LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 12/09

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 7,14-23. He summoned the crowd again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand.
Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile." (When he got home away from the crowd his disciples questioned him about the parable. He said to them, "Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile."

A clean heart create for me, O God" (Ps 51[50],12)
«Set me as a seal on your heart, for love is strong as death» (Sg 8,6). Love is strong as death, for the love of Christ is the death of death... The love with which we love Christ is also strong as death, for inasmuch as it is the extinction of our old life, the abolition of our vices, and an end to dead works, it is itself a sort of death. This love of ours for Christ is a sort of exchange - however unequal- of his love for us. It is a likeness of his love, patterned on its image. «He loved us first» (1Jn 4,10) and by the example of that love which he offered to us, he was made a seal for us which enables us to be conformed to his image... This is why he says, 'Set me as a seal upon your heart'. It is as if he said, 'Love me as I love you. Have me in your mind, your memory, your desire, your yearning, your sighing, and your sobbing. Remember, mankind, how I made you, how I put you before all other creatures, how I ennobled you with such dignity, how I crowned you with glory and honor, how I made you only a little less than the angels, how I subjected all things under your feet (Ps 8,6-7). Remember, too, not only the many things I made for you, but what harsh and undeserved things I endured for you, and see if you are not being unfair to me if you do not love me. Who loves you as I do? Who wants you to love them as I do? Who created you, if not I? Who redeemed you, if not I? Take from me, O Lord, my heart of stone. Take away my hardened heart. Take away my uncircumcised heart. Give me a new heart, a heart of flesh, a pure heart (Ez 36,26)! You who purify the heart, you who love the pure heart, possess my heart and dwell within it, enclosing it and filling it, higher than what in me is highest, more inward than my most inward part. O form of beauty and seal of sanctity, seal my heart in your image, seal my heart under your mercy, «O God of my heart, O God my portion for ever» (Ps 73[72],26).

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
The International Tribunal and the Fourth Anniversary of the Hariri Assassination/Randa Takieddine/11/02/09
More roadblock than roadmap in the Middle East-Guardian Unlimited 11/02/09
Christian voters hold key role in Lebanon-The National 11/02/09
Resistance versus negotiation: a false dichotomy-By Marc J. Sirois 11/02/09
Analysis of the Munich debate on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. By: W. Thomas Smith Jr 11/02/09
For these reasons the Lebanese overcame fears & marched towards freedom. By:Ayman Charrouf/ Future News/ 11.02.09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 11/09
Hariri: No More Hegemony over Lebanon No Matter How Hard Syria Tried-Naharnet
Jumblat:To Suspend or Not to Suspend Participation in National Dialogue?-Naharnet
Israel faces gridlock as rivals claim power-Reuters
Iran says ship held by Cyprus not carrying arms-Reuters
Bahrain Mulls Opening Embassy in Lebanon-The Media Line
Prosecutor General Mirza Hospitalized-Naharnet
Najjar: Government Has No Say in Four General's Fate-Naharnet
Hariri Case Documents Relocated to The Hague -Naharnet
Saniora: Moving Harriri Assassination Detainees to The Hague ...-Naharnet
Khatami: Hariri 'Killed by Terrorism'-Naharnet
Gemayel Extends his Hand and Hopes Aoun Will Return to March 14 ...Naharnet
Majority Sources: Citizens Receiving Threats Ahead of Feb. 14 Event -Naharnet
A Committee with Judicial Powers Could Investigate Illegal Wiretapping-Naharnet
Lebanon Asks Morocco to Extradite Tamraz-Naharnet
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula: Desperation or New Life? By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart-Daily Star
White House 'looks forward to working' with Berri-Daily Star
UAE pledges 10 helicopters during Sleiman visit-Daily Star
Sfeir urges Christians to unite to avoid defeat by 'greedy people-Daily Star
Najjar says unity government is boxed in-Daily Star
MP confirms army warning of militant attack (AFP)
Bellemare cryptic on witness, clear on presumption of innocence-Daily Star
Lebanese expect little change with Israeli vote-Daily Star
Jordanian MP among victims of car thefts-Daily Star
UNRWA opens health center near Nahr al-Bared-Daily Star
Activists press Beirut to end discrimination against women-Daily Star
LBC under 'armed occupation' by Lebanese Forces-Daily Star
Displaced residents of Nahr al-Bared bitter and suspicious over pace of plans to rebuild battered camp-(AFP)
Iran says Rushdie death fatwa still valid.Future Mews
An Iranian decision to destroy the PLO. Future News

Hariri Case Documents Relocated to The Hague
Naharnet/The international commission investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has transferred all documents and evidence on the case to The Hague where the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is based. In an interview with Future News Television, Premier Fouad Saniora said that "on Monday night all documents related to the international investigation were transferred to The Hague."Saniora's announcement comes as Lebanon prepares for a mass rally on Saturday to mark four years since Hariri was assassinated. His murder was followed by a string of high profile killings. While Saniora did not give further details on the transfer process, the Lebanese daily Ad-Diyar reported Wednesday that on Monday night the documents were placed in "six containers and escorted from Monteverde Hotel to Beirut's (international) airport under tight security."
The report said that the documents were then "flown directly to The Hague on board of a French military aircraft." The French authorities had asked that the aircraft make a stopover in Paris, but the international commission insisted that the flight be direct from Beirut to The Hague, the paper said.
In his interview, Saniora said that a transfer to The Hague of the four generals, in custody since Hariri's murder, requires Cabinet endorsement for relocation adding that Lebanon's cooperation with the international tribunal is in the country's "best interest."
On his recent meeting with the tribunal's registrar, Saniora said that Robert Vincent briefed him on "the procedural measures required for the tribunal to commence its work" and on the steps to be taken for the appointment of the judges "whose names will be announced at a later time."
For his part, Chief U.N. investigator Daniel Bellemare told An-Nahar that the current phase of the investigation is "Lebanese through the involvement of the Lebanese public prosecutor" stressing that "our job is to assist the Lebanese judiciary."
He added that starting March 1st "the situation will change since I will be taking over the file and continuing the investigation." He said that he has a period of two months from the day he assumes his task as international public prosecutor to submit a request to the Lebanese public prosecutor for the transfer to The Hague of "everything related to the (investigation) file, including those in (Lebanese) custody."
"But I can tell you that I will be submitting a request for relocation" at the earliest stage possible of the two month-period.
Asked if he expected the Lebanese government to delay or prevent the transfer of the four generals, Bellemare said he had no reason to believe that the Lebanese authorities will not "execute my request." In case the four generals were still under arrest by the time he assumes his duties as international public prosecutor, "they will be transferred to the Hague along with the file," he said. Bellemare added that in the meantime "there is a chance that the four generals might request that the tribunal look into to their situation." In New York, meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the tribunal, which will start operations next month, will help "reinforce political stability" in Lebanon. He said such a court will send a "strong message to the world and to possible perpetrators" of such crimes that they will not go unpunished. Beirut, 11 Feb 09, 10:16

The International Tribunal and the Fourth Anniversary of the Hariri Assassination
Randa Takieddine
Al-Hayat - 11/02/09//
Did the person who assassinated former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri imagine that the next few days following the fourth anniversary of his death would see the beginning of the International Tribunal in The Hague to try those accused of killing him?
On 1 March, the head of the international investigating commission, Daniel Bellemare, will become the public prosecutor at this tribunal, which will change the course of the history of assassinations in the Middle East. Hariri's assassination prompted the international community to seek the truth and set up a tribunal much desired by all of Lebanon and every Arab citizen who aspires to live decently in his own country. This tribunal, a symbol of the steadfastness of the international community and the Lebanese and international magistrates, will ensure that all political crimes will be punished.
Hariri's assassination entered the history of the Arab region. The Great Powers sought to help the Lebanese learn the identity of the person who assassinated their prime minister, who had been a giant in his country and internationally. Every Lebanese patriot should be happy that this tribunal will begin its work, even though this will not make up for the huge loss of Hariri, Basil Fleihan, their comrades and all of the martyrs who followed, and they are many, such as journalists Samir Kassir and Gebran Tueni and nationalist politicians who fell because they struggled for independence.
Bellemare, a magistrate, has not revealed what he has (in the way of information) but his commission has certainly completed a huge professional job. Certainly, Bellemare has something that has made him request the position of public prosecutor.
It is useful to remind everyone who sought to engage in dialogue and open a new page with Syria (such as France under President Nicholas Sarkozy, who became convinced that Syria would allow his country to play a role in the region), of the circumstances during the presidency of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac and his friend, the late Hariri. Sarkozy, who focused his campaign on breaking with the past, is in fact employing the same policy that was begun by Chirac with Syria, up to 2003, with encouragement from Hariri.
Chirac, like his predecessor Francois Mitterand, also wanted to start a new page with the Syrian regime of the late Hafiz Assad, and then with his son Bashar. Chirac stuck to this policy, which was manifested during state visits to France by both the elder and younger Assad, as well as former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. Chirac retained this orientation even up to the Paris 2 Conference. Afterward, he reached the conclusion that Syria was not responding to France's effort to convince it that an economically vibrant Lebanon was to its advantage, and that reforms were necessary to achieve this economic revival, and that President Lahoud was blocking this recovery at the behest of those who had selected him.
Chirac failed to "open a new page" with Syria, even though he canceled that country's debt to France and despite the state visits, which excited French public opinion. Afterward, Chirac sought to preserve democratic processes in Lebanon, as represented by presidential elections and respecting the Lebanese Constitution.
In February 2004, the French administration wanted to feel out the US administration with regard to a rapprochement between the two countries, which had been in disagreement after Chirac's rejection of the war against Iraq. The US administration worked on strengthening and preserving the constitutional date for holding Lebanese presidential elections, and a Franco-US rapprochement took place. It was crowned by the summit between Chirac and former US President George Bush on 4 June, when a joint statement was issued calling for respecting Lebanon's constitutional date (for the election). However, Syria did not heed the advice of either friends or the international community. Even Iran advised it to let Lebanon elect a new president. Nevertheless, Lahoud's term was extended, which was followed by United Nations Security Resolution 1559, followed by Hariri's resignation and the formation of a government by Omar Karami.
Meanwhile, Hariri began to prepare for the parliamentary elections that would lead to a resounding victory for him. However, the hand of treachery halted his democratic path. Hariri's considerable political weight had angered the hand that struck him down and his international role did not meet with support from those who wanted to dominate Lebanon and keep it paralyzed.
Certainly, the International Tribunal is no compensation for the loss of the gigantic role that Hariri played in Lebanon and the world. However, at the least it will reveal the truth. This is a historic event for a country like Lebanon, even if the interests of states sometimes win out, as in the Lockerbie case with Libya. However, learning the identity of the betrayers at the least, and not covering it up as in the past, is the right of every citizen who aspires to a live a dignified life in his country

Christian voters hold key role in Lebanon
By: Mitchell Prothero,
February 11. 2009 2:24AM UAE / February
Despite having fallen into minority status among Lebanon’s major ethnic groups, the country’s Maronite Christians find themselves playing a critical role in June’s parliamentary elections. As part of a long history of fractious political behaviour, the pre-election manoeuvring by Christian political rivals has cleft fissures in the electorate, according to public and private statements from rivals on all sides.
The June 7 elections are widely considered a key moment in resolving the more than two-year-old conflict between the pro-western government bloc of Sunnis, Druze and Christians and the Hizbollah-led opposition of mostly Shiite parties along with some Lebanese Christians loyal to Michel Aoun, a one-time army commander.
A clear winner this summer would put one of the blocs firmly in control of Lebanon and replace the ruling coalition, which because of the opposition’s strong veto power only nominally controls the state. With his historical opposition to Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs, Mr Aoun damaged his standing among Christians in 2006 when he aligned himself with the pro-Syrian bloc.
Until last week, this fracture seemed destined to help the opposition by coaxing moderates uncomfortable with the far-right platform of the traditional Christian parties who support the government into voting for the more nationalist, less sectarian option.
But then last week a prominent Christian political family decided to break the traditional political moulds and strike out on its own, with the blessing of Michel Suleiman, the president, who has a stubborn independent streak that has annoyed both sides of the political divide.
Michel Murr, who had been aligned with Mr Aoun until April, announced last week he would support a list of mostly family members to run in a critical Christian region as part of what many are calling “the president’s list” of non-aligned Christian voters.
Mr Murr’s son, Elias, is the minister of defence and the family is expected to draw significant support.
While some analysts laud the idea of a neutral Christian party, others immediately saw this as a move to further chip away at Mr Aoun’s support among Christians, who appear to hold the critical swing vote in the elections.
According to numerous analysts, the non-Christian parties are disciplined in voting, leaving the Christians as the key undecided demographic. But, according to the 2005 election results, Mr Aoun won almost 70 per cent of voters among the community.
After aligning himself with Hizbollah, he saw his support slip by nearly two thirds. A Murr ticket is likely to even further eat away at those numbers.
Hassan Said, an independent political analyst in Beirut, said Mr Murr is breaking away from Syrian pressure to support Mr Aoun in the Maten region, Mr Aoun’s former stronghold and home to eight legislative seats. “Whoever wins the Maten battle will affect the … coming elections,” Mr Said said.
He predicted the Murr candidates would refer to themselves as moderate Christians instead of a centrist bloc. Although Mr Murr’s list is incomplete now, it could very well be completed by allies in the pro-western government parties.
Mr Murr insists the party is independent of both the pro-western and pro-Syrian blocs, but the announcement was immediately denounced by both Hizbollah and Aoun supporters, who denied that the new list supported the president but rather argued it supports the government majority.
The parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri, an ally of Hizbollah, called the move an attempt to further divide Lebanese politics along sectarian lines. “The results of the upcoming elections will not threaten the fate of the country, but these sectarian divisions can shatter national unity,” he told the women’s wing of his Amal Movement.
"All factions should realise that this country can only be governed on the basis of partnership and consensus.”
Mr Berri’s top Christian rival, who stands to politically benefit from the new independent party begged to differ in a statement on Sunday.
Amin Gemayel, a former president, told An Nahar, a local daily newspaper, that Mr Murr had taken the right decision by extending his hand to the Phalange Party in the upcoming elections.
“We in turn are ready to extend our hand to any party that shares our national aspirations,” he said.
mprothero@thenational.ae

Resistance versus negotiation: a false dichotomy
By Marc J. Sirois
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
First person by Marc J. Sirois
The Black-and-Whiters are up to their elbows in the bloody business of Gaza and its aftermath, misdiagnosing and so threatening to exacerbate yet another symptom of that great heap of ailments known as the Middle East. On one side of the fence sit governments, non-state actors and individuals who argue that the only way to undo decades of occupation is through armed resistance. On the other are their opposite numbers who insist that only a process of negotiation can succeed.
Neither camp is very imaginative, and not just in terms of their respective prescriptions for one of the region's principal complaints: Each also refuses in many cases to acknowledge the very possibility that the other might have a valid point to make, and accusations of disloyalty are their primary means of communication with one another. To complicate matters even further, many of the antagonists are closely aligned with two countries, Iran and the United States, that have been at odds for three decades.
Armed resistance against occupation, it will be recalled, is a recognized legal right enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. The same document authorizes member states to assist in the battle against occupiers until such time as the Security Council sets things right.
Needless to say, however, other facts complicate the issue. The occupier confronting the Palestinians and their Arab and Islamic brethren is Israel, and Israel has historically enjoyed overwhelming support from the United States. This has included active erosion of the charter and therefore of the principles of collective security it was designed to embody. The influence of the United States, combined with the cowardice of many other Western governments, has made it so that resistance is widely equated with "terrorism," thereby exposing anyone who supports it to severe diplomatic, economic and even military penalties.
Understandably, the actual and potential costs of backing armed resistance have caused many Arab countries to demur. This includes some, like Egypt and Jordan, that have in the past borne some very heavy burdens - including tens of thousands of lives lost - in failed attempts to liberate Palestine. For many years now, the governments of these states have been advocates of a negotiated solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general and the Palestinian-Israeli one in particular.
This state of affairs enlarges and multiplies some of the greatest hurdles facing those who continue to advocate and conduct armed resistance. Irregular forces taking on conventional ones are always limited by the asymmetry of the resources at their disposal, and for years the imbalance has been made particularly acute in this instance: While America has lavished some of the world's most sophisticated and destructive military equipment on Israel, its Palestinian foes have been largely limited to small arms and makeshift rockets because most would-be Arab benefactors of resistance have been intimidated into inaction.
Predictably, neither side has enjoyed much in the way of success. Those pursuing a diplomatic approach have discovered that just as blanket American support made the Israelis formidable on the battlefield, so does it make them intransigent at the negotiating table. Likewise, those who advocate the gun have found that while Hizbullah has managed some impressive accomplishments (albeit at horrendous expense in blood and treasure) here in Lebanon, the Israeli stranglehold on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has helped ensure that similar feats have not been duplicated there.
Given these dual failures, it is no surprise that non-Arab powers in the Islamic world have seen fit to intervene. The occupation of Palestine might be primarily an Arab issue, but it is not exclusively so. It was just a matter of time, therefore, before other countries moved decisively to pick up the slack.
On the diplomatic side, this role has been played by a newly assertive Turkey. That country has become much more active on the international stage in recent years, its moderately Islamist government having discarded many of the isolationist instincts of its secular (and insular) predecessors. Apart from seeking solutions to the various quandaries plaguing the Caucasus and its own relations with Armenia, Turkey has tried to use its ties to Israel as a lever to end the latter's long feud with (and partial occupation of) Syria. Its reliance on diplomacy, though, has neither blinded Ankara nor caused it to lose its voice. On the contrary, Turkish condemnations of Israeli actions during the battering of Gaza carried more weight than those of any other Muslim country precisely because its pragmatic bona fides had been so diligently established.
On the resistance side, the non-Arab player has been Iran, and its reasons for having done so are both more numerous and more astute than a variety of fear-mongers would have us believe. Sure, a good many Iranian officials are bent on "exporting the Islamic Revolution," but the overriding goal is to preserve it at home. Early in the 1980s, it was clear that an embattled Iran - locked in a war of attrition launched by Iraq's Saddam Hussein and justifiably paranoid about Western designs for an encore coup of the sort perpetrated in 1953 - viewed the arming and coordination of allied groups across the Middle East as a prophylactic against foreign aggression. Today, however, the Islamic Republic had parleyed this strategy into something far more than a capacity for distractions that would keep its enemies occupied elsewhere: The Iranians believe they are well-positioned to offer a "grand bargain" in which they could help deliver stability in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan in return for the delivery of certain goodies and guarantees from the United States.
The key thing to note here is that while the Turks and the Iranians are generally aligned, respectively, with the diplomacy and resistance camps at both the Palestinian and regional levels, their own bilateral relationship remains a productive one. Unlike the enmity that flavors relations between Fatah and Hamas or Egypt and Syria, those between Ankara and Tehran remain more than cordial. No doubt this is partly due to a shared aversion to the emergence of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, but it also evinces far more confident and mature approaches to power politics than anything the largest Arab countries have produced of late. The Turks understand that continuing pressure on Israel, thanks largely to Tehran's proxies, might help Israeli leaders learn that recalcitrance in the peace process cannot be prolonged without a price. The Iranians, conversely, understand that despite their misgivings about Turkey's close ties to Israel, these could be useful in pursuit of the aforementioned "grand bargain."
The two "sides" in Palestine, along with their equivalents here in Lebanon and their respective backers across the Arab world, would do well to emulate the practicalities of the Iranian-Turkish relationship by eliminating their habit of viewing the region in black and white. At the very least, it would stop Fatah and Hamas from spoiling for another round of the miniature civil war they fought in June 2007 - and Lebanon's March 8 and March 14 camps from redoing their bloody drama of May 2008. It would also make the entire Arab world less vulnerable to disunity and therefore to defeat in detail at the hands of Israel's well-oiled diplomatic machine and/or its well-armed military one. It might even convince the Israelis that the jig is up, and it's time to get serious about peace.
**Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of THE DAILY STAR. His email address is marc.sirois@dailystar.com.lb.

Phares: Analysis of the Munich debate on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan
By: Maj. W. Thomas Smith, Jr.
In an article for Human Events, my friend and colleague Clare M. Lopez laments that the Obama administration is playing a game of international appeasement with terror-sponsoring, nearly nuclear Iran to sate the appetite of a segment of Obama’s political constituency. And they’re likely doing it at the expense of U.S. national security.
“An 8 February 2009 speech by Vice President Joe Biden (in Munich, of all places) did note U.S. readiness to take pre-emptive action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, but also repeated that the U.S. is open to talks,” writes Lopez, vice pres. of the Intelligence Summit and a former CIA operations officer. “This is what your mother always warned you against: mixed signals.”
Indeed, and as Bridget Kendall writing for the BBC says: “Many people want to believe that Barack Obama's hopeful campaign message of change can somehow deliver a magic formula. But many have also noticed there was more mood music [at Munich] than concrete specifics.”
On the Munich table this year was Iran – How could it not be? – as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, the broader war on terrorism, and deteriorating U.S.-Russian relations.
As part of our ongoing series of conversations with international terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares, we examine this month’s conference.
W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Echoing Obama, Vice President Biden declared it was time to "press the reset button” in order to stem the tide of "a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance.” In your book, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, you dedicated an entire chapter to the necessity of a renewed Russian-American partnership against terrorism and jihadism in particular. Almost a week before Biden announces "a strategic rethinking" of these issues you pointed out on Russia Today TV that "the new call to U.S. intelligence to gather better information about Russia” may well turn to “ an enhancing” or thawing of these frozen relations. Do you agree with Biden's new approach to the Europeans and the Russians?
DR. WALID PHARES: The strategic approach I outlined in my last book, The Confrontation, was part of a comprehensive new doctrine promoting the isolation of the terror forces –particularly the Jihadi networks – instead of what we are witnessing which is the great powers and democracies fighting the fight in dispersed ranks and with different strategies. What I proposed last year – which by the way was advanced way before the U.S. election primaries – was a new geopolitical approach calling for repairing and reforming weakened Transatlantic relations since 2003 and the Russian-American relationship for the last few years. But to be clear, my approach was and is to reaffirm the Atlantic alliance and through it build a solid bridge to Russia not by caving in to the Jihadi powers, regimes and organizations, but by building a wider alliance to isolate these radical forces. In my many meetings and briefings in Europe for a whole year I advanced the idea of bringing together all of what is common between America and Europe regarding concerns over the rise of Jihadism within their own countries, and then design an Atlantic approach to confront the threat.
SMITH: And one such initiative, launched last April in Washington, was the formation of a Transatlantic legislative initiative.
DR. PHARES: Yes. With that initiative the aim was to develop fresh thinking on an international platform in the struggle against terrorism. Naturally I support the idea of a renewed Euro-American partnership in the campaigning against terror, and inasmuch as it can be successful, the initiation of a dialogue with the Russian Federation on joint efforts against Jihadi terrorism. But this new approach must move beyond the abstract and the emotional. Yes, working with the Europeans is more than a must, it is a natural strategic direction. And I don't think there will be major hurdles in re-initiating this platform. But with the Russians specifically there must be a lot of work on redefining the common threat.
SMITH: The U.S. has much in common with the Europeans regarding our mutual strategic interests, terrorist threats, and our efforts aimed at countering global terrorism. The attacks in Madrid, London and elsewhere as well as our joint counterterrorism efforts worldwide, demonstrate this common thread and the threats we share. But let’s look at the commonality we share with Russia in this regard.
DR. PHARES: Keep in mind that regardless of politics and mutual criticism between the West and the Federation, the Russians have been targeted significantly by the Salafi Jihadists. Remember the atrocities at the Beslan school and the Moscow theater. There was and is an all out Jihadi campaign against the Russian people regardless of politics. The ideological platforms of most neo Wahabi and combat Jihadi movements consider Russia to be as much an infidel and an enemy as the West. Therefore, Washington and Moscow must come to some minimum level of understanding and cooperation in this realm. Actually it is illogical that both powers haven't engaged in such an important counterterrorism dialogue. For if progress is made at this level, this may help alleviating the crises over other issues of great importance in Europe including the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the problems in the Caucasus.
SMITH: But aren't the Russians today prosecuting a somewhat “cold conflict” offensive aimed at undermining U.S. strategic interests in Asia and Europe? Didn't Moscow encourage Kyrgyzstan to shut down the U.S. base there? And we know the Russian Navy and strategic air forces are operating in America’s Caribbean backyard.
DR. PHARES: The symptoms of confrontation are numerous and seemingly irreversible. Listening to Hugo Chavez’s claims that Russian and Iranian support are necessary to expand his regime’s dominance in the Caribbean, watching as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs receive technology and military support from Moscow, and then we have Assad of Syria offering bases to Russia in return for shipments of weapons is certainly not reassuring to democracies. Nor are central European reports regarding concerns of Russian missiles and other provocations. But all of this is a result of the collapse of U.S.-Russia relations. Hence the necessity of repair, even if the United States must be the initiator of rebuilding burned bridges no matter who burned them. Washington must use all the tools at its disposal to reach out not only to the Kremlin but – and more importantly – to the Russian people in order to redirect the attention of both nations against a common threat. So my recommendations – as advanced in my book – are to engage in a two-pronged approach: Talk to the decision-makers but also to the citizens, and without hesitation. President Obama tried to reach out to the Arab Muslim world via an interview with al Arabiya TV, and he will deliver a speech from a “Muslim city” soon. He should do the same with the Russian people. What Vice President Biden has said in Munich should be the beginning of a tireless campaign to reach out to Europeans and Russians going beyond the abstract.
SMITH: As you’ve often said Moscow has been trying to shield the Iranian regime from the effects of international sanctions, supplying them with technology and more. How can the U.S. engage Russia diplomatically while it is blatantly supporting America's foes in the Middle East?
DR. PHARES: It is a question of political engineering in Washington. I am not sure about what the Obama administration’s plans are in this regard, or if the administration even has any. But I would strongly urge a two-dimensional approach. Regarding the Iranian regime, Washington should expand its coalition against nuclear weapons. In doing so, the U.S. will remain under the UN umbrella but at the same time can engage in direct initiatives. Some are advising the White House to begin full-fledged dialogue. I would advise a different path, where the talking is not the issue, but the recipients of that dialogue must be the issue. We'll address this later. But whatever the administration wants to do regarding Iran, it should not link it to its grand strategy of shaping new alliances worldwide. I admit, this needs lots of strategic crafting in Washington and it needs a global vision of how to confront the Jihadi threat ultimately.
SMITH: Russia has been warned in so many words that the U.S. will not accept the idea of a world divided into “spheres of influence” as we once were; and that former Soviet-bloc nations like Georgia and Ukraine should have the unimpeded right to decide which alliances – like NATO – they might decide to join. Will this prove to be an un-negotiable obstacle to any renewal of Russo-American understanding?
DR. PHARES: The current Russian leadership considers the extension of NATO close to Russia's borders as a menace. But this is a new development for during the 1990s and the first years after 9/11 Moscow wasn't that nervous about this advance of NATO. One has to analyze what happened that created a breakdown in trust? For Russia has had borders with NATO in the post Soviet era, on the borders between Kaliningrad and Poland. Alaska is dozens of miles away from Kamchatka. The question deserves a thorough analysis. What prompted Russia to consider the adhesion of Georgia and Ukraine as threatening? All Russian citizens killed by Terrorists since the end of the Cold war were attacked by Jihadists, either in the Caucuses or in Moscow's heart. Russians populations are targeted by Wahabis and by their allies all coming from the south not from the West. Thus the question is legitimate: why does the Kremlin fear the Poles and the Ukrainians more than the Salafists and eventually the Khomeinists? The analytical review of this Russian shift has to be done in the West.
SMITH: Some have argued that NATO's military presence in the Balkans is the real reason for Russia's overreaction elsewhere.
DR. PHARES: The Russians didn’t hide their frustrations in 2007-2008 when Washington backed the secession of Kosovo from Serbia despite Russian calls to allow negotiations between the two parties over the fate of Serbian minorities in Kosovo. Politicians in the U.S. openly claimed that direct American support to Kosovo’s unilateral separation would gain the sympathy of the Organization of Islamic States to American foreign policy. Russia warned it would back similar claims in the Caucasus in return. In a sense, yes, the Kosovo problem has deteriorated Russian-American relations. Perhaps a re-engagement by Washington over the minority status of Serbs inside mostly Muslim Kosovo can thaw one segment of frozen Russian-American relations. But this is only one example of the complex web of interests between the two nations. There are many forces worldwide who have an interest in seeing the ties completely severed between Moscow and Washington. Radical ideologues cheered publicly during the Georgia-Russia conflict last summer, and were gleefully pronouncing a return to the Cold War.
SMITH: Back to the Munich conference, do you see that Biden's approach and the report by General David Petraeus, commanding general of CENTCOM, regarding Afghanistan have brought support from Western democracies and Russia to the theater there?
DR. PHARES: Again, in my last book, I called for a maximum internationalization of the campaign against the Jihadi forces, including the Taliban and al Qaeda. Some of our friends in the counterterrorism community do not trust the United Nations and anything international about confronting the terrorists. They may be right at this stage, but this can change if a new coalition is formed inside the UN Security Council.
SMITH: Yes, but we are talking about the unwieldy, far-too-often incompetent, and – in many ways as we have seen in Lebanon and elsewhere – impotent UN.
DR. PHARES: Regardless of most of the UN bureaucracy and some of the institutions which seem not to be on board in the campaign against terrorism, an entente between the major powers to isolate the Jihadists and their allies can reverse the current realities. I saw this first-hand when in the spring of 2004 – and despite deep divisions between America and France on Iraq – we were able to forge a single-issue alliance between Washington and Paris on the need to evacuate Syrian forces from Lebanon. It worked and the Security Council became the main force in pushing the Syrian occupation outside the small republic. With regards to Afghanistan, there is already a NATO consensus on defeating the Taliban and their al Qaeda acolytes. Washington must put efforts toward consolidating this Western alliance and go on a charm offensive to convince Russia and even India to be more supportive of the campaign. Again it will depend on the strategic architects in Washington. Will they capture the moment and widen the alliance on the Afghan battlefield or will they lose the opportunity and retreat into doomsday theories of finding the “good” Taliban to talk to? It really depends on who in Washington gets it and is willing to move swiftly and globally. I see a window of opportunity for the Obama administration to score a significant victory in Afghanistan. With Petraeus's new operational plans, an anti-terrorist government in Islamabad, a European perseverance so far, and potential common-interests with Moscow to reverse the Jihadi threat in central Asia, there couldn't be a better alignment of the planets. But the window is small and short-lived.
SMITH: Back to Iran, how do you read Biden's statement regarding Iran that the administration is ready to engage in dialogue with them?
DR. PHARES: I think the administration has decided to try the dialogue strategy with the Iranian regime. And there may be too much pressure now for them not to go down that path. First you have a campaign promise to fulfill, then you have a current majority in Congress, which has already adopted this direction. But more importantly, the administration is besieged by a mass of expertise pushing toward the "sit down" doctrine. I don't see at this stage any other course of action for them – unless the Iranian regime commits a less-likely mistake – than to slide, slowly, then fast into the so-called dialogue with the Mullahs. The problem in my mind is that I do not see a medium nor a long-range plan in Washington projecting – if not predicting – the stages to follow the theatrics of this diplomatic dance. In other words, the big achievement is not going to be the actions of organizing meetings and what have you, but what is it that you are going to get from the meetings. I have my own predictions, but let’s hold them for future analysis. Vice President Biden though understands that the U.S. will be dealing with very difficult set of circumstances and a Machiavellian regime on the one hand. And he will have to keep the sword of Damocles in the other.
[Dr. Phares is director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. Recently, he was appointed secretary general of the newly formed Trans Atlantic Parliamentary Group on Counterterrorism. Dr. Phares has provided analysis to the U.S. government. He regularly conducts Congressional and State Department as well as European Parliament and UN Security Council briefings, and he has been providing exclusive analysis to us for nearly five years.]
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com

Israel faces gridlock as rivals claim power
By Douglas Hamilton and Joseph Nasr
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel headed for political gridlock Wednesday after its election produced rival winners.
Analysts said the country was as split as the Palestinians and the prospects of the two making peace were dimmer than ever.
Centrist Tzipi Livni's Kadima party won the most votes but had little chance of building enough support for a coalition. Right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu can get the support, but analysts said the likely coalition would prove dysfunctional.
"I won," read the headline of the country's biggest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, next to photos of both leaders.
But some commentators said the rival claims showed Israel had lost. "One thing is clear to all Israeli voters," said the paper's Eitan Haber. "The political system is shattered."
President Shimon Peres must decide whether to call on Livni or Netanyahu, who then has 42 days to form a government.
Israeli media said he would have no choice but to tap Netanyahu if rightist parties all back him.
But it would be the first time in Israel's 60-year history that the winner of an election ends up sitting in opposition.
"With God's help I will lead the next government," Netanyahu, 59, told supporters of his Likud party.
Nearly final results gave him 27 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, while Livni's Kadima won 28.
She said she would be prime minister and invited Netanyahu to join a "unity government." But Netanyahu said he would lead the "nationalist camp" in parliament, and control 64 seats.
"Tzipi Livni has only the slightest chance, or none at all, of forming a government under her leadership," said Abraham Diskin, a political scientist at Jerusalem's Hebrew University.
Avigdor Lieberman's far-right, anti-Arab Yisrael Beiteinu party, now third largest, emerged as a potential kingmaker.
"We want a nationalist government. We want a rightist government ... and we are not hiding this," he said. But keeping his options open, he added: "The decision will not be simple."
Lieberman and religious parties in a Netanyahu coalition would oppose any peace moves with the Palestinians, a fact not lost on the people of the occupied West Bank.
"Israelis voted for the right and against peace. We will not see progress in the peace process in the coming years," said Ali Zaidan, an office worker in Ramallah.
Netanyahu would also face demands from Jewish religious parties for a big slice of the budget to fund their studies. If no budget passes in 45 days there must be another election.
WORST OF BOTH WORLDS
The outcome was bad news for U.S. President Barack Obama, who plans to revive peace talks aiming for a two-state accord.
"The Obama administration is going to inherit the worst of both worlds," said former U.S. mediator Aaron David Miller.
"They have already inherited a dysfunctional Palestinian house, made worse by Gaza, and now what they are inheriting is a dysfunctional Israeli house," he said.
The Palestinian side is split between hardline Hamas Islamists in Gaza and Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, a leader who seems to be losing support.
"I'll talk with whatever government emerges in Israel," Abbas was quoted as telling Italy's La Repubblica. "The ascent of the Israeli right does not worry us."
"Take for example Netanyahu: in the past he took important steps, he signed two accords with us."
Netanyahu and Livni were both meeting leaders of potential coalition parties Wednesday, and Peres was also due to start hearing the views of the 12 parties which won seats.
His discussions with Knesset factions could take about a week, but coalition talks might drag on for more than a month.
Ehud Olmert of Kadima, who resigned in September in a corruption scandal but stayed on as caretaker prime minister, will remain in the post until a government is in place.
The election was held in the middle of delicate, indirect talks with Hamas to agree on a durable Gaza ceasefire.
Israel's January war in Gaza cost 1,300 Palestinian lives versus 13 Israelis killed, and had strong public support.
Netanyahu was cruising to victory until Olmert's center-left coalition, including Livni, launched the three-week offensive.
Livni also led peace talks with Abbas's Palestinian Authority and would try to revive them. Netanyahu is cooler on ceding occupied territory and curbing Jewish settlement.
(Editing by Dominic Evans)

For these reasons the Lebanese overcame fears… and marched towards freedom
Date: February 11th, 2009 Source: Ayman Charrouf /Future News
March 14, 2005 is a historical moment that gathered the Lebanese under the slogan “Lebanon first”. This moment was the result of the assassination of a Lebanese giant called Rafic Hariri, it was also the assassination of the man who established the honor of the nation, and it is the date that triggered the anger of the Lebanese who held it for thirty years.
When the criminal decided to murder Lebanon on February 14, 2005, he realized that taming the Lebanese won’t be easy, because a major modification occurred to the political life in Lebanon, thus to the Lebanese society, starting with the reconciliation of Mount Lebanon all the way to the horrible extension to the term of President Emile Lahoud in 2004, which lead to a demonstration of all the Lebanese, Muslims and Christians shouting NO to the dictatorial regime, therefore it was time for the Syrian troops to pull back from Lebanon.
The occupier’s only way is to offend the Lebanese who are mature now, following a long waited meeting of Muslims and Christians, and the country was unified on a single position, in an unrevealed way at the start, to explode just after the horrible extension, along with an unperceived international support.
In this fateful moment, the criminal committed a mistake in choosing the bloodiest as usual on February 14. There, the will of the Lebanese for freedom, independence and sovereignty showed in a number of parties from all communities who gathered to free Lebanon from a bloody Baasi hatred, and launched the campaign of avenging Lebanon that suffered for several years from the injustice of a relative.
The assassin thought that the issue will be content with some demonstrations ending with the conclusion of the burial of the martyr PM, but the “surprise” was when he discovered that the Lebanese people overcame fears, may the first reason the loss of a friend. Lebanon said its word in 2005 and walked behind the coffin of the man who supported Lebanon in his life and his death. One of the most significant moments after the assassination of martyr PM Hariri, and that resulted in insisting on freedom deserves this struggle was expressed by free people in a square that became later the symbol of Lebanon we all dreamt of, and the Martyrs Square is the witness that we refuse to lose.
The black history of Syria in Lebanon, for long years, had to explode in front of its intelligence and its numerous spies, from the north to the south. Several regions were empty in March 14, as a response to the gathering under the slogan “Thanks Syria” on March 8, as each inch of Lebanon was avenging the tutelage of the Baas regime… so it was the revolution of the oppressed on the oppressor, a new day where we decide the fate of a cursed nation...
So we do not follow who betrayed the cause in a moment of greed, and to be loyal with a bitter souvenir that intrigued and is still intriguing the Lebanese, we have to remember the past, the time of Baas domination, not to repeat the same mistakes, and follow false promises like what happened in 1989 and 1990, to hold for free that made us sacrifice elites.
Many ask why March 14 took place. And why the Lebanese unified for Lebanon first? Why all free people expressed themselves at the Martyrs Square? What is the reason that pushed the regions to overcome their extremism?
From the North
Far from the moment of the assassination of the founder of Taef, Rafic Hariri, in spite of the criticality of the instant of February 14 that gave birth to March 14, and the participation of the people of the north in this moment, this region suffered many painful events during the tutelage era that gave its inhabitants a boost to participate on March 14, that moment constituted their peaceful revenge from bloody assaults. How can Deir Ashash village forget the Syrian “Al Saika” forces that ravaged the region and forced its inhabitants to displace in addition to the killing of three monks in it? This same question applies to Tel Abbas in which “Al Saika” killed 15 and burned the church of the village, applying a Syrian goal that is to support sectarianism between the Lebanese?
And can we ask Beit Mellat village why they participated in a revolution that pulled back the occupier, a village that witnessed Al Saika killing 7 of them and detaining many others who are still lost in the Syrian prisons in nowadays? This situation applies to Al Qobayat and all the villages of Ackar, Bshare and Batrun that had to take the Syrian barbarian acions with the Lebanese, where Al Yarmuk brigade was not content with bombs and tanks but also used warplanes to oppress the resistance? How can we stop the inhabitants of Konat from expressing their refusal to what occurred in their village in 1978 by the Syrian Special Forces? And why to blaming the people of Tripoli who suffered murdering 34 among them for resisting the Syrian troops, as a matter of fact they were defending Lebanon?
to the Bekaa
When Syria got into Lebanon, the Bekaa constituted a gate for a complete control of Lebanon because this region has the longest border between both countries. The Syrian troops first clashed with the Lebanese army in the region, and after enforcing their authority on the rest of Lebanon except the south of course, they oppressed whoever opposed them even orally, so Deir El Ahmar, Al Kae, the highs of Baalbak and Judeidat El Fakha were subject to bombings of the Syrian troops which kidnapped and totured a large number of them.
Zahle, the capital of the Bekaa, and surrounding regions had their part of Syrian maltreatment and year 1981 is a proof to this, when 10 thousand Syrian soldiers besieged Zahle. The Syrian anger did not spare the villages of west Bekaa and Rashaya, but left them camps, still existing until today.
This is why the Bekaa participated in the freedom square. Lebanese and only Lebanese flags linked the Bekaa to the capital, and voices rose against the Syrians calling them to withdraw from the Cedar’s land.
and Mount Lebanon
It is a pity that Mount Lebanon contains the Presidential castle along with the ministry of Defense. And it is a pity as well that these two official centers constitute for the Lebanese a symbol to the nation and its independence. They both witnessed the heroic actions of a man who convinced everybody he is the protector, but he was the first to leave when these two centers were bombed.
The Syrians focused on Mount Lebanon in the days of the civil war, thinking that the coexistence between its inhabitants would be the trigger to a civil war so they can continue occupying Lebanon, because Syria convinced the international community that it has control over a country that cannot govern itself.
The assassination of Kamal Jumblatt in the Chouf region few meters away from a Syrian checkpoint was for this same reason. Al Yarmuk and Al Saika forces ravaged Al Damour region on the Chouf costs forcing its inhabitants to displace completely.
On the 14th of March was the response of the inhabitants of the mountain including all religions to the responsible of launching the war there. Their response was like all the Lebanese peaceful and civilized.
Beirut
The situation in Beirut wasn’t any better than that of other regions. It is the capital, thus controlling it means the control of the whole country, so it witnessed explosions killing civilians and innocents, and the indiscriminate shelling to its eastern part then was rude. In these days Al Ashrafieh represented the last resisting district according to the Syrians, thus the solution was in mass killing to terrify its inhabitants.
This does not mean that west Beirut was secure, the massacre of UNESCO district that killed tens of innocents, and the car explosions meant that there is no security in the streets of the capital.
Beirut that lost its martyr Rafic Hariri, embraced March 14 and received all the Lebanese, and enjoyed a revolution that ended the bad days of the “Borivage”.
The “friendly” forces refused all kinds of opposition; this is why President Rene Mouawad, MP Kamal Jumblatt, President Bashir Gemayel, Mufti Hasan Khaled, and Sheikh Sobhi El Saleh were assassinated. In addition to a number of journalists like Jubran Tueni, Samir Kassir, Slim El Lawzi and Riad Taha who were murdered for saying their opinions.
That is the black and bloody history of the Syrians in Lebanon, can’t be gathered in a single article or feature or even in a book. But this history was and will stay the booster of a revolution for the eternal Lebanese right to live.