LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 11/09

Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 11:27-28. While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed."He replied, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Iran marches toward the bomb/Nadim Koteich/Now Lebanon/October 10/09
Nobel Committee Pulls Oil Plug on Democracy/By Dr. Walid Phares/October 10/09
Arab Accord and Blockage in Lebanon/By: Walid Choucair/Al Hayat/ 10.10.09
Bahia Hariri/ Al-Mustaqbal newspaper/October 10/09 
An Open Question to Osama Bin Laden - or Any Other Islamist/By: Raymond Ibrahim/Pajamas Media/October 10/09
Obama's prize could help peace/The Daily Star/October 10/09
Turkey and Armenia: the benefits of diplomatic relations/By Cesar Chelala/October 10/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October 10/09
Captured Arab fighter in Iraq recounts journey from campus to killing fields/Los Angeles Times
Abdo: The “real” outcome of Damascus summit remains unknown/Now Lebanon
Nasrallah, Jumblat Welcome 'Positive' Results of Damascus Summit, Call for Removing Cabinet Obstacles-Naharnet
Hezbollah statement: Nasrallah met with Jumblatt, Taymur Jumblatt and Chehayeb on Friday/Now Lebanon
Optimism on Government Formation Next Week as Lebanese Await Damascus Summit Outcome-Naharnet
Report: Ain el-Rummaneh Assailants Hiding in the South-Naharnet
Major Power Warns About Possible Israel-Hizbullah Confrontation-Naharnet
Berri in Qatar Saturday and UAE Monday for Talks on Deported Lebanese
-Naharnet

Geagea for a constitution-based cabinet if national unity cabinet isn’t formed/Future News
Gemayel Fears History will Repeat Itself
-Naharnet
Government to Deal Firmly with Motorbikes
-Naharnet
Egypt Refuted Eid's Accusations
-Naharnet
Assad Calls Suleiman Confirming Damascus Summit Eagerness for Unity Government
-Naharnet
Lebanese Army: Security for All, Political Cover for None
-Naharnet
Saniora: Issue of Deported Lebanese Should be Solved Diplomatically
-Naharnet
Development and Liberation bloc MPs do not confirm Amal-Hezbollah delegation visit to Syria/Now Lebanon
Aaraji: Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed a cabinet should be formed soon/Now Lebanon
Marouni: Lebanese, hostages to foreign decisions/Future News
Jarrah: A cabinet is essential to curb security/Future News
Northern officials meet in Dar El-Fatwa/Future News
Majdalani: the ball is in the minority’s court/Future News
Hariri’s lawyer rectifies things responding to Sayyed’s lawyer/Future News
Honein hopes Saudi-Syrian summit establishes actual results/Future News

Lebanese Army vows to preserve security, deny criminals political cover-Daily Star
Rumors swirl as LBC lays of more than 60 employees -Daily Star
Assad calls Sleiman to confirm eagerness for stability-Daily Star
Special Tribunal not planning any imminent indictments-Daily Star
EU Commission calls for abolishing death penalty-Daily Star
Fadlallah urges firm response to security breaches-Daily Star
Beirut celebrates Jerusalem as Arab culture capital-Daily Star
UNESCO wraps up conference on climate change-Daily Star
Divers discover new fresh-water spring off Tyre-Daily Star
Baroud: Phone tapping regulations insufficient-Daily Star
Cannabis most popular illegal drug among students-Daily Star
Roof collapse injures 80-year-old man in Sidon-Daily Star
Fashion: a secret weapon in the war on breast cancer-Daily Star
Lebanon protests condemn clashes at Al-Aqsa Mosque-Daily Star

Abdo: The “real” outcome of Damascus summit remains unknown
October 10, 2009 /Now Lebanon/Former intelligence chief and ambassador Johnny Abdo told the Voice of Lebanon radio on Saturday that there is a certain “mystery” over the “real” outcome of the recent Saudi-Syrian summit in Damascus. He added that the “mysterious factor” is the Iranian position, saying that the ongoing Iranian smear campaign against Saudi Arabia was not affected by Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz’s visit to Syria. “Only Hezbollah, not even Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun, is obstructing the cabinet formation,” said Abdo.Abdo noted that Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed on the “need to achieve stability in Lebanon,” but ruled out any realization of this aim because “some major countries are working toward obstructing the outcome of the meeting.” He added that he is “not very optimistic because Lebanon’s problem is with Iran and not with Syria.” He also stressed that Lebanon was not the primary or the most important topic discussed in the Syrian-Saudi summit. Abdo also said that he did not understand why Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri stepped down and was reappointed. “If Saudi Arabia decides to forsake Hariri, it will be sacrificing itself,” added Abdo.

Report: Ain el-Rummaneh Assailants Hiding in the South
Naharnet/The army intelligence is reportedly searching in south Lebanon for two men involved in Tuesday's knife attack in Ain el-Rummaneh that killed one person and injured several others. An Nahar newspaper said Saturday that the two men reside in Bourj al-Barajneh district in Beirut's southern suburbs and have managed to escape to two villages in the south. Security apparatuses believe that the men's arrest is a matter of hours particularly that they don't enjoy political cover, according to An Nahar. George Abou Madi was killed outside his home on Tuesday night by knife-yielding young men from Shiyyah riding motorcycles. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 09:53

Major Power Warns About Possible Israel-Hizbullah Confrontation
Naharnet/A major power has warned that Israel could attack Hizbullah to cover up its move to thwart the settlement that U.S. President Barack Obama sought since he came to office, An Nahar daily reported Saturday. The newspaper expected U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell to fail in his mission at this stage to achieve a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. On Friday, Mitchell stressed Washington's commitment to a Palestinian state after meeting the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, at a time when hopes of a peace breakthrough appear dimmer than ever. At a three-way summit on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly last month Obama told Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stop dragging their feet and restart peace talks that were suspended after the Gaza war broke out at the end of last year. The major power told An Nahar that the Lebanese should form the cabinet as soon as possible to face Israeli plans although the Lebanese army and Hizbullah are ready for any emergency. Security sources in Beirut wondered why Lebanese leaders were putting sticks in the wheel of cabinet formation at a time when Israel has mobilized its army in the north and urged its troops to adopt different fighting techniques than during the 2006 war with Hizbullah. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 10:55

Nasrallah, Jumblat Welcome 'Positive' Results of Damascus Summit, Call for Removing Cabinet Obstacles

Naharnet/Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat welcomed any initiative aimed at helping the Lebanese cabinet formation including the results of the Saudi-Syrian summit. The stance of the top Lebanese leaders came during a meeting Friday night attended by MP Akram Shehayeb, Jumblat's son Taymour, and Hizbullah official Wafiq Safa. According to a joint statement, Nasrallah and Jumblat discussed the local and regional situation and stressed the positivity of the two-day meeting between Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad. The two leaders also stressed the importance of Arab-Arab openness and the need to overcome crises in the Arab and Islamic world.
The conferees also agreed to move forward in all measures that consolidate the atmosphere of reconciliation and on the necessity of removing all obstacles preventing cabinet formation. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 13:23

Hezbollah statement: Nasrallah met with Jumblatt, Taymur Jumblatt and Chehayeb on Friday

October 10, 2009/Now Lebanon/The Hezbollah media relations department issued a statement on Saturday in which it announced that Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah met with Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt, his son, Taymur, and MP Akram Chehayeb on Friday. The statement said that they discussed regional and local developments, in particular “the Israeli threats against Lebanon and the region, and joint US-Israeli exercises.” It also stressed the danger of Israeli actions related to Jerusalem’s sacred al-Aqsa mosque in light of “international nonchalance.” The statement added that the parties agreed on the “positive” nature of the Saudi-Syrian summit and on the importance of Arab “openness.”“Any initiative to form a new cabinet is welcome,” added the statement, while highlighting the Syrian-Saudi call to resolve the impasse by forming national-unity cabinet. They agreed to overcome the obstacles impeding the cabinet formation as soon as possible. The statement added that the parties followed up on the work of the progress of their joint committee, stressing the need to continue the reconciliation between Hezbollah and the PSP.

Optimism on Government Formation Next Week as Lebanese Await Damascus Summit Outcome

Naharnet/The new cabinet is expected to be formed next week, according to well-informed sources, although a media report said that both majority and opposition are sending positive messages despite lack of consensus that could push government formation forward. As Safir daily reported Saturday that last week's meeting between PM-designate Saad Hariri and Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun at Center House was fruitless. It said the two men didn't discuss names or portfolios and their meeting was only focused on attempts to "build trust" and "turn the page of the past." As Safir's report came as well-informed sources told An Nahar and Al Liwaa newspapers that the cabinet "could see light next week amid a positive atmosphere on the Arab level." The sources added that Hariri could present to President Michel Suleiman during an expected visit to Baabda palace the new government lineup. Suleiman's visitors also quoted the president as saying that "the positive (results) of the (Damascus) summit should be interpreted with a quick formation of the government."Meanwhile, Speaker Nabih Berri's representative MP Ali Hassan Khalil and Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's assistant Hussein Khalil are in Damascus to ask Syrian officials about the results of the summit between Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday. Al-Hayat newspaper quoted well-informed sources as saying that Abdullah and Assad agreed to awaken the Lebanese into the necessity of forming the new government and remove all obstacles. Berri, meanwhile, told pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat that he clings to his decision not to make any statements pending a clearer picture on the cabinet issue. However, sources close to Berri said that the speaker's decision to call for a parliamentary session on Oct. 20 for the election of parliamentary committees, chairmen and rapporteurs means he is giving early signs for the need to form the government before that date. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 09:36

Berri in Qatar Saturday and UAE Monday for Talks on Deported Lebanese
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri is expected on Saturday to travel to Qatar on an official visit and head to the United Arab Emirates on Monday to deal with the issue of deported Lebanese.
An Nahar daily said Berri is keen on adopting "the policy of dialogue" away from "politicization" during his discussion of the issue of hundreds of Lebanese Shiites who were expelled from the UAE in the past three months. Berri received an invitation to visit the UAE five days ago and knows that the solution to the issue is looming, according to the newspaper.
Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 11:21

Gemayel Fears History will Repeat Itself

Naharnet/Leader of Phalange Party Amin Gemayel fears that the logic of May 7th could still repeat itself setting as an example the incidents that took place during the past two days in Bab al-Tabbaneh and Ain el-Rummaneh. "How will this government affront the situation if obstruction becomes a habit? Would they be able to handle it if incidents like May 7th or Ain al-Rummaneh re-occur?" said Gemayel. The leader of Phalange Party is positive towards the outcome of the Saudi-Syrian summit which he anticipates it will facilitate the cabinet formation process. "The cabinet crisis will be resolved soon; we count on every Arab rapprochement to ease tensions and facilitate political agreements," he concluded. Beirut, 09 Oct 09, 20:21

Government to Deal Firmly with Motorbikes

Naharnet/Interior Minister Ziad Baroud ordered security forces on Friday to regulate activities of motorbikes starting October 15. The decision came after motorcyclists killed Ain el-Rummaneh resident George Abou Madi and injured several others with knives. Baroud said legal motorcycles could operate only between 5:00 am and 6:00 pm. As for motorbikes of pharmacies and restaurant deliveries, they can operate between 5:00 am and midnight. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 11:58

Egypt Refuted Eid's Accusations
Naharnet/The Egyptian Embassy in Beirut, through its press office, issued a statement on Friday refuting the accusation by Secretary General of the Democratic Arab Party Rifaat Ali Eid on Thursday to LBC. The press office repudiated the accusation labeling it as "unfounded." "This incident will not waver the reputable historical relations between Egypt and Lebanon and the brotherly ties between the two countries", elaborated the statement. Rifaat Ali Eid on Thursday held Egypt responsible for the incidents that took place in Bab al-Tebanneh and Jabal Mohsen neighborhoods in Tripoli. The recent developments left 8 injured after a clash using several Inerga-type rocket-propelled grenades which hit residential areas and a football field during the past two days. Beirut, 09 Oct 09, 19:34

Development and Liberation bloc MPs do not confirm Amal-Hezbollah delegation visit to Syria

October 10, 2009/Now Lebanon/Development and Liberation bloc MP Hani Qobeissy told LBC television on Saturday that he is “unaware” of a visit by bloc MP Ali Hassan Khalil and Hussein Khalil, the political aid to Hezbollah’s secretary general, to Syria which has been reported in the media. “Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, President Michel Sleiman and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea’ s positions indicate that the obstacles pertaining to the names of new cabinet ministers was overcome,” said Qobeissy. He added that the “positive reality that was consolidated by the Saudi-Syrian summit” was reflected by the positions and the statements of Lebanese politicians. “If stability in Lebanon results from the summit, then the cabinet formation will be guaranteed,” added Qobeissy. In an interview with Future News television on Saturday, Development and Liberation bloc MP Anwar al-Khalil also did not confirm the visit of an Amal Movement and Hezbollah delegation to Damascus. He said that if the visit took place, it would not be the first time that officials have visited Syria in order to “have a better understanding of the delicate details which could facilitate the cabinet formation.” He described such visits as “healthy.” Khalil added that Syria and Saudi Arabia agreed that a national-unity cabinet under the 15-10-5 formula should be formed. He voiced hope that new government would be formed before the election of parliamentary commissions.

Iran marches toward the bomb
Nadim Koteich , October 10, 2009
Now Lebanon/Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili answers questions during a press conference following talks between Iran and six world powers to discuss the Islamic republic's disputed atomic program. (AFP/Fabrice Coffrini) The Geneva meeting with Iran, which was eagerly described as “constructive” by Washington, left the most important question unanswered: What Middle East would these talks “construct”? The answer depends much on what we draw from the talks between Iran and the international community, and as things stand at the moment, Iran is marching towards developing its own nuclear bomb. Uranium enrichment is no longer a red line for Iran and discussion have gently shifted to the level of uranium purity Iran is allowed to process for domestic use and what will be done with the surplus. Hence, Tehran can comfortably announce plans to install a “new generation of centrifuges” at the country’s newly-revealed nuclear facility near the Shi’ite holy city of Qom, and at other sites, yet to be revealed. This was the hope as outlined by Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, during a CNN/George Washington University forum which was hosted by him and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In the meantime, a report prepared by IAEA experts and made public by ISIS said that Iran has successfully tested Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is working to develop a nuclear payload that can be delivered by them. The report concludes that Tehran already has the technical knowledge to build a nuclear bomb.
Israeli media is already addressing the possibility of living with a nuclear Iran, while Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “conceded” that an Iranian nuclear bomb does not pose an existential threat to Israel. This possibility is sending shivers down some spines in several Arab capitals.
In the last week, the UAE has adopted a civilian nuclear energy law that will pave the way for huge nuclear power program worth $41 billion. Although civilian in nature, the program hints at the region’s preparedness to start a nuclear arms race should Iran get there. UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al-Nayah openly expressed his country’s (and the GCC’s) concerns to Clinton in Sharm Il-Sheikh in March that the U.S. would reach an agreement with Iran on key strategic issues without Washington consulting its Arab allies.
Saudi Arabia is close to spending billions to buy a Russian S-400 advanced missile defense system, to protect against a potentially nuclear Iran, Gulf analysts and diplomats told AFP recently. Elsewhere, Washington is sabre-rattling against Tehran with a semi-official, plan B focused around assurances, bribes and containment, and which involves the U.S. nuclear umbrella over America’s Middle East allies, if Iran develops its bomb. It is an option that dovetails with the line of thinking of many officials around the Obama administration, and some of which was expressed openly their boss took office.
Take Ashton B. Carter, who wrote, before being assigned the job of Defense Undersecretary, that “containment and punishment” is the post-diplomacy-failure policy. Meanwhile, Gary Samore, head of non-proliferation at the National Security Council, preached of a responsible nuclear Iran, a country, he suggests, “would probably act like other nuclear-armed states and was not likely to give terrorists the bomb.”Then consider the mounting opposition coming from some hawks in the “bomb Iraq camp.” Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (whose book The Threatening Storm influenced many liberals to back the Iraq war) agreed during a joint panel prepared by AEI and Brookings the same day of Geneva talks, that containment, not military action, is the best policy on Iran. Feeling that assurances and containment could fail to convince Israel, the Obama administration is considering bribery. The Washington Times quoted unnamed US officials as saying that President Obama will not pressure Israel to publicly disclose its suspected nuclear weapons program, nor will he pressure the Jewish state to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. It is the same president who, days earlier, was lecturing the world at the UN General Assembly on nuclear nonproliferation and who was the driving force behind the UN resolution which aims at ridding the planet of nuclear weapons.
So, on preventing a nuclear Iran, we are invited to shift gears from “yes we can” to “what can we do?”, before we gamble on there being a regional balance of nuclear power while at the same time striving for a long term goal of a nuclear-weapons-free planet. In the meantime, those who disagree ought to, according to Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, “shut up”.

Aaraji: Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed a cabinet should be formed soon
October 10, 2009 /Now Lebanon/Zahle in the Heart bloc MP Assem Aaraji told OTV on Saturday that Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed on the need to form a Lebanese cabinet as soon as possible and highlighted that it is in Lebanon’s interest to have good relations with Syria. Aaraji said that all Lebanese parties are affiliated to some extent with a regional power. He added that “external signals” are needed for the Lebanese to reach an agreement and called for benefiting from the current regional atmosphere. Aaraji also said that the issue of the deportation of Lebanese expatriates from the UAE should be solved through diplomatic channels and through the countries’ official institutions. “I am sure that the UAE is not acting on a sectarian basis, but some of those who were deported had party connections,” added the MP.

Bahia Hariri

October 9, 2009
On October 9, the Al-Mustaqbal newspaper
carried the following report:
Now Lebanon/The Saida Consultation Gathering stressed the necessity of hastening the formation of a national-concord government to push the country’s wheel forward. The Gathering, which held its regular meeting upon an invitation from Minister Bahia Hariri, addressed the Ain al-Remmaneh incident and conveyed its concerns in this regard, calling on the security and military apparatuses to assume their roles. Following the meeting, Minister Hariri spoke in the name of the Gathering and expressed great confidence in the consultations that were being held by Prime
Minister-designate Saad Hariri to form the government, hoping they will entail results shortly. Bahia Hariri said:
“There is an insistence within the gathering on seeing the prompt formation of the national-concord government to launch the wheel [of movement] in the country.
The Gathering addressed the issue of the Ain al-Remmaneh and Shiyyah incident and there are major concerns in this regard. We therefore call on the security and military apparatuses to assume their role. Also in regard to the Majdel Anjar issue, we are still waiting for the results of the investigations. We want to know how we got to this point, and why were these people killed during the raids. There are many roving incidents occurring here and there, but we must enjoy a high level of awareness to undermine the attempts to affect civil peace.
The Gathering also talked about the A(H1N1) problem and the measures that were adopted to preempt it. An expanded meeting will be held next week so that we are able to reflect the adopted measures on the civil society in Saida, including the associations and health centers. We have assigned them to draw a plan, and I believe they are ready. Moreover, we addressed the environmental meeting that was held at the municipality, and we will announce next week the staging of a meeting with the neighboring towns because the environment in Saida is linked to its surrounding and not just to the city in itself.
The most important topic we discussed today was the Jerusalem issue which is related to the Palestinian issue as a whole, i.e. the central cause of the entire nation. This matter concerns both the Muslims and the Christians and there is a call for a popular spiritual meeting to register the positions and condemn what
Jerusalem and the Holy sites are being subjected to. We believe that these steps are dangerous and alarming and should be confronted without any delay and before all the other issues. The Gathering called on the Palestinian brother to rise up to the level of responsibility to protect the cause and uphold stability in the city.
It also praised the Palestinian-Lebanese rapprochement in Saida and its impact on the stability of the city and its surrounding towns.”
Asked whether or not the governmental formation was linked to the issue of the international tribunal formed to try those involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Bahia Hariri said:
“The tribunal issue has nothing to do with the government formation. There are no links between the two topics. Nothing can stop the work of the tribunal, no matter how much the commotion and talk about this issue were to escalate. We demanded the formation of a tribunal and will accept its decisions, and I do not think that anyone can control it. This issue is taking its own course, and there is another internal course with the major headline of containing the attempts to undermine stability.”

Nobel Committee Pulls Oil Plug on Democracy

By Dr. Walid Phares
Friday, October 9, 2009
As soon as the Oslo committee issued its Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, an expected debate raged in America about the legitimacy of such a move so very early in a U.S. presidential term.
The debate soon will espouse the dividing lines between domestic and foreign policy issues and, in a few weeks, will die out under the awe of new unfolding events. What will remain are future policy debates that will refer to one of the world’s most prestigious awards as a fact in international relations.
Months and few short years from now, supporters of the “new direction” in U.S. foreign policy as well as academics will frame Obama’s Nobel as a consolidation of a new world order, while the media outburst following the granting declaration will be forgotten.
Hence, bypassing the noise of did-he-earn-it-or-not deliberations, let’s ask: What is the strategy behind the decision to grant this particular trophy to the sitting American president?
To answer this, we simply can connect the dots between the statements made by the grantor and the grantee. Naturally every American must be proud, and many people around the world are happy for such a decision to honor the White House, although some U.S. leaders wished the committee had granted past presidents such as Bill Clinton for his gigantic efforts in worldwide humanitarian assistance.
The alternative choices are arguable, but this particular gesture isn’t about past achievements, as the committee and the recipient have concurred. It is about supporting a specific policy, which has been enunciated firmly during 2009 and is now being grounded in layers of moral recognition.
This honored policy is to ensure that there will be no more American intervention overseas to provoke democratic change, let alone revolutions, particularly in the so-called “Muslim world.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded “the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls and initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: easing American conflicts with Muslim nations.”
In other words, the transnational group of academics, politicians, and multinational corporations involved in the Oslo process of the Nobel Peace Prize clearly has championed the policy of Western restraint from “meddling” in the domestic business of authoritarian regimes.
If previous unilateral interventions meant removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from power, “multilateral approaches” mean not to pressure such types of regimes, as long as the latter’s action doesn’t disrupt the flow of petrodollars.
The real message of the prize’s grantors is deeper than what it shyly states: You will be honored if you keep your hands off our regimes and ideologies. Thus this recognition is not really about abstract notions or about climate change. It is a message from the authoritarians in the greater Middle East, via their economic partners in the West, to the United States, to quit pushing for democracy and intervening for human rights; as the previous administration said it would, but in fact failed to deliver.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is based in Norway, which cooperates with OPEC and often has joint ventures with its members. The latter is obviously controlled by the hard-core authoritarian members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab League. These regimes, regardless of their bilateral disputes (such as Wahabis and Khomeinists), have one common ground: Oppose the rise of democracy, their worst enemy, in their own midst.
U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia, moderating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, reaching out to dissidents in Myanmar, is fine. But defeating the Taliban and empowering women, helping the reformers in Iran, the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon, or saving Darfur: All of that is forbidden.
The bureaucrats and advisers of the Oslo committee are in partnership with the OPEC-OIC web and thus have offered their “credibility” as part of efforts to block and reverse American support to the underdogs in the region. In their eyes, the Obama administration already delivered significantly in nine months: The war on terror is over, narrative against jihadism is deleted, OIC’s “fatwa” on Defamation of Religion is endorsed, meddling in Iran’s oppression of its citizens rejected, intervention in Darfur stopped, Ghadafi’s terror forgotten, Assad regime’s massacres forgiven, and of course Guantanamo to be closed and U.S. Homeland Security directed against natural disasters instead of urban jihadism.
With such achievements, the “oil jihadi cartel” cannot but make a grand gesture to consolidate the new direction. In return, the powerful grantee accepted the prize as a “call to action,” meaning the course will be stayed. Reaffirming the tenets of his Cairo speech, the president asserted that today’s world is one of “religions” deserving “mutual interests and respect.”
So, between the lines, no future U.S. actions will be in favor of oppressed peoples if they happen to be living in Dar el Islam. The war in Iraq will be ended, regardless of Iran, Syria, and the Jihadists’ future interventions there. And there will be no escalation in the battlefield of Afghanistan, if only somehow the “ruthless adversary would stop threatening the United States.”
Here we go: The “other side” announced its agenda for America, and the latter accepted. Surely it is nice to receive a prominent prize, but it is important to see beyond our own nose. The hope is that the price for such an honor won’t be a human rights catastrophe for the underdogs in the “Muslim world.”
**Dr. Walid Phares Most recent columns
Dr. Walid Phares, Walidphares.com, is the author of the “War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy” and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Dr. Phares can be reached at: Phares@walidphares.com

Arab Accord and Blockage in Lebanon

Fri, 09 October 2009 -Daily Star
By: Walid Choucair
The Saudi-Syrian Summit is laying the groundwork for a new phase in inter-Arab relations, whose challenges are no less difficult and critical than the previous period, which was characterized by inter-Arab division and policies that were in opposition to each other. Dismantling each side’s actions during the inter-Arab dispute will require some effort in order to see a successful move to cooperation in light of rapid developments on the regional and international fronts, whether this is related to the Iranian nuclear issue, or the increasing obstacles to reviving peace talks between the Arabs and Israel.
It is natural that the leaders of the two countries are building on fixed Arab policies through resolutions of Arab summits, which were adopted even during escalating disputes in the region. This is in order to revive the formulas of coordination and joint policies, and unify approaches to “hot” Arab issues that were subjects of dispute, led by Lebanon. However, time is needed to produce creative political settlements that can anchor a return to coordination and harmony.
Lebanon has been a major reason for the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Syria in recent years, and specifically since 2005. The agreement between the two must cover this arena, and be reflected in it, along with the Palestinian arena. If Syrian-Saudi accord is expected to prompt the Lebanese to complete the formation of a long-awaited national unity government, whose establishment has been blocked, then this agreement should constitute a means of achieving Palestinian reconciliation, which has been blocked since 2007.
If Syria, since 2006, has been able to block the rule of the majority in Lebanon, which was allied with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it did so after its withdrawal from Lebanon. Syria did this in alliance with Iran, and by relying on local allies who were different from those used during its previous phase of managing Lebanon’s political decision-making prior to 2005. It made Hizbullah its prime ally, along with the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, General Michel Aoun. During the period of inter-Arab dispute, the struggle centered on who would control political decision making in Lebanon; Syria tried to block this decision making after it felt that its being forced to withdraw from Lebanon and be blocked from managing its affairs was a coup d’etat against it, since Lebanon is a vital arena of its influence and regional role. Despite the influence that it continues to wield in Lebanon through its allies, Syria has failed to recover its control over Lebanese decision making, even though it has succeeded in blocking it.
Meanwhile, the other, Arab-international axis, anchored by Saudi Arabia, was unable to cement the establishment of independent political decision making in Lebanon’s official political establishment. However, it prevented Syria from recovering its pre-2005 control, even though Damascus had added Iranian support to the elements of its influence in Lebanon.
It is not unrealistic to hear some describe events as follows: the practical result of the inter-Arab conflict over Lebanon was each side stalemating the other’s plans for a country where, despite its small size, key countries were concerned with retaining a high degree of influence, or control over its decision making, as in the case with Syria.
If one side in Lebanon saw the Saudi role in Lebanon as support for its independent decision making vis-à-vis Syria, other groups believe that a degree of independence does not mean denying Syrian influence in the country. If this is true, then a return to inter-Arab agreement after a period of conflict assumes the following: a precise political settlement over a degree of stability in Lebanon’s central political authority reflects a move away from the policy of blockage. If this is also true, then a precisely-drafted political settlement in parallel with reconciliation in Lebanon must address the question of how to calculate Syria’s influence, which will reassure Damascus about its vital interests in its neighbor. Where does the Iranian factor stand vis-à-vis this settlement and this influence? Will Tehran allow Damascus to forge this settlement on its behalf, or does the Syrian leadership require, in view of its strategic relationship with Iran, its partnership, in order to abandon the policy of blocking the rise of the official Lebanese political authority?

An Open Question to Osama Bin Laden - or Any Other Islamist
by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
October 7, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2479/question-to-osama-bin-laden-islamist
Ever since 9/11, when Osama bin Laden was thrust into the spotlight, he has made it a point to occasionally submit questions to Americans — questions which he apparently thinks are unanswerable.
In his last message "commemorating" 9/11, for instance, after rehashing the storyline that the jihad on America wholly revolves around U.S. support for Israel — former grievances cited throughout the years include America's "exploitation" of women and failure to sign the environmental Kyoto Protocol — bin Laden concluded with the following musing: "You should ask yourselves whether your security, your blood, your sons, your money, your jobs, your homes, your economy, and your reputation are more dear to you than the security and economy of the Israelis."
In fact, bin Laden et al. have made it perfectly clear that should U.S. support for Israel cease, so too would Islamic terrorism cease. Hence, in this last communiqué: "Let me say that we have declared many times, over more than two and a half decades, that the reason for our conflict with you is your support for your Israeli allies, who are occupying our land of Palestine [emphasis added]."
Fair enough. Yet before responding to Osama, it must be noted that, in and of themselves, his communiqués beg a simple, logical question — one that, as shall be seen, responds to all his observations and questions by making them moot.
Before articulating this question, let us first establish much-needed context: As clearly demonstrated by Islam's doctrines and history — the former regularly manifesting themselves in the course of the latter — it is a historic fact that Islamic hostility for and aggression against non-Muslims transcends any and all temporal "grievances." In short, Islam, according to the classical — not "radical" — schools of jurisprudence, is obligated to subjugate the world.
From a traditional Muslim point of view, this troubling assertion is as open to debate or interpretation as is the notion that Muslims are obligated to pray. This is also why prudent non-Muslims have for centuries been finding the question of achieving permanent peace with the Islamic world a vexatious problem. Professor of law James Lorimer (1818-90) succinctly stated the problem over a century ago:
So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem. … For an indefinite future, however reluctantly, we must confine our political recognition to the professors of those religions which … preach the doctrine of "live and let live" (The Institutes of the Law of Nations, p. 124).
In other words, political recognition — with all the attendant negotiations and diplomacy that come with it — should be granted to all major religions/civilizations except Islam, which does not recognize the notion of "live and let live," as evinced by, among other stipulations, the Koran's commands to its adherents to "enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong," (e.g., Koran 3:110), that is, enforce Sharia law upon the earth.
Now while most Muslims may not go around evoking Islamic law's dichotomized worldview that pits Islam against the rest of the world — many may not even be aware of it — bin Laden, the "man of grievances," has. (This, of course, has long been an al-Qaeda tactic: convince the West, which is generally ignorant of Islam's bellicose doctrines, that jihad is a byproduct of foreign policy, while inciting Muslims to the jihad by stressing its obligatory nature.)
As for bin Laden and his communiqués: For all his talk of Israel being the heart of the problem, he exposed his true position in the following excerpt, which he directed to fellow Arabic-speaking Muslims not long after the 9/11 strikes:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?
So much for bin Laden's insistence that Israel is the "reason for our conflict with you." Now we see that the conflict ultimately revolves around whether Islam is obligated to dominate the world by force. Well, is it? Bin Laden continues:
Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
This threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or the sword — is the ultimate source of problems. All Islamist talk of jihad being a product of U.S. foreign policy is, therefore, false. When bin Laden asserted in this last message that it is the "neocons" who "impose the wars upon you — not the mujahideen [i.e., jihadis]," he lied. Islamic law, as he himself delineated, "imposed" war between Muslims and non-Muslims well over a millennium before the "neocons" — let alone the state of Israel — came into being.
Thus to all of bin Laden's grievances and questions, there is but one counter-question — one that, in bin Laden's own words, "demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice" — and it is: Even if all your grievances against Israel and America's support for it were true, why come to us — your natural-born enemies, according to your own worldview — looking for any concessions?
To better appreciate this position, consider the following analogy: Say your weaker neighbor has a border dispute with you. At the same time, however, you know for a fact that he sees you as his "eternal" enemy for nothing less than your beliefs/lifestyle, and nothing short of your total acquiescence to his beliefs/lifestyle will change that. Finally, you know that the day he grows sufficiently strong, he will undoubtedly attack you in order to make you live according to his beliefs/lifestyle.
Surely in this context, whether his border dispute with you is legitimate or not, making concessions to him while knowing his hostility for you will never subside — but rather become more emboldened and augmented with contempt — is sheer suicide. Yet this is precisely what happens whenever the U.S. makes any concessions to Islamists.
In sum, we, the "infidels" — Americans and Israelis alike — are de facto enemies. It is in this context that the question of U.S. support for Israel should be examined. Being hated and deemed the enemy for temporal grievances of a political nature must be viewed as peripheral to being hated for fundamental differences of an existential nature.
When the latter, much more important issue is redressed, then — and only then — should the veracity of the former be open to debate or even consideration. In the meantime, all "political" complaints must be seen as absolutely moot. It's a simple matter of priorities.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/an-open-question-to-osama-bin-laden-%E2%80%94-or-any-other-islamist/
**Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda .