LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 08/09

Bible Reading of the day.
Mark11/From 19-26 When evening came, he went out of the city. As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots. Peter, remembering, said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered away.” Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. For most certainly I tell you, whoever may tell this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and doesn’t doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is happening; he shall have whatever he says. Therefore I tell you, all things whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you have received them, and you shall have them. Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father, who is in heaven, may also forgive you your transgressions. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your transgressions.”

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Olmert protects Syria, Netanyahu seeks its protection/ By Wissam Saade 07/03/09
Butts … Not heads/Future News 07/03/09
The region cannot afford to squander new opportunities for engagement.The Daily Star 07/03/09
UN Secretary General's message on International Women's Day, March 8, 2009.By Ban Ki-moon 07/03/09
'Jihadi penetration of Pakistan’s armed forces is at the center of all concerns in any new strategy'.By Walid Phares 07/03/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 07 /09
Feltman: Syria Can Be Constructive-Naharnet
High-level US envoys visit Syria-United Press International
Clinton encourages Israel, Syria contacts-Reuters
Hizbullah Rejects Hegemony, Says it is Working to Endorse Partnership-Naharnet
Lebanese Army Denies Officer Arrested in Brazil-Naharnet
US Won't Follow British Lead on Hezbollah Dialogue-Voice of America
U.S.: We Will Watch How British Contact with Hizbullah Proceeds-Naharnet
Jumblat is Not Worried About U.S.-Syrian Dialogue-Naharnet
Hariri Holds Onto Project to Build Stable State-Naharnet
Nassib Lahoud: Any U.S.-Syrian Dialogue Would Reflect Well on Lebanon-Naharnet
US Sees Growing Proof of Illicit Syrian Nuclear Program-Global Security Newswire
New Confrontation between Majority, Minority Over Judicial Formations-Naharnet
Hariri tribunal will polarise politics-GulfNews
US Sees a Place for Iran at Meeting on Afghanistan-Voice of America
US Diplomatic Overture to Syria Unlikely to Narrow Gulf of Differences-Council on Foreign Relations
Lebanon's Hezbollah welcomes contacts with Britain.The Associated Press
Lebanon GDP growth could be halved in 2009: IMF-AFP
Feltman to tell Syria: 'Lebanon is for the Lebanese-Daily Star
Egyptian envoy says tribunal results must be respected-Daily Star
Fadllah: Some leaders 'embarrassed' to talk defense-Daily Star
UK approves low-level contact with Hizbullah's political wing-(AFP)
Outcome of Metn polls may hinge on Armenians-Daily Star
Beirut unveils quality management model, excellence award-Daily Star
ISF chief denies Azar was rushed to hospital-Daily Star
Cluster bomb victims to get more services-Daily Star
GCC students bid Beirut farewell after completing advanced program at AUB-Daily Star
Nightspot owners bristle at early closing hours set by government-Daily Star

Feltman: Syria Can Be Constructive
Naharnet/Syria can be an important and constructive force in the Middle East, a senior U.S. envoy said in Damascus on Saturday, as Washington pursues a new policy of engaging with all countries in the region, even long-time foes.
"It is my view that Syria can play an important and constructive role in the region," Jeffrey Feltman, acting secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, said in a conference call with reporters in the United States after four hours of talks with Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and other officials.
Feltman and White House official Daniel Shapiro arrived in Damascus earlier on Saturday for the first high-level contacts in four years, after a day of talks with leaders in neighboring Lebanon, once dominated by Syria.
Addressing journalists in Damascus after the meeting, Feltman spoke of what he called "a very constructive discussion... to make progress in our bilateral relations."
He said the talks had touched on a "wide range of issues," but did not elaborate. He did not say whether the two would meet President Bashar al-Assad.
In Beirut on Friday, Feltman had said new U.S. President Barack Obama "has said he wants to sustain in principle engagement with all states in the region and that includes Syria."
Feltman is also a former ambassador to Lebanon, while Shapiro is senior Middle East and North Africa director at the National Security Council.
The pair had expected to discuss a "long list" of concerns Washington has with Syria -- the key ally of U.S. arch-foe Iran.
"Our trip to Syria... is an opportunity for us to start addressing these concerns and using engagement as a tool to promote our objectives in the region," Feltman said in Beirut.
Earlier this week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Israel on her maiden tour of the Middle East that the envoys would hold "preliminary conversations" with Syrian officials.
Washington recalled its ambassador to Syria four years ago following the assassination in Beirut of Lebanon's ex-premier Rafik Hariri, whose murder in a massive truck bomb attack was blamed on Syria.
Damascus denied any involvement in the February 2005 killing, but two months later withdrew its troops from Lebanon, ending almost three decades of political and military domination of its neighbor.
"We'll talk to the Syrians about many many issues but about Lebanon, the message is clear: the U.S. and the international community... all agree Lebanon is for the Lebanese," Feltman said in Beirut.
Clinton had said, "There are a number of issues we have between Syria and the United States as well as the larger regional concerns that Syria obviously poses."
Feltman and Shapiro will "explore with Syria some of these bilateral issues," she said.
"We have no way to predict what the future of our relations concerning Syria might be," she added.
"We don't engage in discussions for the sake of having conversations. There has to be a purpose to them, there has to be a perceived benefit for the U.S.."
In late February, Feltman met the Syrian ambassador in Washington, Imad Mustafa, for what a State Department spokesman called a "very frank discussion."
U.S.-Syria ties were especially tense under president George W. Bush's administration, which accused Damascus of supporting terrorism and of turning a blind eye to the flow of arms and supplies to insurgents in Iraq.
Last month several leading U.S. Congressmen including Senator John Kerry visited Damascus for talks with the Syrian president.
Assad, who returned to the international fold last year with a visit to Paris, has repeatedly called for a dialogue with Washington, describing the United States as a key referee in Middle East peace negotiations.
Syria held Turkish-brokered indirect peace talks with Israel last year but suspended them during Israel's three-week war on the Gaza Strip in December and January.(AFP) Beirut, 07 Mar 09, 16:05

Hizbullah Rejects Hegemony, Says it is Working to Endorse Partnership
Naharnet/Hizbullah's official in south Lebanon Sheikh Nabil Qaouq said on Friday that his party is working for partnership in the country while the March 14 forces are giving the Lebanese two choices – either hegemony or obstruction.
"The resistance does not fear new regional and international conditions… We will not wait for outside interferences … We call for consensus and national partnership with which to safeguard Lebanon's identity and stability," Qaouq said during a graduation ceremony organized by Jihad al-Binaa construction company.
"The program of the pro-government forces in the country is aimed at giving two choices to the Lebanese: Either hegemony or obstruction. In return, the opposition gives two choices to the Lebanese: Either consensus or consensus," Qaouq stressed.
He said no matter who wins the June 7 legislative elections, there should always be national partnership.
"Mo matter who is the winner in the parliamentary elections, Lebanon is bound to be in agreement and national partnership," Qaouq said.
"This is the only solution for a way out of the current political crisis. Any other talk about obstruction, domination and hegemony has no chance" to succeed because "we have already turned the chapter on American and other embassies' guardianship," the Hizbullah official added. Meanwhile, Hizbullah and Amal Movement leaderships in Mount Lebanon and the North also stressed in a joint statement their commitment to partnership. Beirut, 07 Mar 09, 13:20

Army Denies Officer Arrested in Brazil
Naharnet/The Lebanese army command denied reports that an army officer was arrested at Sao Paolo airport while trying to smuggle money intended to urge Lebanese expatriates to vote for his relative during the upcoming parliamentary elections. "A television channel and a website quoted an MP as saying that Brazilian police arrested an army officer at Sao Paulo airport while trying to bring (into the country) a certain amount of money to cover the travel expenses of Lebanese expatriates" to participate in the elections and vote for one of his relatives, the army command said in a communiqué on Saturday. The command denied the report and stressed that the officer hasn't made a visit to Brazil since last March and hasn't paid money for elections purposes. The communiqué reiterated that media outlets should be objective and "get the right information from the competent authorities." Beirut, 07 Mar 09, 11:36

Feltman to tell Syria: 'Lebanon is for the Lebanese'
US envoys reiterate support for 'sovereign, independent' state
Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 07, 2009
BEIRUT: Two senior US diplomatic envoys sought to reassure Lebanese leaders on Friday of Washington's continued support despite its recent rapprochement with former powerbroker Syria. "My visit here today underscores an important reality - the United States' support for a sovereign and independent Lebanon remains unwavering," Jeffrey Feltman told reporters after meeting with President Michel Sleiman as well as the country's premier and foreign minister.
The former US ambassador to Lebanon said Washington's overtures to the Syrian regime was in line with the policy of new US President Barack Obama to engage states in the region, including foes.
"The president has said he wants to sustain in principle engagement with all states in the region and that includes Syria," said Feltman, who is acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.
However, he stressed that Washington had a "long list" of concerns that he and fellow envoy Daniel Shapiro planned to discuss with Syrian officials when they meet on Saturday.
"Our trip to Syria ... is an opportunity for us to start addressing these concerns and using engagement as a tool to promote our objectives in the region," Feltman said.
"We'll talk to the Syrians about many issues but about Lebanon, the message is clear: The US and the international community ... all agree Lebanon is for the Lebanese," he added. "That's the basic message."
US officials have repeatedly maintained that renewed ties with Syria, which for years held sway in Lebanese politics, would not be at the expense of Lebanon. Since 2006, the United States has committed to giving $410 million in military assistance to Lebanon as it seeks to bolster the country's pro-Western government.
Feltman and Shapiro, the National Security Council's senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, arrived on Thursday. They first met parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri, the son and political heir of ex-premier Rafik Hariri, who was killed in a massive Beirut car bombing in 2005.
The attack paved the way for the pullout of Syrian troops from Lebanon after a 29-year presence but Damascus has consistently denied accusations it was behind the bombing.
Syria has also denied any implication in a string of killings in Lebanon since 2005 that targeted anti-Syrian politicians and figures.
Feltman said it was appropriate to meet first with Hariri as an international tribunal to try the killers of his father is in its first week of operation in The Hague.
"The United States welcomes this important step towards ending impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon and as a concrete sign that Lebanon's sovereignty is non-negotiable," he said.
He also hailed the June 7 legislative election in Lebanon.
"This will be an important milestone in Lebanese history," Feltman said.
"The United States will support the Lebanese authorities' efforts to ensure that they are free, fair, transparent and unmarred by political violence."
The poll will pit the Western-backed majority in Parliament against a Hizbullah-led alliance backed by Syria and Iran.
Feltman and Shapiro are due to head to Syria on Saturday before returning to Beirut that same evening. They are expected to leave Lebanon on Monday.
Separately on Friday, Sleiman called on the Lebanese to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections, adding that the country reach good levels of stability "thanks to foreign and internal trust."
Addressing a delegation from the Lebanese Journalists' Union, Sleiman said: "We have to take advantage of the confidence in the situation in Lebanon." He also said that "every political party that is keen on preserving the safety of these elections will gain the voters' confidence."
Asked whether the election law based on the proportional system could be used in June's elections, Sleiman said: "This is my wish; but after consulting the interior minister, we found that it was practically impossible now to implement this system, as several figures have already submitted their candidacy."
Sleiman also praised the unity of the Lebanese Army, and highlighted the need to agree on the national budget and judicial appointments.
Meanwhile, Future Movement leader MP Saad Hariri visited the Bekaa village of Saadnayel for Friday prayers, and then headed to Faour village to offer his condolences to the family of Khaled Teaimeh, 20, who died during a clash that broke out after the fourth commemoration of former Premier Hariri's assassination.
A large crowd welcomed Hariri into Saadnayel, where hundreds of people took to the streets to welcome the Future Movement leader.
Hariri addressed his supporters saying that "our project is the same as Rafik Hariri's: It is a project to build a just and stable state. This is the project Rafik Hariri and Khaled Teaimeh gave their lives to."
Speaking to the family of the deceased, Hariri said he hoped that if his son had been killed, justice would be served.
In other news, Speaker Nabih Berri arrived in Muscat Friday to participate in the 15th Arab Parliamentary Union. - The Daily Star, with AFP

New Confrontation between Majority, Minority Over Judicial Formations
Naharnet/After years of political wrangling, a decree on judicial formations was issued late Friday but the issue seems to be heading towards a new confrontation between Lebanon's bickering parties. Newspapers said Saturday the decree was issued after unanimity among members of the Higher Judicial Council. But As Safir daily said several Council members had reservations over the names of some judges.
Social Affairs Minister Mario Aoun of the Free Patriotic Movement criticized the formations, wondering why the decree was issued ahead of the upcoming parliamentary elections.
"This issue will lead to problems. Justice Minister (Ibrahim Najjar) who made the appointments is not neutral. He belongs to a political party that has its political, judiciary and legislative interests," Aoun told As Safir daily in remarks published Saturday.
"These appointments fall in the same context of using money as a weapon," the minister said.
The minority considered the appointment of Judge Saqr Saqr government commissioner of the military tribunal as a "reward."
Al-Akhbar daily quoted informed sources as saying that the decree will create a problem with the minority, particularly its Christian members, because the decree gave a bigger role for the Lebanese Forces and other Christian parties in the majority in choosing the names of judges and their posts.
The newspaper also hinted that President Michel Suleiman had played a role in the appointments and immediately signed the decree late Friday.
Premier Fouad Saniora, Defense Minister Elias Murr, Finance Minister Mohammed Shatah and Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar also signed the decree.
Al-Akhbar said that some minority figures see Suleiman's green light for Saqr's appointment as a reward for refusing to release the four generals who are in custody since 2005 for suspected involvement in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination.
Saqr was the magistrate probing Hariri's murder before his new appointment.
Head of the Higher Judicial Council Judge Ghaleb Ghanem said he was glad the decree was issued after three years of standstill.
The bickering over the formations goes back to the term of former President Emile Lahoud who for three years refused to sign the decree.
Jumblat is Not Worried About U.S.-Syrian Dialogue
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat said he is not worried about U.S. efforts to repair relations with Syria and urged Lebanese politicians to adopt calm rhetoric. "We have no fear from U.S.-Syrian relations … like some people do," Jumblat told As Safir newspaper in remarks published Saturday.
President Barack Obama is sending to Syria the State Department's top envoy on the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman and White House official Daniel Shapiro to evaluate the chances of opening a dialogue with the country, which former President George Bush had sought to isolate.
That makes some politicians in Lebanon wary. "We engaged in dialogue (with Syria) before and this dialogue resulted in diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria," Jumblat said. "This issue and that of border demarcation require follow-up. The issue of Palestinian arms will also be a preliminary item" on the agenda of national dialogue, the Druze leader told As Safir. "As for Hizbullah arms, there is no rush. (The issue) could be discussed under favorable circumstances," Jumblat said.
He reiterated that calm ahead of elections is necessary. "I stress on calm rhetoric. Such rhetoric will help holding the elections" under peaceful conditions, the PSP leader said. "Do we want elections or not? If we want elections, we have to pave the way for them through consolidating a calm atmosphere. This is what I am seeking for," Jumblat added. Beirut, 07 Mar 09, 10:02 Beirut, 07 Mar 09, 08:53

U.S.: We Will Watch How British Contact with Hizbullah Proceeds
Naharnet/The United States said Friday it is not ready to follow its ally Britain in opening low-level contact with the political wing of Hizbullah but stressed that it will "watch" how the British decision "proceeds."Gordon Duguid, a State Department spokesman, told reporters that President Barack Obama's administration, which has promised to reach out to U.S. foes, had been consulted by Britain before the announcement Friday. "U.S. officials were alerted by the British government that they were taking – they were considering this action," he said. But Duguid insisted the new administration was following longstanding U.S. policy -- including that of the preceding George Bush administration -- to shun contacts with Hizbullah's political and armed wings. "We are not ready to take the same step, no. Our position on Hizbullah has not changed," Duguid told reporters, declining to either praise or criticize the British move. However, the United States seemed interested in the results of the British contacts with the Shiite group when Duguid said "we will watch how that proceeds and we'll move along from there."
In London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Friday that Britain has authorized low-level contact with Hizbullah's political wing to stress the urgency of disbanding militias. A State Department official told reporters on condition of anonymity that Washington envisioned possible benefits from the British decision and would consult with Britain about its contacts with Hizbullah. "If they can use some positive influence with Hizbullah, that would be a positive factor," the official said. "We are looking for a comprehensive approach" to defusing tensions in the Middle East, he added. "Any of the nations who are currently active in the Middle East trying to bring about peace can also look at a comprehensive way to engage the parties in conflict or other groups and we will see how that proceeds," he said. "For the moment, we are not following that same path," the official added.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 07 Mar 09, 07:17

Hariri Holds Onto Project to Build Stable State
Naharnet/Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri stressed during a surprise visit to the eastern Bekaa valley on Friday that his project is aimed at building "a just and stable state." Hariri visited the town of Saadnayel for Friday prayers, and then headed to Faour village to offer his condolences to the family of Khaled Toaimeh, who died from wounds he suffered during a clash that broke out after the Feb. 14 rally that commemorated ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's fourth assassination anniversary.
"Our project is the same as Rafik Hariri's: It is a project to build a just and stable state. This is the project Rafik Hariri and Khaled Toaimeh gave their lives to," the Mustaqbal movement leader told a large crowd that welcomed him in Saadnayel. Hariri also called for punishing Toaimeh's killers. Beirut, 07 Mar 09, 09:26

Nassib Lahoud: Any U.S.-Syrian Dialogue Would Reflect Well on Lebanon
Naharnet/State Minister Nassib Lahoud said that any dialogue between the United States and Syria would positively reflect well on Lebanon. "Meetings between Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and U.S., and world officials at Sharm el-Sheikh have provided serious and positive reassurances to Lebanon that no regional settlement would be at its expense," Lahoud said. Beirut, 06 Mar 09, 20:18

US Won't Follow British Lead on Hezbollah Dialogue
By David Gollust
The State Department
06 March 2009
Two senior U.S. diplomats are due to arrive in Damascus Saturday in a visit upgrading the level of U.S.-Syrian contacts.
Officials here said the Obama administration has no intention of matching the British opening to Hezbollah, which has long been listed by the United States as a terrorist organization.
However the United States is not being publicly critical of the British move, and officials said they will be interested in the results, if any, of the British contacts.
Image from Hezbollah-run Al-Manar TV station shows Lebanon's Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah during televised press conference, 29 Jan 2009
The British government said Thursday it had authorized what were termed carefully selected contacts with Hezbollah's political wing, which is represented in the Lebanese parliament, ending a four-year freeze on contacts with the militant Shiite group.
The move comes as the Obama administration itself is easing policy toward contacts with regional adversaries, with a U.S. delegation visiting Syria on Saturday and an assertion by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday that Iran should be invited to an international conference on Afghanistan later this month.
At a news briefing, State Department Deputy Spokesman Gordon Duguid had a mild response to the British move. He said the United States will watch how the Hezbollah dialogue proceeds but that the U.S. position towards the group - and its history of terrorist attacks against Americans - has not changed.
"Our position on Hezbollah is not going to change, until we see changes on the part of Hezbollah. This is the organization, as you will remember, that had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group before 9-11. Our stated position on Hezbollah has been consistent. Other nations will have, from time to time, positions that differ with those of the United States. We will watch in this case and see how this policy from the U.K. proceeds," he said.
Duguid said British officials advised the United States in advance of the diplomatic move, apparently during the Washington visit earlier this week of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The United States maintains relations with the Lebanese government of President Michel Suleiman but does not interact with ministries in the unity cabinet that are controlled by Hezbollah.
Lebanese PM Fuad Saniora (R) meets with ambassador Jeffrey Feltman in Beirut, 06 Mar 2009
A State Department official confirmed that two senior U.S. officials who were in Beirut Friday will travel to Damascus Saturday for talks with the Syrian government, which along with Iran has been a major supporter of Hezbollah.
Despite major differences with Syria, the Obama administration has sought to revive dialogue with that country. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman and National Security Council Middle East adviser Daniel Shapiro will be the highest-level U.S. officials to visit Damascus since 2005.
Obama administration officials said the success to the opening to Syria will depend on that country's willingness to end support for terrorism and militant factions opposing Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

U.S. Sees Growing Proof of Illicit Syrian Nuclear Program
Friday, March 6, 2009
The work of international nuclear inspectors has supported U.S. contentions that Syria tried to build a covert nuclear reactor, a U.S. diplomat said Wednesday. U.S. intelligence officials have suggested Syria was building a nuclear reactor at a site leveled by an Israeli air strike in 2007. Damascus denied building such a facility and razed the site after it was bombed.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported last month that his agency found a "significant" amount of uranium particles during an inspection of the area. Syria barred further visits by inspectors and is building a new structure there that appears to be a missile launch pad.
"This report contributes to the growing evidence of clandestine nuclear activities in Syria," U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Gregory Schulte said at a meeting of the agency's 35-nation governing board. "We must understand why such (uranium) material -- material not previously declared to the IAEA -- existed in Syria and this can only happen if Syria provides the cooperation requested."
Schulte urged Damascus to provide the agency with materials taken from the bombed building soon after the Israeli attack. Syria should also grant inspectors access three other military sites that might be linked to the facility, he said.
The European Union said it worried about the "possibility that Syria has not declared all its nuclear installations."
"Any obstacles, unnecessary delays or a lack of cooperation ... undermine the credibility of the agency's verification capabilities. Such cases, therefore, deserve our utmost attention," says an EU statement released at the meeting (Mark Heinrich, Reuters, March 4).
Syria reaffirmed previous denials that the building contained a nuclear reactor and urged IAEA officials to investigate its claim that Israel employed munitions that left the disputed uranium particles, Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported yesterday.
Asked if Damascus was prepared to face consequences related to the dispute, a Syrian diplomatic source said that "Syria is always ready to shoulder the consequences of its actions" but that the nation conducted no illicit atomic work (Al-Sharq al-Awsat/BBC Monitoring, March 5).

Butts … Not heads
Date: March 7th, 2009 Future News
General Michel Aoun is experiencing tough times due to his loss of popularity in the Christian regions he claims he represents. So he decided to take a break and stay away from the poll results that indicate a continuous drop in his “standings” and took a ski trip to Ayoun el Siman in the Keserwan region which he represents at the parliament.
After putting the “Orange” outfit and a special helmet that helps him warming his brains full of destructive ideas rented to the Syrian and Welayat el Fakih regimes, and to avoid being recognized and subjected to remarks that could make him loose his tempers as he often does.
But bad luck – which is usual with the Orange General- struck him again as he was waiting for the “téléski”, a female skier apparently magnetically electrified by Aoun fell in front of him, so he rushed to help her stand up.
The woman thanked the gentleman who helped but insisted on knowing his name so she would pray for him at the church.
So the “gentleman” takes off his helmet and the woman astonished shouted “Oh you are General Aoun. How lucky I am, thank you sir”.
At that point the general said to the woman he wanted a favor in return to his.
The woman blushed but the general hurried to explain “Don’t think far lady, all I want from you is to cast your ballot in my favor during the next elections”.
The woman laughed for a while and replied to the perplexed General “Listen General. It is true I fell down and you helped, but you have to notice that I fell on my butt and not on my head”.

Olmert protects Syria, Netanyahu seeks its protection
By Wissam Saade
Date: March 6th, 2009 Source: Al-Mustaqbal daily
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is engaging with the Arab Peace Initiative, and urges Arabs to avoid any action that would impede the peace process. At the same time, she is re-emphasizing the need for a two-state solution to resolve the chronic conflict in the Middle East.
This is very different than the “Palestinian State” option adopted by former US President George W. Bush as a slogan after September 11, 2001. Year after year, Bush kept promising the “Palestinian State,” but failed to attain it. The difference between the two approaches is that Clinton is dividing responsibility almost equally between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and that hasn’t happened in US diplomacy for several decades.
Clinton’s approach is based on the American constants in dealing with Israel. After all, the US is the only country in the world that totally endorses Israel’s right to exist like any other country, without preconditions and without ambiguity.
Other Western states, however, have a problem admitting Israel’s right to exist. Their admissions are always conditional and ambiguous. All western states except for the US admit Israel’s right to exist so long as that does not involve oppression of other peoples, so long as Israel does not limit itself to a specific national or religious affiliation, or so long as Israel does not claim to be the Universal State for all the Jews in the world.
Note that Israel was admitted to the United Nations so long as it resolved the issue of Palestinian refugees, either through the Right to Return or through compensation.
The American stance regarding Israel’s right to exist will not be shaken, even if Avigdor Lieberman forms a government. It is nonsense to bet on the Americans altering their view of Israel if the expected rightist government takes a harder line.
Clinton expresses a basic and fundamental shift in US policy when she declares that it is not acceptable any more that Israel treats the Arab side, which is trying to attain a comprehensive settlement on the base of the two-state solution, the way it treats the extremists who want to shift this conflict from its historical framework of conventional army-to-army warfare to asymmetrical warfare with the aim of derailing the peace process.
But what are the chances the Arabs will benefit from this change?
The new US attachment to the two-state solution is bitterly opposed, on one side, by Israel’s extreme right which has been given the task of forming a government, on the other, by the Iranian intransigence that rejects the establishment of both states and insists on destroying Israel, and “restructuring” the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
The mullahs’ regime has interfered in the Arab-Israeli conflict and seeks to take it over,
returning it to its starting point: reviving the call of the 1940s to throw the Jews into the sea. That had disastrous consequences for the Arabs of Palestine.
Clinton’s approach will also clash with those on both sides of the conflict who generally prefer the “no war, no peace” formula to the exclusion of permanent peace or perpetual war, with “armistice” pacts renewable every few months or year, rather than a comprehensive settlement.
Clinton, who bases her approach on the Arab Peace Initiative, is also involved in urging the Israeli government to take this initiative seriously for the first time since it was proposed at the Beirut Arab League summit of 2002. The challenge, however, is in maintaining the priority of the Palestinian issue over any other in the overall Arab-Israeli conflict at a time when it is jeopardized by the Syrian, which the Israeli extreme right seems to be using to avoid tackling the Palestinian issue.
During the 1990s, the peace process centered on the Palestinian track, rather than on the Syrian track. That preference had some positive repercussions, since if the Syrian track was preferred over the Palestinian, the Palestinian cause would probably have been destroyed, especially after Desert Storm and the isolation of the PLO at that time.
However, the priority assigned to the Palestinian issue had negative effects as well, since the gap between the Syrian and the Palestinian tracks was inflicted on the Israeli left when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in November 1995. That drastically altered Israel’s strategic options. It also provided the opening that allowed more Iranian penetration of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and paved the way for establishing the Syrian-Iranian axis, starting from Hezbollah’s campaign in South Lebanon, and the later the emergence of Hamas after the defeat of the second intifada in Palestine, culminating in Hamas’ separatist coup in the Gaza Strip in June 2007.
Thus, the challenge is not that the US administration will clash with Benjamin Netanyahu (once he is able to form a government), but that US policy in the Middle East will be able to prevent “preference of the Syrian track at the expense of the Palestinian.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert provided a kind of Israeli protection to the Damascus regime by engaging it, however indirectly, in negotiations for a settlement. Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to turn that into some kind of Syrian protection for Likud by shutting out the two-state solution with the Palestinians which Likud bitterly opposes.
Is there any prospect of synchronizing the Syrian and Palestinian tracks, as a starting point for the new US policy in the region? The problem is not that one track could prevail over the other, but that the Israeli-Syrian track could obstruct serious attention being paid to the Israeli-Palestinian course while it only plays the futile game of “negotiation for the purpose of negotiating,” without taking any of the practical steps demanded by both sides to arrive at an acceptable settlement.

'Jihadi penetration of Pakistan’s armed forces is at the center of all concerns in any new strategy'
By Walid Phares
As the Obama Administration prepares for the deployment of additional forces in Afghanistan and as the Pakistani Government is reviewing the national strategy regarding the Taliban forces in the Northeastern provinces, a parallel strategic debate is taking place in Indian media and research centers abut the Post Mumbai Jihadi threat in the region. Following is the text of an interview I had with India's Daily News and Analysis conducted by Venkatesan Vembu. I have also attached the shorter print version and a follow up piece by Vembu.
Jihadi areas of operations in the subcontinent
Interview in India's Daily News and Analysis
The deal between the Pakistan government and pro-Taliban forces in the Swat valley is an ominous portent of Pakistan’s slide into jihadism, with strategic implications for India and other countries, warns Walid Phares, a counter-terrorism expert and director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington. Excerpts from an interview he gave Venkatesan Vembu:
Vembu: How different is the Obama administration’s strategy (vis-à-vis the Bush administration’s) in pursuing the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Phares: As a matter of fact, the Obama administration hasn’t so far issued a strategic document outlining its difference with the Bush strategy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. People talk of a difference, but so far as we can analyse, there is no fundamental difference in the action to be taken or the general horizons of such a strategy. Regarding Afghanistan President Obama promised during his electoral campaign to send additional troops to Afghanistan when elected. But President Bush and candidate Senator McCain also committed themselves to send as many troops as needed to the battlefield. During the campaign, the Obama pledge to send additional forces to central Asia was in the framework of scoring a point that this was indeed the central front on the war on terror and that the US must withdraw its troops from Iraq. The pledge to increase forces in Afghanistan was intended to encourage the (American) public to accept the withdrawal from Iraq. The difference thus is that the Obama strategy doesn't believe that the US can and should fight on two fronts; its priority is Afghanistan. The Bush strategy, on the other hand, was that the US can sustain efforts on two fronts simultaneously. However after his inauguration, President Obama is now in charge of the war in Afghanistan and therefore he is consulting with US commanders, including with General David Petraeus, head of CENTCOM. So, one assumes that he is sending these additional troops to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda on the ground, inside Afghanistan. The real question is after this stage is performed, what comes next? One of the possibilities is that the Obama administration may think of opening a dialogue with a weakened Taliban. This will be a radical difference with the Bush/McCain strategy, which would call for defeating the Taliban and engaging alternatives to them.
With regards Pakistan, there are differences in the public stands between Obama and Bush's policies, but so far there is continuity in their methods. When President Obama was campaigning for office, he said he would order attacks inside Pakistan if needed to target al Qaeda infrastructure and membership. President Bush didn't take a public stand on this matter and relied on Pakistan President Musharraf to carry out the attacks. But in reality under both administrations, US military carried out and continues to strike inside Pakistan's borders, particularly in the northwest frontier areas. Will the Obama policy regarding fighting terrorism in Pakistan change in the future? We will have to wait and see how the strikes will evolve.
Vembu: In the past month, US drone attacks inside Pakistani territory appear to have escalated. Does this mark a continuation – and possibly even an extension - of the Bush administration’s strategy?
Phares: The attacks via drones are ordered by the US command proportionate to their perception of the rising threat coming from the Taliban and al Qaeda. The military escalation does not reflect a change from one administration to another; it signals the same strategy of engaging the Jihadi forces implicated in attacks against US and coalition inside Afghanistan. The question is: how will the US strategy evolve after the additional US and NATO forces deploy and begin engaging the Taliban and al Qaeda. The expectation is that Jihadi forces will also escalate their attacks and Taliban-dominated enclaves inside Pakistan will send more forces across the border. Hence, the current strikes inside Pakistan will have to mutate. Either into a massive campaign or, let's not be surprised, a future attempt to negotiate with the Taliban. It could go in two different directions.
Vembu: Are the Obama administration’s strategy more likely – or less – to succeed?
Phares: That depends not only on the military actions to be taken inside Afghanistan and across the border with Pakistan, but also and mainly on the regional strategy that the administration devises. An Obama strategy can be successful if it sends the needed support to Afghanistan and simultaneously crafts a campaign to isolate the Jihadists politically and broaden the coalition in the entire sub Indian continent.
Vembu: Or will Afghanistan prove to be, as some commentators have said, “Obama’s Vietnam”?
Phares: The argument about “Obama's Vietnam" is being advanced by the Jihadi propaganda machine. They used it under the Bush administration and want to use it under the Obama administration. That message was initially sent by al Qaeda's leader, including Osama bin laden and Zawahiri. In reality, Afghanistan will become a Vietnam if the Taliban wins the hearts and minds of a majority of Afghans and is supported by a Pakistan falling to the Jihadists. So far, that is not the case. To avoid a Vietnam-like situation, the US and NATO must make sure that a majority of Afghans reject the Taliban's ideology and that Pakistan doesn't fall into the hands of Jihadists.
Vembu: There are reports that the US is secretly training Pakistan military forces. Given that the ISI and the Pakistani military has been heavily infiltrated by Taliban and the jihadists, how effective will this strategy be? How should the Obama administration address the ISI/military complicity in sustaining the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Kashmir terrorists?
Phares: I believe that US assistance to Pakistan's military is not new, especially after 2001. The goal of such a support, however, is aimed at weakening al Qaeda and the Taliban. I am told it is very specific to the units and apparatuses that are engaged with the radicals in the Waziristan and other districts.
The fact that ISI and the Pakistan military has been inflitrated by Jihadists, not just al Qaeda and the Taliban, is well-known in the US and within the defence sectors. In my analysis, the penetration of Pakistan's armed forces is at the centre of all concerns in any strategy. Many Pakistani officials at very high levels, particularly those who view the Jihadi forces as a threat, know that many sectors have been penetrated, but say this situation has been inherited from previous years and decades. The Obama Administration must be very attentive to the internal threat coming from within Pakistan. In other words, the US must identify the elements that are already confronting the extremists and back them. In the end, it will be a political battle inside Pakistan between the Jihadists and secular forces who oppose them.
Vembu: What are the merits and demerits of the Pakistan government’s strategy in consenting to the imposition of Sharia law in the Swat valley as part of a deal with the Taliban?
Phares: It is regrettable that the Pakistan government had to authorise the signing of such an agreement allowing the imposition of Sharia law on some districts of the country. This is a setback to democracy and pluralism in a country where the progressive sectors of society are known to be looking forward to modernity and secularism. This also reflects the ground reality in some of these provinces: the power of the Jihadi movements. But at the same time one has to admit that the current government has inherited a situation from past years and decades. The spread of fundamentalism… is half a century old and it has increased thanks to the spread of a radical ideology. Hence, the current government has chosen –apparently - to accept the de facto situations in some spots of the country so that it can re-evaluate the situation, perhaps reform some institutions and undertake some restructuring of the military and intelligence sectors so that in the future, there would be a comprehensive strategy to isolate fundamentalism and eventually reverse it with a popular support. If the Swat valley agreement is a prelude to tackle the problem comprehensively later, this would be understandable; but if this was a prelude to a retreat in front of the Jihadists, then obviously the future will be dark.
Vembu: There is a perception that the US gave its tacit consent to this deal. What are the US’ gains and losses from this arrangement?
Phares: Yes, the perception exists, and many experts believe that Washington has given its okay for such a deal. But keep in mind that the US leadership is busy tackling the economic crisis and that its military commanders in charge of the Afghanistan battlefield haven't finished their plans yet. Perhaps at some diplomatic levels, a green light was provided to a Pakistani government inquiry for advice. Meaning, the idea is certainly Pakistani and it is possible that the new US diplomatic team dealing with the region may have consented to the move. But strategically, the US will lose from such a deal because the Jihadists will perceive the deal as a victory for them and will be emboldened to do the same elsewhere including in Afghanistan.
Vembu: The argument has been made that there is a ‘good’ Taliban and a ‘bad’ Taliban. Is it a mistake to make such a disctinction? Has such a distinction ever yielded results elsewhere?
Phares: The notion of a bad Taliban and good Taliban is a myth created by those in the West, and particularly in America, who advocate engagement with the Jihadists. This reflects a poor understanding of the ideology and the nature of the Taliban movement. It is not about good or bad but about an ideology which is totalitarian, and methods that do not recognize international law. The Jihadist ideology is one, although its supporters play many tactics, including manoeuvering their enemies into believing that they can do business with some instead of the others. The Jihadists always teach their followers "al Harbu Khid'aa" ("war is deception"). Unfortunately, many in the West and in the US fall into a trap of war of ideas and naively come to the conclusion that one can do business with the ‘good’ Taliban versus the ‘bad’ Taliban. For example, when the Pakistani government signed the deal of Malacand, the Movement for the Implementation of Sharia didn't declare that would be on the side of the government against the Taliban. Another counter-argument is that if indeed there are the ‘good’ Taliban (who will make peace), what would be the plan to deal with the ‘bad’ Taliban? This is the kind of trap that the Obama Administration must not fall into. Everything will depend on the influence of the new experts in charge of explaining it to the White House.
Vembu: What are the social and political implications for Pakistan of the imposition of Sharia law in the Swat valley?
Phares: It has tremendous implications. It will empower radical Islamists and the Jihadist movements to create a large pool of jihad-indoctrinated people. It is as if Islambad has conceded to the establishment of an Emirate in Swat. The Jihadists are unstoppable. Once they have Sharia control over a province, they will use it to spread their version of Jihad and thus levy a much larger body of youth to be recruited by the Taliban and other groups, such as Lashkar e Taiba. From there on, other provinces in the frontiers areas will follow. But beyond this, expect other districts in the far east, in the centre and the south (of Pakistan) to be impacted. If a movement is contracted to apply Sharia in one part of the country, it will spread till it eventually brings down the (Pakistan) government.
Vembu: Is there a risk from a “creeping Talibanisation” or the spread of the jihadi culture and the retreat of secular politics in Pakistan? How can this be reversed?
Phares: The Malacand agreement is the first step in the so-called “creeping Talibanisation” of Pakistan. President Musharraf himself warned of this “Talibanisation”: he knows what was happening on the ground and inside his own military and intelligence. President Zardari, I assume, knows all too well that this Talibanisation is under way. It all depends on whether he has a plan to counter it. The only way to reverse it is to have secular and democratic forces in Pakistan unleash an awareness campaign to expose the radical ideologies. It is going to boil down to the efforts deployed by Pakistan’s civil society which is opposed to the Talibanisation. It is a war of ideas. The reversal can’t be done only by counter-terrorism operations or political negotiations but by a democratic revolution waged by the forces of democracy inside Pakistan. It is going to be hard and long.
Vembu: The Pakistani government recently released from house arrest Dr A.Q. Khan, a confirmed nuclear proliferator. What message is being conveyed here, and why did not the US administration respond forcefully?
Phares: I would not want to speculate as I am not privy to the circumstances of the release. But my assumptions are as follow. First, there must have been some negotiations between the government and Dr A.Q. Khan about his future activities and a deal may have been reached. Second, whatever knowledge he had spread in the past in terms of nuclear secrets is not possessed by the circles who control these kinds of weapons inside Pakistan and North Korea, and even those who are rushing to build the Iranian bomb. Dramatically put, his knowledge is now bypassed by others. That may be the reason behind the US silence on the issue.
Vembu: Any discussion of the war on terror in Pakistan appears to focus only on the terror camps on the Afghan/Pakistan border areas. The terrorism infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, from where much of the terrorism targeted at India is planned and implemented, is never addressed. Is this a ‘blind zone’ for successive US administrations?
Phares: The US government has already designated a number of violent organisations operating on the eastern border of Pakistan as terrorist. In 2002 a Lashkar e Taiba cell that was dismantled in Virginia was tried in court for training to attack targets in India. Its members are serving sentences in the US. The same can be said about Jaish e Muhammed and others. These Jihadi terror organisations have been designated as terrorists and are monitored under international auspices. But when it comes to pressing the Pakistani Government to go after them as well, Washington’s priority is to help Islamabad in countering those operating on the western border first, not because of designation but because they can affect the whole situation in Afghanistan and turn it into a nasty one, leading to the fall of the Karzai government. Knowing that the Pakistani government can barely deal with one front at a time, priority is given to Taliban/al Qaeda first. Besides, India can defend itself with its own forces if attacked by terrorists. But Afghanistan is still weak and needs to be solidified first. In the long run, however, the US administration cannot consider these Jihadi forces as a “blind zone” because eventually these “zones” will be used against all countries involved, beginning with India and Afghanistan, the United States and eventually Pakistan itself.
Vembu: Pakistan has reluctantly acknowledged that the Mumbai terrorist attack was planned and executed from Pakistan. But there are lingering apprehensions about its earnestness in cracking down on the terrorism infrastructure within Pakistan. How should India respond?
Phares: First, I noticed that the architects of the Mumbai operations left all indicators on purpose to show that the road led to Pakistan. They could have mobilised Jihadists inside India to do it and they are available. The war room decided to use Pakistanis coming from the sea instead of Indian Jihadists coming from inland. This means that they wanted a clash to take place between India and Pakistan so that (Jihadists) can grab more power inside Pakistan. There is evidence to indicate that the terrorists had some sort of support in Pakistan from organisations, but also from people in the intelligence and defence apparatus. This brings us back to the realisation that Jihadi penetration exists in Pakistan. Hence, to be objective about it, perhaps one of the reasons the Pakistani Government didn’t unleash a massive crackdown on these circles (as India may have wished) is precisely the internal problem in Pakistan. If the infiltration was benign, I would have expected the Pakistan government to strike hard against the perpetrators’ backers. But because of this situation, one has to expect that the authorities won’t go full fledge in their measures. The bottomline is to understand the ability of the Pakistani Government to fight the Jihadists inside their country, particularly in light of a historic tension with India over Kashmir.
As for India, it can and should escalate its own campaign against Jihadi terrorists inside its own borders and internationally. After Mumbai, the international community is standing in solidarity with the Indian people. This is an opportunity for India to reach out to all anti-Jihadi forces in the world and form a coalition against the terrorists. A few will argue that this is a local feud over Kashmir, but most others will extend their hand to India in this particular fight. So, the best way ahead is for New Delhi to build a vast coalition worldwide: it will need it later when a bigger confrontation with Jihadists inevitably occurs. Regarding Pakistan, my advice to India is to be patient regarding the internal situation in Pakistan. It is more important for India to get a world consensus against terrorists, including from the US, the West, Russia and India, and many moderates in the Arab world, than to expect higher results from counter-terrorism operations inside Pakistan. For now, India should allow and encourage the counter-Jihadi movement in Pakistan to grow.
Vembu: General elections in India are due soon. In the event of the right-wing BJP coming to power – either by itself or as the head of a coalition – it will likely take a more forceful approach against Pakistan, perhaps even launch pre-emptive strikes against camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. What are the implications of such an approach for the broader war on terror? Will they advance or undermine the Obama administration’s approach in Afghanistan/Pakistan?
Phares: To be candid about it, if India strikes inside Pakistan in retaliation against terror acts launched by Jihadists coming from across the borders, it will lead to a takeover by the Jihadists inside Pakistan and the country will be seized by Taliban forces with access to nuclear weapons. If the attacks are launched by the Pakistan government, no one can tell India what to do. But as long as the Jihadists aim is to drag the two countries into confrontation, the international community and India must not grant them that wish and engage in military activities on the terms of the Jihadi terrorists. Surely, India can and will evaluate its own national security situation but there are strategic matters to consider. The Jihadi war room in the region wants to strike India so that it will strike back at Pakistan at the timing of the Jihadists. If that happens, the Pakistan military, probably incited by radical elements, will remove its forces from the Waziristan areas and the border with Afghanistan and move them to the border with India. Besides, the moderates inside Pakistan will be isolated. Thus this will unleash the Taliban and free them to operate against the US and NATO in Afghanistan. The Jihadi strategy is clear. India – under any government - can and should act smartly by mobilising against Jihadists first inside its own borders. This will be the best answer to the war room and will create divisions among Jihadists. Second, India has great possibilities to wage a war of ideas with broadcasts and on the Internet in languages that the West has little skills in. Last but not the least, India should convene an international conference against the spread of the Jihadi ideology, inviting Muslim moderates, the US, Russia and the rest of the international community. This is a strategic response to the attacks in Mumbai. Keeping in mind that India will always have the military option open – but only after a strong international coalition is up and running.