidst the Jordan opposition criticizing the draft law to ban terrorism, under the pretext that this is a police law that silences people and violates their rights. What is your opinion in this respect?
King Abdullah II: We contemplated a law to ban terrorism when Jordan was subjected to two bitter terrorist attacks that killed innocent civilians. The first one is the bombing of the hotels in Amman, which resulted in 60 casualties and the Aqaba incident prior to that. Many categories of citizens called for passing such a law. There was also a consensus thereon in a national convention that gathered all the party and political blocs, the popular authorities, and the civil society institutions. It also came about as a result of the acknowledgement of a large number of Jordanians that Jordan is facing major challenges vis-à-vis terrorism, which is due to the surrounding external circumstances and to the fact that the Jordanian legislators found that the enforced laws are not clear and decisive in dealing with terrorism. I don't think that any citizen, who is a fervent adherent to the interest of Jordan, its security and the security of the Jordanians, would oppose this move that aims to preserve the security of our people and guests. The government did not impose the law on terrorism as a temporary one, but it was highly approved by the representatives of the people in the Nation's Council. I say to those who are concerned about liberties that the Jordanian constitution and laws preserve their rights. But we don't want to provide liberty to the terrorists or to those who want to afflict the security of Jordan and our people.

The Islamists and "Takfiris"

Al-Hayat: Can the tourists' fire-shooting incident in the heart of Amman lead to a more radical law or be a pretext to oppress public liberties?
King Abdullah II: It won't definitely be as such. This incident has confirmed once again the belief of the citizens that terrorism should be rejected. This incident embodied once again the unity of the people in fighting terrorism. The people who were present near the Roman amphitheater where the incident took place played an important role in helping to catch the criminal, who, according to the investigations, independently committed the crime. There are no indicators until now that there is a party that backs him up.

Al-Hayat: Lately, the relationship between the government and the Islamist movement has witnessed some tension, especially following the visit of condolences paid by four of its deputies at the Zirqawi's death. Do you believe that "the Muslim Brotherhood" group has trespassed the red lines in the traditional relation with the government?
King Abdullah II: We received some signs from the Islamist Movement rejecting the deputies visit of condolences and confirming their commitment to Jordan's constants in preserving security and rebuffing terrorism. I perfectly know that most of the adherents to the Islamist Movement are those who love their country and who refuse to disrupt national security. The "Muslim Brotherhood" has representatives in the Parliament and in national bodies. They freely operate through certain platforms. Our battle is against the Expiatory [Takfiris], who expiate society, and even the leaderships of the moderate Islamic Movement. The Jordanian Constitution will remain the reference of the government and the Islamist Movement, and a reference to all of us. But using the backup of non-Jordanian parties at the expense of the country and the advocacy of expiatory mentality are two totally unacceptable issues.

Al-Hayat: Does this mean that you are calling for a new format for the relation with the Islamist Movement?
King Abdullah II: The Islamist Movement is a political movement that assumes the same role as other political movements in the kingdom. The relation with everyone was and will always be based on heeding the interests of the country and its constants. It is governed by the constitution, which is the arbitrator between us all.

Mashaal and his Passport

Al-Hayat: What does the renewal of the Jordanian passport of Hamas' politburo head, Khaled Machaal, stand for, following seven years of tension with the movement?
King Abdullah II: Khaled Mashaal sent his passport to our embassy in Doha to renew it, just as any Jordanian citizen would do, and it was renewed. This confirms that we don't have any personal problem with this man, as much as it is a political security issue. I would like to add here that, when the war erupted in Lebanon, Khaled Mashaal sent his family to Amman to guarantee their security and the government provided facilities for their entry to Jordan. Once again, I say that the conflict with Khaled Mashaal fell in the scope of targeting the security of Jordan. It is nothing but a disagreement on the policies adopted by this man.

Al-Hayat: The Jordanian opposition is calling for a new elections law, but we noticed that the talk about this law has waned and been deferred indefinitely. What are the risks of amending the elections law now?
King Abdullah II: We want to start strengthening the makeup of party life, and we await the day when parliamentary elections will be held on the basis of party lists. But the clear truth is that we have a problem in party life, which lies amongst the people refraining from adhering to parties. This is probably due to two reasons: The first one is the fear of people to join parties, which is due to the experience of the 50s and 60s. The second one is the fact they are not convinced that there is a benefit to joining these parties, especially in the light of their distribution, diversification, and similar political agendas. Today, we have nearly 30 parties, but the number of adherents thereto is less than 1% of the population. In any case, there is a law on parties currently proposed to the government. We hope that it will be passed so that we can organize party work and secure as well the success of holding elections on partisanship basis in the near future, may God will.

Al-Hayat: You raised the slogan of internal reform and launched a number of initiatives. Are you satisfied with what has been achieved?
King Abdullah II: We are going in the right direction. The achievements accomplished during the past seven years are substantial and have a created a turning a point on the economic, social, and political levels. I am proud of my Jordanian people and their ability to achieve and face challenges. Jordan, as you know, is devoid of natural resources, but our natural resource is man, on whom we rely to build a model country. But, despite these major achievements, I cannot say that I am totally satisfied with what has been achieved. Our aspirations for Jordan and our people are boundless. The challenges that we are facing will not prevent us from striving for building a modern Jordan and secure a better future for our people.

Al-Hayat: International parties are raising the issue of the presence of Jordanian prisons where detainees are being tortured and questioned on behalf of the US, what are your comments on this issue?
King Abdullah II: This is totally untrue. There are no detainees for the US in Jordan. The Jordanian prisons have always been open for international institutions and there has been no reference to this kind of violation in the Jordanian reform and rehabilitation centers.

Al-Hayat: The energy bill has grown to be a burden for the Jordanian budget, especially following the rise of fuel prices worldwide. What are you doing to solve this problem?
King Abdullah II: Securing better living conditions for our people, especially those with a limited income and less privileged groups, is our top priority. There are many ambitious development projects and agendas that, we hope, will contribute to alleviating the harsh effects of the fuel bill on us and will meet our aspirations for improving the situation of the less privileged groups, who were most affected by the rising prices. The support and aids that we received from our brothers in the KSA, UAE, and Kuwait in light of the massive increase in oil prices played an important role in alleviating the burdens of this rise on the government's general budget and in overcoming the effects thereof. We are hopeful that these aids will continue so that we can move forward in our development agendas.

Al-Hayat: Does Jordan always live amid regional storms?
King Abdullah II: Unfortunately, we live in a difficult region. Coexisting with these storms is part of our life in Jordan. There is the Palestinian issue and its repercussions, there are Arab -Israeli wars, for which we paid the price, and there are regional crises that we also paid for. Storms are part of our life. Regretfully, we have grown to be experts (smiling). The important thing is that the individual should not lose focus and direction. The unity of the Jordanian people has always guaranteed that it will face the storms.

Al-Hayat: Is your real wager on the army, from which you emanate, and what is your assessment of the Jordanian army today?
King Abdullah II: The wager or first guarantee is the people, and the army is part thereof. The experiences of the previous eras have cultivated unity within the big Jordanian family in facing dangers. Jordanians are resilient in facing crises and do not allow anyone to slander their country. This is the feeling of the Jordanian citizen and the Jordanian soldier. As for my assessment of the Jordanian army, I consider it to be one of the best in the region as a result of its discipline, professionalism, seriousness, training, and acquired expertise, in addition to its standing for all citizens.

Al-Hayat: Jordan has been subjected to campaigns over the past weeks, the latest of which are the accusations of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the "second man" in "Al-Qaeda."
King Abdullah II: Let me be honest here. If we remain silent and abstain from expressing our convictions and opinions in all transparency, we would not criticize anyone. We consider that it is our duty, whether in the closed meetings or the publicized conventions, to express our reading of the situation in the region and the dangers that we deem to be surrounding the Arabs and their interests. The magnitude of these dangers drives us sometimes to be forthright or to name things as they are in order to point out that there is a need for an immediate and pressing solution. Some forces that launch campaigns against us do so because they feel that Jordan, as a result of the expertise and experience, perfectly knows its goals, the direction of its actions, and the benefactors thereof. The moderation approach adopted by Jordan does not hinder it from being open or taking initiatives. This also drives some forces that advocate agendas that do not serve peace, stability, and development to rise against us.
*Al-Hayat Translation Unit