LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 13/09

Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 6:43-49. A good tree does not bear rotten fruit, nor does a rotten tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For people do not pick figs from thornbushes, nor do they gather grapes from brambles. A good person out of the store of goodness in his heart produces good, but an evil person out of a store of evil produces evil; for from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' but not do what I command? I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, listens to my words, and acts on them.That one is like a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when the flood came, the river burst against that house but could not shake it because it had been well built. But the one who listens and does not act is like a person who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, it collapsed at once and was completely destroyed."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Who’s with the Syrian regime in Lebanon?/By:Ziad Majed , September 12, 09
Action and reaction/Now Lebanon/September 12/09 
First blood to the majority/Now Lebanon/September 12, 09
Iran: Has the Ghost of Military Action Returned? By Tariq Alhomayed/September 12/09 
Between Bassil and Karroubi/By: Hassan Haidar/September 12/09 
Stepping Down Versus Rejection. By: Walid Choucair/September 12/09 
America's exceptional ally.By Caroline Glick/Jerusalem Post Sept 11/09
 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 12/09 
McCain says US should take strong stand to respect outcome of parliamentary elections/Now Lebanon/September 12, 2009
Israel Files Complaint with U.N. Over Rocket Attack from Lebanon-Naharnet
Israel warns Lebanon on rockets but sees calm for now/Reuters
Strugar: Palestinian camp link in Lebanon rocket attack investigation/Now Lebanon
UN force investigating rocket firing into Israel from south Lebanon-UN News Centre
Rockets exchange with Israel dangerous: Lebanese PM-Xinhua
Russia Voices Worry on Lebanon-Israel Tension-Naharnet
Mitchell in Beirut Wednesday-Naharnet
Al Qaeda Eight Years Later-The Moderate Voice
Mitchell heads to Israel, other Mideast nations-Reuters
Lebanon's political void sparks concern for future-AFP
Vahidi says US aiming to trigger confrontation between Iran, Iraq/Now Lebanon
New Cabinet's Fate in the Hand of Majority-Opposition Decision on its Shape-Naharnet
Despite Quiet, Lebanese, Israelis Fear Another Conflict-Naharnet
Williams: Rocket Attack 'Very Serious Development'-Naharnet
U.S., U.N. Condemn Rocket Attack on Israel-Naharnet
Hariri: Despite Many Concessions, Minority's Stance Remained the Same From Day 1-Naharnet

UN urges Lebanese, Israelis "to exercise maximum restraint"
September 11, 2009
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- The United Nations has condemned Friday's rocket attack on Israel from southern Lebanon, and urged both sides "to exercise maximum restraint."
Italian soldiers with UNIFIL and Lebanese security forces inspect a rocket site in Qlayleh, Lebanon, on Friday. Israel's military fired between 12 and 18 artillery shells into southern Lebanon Friday shortly after the rocket attack on northern Israel, according to the Israeli military and a Lebanese army official.There were no casualties in either incident.
Rockets fired from Lebanon struck open spaces in the western Galilee region of northern Israel, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman said. There were no reports of damage.
Israel retaliated by firing toward the source of the rocket fire, the IDF spokesman said. The shells landed near the southern Lebanese village of Qlayleh around 3 p.m. (8 a.m. ET), a Lebanese army official said. The IDF spokesman said the Israeli military considers the rocket-fire incident to be serious and holds Lebanon's government and military responsible.
Israel Radio reported one rocket struck near the northern town of Nahariya and another landed near Gesher Haziv, a kibbutz, or collective community. Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said residents near Nahariya heard several explosions, and the remnants of at least one rocket were found. There has been no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement through his spokeswoman, condemning the attack. He said the United Nations mission in Lebanon, UNIFIL, "is investigating the circumstances of the incident in close cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."There are an estimated 30,000 rockets in southern Lebanon, all under the control of Hezbollah militants. Israel fought a war against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon three years ago that is widely regarded as having empowered the Shiite militia.

McCain says US should take strong stand to respect outcome of parliamentary elections
September 12, 2009
Now Lebanon
US Senator John McCain said on Friday during a speech delivered to the Senate on the occasion of the commemoration of the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks that “the United States should take a strong stand in favor of respecting the outcome of the June democratic elections and urge the parties in Lebanon to form a government in a manner that respects the constitutional process.”

McCain stressed the importance of Lebanese political developments and their cause for alarm in the US, warning, “In recent days we’ve seen the portents of new political crisis in Lebanon and, while all of us must hope that it will be resolved easily and peacefully, we know from the history of that country that it very well may not be.”

He blamed the opposition for the stalled cabinet formation process and said that “Hezbollah has been intent on thwarting these efforts to form a cabinet.” According to McCain, the March 8 coalition is demanding the Telecommunications portfolio because Hezbollah wants to retain control over telecommunications and surveillance in Lebanon.

“Hezbollah, of course, not only possesses a surveillance capacity and an independent communications and broadcasting system, but also retains vast weaponry befitting its status as an independent militia. Along with its Syrian and Iranian sponsors, Hezbollah continues to both exert influence outside the constitutional process and invite foreign meddling in Lebanese affairs,” McCain said.

He further criticized Hezbollah, saying that “there can be no durable peace in Lebanon – nor any long term stability in the political process there – as long as Hezbollah continues to act freely as an armed, independent militia.”
“Sooner or later, one way or another, and as the United Nations Security Council has demanded, Hezbollah must be disarmed,” McCain said.
He also called for sterner US diplomatic efforts against Syria and criticized the Syrian regime for facilitating the movement of suicide bombers into Iraq and being hostile to Israel while remaining close to Iran. “We must be clear that there must be real change on these issues in order for Syria to enjoy significantly warmer relations with the United States.”
“In Lebanon, as in so many other places around the world, the population aspires to something better than to be pulled from side to side by a thuggish and cruel militia. As Americans, we must demonstrate that we stand beside them in this hope,” McCain concluded.

-NOW Lebanon







Iran: Has the Ghost of Military Action Returned?
12/09/2009
By Tariq Alhomayed
Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat
The Iranian response to the international community regarding negotiations on the nuclear issue did not provide any answers. Instead of Tehran providing answers on its nuclear file, it presented a package of proposals and ideas to solve international problems and issues and to solve current regional issues. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said a few days ago that “the nuclear issue is finished and there will be no discussion of it.”

Iran showed that it was willing to take part in helping solve the problems of terrorism, the Palestinian issue, Iraq, and also Afghanistan. In other words, Tehran is presenting itself as a leader of the entire region and the proof is that it wants to solve our problems. Perhaps this explains some important matters for us. When Iran is demonstrating its willingness to help solve the pending issues then this means that it has a hand in what’s happening in the region. When Iran talks about being willing to help solve the problem of terrorism, this explains why some members of Al Qaeda go to Iran, for example [Fawwaz] al Otaibi who handed himself in to Saudi authorities. Iran’s willingness to help in Afghanistan also explains the discovery of an arsenal of Iranian weapons, including rockets, detonators and the like, which belonged to Taliban fighters. The same happened in Iraq where there are supporters of Iran, or Hamas in Palestine or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This all suggests that Tehran is not serious about responding to the fundamental issue; the Iranian nuclear file. This represents a great danger to regional states firstly because of the intentions of Iran’s Mullahs and secondly because it opens the door to nuclear armament in a region that is already full of violence and conflict.

It seems that we’re back at square one. If there are some states in the international community willing to accept a nuclear Iran like [a nuclear] India and Pakistan for example, Israel will certainly not be one of them. This would explain the confusion that overcame everybody when asked: where did Netanyahu disappear to for nine hours? Was he in Moscow or somewhere else?

Israel is in a race against time in preparing to deal with Iran and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israel might carry out a swift and fatal blow in order to prevent nuclear armament.

This is how ideas about war returned to the region, and we must now monitor Israel’s actions and the actions of Iran’s allies in the region, including Hamas, Hezbollah and others. We must remember that the internal Iranian conflict is having a negative role as Tehran will try to move forward for the sake of uniting internally. The internal battle threatens the Iranian regime and its legitimacy, and the West has now begun to talk about a weak Iran or an Iran that has no internal capabilities. As a result, Ahmadinejad’s regime wants something to justify continuing oppressing the opposition on the grounds that the country is going through a critical situation and any internal opposition will be considered treachery and aiding the enemy. This is the mentality of dictator states.

With regards to Israel, there is no doubt it will exploit the political failure of US President Barack Obama’s extended hand for dialogue with Iran and this would explain the numerous military maneuvers that Israel conducted and continues to conduct and its overt and covert diplomatic actions.

The end result is that the ghost of war has returned to haunt the region in its entirety.




Action and reaction
Hariri’s resignation has exposed the opposition’s campaign of obstruction
Hanin Ghaddar, NOW Staff , September 12, 2009 Now Lebanon
Lebanese soldiers inspect rockets that were discovered in the southern Lebanese village of Naqura late on February 4, 2009 (AFP /STR).
One day after Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri stepped down, and a few hours before President Michel Sleiman announced he would hold a second round of parliamentary consultations on September 15 and 16, at least two Katyusha rockets were fired from southern Lebanon into northern Israel, prompting retaliatory artillery fire from the Israeli army. The timing was critical and the message clear: no government shall be formed unless it is blessed by Syria and Iran.
Hariri’s resignation may reflect a bleak reality, but it was a strong signal to March 8 and its regional allies that no compromises will be made on Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty, and that the constitution and state institutions will be protected. Hariri will probably be renamed next week to form a new cabinet, but this time he will come back stronger, while March 8, namely Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun, will have to face the blame for any further obstruction.
There is no doubt that this government crisis has well and truly exploded, opening up a potentially destructive can of worms – as evidenced by Friday’s rocket attack, which must have been carried out with Syria’s blessing. (In fact, ever since the Syrian army withdrew from Lebanon, each political crisis has been followed by a security “situation”, one designed to force the majority to make compromises. One only has to look at how March 8 won the controversial “blocking third” after the attempted coup of May 7, 2008.)
Now President Sleiman is obliged to enter into a second round of parliamentary consultations to name a new PM-designate. The parliamentary majority will most likely rename Hariri, but how will the opposition respond? First reactions to the resignation ranged from renewed demands for the “blocking third”, to more elaborate conditions on names and portfolios, and ended with the rocket attack. The message was clear: bend or we can make life very, very difficult.
The current crisis, like most of the opposition’s modus operandi, is predicated on Iran and Syria’s insistence on using Lebanon as a bargaining chip in their negotiations with the West. It is not a coincidence that, on Wednesday, Iran presented a proposal regarding its nuclear program to the international community that included a willingness to help resolve crises – crises, we must remember, that the Iranian regime created – in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is a nice way of saying “listen, we can stop meddling in these countries if a convenient solution is reached regarding our nuclear program.”
At the same time, amid rising tension between Syria and Iraq following the recent bombings in Baghdad, and the ghost of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) looming over the regime, Lebanon is once again being “played” by Syria. Hariri has tried to give March 8 a fair role in the cabinet to keep Lebanon immune to regional tensions (apart from the Iranian nuclear program and the STL, the region also has to contend with elections in Iraq in early 2010). The opposition rejected it too quickly, before even discussing its contents with Hariri and the president. In so doing, it exposed itself as a regional bagman.
This has been further borne out by March 8’s reactions to Hariri’s resignation. Hezbollah’s Labor Minister Mohammad Fneish said Thursday that a government cannot be formed without partnership, and that “the opposition wants to participate in the new cabinet on the basis of the ‘blocking third’ vote in a direct or indirect way.”
Other statements mentioned the absence of “consensus” and “national unity” from Hariri’s proposition and how no government could be formed without these criteria. Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem said, also on Thursday, that there are four “rules” for Hezbollah’s contribution to the cabinet formation: a national-unity government based on a 15-10-5 formula, the participation of all parties within the opposition in the future cabinet, “flexible dialogue and concessions” during the cabinet formation, and applying the principle that ministerial portfolios are not “prizes given out in accordance with the parliamentary election results.”
The irony is that Hariri did form his cabinet based on the 15-10-5 formula that everybody agreed on. He only refused to reappoint Gebran Bassil to the Telecom Ministry.
Even the appalling “blocking third” was indirectly granted by adding a minister close to Hezbollah in the president’s share, while Speaker Nabih Berri, who helped paralyze state institutions for months, was re-elected, and the issue of Hezbollah’s arms was pushed to be discussed later during another round of national dialogue, after the ministerial statement is formulated.
It would have been impossible to give up any more.
The government crisis might not be solved anytime soon, but Hariri’s resignation can be used as an opportunity for March 8 to reconsider their responsibilities toward their support base, who will suffer, like all the Lebanese, the repercussions of regional tensions in Lebanon.
Friday’s rockets sounded a real alarm.



Who’s with the Syrian regime in Lebanon?
Ziad Majed , September 11, 2009
Now Lebanon/Recent developments have shown that the Syrian regime is capable of using a number of regional bargaining chips to lessen international pressure on it. However, it lacks the popular base in the states where such chips exist, a situation which makes Syria incapable of settling pending issues. The regime is thus prompted – through what we have called in a previous piece “the return to the father’ policies” - to put forward inconsistent proposals in order to buy time, but without actually being able to make any breakthroughs.
The regime is “proficient” at inciting tension in Iraq and allowing for the infiltration of Syrian-sponsored Jihadists and remnant Baathists into Baghdad. However, this does not mean that any groups in Iraq, large or small, are loyal to the regime and negotiate with their foes as such. The fact that the regime has hosted the leadership of Hamas and numerous other Palestinian factions in Damascus, and the influence it exerts on them does not mean that the people of Gaza hold it in high esteem or seek its advice in internal and Israel-related matters. Most importantly, the infiltration of its intelligence apparatus in many Lebanese institutions, which it administered for decades, and its ability to apply security pressure in Lebanon do not mean 1) that the Lebanese people harbor any affection toward it; and 2) that it has been given the final say in matters pertaining to the country, even within those circles which provide it with cover and grant it direct political presence over the country’s territory.
It became apparent with the latest parliamentary elections that no one allied with the Syrian regime is able to win a seat in Lebanon other than in areas where the majority of resident are Shia. Furthermore, for a candidate to win in those regions, s/he needs the backing of Hezbollah which necessitates Iranian support based upon the level of Iran’s alliance with Syria. However, this does not mean that Syria has been commissioned with the Lebanese dossier, nor does it imply that Iran concedes Syria’s influence over the “masses” of Shia there.
If Zgharta contradicts this notion (that was proven on the ground by electoral results in Rashaya, the West and Central Bekaa, the southern Mountain, Beirut, Tripoli, Akkar, Minieh, Donniyeh and the rest of the North, where not a single candidate backed by Damascus won), connecting this Zgharta’ exception to Syria would be to oversimplify matters in a way that disregards local circumstances and the nature of family leadership there. It is worth mentioning also that the electoral failure for MP Michel Aoun in districts where Free Patriotic Movement’ lists won the majority of seats, was at the expense of his candidate closer to Syria (the SSNP candidate in the Metn).
This lack of popular support can most likely explain much of what is happening in Lebanon today and how Syria, with all the talk about the renewed activity of international investigators in Beirut recently, has been unable to find any major Lebanese politician to attack by proxy the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). Hezbollah, since the Der Spiegel report, has dealt with the issue with caution and in exclusive coordination with Iran. General Aoun is preoccupied with his pursuit of shares of power and does not want to involve himself in something which might undermine those efforts. Speaker Nabih Berri continues to wait and see and remains silent. As such, no one remains to malign the STL with loud cries and derision except a former officer, a suspect, and secondary politicians. The paradox is that the former officer had been threatening before the elections – before the defeat of Syria and its allies in the June parliamentary elections – that he should receive the Ministry of Justice and be granted the administration of various case-files, which would of course include the STL. In contrast, today he is merely requesting that Future Movement leader MP Saad Hariri hold the judges, who were responsible for “wrongly” imprisoning him, accountable.
Despite the need to be aware of this lack of popular appeal, one should not at all think that Syria lacks the ability to incite chaos, cause destruction or sabotage in order to draw in or generate more appealing proposals.
For terror and obstruction are the easiest of things. However, imposing one’s will is an indication of true influence. Normally, this is characteristic of those who carry out the deals and not of those who are being bargained about. The latter invariably either take to speculating or revert to “tactics of the past” that employ the vilest symbols of that time.
This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Tuesday, September 8.


First blood to the majority
September 11, 2009
(NOW Lebanon)
Future Movement leader Saad Hariri resigned from his post as PM-designate but did not give up. (NOW Lebanon)
The opposition got its way and it must be feeling very pleased with itself. Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri’s resignation sees Lebanon lurch into yet another crisis. It is one created by an opposition that has demonstrated, time and time again, that its creed is founded on obstruction and conflict and that its interests clearly do not lie with the people who, no doubt in good faith, voted for what they saw was a better option in the June polls. How else do you explain the maneuverings that preceded the latest drama to befall what is arguably the Middle East’s most tragic nation?
Former Telecommunications Minister and Free Patriotic Movement stalwart Gebran Bassil sought to convince us all on LBC on Thursday night that the opposition had tried so hard to work with the majority, which he painted as inflexible and unreasonable. Poor old Bassil. He is in danger of going down in history as the man who was the decoy for the cabinet crisis.
The real reason for Hariri’s inability to form a so-called government of national unity lays not in the heated salon of Michel Aoun’s Rabieh home, but on the regional chess board, an altogether more dangerous and cynical battlefield.
Lebanon’s chronic rash has once again erupted. A nation blessed, or cursed – take your pick – with a dollop of every religion in the Middle East is always in danger of being a mouth-watering ground zero for regional power politics.
Michel Aoun’s posturing, his claims for a respectable share of the portfolios given his sectarian representation and the reappointment of his son-in-law has given the pro-Syrian opposition a fabulous smokescreen – one that focuses on Lebanon’s Christians – while the real tug of war is being played out between the region’s superpowers and the West.
Amal and Hezbollah must offer up a daily prayer, thanking the almighty that they have an ally like Aoun. Abrasive and volatile, and with a sizeable, not to mention credible, Christian following, he is the perfect diversion. Hezbollah and Amal can sit back while he sows chaos and confusion, allowing Iran and Syria, both of whom want to maintain regional leverage through their Lebanese proxies, a free hand.
Yes, it is no secret that other nations want to see March 14 prevail. Not only did it win the last elections, it is the bloc that represents Lebanon’s best chance for genuine democracy and sovereignty, not to mention prosperity.
That the opposition cannot accept the results of the election; that it must seek to throw out endless excuses why a majority is not a real majority and then harp on about consensus and national unity is an insult to Lebanon’s collective intelligence. Where was the unity when March 8 unilaterally took over downtown Beirut for 18 months? Where was the consensus when it took its guns to the streets in May 2008? This is an opposition for whom consensus and unity are moveable feasts.
So what now? If we are to assume Lebanon’s crisis is a regional crisis, then Hariri has limited latitude for maneuver. That said, if he were once again asked to form a government, he should come back as a stronger entity. He will have shown he can be his own man, one who will not submit to the opposition’s threats and blackmail.
He has already won the unstinting admiration of the March 14 coalition and those in Lebanon who doubted his integrity. He has not buckled, and his resignation has sent a strong message to those in Lebanon and elsewhere who expected him to roll over.
The majority has drawn first blood.
 

Between Bassil and Karroubi
Thu, 10 September 2009
Hassan Haidar
Politics in Lebanon is not unique in its practice, and there are of course in the far – and especially near – reaches of the world those who rival its politicians in mixing up notions, altering facts, reversing slogans, setting up deceptions and other similar “skills”. Nevertheless, leaderships of the Opposition in Lebanon deserve to enter the Guinness Book for breaking the record in the category of “repeated attempts at taking citizens for fools”, especially MP Michel Aoun, who is currently leading the charge against the position of Prime Minister and its powers, in the interest of parties that cannot be concealed from even the simplest minds.
Aoun’s problem is that most of the Lebanese know that his crisis with Hariri is connected in form to appointing his son-in-law who lost at the elections, Gebran Bassil, and in content to a regional trend that has aimed and continues, since the assassination of Rafic Hariri and to this day, to aim at punishing Lebanese Sunnis and twisting their arm because of their “disobedience”.
Aoun waged the last legislative elections within he framework of the opposition coalition led by Hezbollah, his candidates obtained the votes of his Shiite ally’s sectarian community, and many of them won thanks to these votes. Yet the Opposition as a whole lost the elections which produced a clear majority, so why does he consider himself to have won and is demanding his “rights” in terms of the number of ministers and of the portfolios allotted to them? And if Aoun was and continues to be a main party in the Opposition, then why is he assuming that the Prime Minister designate should treat him as if he was independent? And how can one account for Aoun’s parliamentary coalition outside of the Opposition’s coalition in Parliament?
And if Hariri, in the framework of his legitimate efforts to form a national unity government, had agreed to reassure the Opposition by granting it the obstructing one-third of the cabinet, including one sovereign portfolio in exchange for a similar portfolio for the majority, how can he agree to the retired general’s demands of a second sovereign portfolio for the Opposition, i.e. more than the share of the majority itself?
We should ask Aoun, who is allied to the Velayat-e-Faqih party, how his allies would explain the Iranian method of rule to him, and justify Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s failure to grant those who lost the elections (Mousavi obtained 13 million votes according to official numbers) the obstructing one-third in his new government, or even appoint any of them as minister. Why does Mehdi Karroubi, for instance, not obtain a sovereign portfolio such as the one Aoun is demanding? Why does not apply to Lebanon what is considered self-evident in Iran, whose regime is praised by all of the Opposition, and in fact in all other countries, i.e. that the majority rules and the Opposition opposes or recognizes its own size without eluding the ballot-boxes by speaking of the “popular majority”?
Hariri has effectively offered all possible concessions without obtaining anything in return: the obstructing one-third, postponing any discussion on the issue of the weapons of the Resistance, and a promise to visit Syria. But the demands of members of the Opposition do not stop there, and every time he favors national reconciliation over portfolios, he finds himself confronted with new demands. Indeed, what more can he offer without canceling out the results of the elections, the share allotted to his Christian allies, and the reconciliatory role of the President of the Republic?
Aoun’s demands are only a façade behind which hides an unseen negotiator. As for the target, it is the Prime Minister’s constitutional powers and seeking to reduce them, as well as the leadership and the unity of the Sunni community, which the elections have proven and which some consider to have “breached” crafted balances, and making sure that what will be issued by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon regarding the Hariri assassination will neither have consequences on the ground nor meet with state compliance to its requests, or else…

Stepping Down Versus Rejection
Thu, 10 September 2009
Walid Choucair
The most important thing that can be deduced from the demands and behavior of the opposition in Lebanon vis-à-vis the process of forming a new government is that it is difficult for the opposition to acknowledge the results of the parliamentary elections, held in June, or at the least, act based on what its leaders have said is an acknowledgement of these results. The opposition’s behavior is at odds with this acknowledgment; its demands signal that the opposition would like to do away with these results, via the formation of a Cabinet, and prevent these results from having an impact inside the executive branch of government.
Even if we adopt the utmost objectivity in evaluating the domestic political situation, the least that can be said is that what is happening now is a suspension of the election results, i.e., the tilt to the majority in drafting executive branch decisions, while awaiting the regional political picture to become clearer. But whether this means doing away with the results, or merely suspending them for a certain period of time, this only means linking a political settlement, imposed by Lebanon’s complicated religious and sectarian situation, to the regional and international situation. Thus, the source of the suspension or elimination of the election results lies outside the country, through the opposition’s regional allies, Syria and Iran. This is a certainty, even though the conditions that are impeding the reflection of these results on the formation of a government are being generated by parties belonging to the local opposition. Meanwhile, other parties are being forced to humor their allies in this obstruction, and for reasons that are beyond their capacities, as they are regional ones. This is also the case with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who has continued to entreat a Saudi Arabian-Syrian accord so that the task of forming a Cabinet can be completed successfully.
In the first place, it is not logical that the minority should be able to suspend the election results, even if we are talking about a minority + Syria and Iran, and should derive its strength and ability to do what it has done up to this point from something other than the Lebanese voter that goes beyond the country’s borders. One might say that Lebanon’s history has always been thus. But the events of recent weeks have indicated that what has been taking place goes beyond this history, due to the interplay between local and foreign factors. The prime minister-designate had already recognized these foreign factors, and the equation of the opposition + Iran and Syria, prior to the polls, which he was confident of winning, accepting the idea that Hizbullah’s weapons would remain outside discussions, since the solution involved external players. Hariri agreed that decisions related to the resistance and other key issues would not be put to a vote in the Cabinet before reaching an agreement on them. The excess regional weight enjoyed by the minority was translated into Hariri’s acceptance of a limited role for the majority – it would not receive half-plus-one of the Cabinet seats, while the opposition would pick up one-third of them, allowing it to bring down the government by merely resigning from the Cabinet. Hariri accepted the groundwork for the drafting of political understandings between the two sides, based on the decisive vote going to the president of the Republic, who can be affected by the stance of the opposition, along with Syria and Iran, equal to the impact of the majority on him... Hariri has demonstrated considerable wisdom by staking out a position that is in harmony with the requirements of regional political understandings – these brought him to the post of premier-designate in order to bring about a reconciliation with Damascus, as part of Syrian-Saudi accord; the wisdom in question here goes beyond his own personal position.
Meanwhile, the minority’s conditions, which cancel the June election results, appear to be a form of eliminating the domestic political scene in favor of the outside world as a whole. However, the move to do away with the election results is in fact a rejection of all political events that have appeared in the last five years and that have produced these results.
It is a rejection that eliminates the accumulated events and reactions to them, ever since Syria decided to extend the term of President Emile Lahoud, and moving through the assassination of Rafik Hariri and Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon, and all subsequent events in which blood became mixed with politics and security, both domestically and abroad.
While awaiting the crystallization of Hariri’s intention to step down from his position as prime minister-designate and its impact on the Syrian-Saudi understanding (events have proven that Damascus was waiting to see this come about), things have gone beyond an agreement on Hariri’s heading the next Cabinet, and asking it to move farther in the facilitation of forming a government, so that it regains its old role, prior to the assassination of Hariri and its withdrawal from Lebanon. There is a build-up of feelings of hatred once again among a large part of the Lebanese, while the minority, and the majority groups, are working hard to dispel sensitivities at the popular level.
The events of the last few years cannot be eliminated. There is a similarity between the younger Hariri’s comment earlier this week that “May God be my witness,” is close to the expression that the older Hariri used when he declined the invitation to form a government in 2004 (“May dear Lebanon be entrusted to God”), even though the conditions in each case are different.

Column One: America's exceptional ally
By CAROLINE GLICK
Jerusalem Post Sept 11/09
There has been much talk in recent months about the prospect of Syria bolting the Iranian axis and becoming magically transformed into an ally of the West. Although Syria's President-for-life Bashar Assad's daily demonstrations of fealty to his murderous friends has exposed this talk as nothing more than fantasy, it continues to dominate the international discourse on Syria.
In the meantime, Syria's ongoing real transformation, from a more or less functioning state into an impoverished wasteland, has been ignored.
Today, the country faces the greatest economic catastrophe in its history. The crisis is causing massive malnutrition and displacement for hundreds of thousands of Syrians. These Syrians - some 250,000 mainly Kurdish farmers - have been forced off their farms over the past two years because their lands were reclaimed by the desert.
Today shantytowns have sprung up around major cities such as Damascus. They are filled with internally displaced refugees. Through a cataclysmic combination of irrational agricultural policies embraced by the Ba'athist Assad dynasty for the past 45 years that have eroded the soil, and massive digging of some 420,000 unauthorized wells that have dried out the groundwater aquifiers, Syria's regime has done everything in its power to dry up the country. The effects of these demented policies have been exacerbated in recent years by Turkey's diversion of Syria's main water source, the Euphrates River, through the construction of dams upstream, and by two years of unrelenting drought. Today, much of Syria's previously fertile farmland has become wasteland. Former farmers are now destitute day laborers with few prospects for economic recovery.
Imagine if in his country's moment of peril, instead of clinging to his alliance with Iran, Hizbullah, al-Qaida, and Hamas, Assad were to turn to Israel to help him out of this crisis?
Israel is a world leader in water desalination and recycling. The largest desalination plant in the world is located in Ashkelon. Israeli technology and engineers could help Syria rebuild its water supply.
Israel could also help Syria use whatever water it still has, or is able to produce through desalination and recycling more wisely through drip irrigation - which was invented in Israel. Israel today supplies 50 percent of the international market for drip irrigation. In places like Syria and southern Iraq that are now being dried out by the Turkish dams, irrigation is primitive - often involving nothing more than water trucks pumping water out of the Euphrates and driving it over to fields that are often less than a kilometer away.
Then there are Syria's dwindling oil reserves. No doubt, Israeli engineers and seismologists would be able to increase the efficiency and productivity of existing wells and so increase their output. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Israeli scientists and engineers could even discover new, untapped oil reserves.
BUT, OF COURSE, Syria isn't interested in Israel's help. Syria wants to have its enemy and eat it too. As Assad has made clear repeatedly, what he wants is to receive the Golan Heights - and through it Israel's fresh water supply - for nothing. He wants Israel to surrender the Golan Heights, plus some Israeli land Syria illegally occupied from 1948-1967, in exchange for a meaningless piece of paper.
In this demand, Assad is supported by none other than Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan, whose country is drying Syria out. It is Erdogan after all, who mediated talks aimed at convincing then-prime minister Ehud Olmert to give up the Golan Heights and it is Erdogan today who is encouraging the Obama administration to pressure Israel to surrender its water to Syria.
Beyond demanding that Israel give him the Golan Heights, Assad is happy associating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Nasrallah, Khaled Mashaal and various and sundry al-Qaida leaders who move freely through his territory. Hanging out with these murderers affords him the opportunity to feel like a real man - a master of the universe who can kill Israelis, Iraqis and Americans and terrorize the Lebanese into submission.
As for his problems at home, Assad imprisons any Syrian engineer with the temerity to point out that by exporting cotton Syria is effectively exporting water. Assad doesn't fear that his regime will collapse under the weight of five decades of Ba'athist economic imbecility. He is banking on the US and Europe saving him from the consequences of his own incompetence through economic handouts; by turning a blind eye to his continued economic exploitation of Lebanon; and perhaps by coercing Israel into surrendering the Golan Heights.
THE SAME, of course, can be said of the Palestinians. Actually, the case of the Palestinians is even more extraordinary. From 1967 through 1987 - when through their violent uprising they decided to cut their economy off from Israel's - Palestinian economic growth in Gaza, Judea and Samaria rose by double digits every year. Indeed, while linked to Israel's, the Palestinian economy was the fourth fastest growing economy in the world. But since 1994, when the PLO took over, although the Palestinians have become the largest per capita foreign aid recipients in recorded history, the Palestinian economy has contracted on a per capita basis.
The one sure-fire path to economic growth and prosperity is for the Palestinians to reintegrate their economy with Israel's. But to do this, they must first end their involvement in terrorism and open their economy to free market forces and the transparency and rule of law and protection for property rights that form the foundations of those forces. The very notion of doing so, however, is considered so radical that supposedly moderate, pro-peace and free market friendly Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad rejected the economic peace plan put forward by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu out of hand. After all, how can the Palestinians accept free market forces when it means that - horror of horrors - Jews might buy and sell land and other resources?
The Palestinians and the Syrians are not alone. From Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and Indonesia, the Arab and Muslim world has preferred poverty and economic backwardness to the prosperity that would come from engaging Israel. They prefer their staunch rejection of Israel and hatred of Jews and the economic stagnation this involves to the prosperity and political freedom and stability that would come from an acceptance of Israel.
AS AMERICAN economic and technology guru George Gilder puts it in his new book The Israel Test, "The test of a culture is what it accomplishes in advancing the human cause - what it creates rather than what it claims."
Gilder's book is a unique and necessary contribution to the current international debate about the Middle East. Rather than concentrate solely on Arab claims from Israel as most writers do, Gilder turns his attention to what the nations of the region create. Specifically, he shows that only Israel creates wealth through creativity and innovation and that today Israel is contributing more to the human cause through its scientific, technological and financial advances than any other country in the world except the US.
The Israel Test describes in riveting detail both the massive contributions of mainly Diaspora Jews to the US victories in World War II and the Cold War and to the scientific revolutions of the 20th century that set the foundations for the computer age, and the massive contributions of Israeli Jews to the digital revolution that defines and shapes our economic realities today.
But before Gilder begins to describe these great Jewish contributions to the global economy and the general well-being of people around the world, he asserts that the future of the world will be determined by its treatment of Israel. As he puts it, "The central issue in international politics, dividing the world into two fractious armies, is the tiny state of Israel."
In his view, "Israel defines a line of demarcation," between those who pass and those who fail what he refers to as "the Israel test."
Gilder poses the test to his readers by asking them a few questions: "What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishment? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down?"
By his telling, the future of civilization will be determined by how the nations of the world - and particularly, how the American people - answer these questions.
Gilder's book is valuable on its own accord. I personally learned an enormous amount about Israel's pioneering role in the information economy. Beyond that, it provides a stunning rebuttal to the central arguments of the other major book that has been written about Israel and the Arabs in the US in recent years.
Steve Walt and John Mearshimer's The Israel Lobby has two central arguments. First, they argue that Israel has little value as an ally to the US. Second, they assert that given Israel's worthlessness to the US, the only reasonable explanation of why Americans overwhelmingly support Israel is that they have been manipulated by a conspiracy of Jewish organizations and Jewish-owned and controlled media and financial outlets. In their view, the nefarious Jewish-controlled forces have bamboozled the American people into believing that Israel is important to them and even a kindred nation to the US.
Gilder blows both arguments out of the water without even directly engaging them or noting Israel's singular contributions to US intelligence and military prowess. Instead, he demonstrates that Israel is an indispensable motor for the US economy, which in turn is the principal driver of US power globally. Much of Silicon Valley's economic prowess is founded on technologies made in Israel. Everything from the microchip to the cellphone has either been made in Israel or by Israelis in Silicon Valley.
It is Gilder's own admiration for Israel's exceptional achievements that puts paid Walt and Mearshimer's second argument. There is something distinctively American in his enthusiasm for Israel's innovative genius. From America's earliest beginnings, the American character has been imbued with an admiration for achievement. As a nation, Americans have always passed Gilder's Israel test.
Taken together with the other reasons for American support for Israel - particularly religious affinity for the people of the Bible - Gilder's book shows that the American and Israeli people are indeed natural friends and allies bound together by their exceptionalism that motivates them to strive for excellence and progress to the benefit of all mankind.
Today Americans commemorate the eighth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Those attacks were the greatest confrontation to date between American exceptionalism and Islamist nihilism. On this day, Gilder's book serves as a reminder of what makes the US and its exceptional ally Israel worth defending at all costs. The Israel Test also teaches us that so long as we keep faith with ourselves, we will not be alone in our fight against barbarism and hatred, and inevitably, we will emerge the victors in this bitter fight.
caroline@carolineglick.com

Question: "Where was God on September 11?"
Answer: On September 11, 2001, God was exactly where He always is – in Heaven in total control of everything that happens in the universe. Why, then, would a good and loving God allow such a tragedy to happen? This is a more difficult question to answer. First, we must remember, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). It is impossible for finite human beings to understand the ways of an infinite God (Romans 11:33-35). Second, we must realize that God is not responsible for the wicked acts of evil men. The Bible tells us that humanity is desperately wicked and sinful (Romans 3:10-18, 23). God allows human beings to commit sin for His own reasons and to fulfill His own purposes. Sometimes we think we understand why God is doing something, only to find out later that it was for a different purpose than we originally thought. God looks at things from an eternal perspective. We look at things from an earthly perspective. Why did God put man on earth, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore bring evil, death, and suffering on all mankind? Why didn’t He just create us all and leave us in Heaven where we would be perfect and without suffering? It must be remembered that the purpose for all creation and all creatures is to glorify God. God is glorified when His nature and attributes are on display. If there were no sin, God would have no opportunity to display His justice and wrath as He punishes sin. Nor would He have the opportunity to show His grace, His mercy, and His love to undeserving creatures. The ultimate display of God’s grace was at the Cross where Jesus died for our sins. Here was unselfishness and obedience displayed in His Son who knew no sin but was “made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This was all to the “praise of His glory” (Ephesians 1:14).
When thinking of September 11, we tend to forget the thousands of miracles that occurred on that day. Hundreds of people were able to flee the buildings just in the nick of time. A small handful of firemen and one civilian survived in a tiny space in a stairwell as the one of the towers collapsed around them. The passengers on Flight 93 defeating the terrorists was a miracle in and of itself. Yes, September 11 was a terrible day. Sin reared its ugly head and caused great devastation. However, God is still in control. His sovereignty is never to be doubted. Could God have prevented what happened on September 11? Of course He could, but He chose to allow the events to unfold exactly as they did. He prevented that day from being as bad as it could have been. Since September 11, how many lives have been changed for the better? How many people have placed their faith in Christ for salvation as a result of what happened? The words of Romans 8:28 should always be in our minds when we think of 9-11, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, and are called according to His purpose.”
**GotQuestions.org?

U.S. Retreating in War of Terror
By: Walid Phares
Friday, September 11, 2009
Since Sept. 11, 2001, every annual commemoration of the terror attacks brings Americans back to pondering: Where are we this year in the confrontation with the forces that caused us harm and want to defeat us? Are we making progress in the war against the “terror forces”? Are we far from victory? How many sacrifices will it cost us to get to the other side? Rarely over the past eight years have we received real and clear answers.
Our debate was hopelessly disabled by our own political establishment, let alone by the jihadist propaganda worldwide. For years a national identification of the enemy, its ideology, its strategies and how to counter them has been lacking. In no conflict throughout history were people still confused about the threat eight years after hostilities began. “Jihad is just yoga” continued to affirm academics and media elite and, and most stunningly, top advisors on national security.
Despite the mobilizing presidential speeches earlier in this conflict, the bureaucratic machine didn’t fight this war. And with the change of administrations, policy and execution levels are at last united, but to cease the combat, not winning it. Most likely this is what historians will acknowledge in the future. In short, it is bleak, but it is not yet over and this is why:
If we analyze how the United States responded to the attacks of 2001, evolved its campaigns overseas, debated its own perceptions of the conflict domestically, and managed its own homeland security over the last eight years, we are forced to conclude that what has taken place in the very big picture was this: Since 9/11, the U.S. counterattack removed two tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the history of the two first years of the “war.”
Since then, American efforts and sacrifices entered the stage of stalemate fighting al-Qaida in Iraq’s Sunni triangle and the Taliban in Afghanistan’s edges; gaming Iran and Syria’s regimes in Iraq and Lebanon; hunting for jihadists in several countries; chasing after “homegrown” cells inside the homeland; and presidential escalation of the rhetoric against Islamist ideologies.
Between 2003 and 2008, the war on terror was more of a trenches conflict, pushes here and there, from one side and the other. Lebanon was freed from Syrian forces in 2005, but Hezbollah took back most of its lost terrain by 2008. Somalia’s jihadist uprising split the country and now no one is winning. In the vast African Sahel, al-Qaida’s clones seized positions, retreated and came back: the jury is still out. In Sudan, U.S. efforts identified Darfur as genocide, but Khartoum is solidly backed by influential petrodollars regimes: the status quo is solid.
In Iraq, the surge weakened al-Qaida, but Iran’s role wasn’t contained by Washington, especially since 2006. In Pakistan, the Taliban went on the offensive and, as of last year, the new government went on the counteroffensive: neither side is winning. In Afghanistan, a similar scenario is pinning NATO down, but not offering strategic victories to the Taliban. In the homeland, unprecedented spending aimed at securing the infrastructure but cells continued to mushroom, the age of homegrown Jihadists falling to younger and younger generations dramatically. Luckily the country was not hit for eight years, but mutant jihad is spreading.
So, under the Bush administration we had two years of U.S. thrusts overseas and five years of trenches warfare on a global scale. Later, we understood that the American offensive was slowed and halted by the combined forces of oil lobbies worldwide and its extensions inside the U.S. After almost one year of the Obama administration, we know what’s coming. In Iraq, we will withdraw regardless of Iran and Syria’s counter moves. There will be no “meddling” in Iran democracy struggle and we will "hope" the Ayatollahs won’t set off the nuclear mushroom. In Lebanon, we will eventually talk with Hezbollah. In Gaza, we will sometimes engage Hamas. There will be no Darfur campaign, and we will seek the Taliban for a dialogue in AFPAK.
In short the U.S. war on terror is over, but the jihadists war on democracies will go on. Inside this country, we will be increasingly calling jihad “yoga,” and there will be more and more “yogists” rising among us.
This is no doom vision, but a rational, mathematically grounded projection of where we will be going from where we are. I am not evaluating how the changing directions from offensive, stalemate, and retreat will affect the nation’s future. That is a matter American citizens will have to decide on in the next benchmarks of choices they will have to make. On this 9/11, it is important for the public to realize where history stands, from a very high altitude. The rest are details.
*Dr. Walid Phares is the author of “The Confontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad”. He is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. To visit his Web site go to www.walidphares.com
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.