LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 21/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 19,41-44. As he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If this day you only knew what makes for peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes. For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides. They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Origen (c.185-253) priest and theologian/Homily 38 on Luke's Gospel, PG13, 1896-1898
"He saw the city and wept over it"
When our Lord and Saviour was close to Jerusalem and in sight of her, he wept over her: «Ah! If this day you only knew what makes for peace! But now it is hidden from your eyes. For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you»... Someone will perhaps say: «The meaning of these words is clear; in fact they have come to pass where Jerusalem is concerned; the Roman army laid siege to her and brought her to ruin so that she was wiped out and the time will come when she will no longer have one stone upon another.» I don't deny it; Jerusalem was destroyed because of her blindness. Yet I put you the question: didn't those tears have more to do with our own Jerusalem? For we ourselves are the Jerusalem over which Jesus wept – we who think ourselves to have such penetrating sight. If, having been instructed in the mysteries of the truth, having received the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church..., one of us should sin, he will give rise to lamentations and weeping since we weep, not over any of the pagans, but over someone who, having been a member of Jerusalem, has ceased to be so. Tears are shed over our Jerusalem since, because of her sins, «enemies surround her», namely opposing forces, evil spirits. They will raise a palisade around her, lay siege to her and «will not leave one stone upon another». This is what happens when, after a long period of continence and many years of chastity, a man succumbs, overcome by the flesh... This, then, is the Jerusalem over which tears are shed.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports 
The Mullahs’ Role in the Hamas-Fatah Conflict-By: Jamie Glazov. FrontPageMagazine.com 20/11/08
Arabs have heard Western promises before, Mr. Miliband-The Daily Star 20/11/08
Obama's 'becoming' is over, now is the time to 'be'-By David Ignatius  20/11/08
George W. Bush: good, bad, and ugly-By Michael Young  20/11/08
Where is the Israeli determination?By Israel Harel -Ha'aretz 20/11/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 20/08
Abdullah meets secretely with Olmert, Barak-Israeli News
Geagea Asks Suleiman to Ban Use of Arms in Koura, Batroun-Naharnet
Fillon Sees International Tribunal a 'Source of Hope'-Naharnet
Palestinian Official Threatens to Use Force if Awad, Other Suspects Refuse to Surrender-Naharnet
Lebanese Army Demands Handover of New Fatah Islam Leader as Soon as Possible-Naharnet
8th Report on 1701: Regional Parties Forced to Accept Arms Embargo-Naharnet
Marada: Geagea's Talk of Assassinations Could be a Prelude to Getting Rid of MP Habib-Naharnet
March 14 Renews Call for Forming Arab Fact-Finding Commission Over Fatah al-Islam-Naharnet
Fatah al-Islam Leader Awad at Ain el-Hilweh Refugee Camp-Naharnet
Makari : The Monster of Fatah al-Islam was Born inside a Syrian Lab-Naharnet
Nationalizing Emigrants of Lebanese Origin Approved-Naharnet
Berri: Doha Agreement Fully Implemented-Naharnet
Barak: West must reconcile with Russia, China to unite against Iran-Haaretz
UK, Syria cooperating on intelligence - Miliband-Daily Star
Syria must stop playing the spoiler and co-operate in peace-making-Times Online
IAEA reports little headway on Iran and Syria probes-Daily Star
Zawahri taunts Obama as 'house negro'-(AFP)
Rice promises Jumblatt more US support for Lebanon-Daily Star
Palestinians to hand over wanted militant to LAF
Lebanon to attend Amman talks on Iraqi refugees-(AFP)
Israel to discuss Ghajar pullout with UN - report-Daily Star
Carter plans talks with all major factions in Lebanon-Daily Star
All sides playing waiting game ahead of elections-Daily Star
 Sison hosts Lebanese women with political ambitions-Daily Star
New signs remind revelers that people live in Gemmayzeh, too-Daily Star
Bank Audi on Lebanon amid global turmoil: a new episode of financial resilience-Daily Star

Damascene Conversion
Syria must stop playing the spoiler and co-operate in peace-making
November 20, 2008
Before leaving Beirut, David Miliband told suspicious Lebanese politicians yesterday that they had no cause for alarm over Britain's apparent rapprochement with Damascus. Talks with President Assad had been on an “honest and serious basis” and he had made clear to Syria its choices if it wished to end its isolation.
His assurances were directed as much at Washington as to Beirut. Some Lebanese are fearful that the West may be ready to play down the investigation into the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, in return for Syrian help on intelligence, Middle East peace talks and curbing the flow of weapons and fighters into Iraq. The Bush Administration has long regarded Syria as an obstacle to regional peace, an abetter of violence by Hamas and Hezbollah and an ally of Iran that extends Tehran's malign influence.
That assessment is not wrong. But the ostracism of Damascus overlooks two crucial recent changes: Syria's clear attempts to break free of an Iranian alliance that it finds increasingly suffocating; and the arrival in January of a new administration in Washington. Mr Miliband is determined to do what he can to help to bring Syria in from the cold to give Barack Obama greater flexibility in looking afresh at US initiatives.
He has been wise not to expect too much. Tony Blair's mistake, during his ill-judged foray to Damascus in 2001, was to overestimate the power of his persuasion and overlook long-held Syrian positions and the entrenched interests of hardliners around Mr Assad. Syria saw no reason to drop its support for Hezbollah, distance itself from Iran or expel exiled Hamas leaders from Damascus. Since 2001, things have changed - and not to Syria's advantage. Hariri's killing, the UN investigation and Syria's forced withdrawal from Lebanon have left Damascus isolated, an uncomfortable position exacerbated by the growing hostility among other Arab states to the alliance with Iran.
Syria has therefore taken a number of steps to try to reopen lines of communication to the West. President Assad flew to France in the summer in an attempt to mend fences. He has now, for the first time since Lebanon's independence from France, opened formal diplomatic relations with Beirut. There has been a tightening-up along the Iraqi border (though not enough to prevent the recent US-Iraqi attack on a Syrian border town). And in a clear attempt to woo Washington, Syria restarted indirect talks with Israel, via Turkey, in May.
Mr Miliband is right to try to build on this - as well as on the other wholly positive aspect of Syria's secular Constitution, its religious tolerance and the shelter that it has given to Iraqi Christians. He is also right to make it clear there can be no deal to halt the Hariri investigation in return for warmer relations. The West, in any new dialogue, should urge Syria to take bolder steps in talks with Israel, turning a propaganda move into a serious negotiation that could, possibly, lead to the return of the Golan Heights. It should also make plain that if it continues as a proxy of Iran, arming Hezbollah and encouraging Hamas, it cannot expect to be taken seriously either by Israel or by the West. Syria has too often tried to make itself central to regional peace by playing the spoiler. It has few cards left to play now. It is time to play a trump - principled, pragmatic co-operation.

UK, Syria cooperating on intelligence - Miliband
'Politics, not violence, is the way forward'
By Andrew Wander /Daily Star staff
Thursday, November 20, 2008
BEIRUT: British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Wednesday that Britain and Syria have established cooperation between their respective intelligence agencies. Speaking in Beirut after meeting with President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, Miliband said that the British government had been discussing intelligence cooperation with Damascus for the past 18 months.
"We will work with the Syrian government on counter-terrorism measures because terrorism threatens us both," he said, after emphasizing that establishing intelligence links between the two countries had not been the "main purpose" of his visit to Damascus.
He said that cooperation on counter-terrorism was one of several issues that he had discussed with his counterpart in Damascus. Others were Syria's role in Iraq, in the wider Middle East peace process, its human-rights record and its role in Lebanon. The US has accused Damascus of allowing Sunni militants to use Syria as a base from which to travel to Iraq. Last month a US military raid was launched from Iraq across the Syrian border in an effort to strike the insurgents, prompting furious condemnation from Damascus. Syria has seen a number of security breaches in 2008, starting with the killing of top Hizbullah commander Imad Mughniyeh in February. In September, a suicide bombing rocked Damascus, killing 17 people.
Miliband was speaking at the end of a Middle East tour which saw him visit Israel, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon. He was the highest level British politician to visit Syria for seven years.
His visit is part of a wider effort to bring Syria out of its current international isolation and encourage the tentative contacts established between Israel and Syria. Turkey has brokered four rounds of indirect peace talks between the two countries.
Israel says that Damascus must cut its links to Hamas and Hizbullah before a peace deal can be struck. But Damascus says that it will only review its relationship with Hizbullah after peace has been established. Miliband repeated the British government's opposition to Hizbullah's powerful armed militia. "We proscribe the military wing for the very clear purpose that is a military organization," he said. "Those who used violence for political ends cannot expect to have support from the international community."But he said that there were no plans to add Hizbullah's political wing to Britain's list of proscribed terrorist organizations. "Politics, not violence, is the way forward in Lebanon," he said. Hizbullah MP Ali Ammar reacted by accusing the British foreign minister of "distorting facts and misleading the public opinion by claiming to be keen on maintaining stability and peace in the region and Lebanon." In a statement on Wednesday, Ammar said: "This minister can never make the Arab and Lebanese forget Britain's hideous role that allowed the birth of the enemy Israeli entity."
"The British minister, instead of hiding behind peace slogans, should have exerted pressure on the Israeli enemy to stop its strategy of terrorism, occupation and murder," he added. Ammar also said that the "minister's attempts to accuse the resistance of being a terrorist group reflects the British addiction to support and cover state terrorism." Miliband also said that 2009 was "a very important year" in the Middle East peace process. "2009 needs to be a year of both comprehensive dialogue and comprehensive approach to the problems in this region, the resolution of the central concerns here in Lebanon, the resolution of the Palestinian conflict and the resolution of wider questions of insecurity, for all nations require a genuinely comprehensive process and genuinely comprehensive vision," he said, adding that there was "sufficient common ground" for this goal to be achieved.
Miliband said that establishing peace in the Middle East would have benefits for the whole world. "My own very strong view is that it is very hard to conceive of a more peaceful world without a more peaceful Middle East," he said. "Instability in the Middle East has spread and will spread violently across the world unless it is contained," he added. Miliband was speaking at the airport after attending a question-and-answer session with students at the American University of Beirut, where he was accused by the audience of following US policy and supporting repressive regimes in the region. Miliband denied the charges, urging the Arab world to be "active, not passive" and asked them "not to wait for the United States to make its decisions" with regard to the Middle East.

Rice promises Jumblatt more US support for Lebanon
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, November 20, 2008
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that her country would maintain what she called described as its support for a sovereign, free and democratic Lebanon. Following a meeting with Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt in Washington, Rice also said that the US administration was looking forward to Lebanon's 2009 parliamentary elections.
Jumblatt, for his part, said the US has always supported Lebanon through its backing for Security Council Resolution 1701 and the international tribunal to try those accused in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Jumblatt added that the time was right for the liberation of the Shebaa Farms since Lebanon had agreed with Syria on the establishment of diplomatic ties. He added that it was very important that US President-elect Barack Obama understand that the Lebanese people are seeking freedom and sovereignty. "We will head to the elections fully confident that we will win in the journey of freedom and sovereignty and that will overcome continuous tutelage. History does not go backward," he said.
Also on Wednesday, Speaker Nabih Berri met with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani at the latter's palace in Doha. The meeting focused on political developments that have taken place in Lebanon since the adoption of the Doha Accord. In remarks after the meeting, Berri said: "Lebanon thanks Qatar for the efforts deployed to reach the Doha Accord." "Clearly, the accord was fully implemented, as four days after its adoption, a president was elected, and then a national unity Cabinet was formed, an electoral law was passed according to divisions agreed upon in the accord and the national dialogue session took place," Berri added.
He added that the talks also tackled investment and construction projects. Berri met on Wednesday with Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister Abdallah Atieh.
In another development, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon is expected to arrive in Beirut on Thursday for a two-day official visit to meet with the country's top politicians. Fillon will be received at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. He is also scheduled to meet with President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace and Berri at the latter's Ain al-Tineh residence.
Fillon is expected to hold a joint news conference on Thursday, following a meeting with Siniora at the Grand Serail, where the two officials will sign several bilateral agreements. News reports said the agreements would include an agreement on economic cooperation and protocols to assist the Lebanese Army.
On Friday, Fillon and Siniora will hold a meeting with a group of French and Lebanese businessmen. The French prime minister will then head to South Lebanon to visit members of the French contingent serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.
Also on Wednesday, the March 14 Forces said that any cooperation between Syria and Lebanon should take into consideration several matters, including the Taif Accord which ended Lebanon's 1975-1990 Civil War, as well as UN Security Council resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701.
In a statement issued following its regular meeting, the March 14 Forces secretariat general said it welcomed Cabinet's decision to limit the job of the Syrian-Lebanese security committee to setting up the possible methods of cooperation. It added that any cooperation should not disregard the above resolutions and accords.
The Cabinet decided on Saturday to endorse the creation of a joint Lebanese-Syrian follow-up committee to improve security cooperation, based on a proposal submitted by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud following his visit to Syria last week. The panel is expected to complete its job within three months, after which it is expected to deliver a report to both governments.
The Cabinet will hold another meeting at Baabda Palace on Sunday afternoon, sources told The Daily Star.
Separately on Wednesday, President Michel Sleiman met with Minister of State Nassib Lahoud and MPs Strida Geagea, Butros Harb and Antoine Zahra.
The president also met with the Lebanese delegation that will accompany him on his official visit to Iran on Monday. The delegation will include Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, Economy and Trade Minister Mohammad Safadi, Industry Minister Ghazi Zeaiter, Labor Minister Mohammad Fneish and Interior Minister Ziad Baroud.
Sleiman also received a call from Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea to discuss the latest security developments in the North. The personal bodyguard of March 14 MP Butros Harb's brother was shot on Monday by a supporter of MP Suleiman Franjieh's Marada Movement in the Northern area of Batroun. The shooting was the second of its kind in the North following a similar incident in the town of Bsarma, Koura in which two people were killed.
Geagea also called Baroud to discuss the same issue.
Meanwhile, in an interview with Al-Sayyad magazine to be published on Thursday, former President Amin Gemayel said "we have a chance to open a new page in the relations between Lebanon and Syria and this is for the interest of both countries."
He said the national dialogue was only in its preliminary sessions "and not decisive ones."
Commenting on Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun's proposed defense strategy, Gemayel said: "It seems that Aoun wants to randomly distribute arms to all the citizens, whereas the nation's interest lies in restricting arms to state institutions only."
He added that it was still too early to talk about March 14 candidates and the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Gemayel also hailed Arab, French and American support for Lebanon, which he said had produced "huge achievements" in the Lebanese political arena.
However, he stressed that Lebanon had not yet "overcome the danger zone because there are some decisive issues which are still pending, such as the presence of a state within a state."
Also on Wednesday, a source from Hizbullah told the Central News Agency (CNA) that a meeting has been held between MP Saad Hariri and Hussein Khalil, a political aide to Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. The meeting comes after Nasrallah and Hariri earlier this month within the framework of an initiative to reconcile Hizbullah and the Future Movement in the wake of May clashes that saw supporters of the two groups engage in gun battles in Beirut.
In other developments, sources from the Free Patriotic Movement told the CNA on Wednesday that Aoun was expected to visit Syria at the end of this month. The sources added that progress would be achieved on the issue of the missing Lebanese and the detainees who are thought to be held in Syria. - Agencies

March 14 Renews Call for Forming Arab Fact-Finding Commission Over Fatah al-Islam
Naharnet/The March 14 Forces on Wednesday renewed their call for Arab League intervention to look into "confessions" aired by Syrian state television about alleged links between Fatah al-Islam and al-Mustaqbal movement leader Saad Hariri. On the eve of Arab League chief Amr Moussa's visit to Lebanon, the coalition issued a statement in which it stressed the need to "start the formation of a fact-finding commission to look into the Fatah al-Islam file, in parallel with an international investigation." The statement accused the Syrian regime of "trading with this issue as it exports terrorism to Lebanon." The alliance lauded the U.N. interfaith conference held last week and supported President Michel Suleiman's call for making Lebanon a center for dialogue of civilizations and cultures. The March 14 forces expressed satisfaction with the latest cabinet decision on Interior Minister Ziad Baroud's recent visit to Damascus. The statement said the issue of Lebanese citizens in Syrian prisons is "very important due to its humanitarian nature" and called on the government to make it a priority. The coalition concluded its statement by reminding the Lebanese that former Minister of Industry Pierre Gemayel was assassinated on the eve of independence day two years ago.
Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 17:06

8th Report on 1701: Regional Parties Forced to Accept Arms Embargo
Naharnet/U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressed in his eighth report on the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 the need to respect an arms embargo imposed on Lebanon and regional parties. "Regional sides, particularly those with links to Hizbullah and other groups in Lebanon, will have to accept the arms embargo without objections," the local media quoted Ban as saying in his report which is not officially due until later this week. On the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, Ban said the United Nations will continue diplomatic efforts to seek a settlement of the issue. Beirut, 20 Nov 08, 12:08

Geagea Asks Suleiman to Ban Use of Arms in Koura, Batroun
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Wednesday urged President Michel Suleiman to ban carrying arms, including licensed weapons, at the northern regions of Koura and Batroun. In a telephone call with the president, Geagea said: "In Koura and Batroun, Marada gunmen continue to attack March 14 supporters in different ways…including the recent attempt on MP Butros Harb's bodyguard, damaging vehicles belonging to LF supporters and other separate attacks."
The LF leader implored the president to instruct security and judicial authorities to carry out their duties in the region. He added that wanted Marada supporter Ghassan Kanaan has not been delivered to police yet. Geagea also discussed with Interior Minister Ziad Baroud about the same issue during a telephone conversation.
Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 21:24

Marada: Geagea's Talk of Assassinations Could be a Prelude to Getting Rid of MP Habib
Naharnet/The Marada Movement on Wednesday slammed Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and said its presence in Batroun and Koura is historic.
"The problem at Batroun is of a personal nature between individuals from the same region (Batroun). Everyone knows that it resulted from an earlier problem two years ago. At the time the issue was considered to be of an individual nature, so how come it is considered a political issue now," Marada said in a statement.
The statement was referring to the shooting in Batroun of Hanna Harb, a personal bodyguard of MP Butros Harb's brother, by Ghassan Kanaan, who is affiliated with Suleiman Franjieh's Marada Movement. "We turn our case to the state and the judiciary. Contacts have already been made for Ghassan Kanaan to deliver himself to the authorities," the Marada statement said. "We have the right to exist in all Lebanese regions, keeping in mind that our presence at Koura and Batroun regions is historic and deeply rooted. We don't need permission from Mr. Geagea to be here for he doesn't own the place," it said. The issue of assassinations mentioned by Geagea two days ago is an attempt to get rid of someone that has become a burden on the LF such as MP Farid Habib, the statement added.
Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 21:51

Fillon Sees International Tribunal a 'Source of Hope'
Naharnet/French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has said the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was a "source of hope," adding that his two-day visit to Beirut is aimed at stressing "the continued support of French authorities." "My visit will be an opportunity to sign important agreements that would consolidate cooperation on all levels," he told several Beirut dailies, including An Nahar, in remarks published Thursday. He said the French government has decided to earmark a big part of its 2009 budget for military cooperation. He told the newspapers that Paris is keeping "a close watch" on the resumption of normal ties between Beirut and Damascus.
Fillon also described the formation of the international tribunal as "a source of hope to finally find the culprits in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and to punish them." The French prime minister stressed that France is not allied with one Lebanese camp against the other. "It is the friend of all Lebanese," he said.
Premier Fouad Saniora will welcome Fillon at the airport on Thursday at 2:00 pm. The French premier will later head to Baabda Palace for talks with President Michel Suleiman. He will then meet with members of the French community and hold talks with Speaker Nabih Berri. At 6:30 pm, Fillon and Saniora will hold a meeting after which the Lebanese and French delegations will sign a series of agreements that will be followed by a press conference. On Friday, Fillon is scheduled to meet with Lebanese and French businessmen, visit Saint Joseph University and inspect French peacekeepers in the south. Beirut, 20 Nov 08, 06:12

Fatah al-Islam Leader Awad at Ain el-Hilweh Refugee Camp
Naharnet/Abdul Rahman Awad, the new leader of Fatah al-Islam group, reportedly remains inside the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp.
Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC) sources affirmed on Wednesday that Awad continues to be protected by the Ansar League, while elements of Fatah al-Islam and others from Jund al-Sham continue to protect his hideout. Sources disclosed that ongoing contacts with some Islamic forces at the refugee camp are underway to convince Awad to give himself up; all these efforts have not been successful so far. "If things continue the way they are, a chain of popular movements will begin to take place by week's end, to indirectly pressure the Ansar League (most of its elements are from the camp) to end their protection of Awad and push him to give himself up or leave the camp," sources said. Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 21:02

Lebanese Army Demands Handover of New Fatah Islam Leader as Soon as Possible
Naharnet/The Lebanese army demanded the handover of Abdul Rahman Awad, Fatah al-Islam's new leader, and three of his aides as soon as possible.
News reports on Wednesday said Deputy Lebanese Army Intelligence chief Col. Abbas Ibrahim has informed Palestinian factions of the need to hand over Awad and his assistants – Ahmed al-Doukhi, Ossama al-Shahabi and Abu Ramzi al-Sahmarani – the soonest possible. Col. Ibrahim stressed during Tuesday's meeting with about 60 Palestinian personalities of various inclinations that the military will not tolerate excuses not to hand over the suspects.The daily As-Safir said Palestinian factions held talks at Ain el-Hilweh right after the Lebanese-Palestinian meeting and decided to hold a popular conference to "oblige everybody in the camp not to receive strangers or fugitives or wanted persons." An overnight Islamic meeting also took place at Ain el-Hilweh camp in the southern port city of Sidon.
As-Safir quoted people close to Awad as saying that they had not met him for a long time. Palestinian sources told Al-Liwaa newspaper, however, that Awad moved Monday night from his hideout in the camp's Sifsaf neighborhood to what is known as the "emergency camp" near Taamir Ain el-Hilweh where the army has a post. The sources said Awad and his aides were placed on high alert and were seen preparing to fight. Meanwhile, Fatah-Intifada, the Palestinian group headed by Abu Moussa, handed over a suspect in Beirut's Shatilla refugee camp to the Lebanese army intelligence bureau. Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 09:03

Palestinian Official Threatens to Use Force if Awad, Other Suspects Refuse to Surrender
Naharnet/Palestine Liberation Organization official Kamal Medhat on Thursday threatened to use force if Fatah al-Islam suspects refused to surrender to Lebanese authorities. He said Palestinian factions were putting pressure on the suspects to surrender. "If they don't do so, we will take other measures," Medhat told AFP. "Any use of force will be undertaken by Palestinian factions. "We will not allow any fugitives to seek refuge in the camp.  "We will not allow a repeat of what happened in Nahr al-Bared because factions in Ain el-Hilweh do not want the camp to become a safe haven for wanted people." Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon are considered highly volatile and fertile breeding grounds for extremists. The army does not enter the camps, leaving responsibility for security to Palestinian factions.
Lebanese troops on Thursday reportedly tightened the noose around the remaining Fatah al-Islam militants and other persons wanted in terror-related cases amid reports that both the Lebanese and Palestinian sides were trying to avoid a deadly showdown at the sprawling Ain el-Hilweh refugee camp on the outskirst of the port city of Sidon. The daily Asharq al-Awsat reported Thursday that Awad is secretly moving around Ain el-Hilweh, accompanied by his aides, and refusing to surrender.
It quoted Palestinian sources as saying that arresting Awad alive would be a difficult task amid reports he sleeps with an explosive belt around his waist.
The sources quoted those negotiating Awad's handover as saying that the new Fatah al-Islam leader refuses to surrender to "disbelievers" and that he prefers to be killed.  As-Safir newspaper, for its part, quoted Quds Imam Sheikh Maher Hammoud as vowing to settle Awad's case and that of other persons wanted by the Lebanese army "such as it safeguards the dignity of the Lebanese state as well as the camp's security."
Hammoud said he has conveyed a message to Awad, asking him to turn himself in to Lebanese judicial authorities "where there is a change of getting punishment reduction."Hammoud, however, was skeptical of the surrender, stressing the need to hold a one-on-one meeting with Awad in an effort to convince him to turn himself in "through a dialogue with a scholar," a reference to the camp's sheikh. As-Safir said the Lebanese army was moving in two parallel directions: The first is to give mediators a chance to talk Awad into surrendering without violence. The second is an army intelligence task to track down Awad's activities by strictly monitoring passages. Beirut, 20 Nov 08, 08:45

Makari : The Monster of Fatah al-Islam was Born inside a Syrian Lab
Naharnet/Deputy Parliament Speaker Farid Makari has described the Fatah al-Islam terrorist group as "a monster born in a Syrian laboratory."
In an interview with al-Akhbar al-Yom News Agency on Wednesday, Makari wondered why Change and Reform parliamentary bloc leader MP Michel Aoun would praise the Syrian regime for its security measures. Makari was referring to a recent statement by Aoun that if it wasn't for Syrian information concerning terrorist networks, Lebanese authorities would have been unable to uncover terror cells. "Syrians are still interfering one way or another in Lebanese affairs," Makari said.
He said even if Syria withdrew its troops in 2005, its "security presence remains effective and harmful, not to mention its political influence."
As to the recent "confessions" by Fatah al-Islam members on Syrian television, Makari said: "I never expected for a day a positive Syrian position, the aim behind the 'confessions' is to turn facts upside down." About the 2009 parliamentary elections, Makari said: "March 14 Forces will have unified lists that will also include independent candidates whom March 14 Forces deem patriotic." Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 19:54

Nationalizing Emigrants of Lebanese Origin Approved
Naharnet/The Parliamentary Administrative and Justice Committee has approved "in principle" nationalizing emigrants of Lebanese origin. MP Robert Ghanem said following the committee's meeting on Wednesday MPs agreed that "those of Lebanese origin…have the right to obtain their Lebanese nationality based on a request and not through courts." The issue will be discussed by the committee again in three weeks.MP Nehmatallah Abi Nasr said the committee looked with "all objectivity at his proposal of giving the Lebanese nationality to all those of Lebanese origin." Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 18:59

Berri: Doha Agreement Fully Implemented
Naharnet/Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said on Wednesday that the Doha agreement has been "fully implemented."Four days following the signing of the accord, "a new president was elected, a unity government was formed, a new elections law was approved" and later the national dialogue was held and the process of reconciliation kicked off, Berri said. Following his meeting with the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Berri said: "We had to talk about developing projects and construction. I explained to his highness that Alissar project in Lebanon is under preparation. I asked the Qataris to consider studying this issue; I also discussed issues dealing with water dams that were previously discussed by the president when he was here."He also said that he discussed with his Qatari counterpart parliamentary cooperation between Beirut and Doha and the upcoming Arab Parliamentary Union meeting that will be held in Oman next March. Berri also met Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy Abdullah al-Attiyah. Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 18:34

Abdullah holds secret summit with Olmert, Barak
Roee Nahmias Published: 11.20.08, 07:34 / Israel News
King Abdullah summons Israeli PM, defense minister to his palace in Amman, implores them not to launch operation in Gaza, stresses peace between Israel, Palestinians also a strategic interest of Jordan Jordan's King Abdullah summoned Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to his palace in Amman on Tuesday night and implored them not to launch a military operation in Gaza, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Thursday.
Peace Partners
King Abdullah: EU has pivotal role in Mideast peace process / DPA
EU Foreign Policy Chief Solana arrives in Jordan as part of Middle East tour. Abdullah II said to stress EU's part in maintaining security, stability in area
According to the report, the king is concerned that such an operation might have dire consequences for his country as well.
However, despite Abdullah's request, Olmert and Barak made it clear to the Jordanian leader that if the rocket attacks on the Gaza-vicinity communities continue, Israel would be forced to respond.
The London-based Arabic newspaper al-Hayat reported that during the secret meeting, the three leaders also discussed the negotiations with the Palestinians, and Olmert presented to Abdullah the conclusions of his recent meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Diplomatic sources in London said that Jordan's king stressed to Olmert the need to continue negotiations towards a two-state solution, which Abdullah reportedly claimed was "the only possibility to attain peace in the region. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a strategic interest of Jordan and a precondition for regional peace." Abdullah also demanded that Olmert take immediate steps to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian population, in order to create an appropriate atmosphere for the resumption of the talks. According to the report, the two sides agreed that it was vital for the new US administration to play a central role in the peace process.

Israel to discuss Ghajar pullout with UN - report
Daily Star staff/Thursday, November 20, 2008
BEIRUT: Israel will begin talks with the United Nations about a potential withdrawal from the northern section of the village of Ghajar, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported Wednesday. According to the report, the decision came after a high level security meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The northern half of Ghajar is in Lebanon and the southern half is in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Israel has reoccupied the northern section of the village since the 2006 summer war. The daily said that Israel was looking for a withdrawal strategy that would prevent Hizbullah from claiming it as a victory. It added that Israel is looking for a clear working definition of possible coordination between the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the Israeli army, and that a three way agreement between Israel, Lebanon and the UN was a possibility. - The Daily Star

George W. Bush: good, bad, and ugly
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, November 20, 2008
A large part of the hope accompanying the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States has been relief at the departure of George W. Bush. While by no means an outstanding figure, Bush is today so abhorred that an evenhanded reading of his legacy seems impossible. Yet the reality is that, when it comes to foreign policy, his administration has been just about as good, and as bad, as its predecessors.
There are dark spots to be sure. The Guantanamo prison along with the more discriminatory aspects of the USA Patriot Act, the Bush administration's creepy legal effort to justify torture in its "war on terror," the Abu Ghraib outrage, the extraordinary rendition program sending individuals back to their countries of origin to be mistreated, are all blights on a country claiming to support human rights and the rule of law. The Obama administration's intention to close down Guantanamo comes not a moment too soon. To a large extent, Bush's claims about spreading democracy to the Middle East were undermined by such behavior, even if the American legal system and media, it must be recognized, were in the forefront in limiting or highlighting the administration's abuses.
When it comes to its traditional global partners - Europe, China, and Russia - the US has in the past five years, after the Iraq invasion, returned to the humdrum consensual equilibrium of the past, if it ever fully abandoned this. There have been normal ups and downs, as when Russia recently invaded parts of Georgia, but mostly the Bush administration has acted like any other administration. If "unilateralist neocons" have been pulling the strings, they did little during the second Bush term to prove this. Bush, just like Bill Clinton before him and Barack Obama after him, sits atop an administration that makes policy through a blend of self-interest, ideology, opportunism, and an affinity for the status quo.
What about the Middle East, where Bush supposedly revolutionized Washington's dealings with the region? The Iraq war has become the benchmark by which everyone judges the US president. Certainly, the political preparations for the war, like the planning for the postwar situation, were a disaster, the result of manipulation, negligence, incompetence, and hubris. But in repeating this, critics of the US never acknowledge an essential truth: Bush removed from power a mass murderer of historical proportions, who would have only perpetuated his vicious, kleptomaniacal rule to the detriment of his people had he not been ousted. Nothing but military force could rid us of Saddam Hussein.
By the same token, few of the critics acknowledge that Bush, and here the president can take personal credit, pushed through a change of strategy in Iraq that proved successful in lowering the levels of violence, the so-called "surge." Since Vietnam and the days of Lyndon Johnson, there had been a perception that losing American wars will remain losing wars. Bush, along with his field commander General David Petraeus, showed that this was not the case. Blame Bush for overseeing a postwar plan for Iraq that was a shambles, but also accept that he believed in a more positive outcome there when most of those around him hadn't a clue what to do.
Ironically, Iraq would prove to be the exception confirming the rule that the Bush administration, like most other administrations, perhaps more than many, largely worked through a multilateral consensus in the region. Even in Iraq, this impulse was evident soon after the end of the invasion, when the US sought international cover for its military presence through a United Nations resolution. The attack on UN headquarters, far from pleasing Washington unilateralists, was a powerful blow to the Americans because it denied them effective UN assistance on the ground, where the international body had set up humanitarian aid networks.
Long before the Iraq conflict even began multilateralism was also on display in Afghanistan, where the US deployed troops with its NATO partners under UN authority. The same consensus has shaped the way the US has dealt with the Iranian nuclear program. As early as December of last year, when a US intelligence estimate expressed "high confidence" that Tehran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the Bush administration virtually took its military option off the table, and later prevented Israel from attacking Iran. Instead, it has worked through the International Atomic Energy Agency and the so-called "5+1" group of nations, which have otherwise proven splendidly futile in convincing Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.
On the Palestinian-Israeli track, the Bush administration has been roundly condemned "for not doing enough." But what does that mean? There is much about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that the Americans can do little about. Bush foolishly endorsed Israeli negotiating positions that helped undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization. The isolation of Yasser Arafat backfired, allowing Hamas to gain ground in Palestinian institutions after it won the legislative elections of January 2006. But those self-defeating choices were not a complete break with the past. Bill Clinton laid the groundwork for Arafat's isolation by blaming him alone for the collapse of the 2000 Camp David summit, just as the Clinton administration allowed Israel to build new settlements and create facts on the ground in the midst of the Oslo process.
Since last year, the Bush administration has shown lethargic interest in Palestinian-Israeli talks, but lethargy is about the only sentiment those talks deserve to produce. The dynamics of the negotiations have turned against any resolution. Hamas is not interested in a final two-state deal, while Israel's political system is constitutionally incapable of creating the kind of government coalitions that could order Israeli withdrawals from occupied Arab lands. The US can only do so much in this context (and has tried to do so multilaterally, through the hollow Quartet), so here is a prediction: Barack Obama will hit up against the same obstacles as Bush did on Palestine, and will soon become the target of Bush's critics.
Finally, in Lebanon Bush also worked through the United Nations and with France to produce Resolution 1559, the basis for Syria's long-awaited withdrawal in April 2005. Later, Washington helped establish the international investigation and trial framework following Rafik Hariri's assassination, a rare and laudable instance when international law was applied to a political crime. The US was taken to task for supporting Israel during the summer war of 2006, but to be cynical about that, it did so in the context of a regional and international consensus. Bush acted little differently than Clinton did in April 1996, during the Grapes of Wrath operation, when Israel killed over 100 civilians at Qana alone.
With time, Bush's performance in the Middle East will be judged with a cooler eye. People will see merit where they refuse to see it now, and will be harsher in concluding that what made Bush more acceptable internationally - his surprising willingness to water down US behavior in a pool of international unanimity after Iraq turned sour, like his unwillingness to vigorously challenge Arab dictatorships - were steps that actually made the US less effective. That reassessment will come once people hear echoes of Bush's limitations in Barack Obama, who has been, unreasonably, transformed into the avatar of our every desire.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Obama's 'becoming' is over, now is the time to 'be'
By David Ignatius /Daily Star staff
Thursday, November 20, 2008
You've been running toward it for years, maybe your whole adult life, and suddenly you have arrived. And what you discover is that inside your new cocoon of Secret Service protection, the presidency of the United States is a very lonely job. That's what Barack Obama confided in a revealing interview last Sunday with CBS' "60 Minutes." Steve Kroft asked him if he had received any good advice from former presidents, and his answer was poignant.
"You know, they were all incredibly gracious," Obama said. "But I think all of them recognized that there's a certain loneliness to the job. That, you know, you'll get advice, and you'll get counsel. Ultimately, you're the person who's going to be making decisions. And I think that even now, you know, I - you can already feel that fact." What did it feel like when Obama realized he would be president of the United States? "Well, I'm not sure it's sunk in yet," he answered. His wife Michelle tried to put it into words, and he agreed in wonderment, "How about that?" The man who has spent his life "becoming," must now "be." Obama has been the sojourner, as David Brooks of The New York Times has written, passing through places and institutions, alighting but never putting down deep roots. He has always been on his way elsewhere, in a journey of discovery and self-actualization that may be unmatched in American political history. And now he is at the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama plays on a different stage now, and it's less forgiving. After a zero-defect campaign, the transition team has already begun to make some mistakes. The choice of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff was a good one, but awkwardly handled; the news media were told he had been offered the job before he had agreed to accept it, setting both of them up for embarrassment if he refused.
And this week, there was the public rumination about Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. This may be another self-inflicted wound. Clinton is immensely talented, but it could be the wrong job for her since it has the potential to undermine Obama's own transformational role in foreign policy - perhaps the greatest opportunity he has. Why subcontract this to Clinton and her entourage?
And yet, after the public speculation, Obama will seem to be dissing Clinton and her supporters if she doesn't get the job. Here again, one sees a once-seamless team making little mistakes. And then there's the incredible shrinking vice president-elect, Joe Biden. Where is he these days? Do they have him in a box? He can't be happy at the idea of considering Clinton as foreign-policy tsarina - wasn't Biden's foreign-policy savvy the reason he was picked?
Obama has embraced the idea of a strong Cabinet of people who might otherwise be feuding, the "Team of Rivals" in historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's account of Abraham Lincoln's administration. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did much the same thing, forming a Cabinet of powerful, contentious personalities, and then making decisions after they had battled out the various policy choices. It sounds good when you attach the aura of Lincoln and Roosevelt, but you have to wonder whether internal discord really makes for good governance. Before embracing a team of rivals, Obama should recall the interagency battles that afflicted the Carter administration, or for that matter, the administration of George W. Bush Now that the perpetual traveler has arrived, who will puncture that bubble of presidential loneliness? Presidents can spin into their own twilight zone, isolated in a crowd of advisers and hangers-on and become prone to serious misjudgments. Think of Richard Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson, or Bush.
On this question, the "60 Minutes" interview gave us an encouraging answer. Obama's reality check will come from his wife, Michelle. When he told Kroft that she had asked him on election night if he was going to take the kids to school the next day, she broke in: "I didn't say that." When he claimed that he liked washing the dishes, she interjected: "You? Since when was it ever soothing for you to wash dishes?"
You've got to like that. And you have to believe that a man who can smile while his wife lovingly, genially puts him in his place is a pretty sane guy. In this transition time, when the traveler is finally about to reach his destination, that's reassuring.
Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

Arabs have heard Western promises before, Mr. Miliband
By The Daily Star /Thursday, November 20, 2008
It is telling that some of the loudest applause during British Foreign Secretary David Miliband's hour-long question-and-answer session at the American University of Beirut on Wednesday could be heard when the visiting official came under fire over his government's policies in the Middle East. Considering that most members of his audience were students under the age of 22, their reactions offer clues about where the region is heading - and about the results of efforts to win over the hearts and minds of members of the very generation that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist outfits tend to target for recruitment.
Miliband had come to AUB with an optimistic message: that his tour of Syria, Lebanon Israel and the Palestinian Territories, along with recent events such as the election of Barack Obama as US president, had given him a sense of hope that 2009 could be a "decisive year" that might see a comprehensive peace agreement between feuding Arabs and Israelis. But this positive message was largely drowned out by the critics, who pointed to British policies that serve to perpetuate conflict, such as the UK's refusal to embargo products made in illegal Israeli settlements, or its support for Israel's barbaric war on Lebanon in 2006. Moreover, his audience members are old enough to have heard similar empty promises, including George W. Bush's pledge to oversee the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005 - a target that he later pushed back to 2008 and now appears to have abandoned altogether.
Around the same time that Miliband was delivering his upbeat address to young Lebanese, Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, was posting another provocative message on a radical Islamist website. Osama bin Laden's right-hand man sought to temper the unprecedented sense of optimism that Obama's election victory has brought to the people of this region with a heavy dose of cynicism. Employing words and images that were designed to exploit the sense of frustration that many Muslims experience when they are reminded of Israel's occupation of Palestine or the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Zawahri called upon his Internet listeners to keep hitting "the criminal, trespassing crusader."
Our region's youth stand at the threshold between these conflicting messages of hope and despair. Like any other human beings around the world, they want to believe that the future holds the promise of change that will bring them peace and prosperity. But the hate-filled messages of people like Zawahri gain greater traction when the better future that has been promised to them over and over again fails to arrive.
Many of those young people are now hoping that Obama will keep his promises to end the war in Iraq and to support an even-handed peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But already Zawahri and others are trying to encourage these youths to commit terrorist crimes by warning that these hopes are badly misplaced.

Where is the Israeli determination?
By Israel Harel
When small fry criminal gangs are referred to as "families" who make their living in, as criminologists and other experts put it, "organized crime," we tend to forgive the police for not being able to cope with them. After all, in line with the fantasy depicted in movies like "The Godfather," Ya'akov Alperon, Yitzhak Abergil, and Amir Mulner - "our guys" - are the Israeli twins of Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, and Bugsy Siegel.
If, after decades of trying, the police in the United States have not managed to do away with organized crime, why should we demand that the Israel Police do better even though, as the police commissioner tells us, the brightest minds and best forces are being utilized in the war against this criminal scourge? Advertisement
This week, we bore witness to absolute proof that we have indeed become New York and we are resembling Chicago, and the scene is highly reminiscent of gangster movies, the best in reality media.
But the truth is that the resemblance between American organized crime and Israeli "organized crime" is extremely flimsy. In Israel, organized crime is marginal, though it is artificially blown out of proportion. If our most select people, intelligence and technologies are being used to combat organized crime (Why is that so? Most of the public is victimized by property crimes, road accidents, drugs and violence on the streets.) why has it yielded so few results?
Indeed, the prime minister, who knows a thing or two about the police, lashed out against the force for not displaying enough determination. Rightly so, but who in the public sector is demonstrating determination? And the question of all questions: why, in nearly every area, has Israel ceased showing determination?
It is difficult to single out one public entity, including the IDF high command in recent years, which as a result of its inherent, clear organizational culture, strives for total success (or total victory, in the army's case). It is also difficult to point to one government body that takes special pride in its work or possesses a deep, true sense of mission.
Against whom are the police, which despite its whining has at its disposal tens of thousands of officers and the most advanced technological means, at war? Against dozens of unrestrained criminals who are helped by a few hundred "soldiers." If only the police high command and its officers were required to display integrity, determination, creativity and a sense of mission, perhaps adherence to the law in Israel would be among the most acute of all countries.
In principle, the police failure in the war against organized crime can be proportionally likened to the IDF's failure in its war against external enemies: four divisions; an air force that has no equal to it in the skies; and artillery and armor that is no match for any tank or cannon, could not defeat one division of Hezbollah gunmen. As a reward for his "success" in commanding an IDF elite division during the Second Lebanon War, Colonel Eyal Eisenberg was named commander of the IDF's Gaza division. He will deal with Hamas with the same motivation, skill, and determination with which he dealt with Hezbollah.
If this is the state of affairs in the organizations responsible for the protection of people and property, then the situation is tenfold more dire in the civilian government agencies. Were it not for the non-profit organizations, devoted individuals and volunteers, what would the state of the environment be here? Who would take care of the thousands who have been consigned to a bitter lot while the relevant ministries are negligent or hopeless in helping them? In every ministry, there are departments or people who have proven to be extraordinary and who do their jobs accordingly, but the overwhelming majority of those in the government apparatus are not friendly and they certainly do not go above and beyond to serve the citizens. Rarely, if ever, does the citizen feel that standing before him is someone with a joy for creativity and a sense of mission.
Only in one unusual realm - which attests to the realm - has the IDF and police claimed victory in recent years. The preparations for this victory were done with diligence, thoroughness, determination, and remarkable adherence to achieving the goal: the uprooting of the Jewish settlement enterprise in Gush Katif and the war against the youth at Amona.
Contrary to the hesitation and lack of motivation that has characterized these two organizations in the face of the real challenges before them, it was during these two events that they exerted from themselves the full extent of the cruelty and violence necessary for victory in the war with the enemy. In the coming days, they will certainly show similar persistence in the simulations as part of the preparations against the Hebron settlers.
Contrary to "organized crime" - an area where the police, prosecutors, and courts religiously pay attention to every last detail in gathering evidence - there is no need for complex legal procedures when it comes to the settlers. Every step, necessary or not, is permissible.

Defense Min. turns blind eye as Israelis sell arms to enemies
By Yossi Melman
Haaretz 20/11/08
Israeli arms dealers have negotiated and sold military equipment to a number of countries defined by Israeli law as enemy states in recent years with the full acknowledgment and approval of the Defense Ministry, Haaretz has learned.
The ministry has okayed negotiations and sales between Israeli dealers and several Arab states including Iraq, Libya and Yemen, say the sources.
Attorney General Menachem Mazuz recently approved the Tel Aviv District State Prosecutor's Office decision to close an investigation against dual Israel-U.S. citizen Shlomi Michaels, whose company, the Kurdistan Development Organization (KODO), was suspected of illegal arms deals with Iraq.
Advertisement
A police spokesman confirmed they had opened an investigation into Michaels dealings in 2006. Michael's company Kodo used to be partly owned by former MK Dani Yatom, who is also a former head of the Mossad secret service. The police spokesman stressed that at no point in the investigation was Yatom questioned or considered a suspect. Yatom said that he severed his ties to the company in 2002, when he was elected to the Knesset, and before the company began its dealings in Iraq. Michaels, a former member of the elite Yamam police unit, emigrated to the U.S., where he started Kodo, which is registered as a company in Switzerland.
The investigation began on the basis of information that equipment manufactured by Israeli companies like Magal Motorola and Tadiran were being used in the construction of an airport in the city of Arbil, in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and that Kodo's security advisers were training local Kurdish militias. Laura Rozen wrote this week in Mother Jones, a U.S. weekly, that Kodo was vying for a 20 percent stake of a $300 million budget. Its activity in the Kurdish territory ended after it received information that Iranian agents might try to harm Israelis.
Police began investigating the company after it discovered it did not receive approval from the Defense Ministry to operate in Iraq, which is still technically in a state of war with Israel. The ministry's former director general, Amos Yaron, told police he had approved the company's dealings.
Haaretz recently learned that the Defense Ministry allowed Israeli dealers to sell flak jackets to Libya and weapons to Yemen. In the past, the ministry allowed the Israel Aerospace Industries to enter negotiations with Yemen over its Mig-fighter planes but the deal fell through.
According to a 1939 law drafted under the British Mandate as a way to supervise trade with Nazi Germany, the Finance Ministry is charged with defining countries as enemy states. However, any government ministry may de facto approve trade deals with enemy states based on its own definition of the term.
"International law or Israeli law is not clear over the definition of an enemy state," Ehud Keinan, the deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, admitted in 1999. Iraq's classification as an enemy state was removed after the U.S. invasion of the country in 2003. Since then Israeli companies have supplied the U.S. army in Iraq with drones and ammunition.
The Defense Ministry spokesman responded that "the Defense Ministry obeys the law but does not comment on defense industry trade."

The Mullahs’ Role in the Hamas-Fatah Conflict
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, November 20, 2008
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Jonathan Schanzer, director of policy at the Jewish Policy Center. He has served as a counterterrorism analyst at the U.S. Department of Treasury and as a research fellow at Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He is the author of the new book, Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle For Palestine. Daniel Pipes wrote the foreword to the book and some of the research was undertaken at Pipes' Middle East Forum.
FP: Jonathan Schanzer, good to have you back.
Schanzer: Good to be back Jamie.
FP: I'd like to talk to you today about Iran's role in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. But first, for readers who did not read our previous interview, please describe the thesis of your new book Hamas vs Fatah: The Struggle For Palestine.
Schanzer: The book is about the power struggle between the Palestinian Fatah faction and its Islamist rival, Hamas. This struggle dates back to 1988, in the early days of the Palestinian uprising known as the intifada, when Hamas began to circulate bayanat, or leaflets, in competition for leadership. Thereafter, the two factions have engaged in a political and now violent struggle for control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Today, I argue, it may be this struggle that represents the greatest obstacle to regional peace, eclipsing even the typical Palestinian-Israeli issues that typically dominate the headlines.
FP: Ok, describe for us Iran’s historical role in Palestinian affairs.
Schanzer: It began in 1979, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini succeeded in ousting Iran’s Reza Shah Pahlavi from power. In mid-February, just days after his revolution was complete, Fatah/PLO leader Yasir Arafat enjoyed a personal audience with Khomeini. While it was reported that Khomeini lectured Arafat on his need to drop his nationalist and revolutionary ideologies and embrace Islamism, photos of the meeting show the two men, in typical Arafat fashion, smiling and holding hands.
Khomeini, in fact, wished to thank Arafat for the Fatah leader’s support for the Iranian revolution. Arafat even helped the Shah’s opponents by providing training and weapons. The first generation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards was the recipient of Arafat’s largesse. Khomeini, in appreciation, closed the Israeli embassy in Tehran and handed the keys over to Arafat, and flew a Palestinian flag above it. The building became the PLO’s official embassy there.
FP: When and why did Iran-Fatah ties sour?
Schanzer: Relations deteriorated during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, as the Palestinians threw their support behind Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Khomeini rejected Arafat’s attempts to mediate the conflict. It was, however, the Palestinian leader’s decision to engage in peace talks with the Israelis that ultimately led to the unraveling of Fatah-Iranian ties. Indeed, Khomeini’s successor, Ali Khameini dubbed Arafat “a traitor and an idiot” for engaging in talks with Israel.
FP: When did Iran begin to support Hamas ?
Schanzer: Hamas, an offshoot of the Sunni Muslim brotherhood organization, was created in 1988 as a “resistance” organization. Its sole purpose, according to its charter and its leading cleric Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, was to destroy the State of Israel, and to replace it with an Islamic Palestine.
Despite the fact that Hamas is Sunni and Iran is Shiite, the Islamist approach of both parties made their marriage almost inevitable. Hamas was clearly in synch with Iran’s Islamist policies. As early as December 1990, three years into the intifada, Hamas leaders paid an official visit to Iran, along with other rejectionist groups, for a conference in support of the uprising. In 1994, Hamas began a campaign of suicide bombings against Israel. This was the first time a Sunni group had carried out this kind of attack. Until then, suicide bombing was always associated with Iranian-backed Hizbullah.
In December 1994, as peace talks between the PLO and Israel began to gain traction, hundreds of Iranian demonstrators occupied the PLO embassy in Tehran, destroying property, and calling Arafat the “biggest collaborator with Israel and the United States.” The Iranians distanced themselves from the incident, but Tehran was now openly offering Tunisia-based PLO members support for their opposition to Arafat. There were even press reports of Iranian attempts to assassinate Arafat. The Hamas representative to Iran openly gloated that the growing ties between Hamas and Iran came at the expense of the PLO.
FP: How did Arafat react to this new reality?
Schanzer: As early as 1992, Arafat complained that Iran had provided some $30 million to Hamas. This would appear to corroborate a Lebanese report that Iran was providing the Islamist group with $10 million per year in funds derived from oil sales. Hazy reports emerged of Iranians training Hamas members in Sudan, Lebanon, and Iran itself.
In an attempt to weaken its Iranian-funded rival, Arafat found support from Israel and the United States. The 1995 U.S. trade embargo on Iran and the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) were designed, at least in part, to weaken Iranian support to Arafat’s chief opposition.
Meanwhile, on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza, a low level conflict was quietly brewing between Hamas and Fatah. Every time Hamas carried out an attack in Israel, it was a signal that the Fatah-backed Palestinian Authority lacked control. Prompted and armed by Washington and Jerusalem, Fatah cracked down on the suicide-bombing Hamas organization.
FP: But Arafat launched a war against Israel with the assistance of Hamas in 2000, just a few years later. What changed?
Schanzer: Support for Yasir Arafat’s Fatah-backed Palestinian Authority dwindled rapidly on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza during the late 1990s. Progress with Israel was slow, and the Palestinians grew frustrated with PA corruption. Hamas, all the while, gained popular support steadily by sticking to its strategy of opposition to Oslo and violence against the Jewish state.
When the Camp David II talks collapsed in autumn 2000, marking the end of the Oslo process, Arafat elected to launch a war against Israel known as the al-Aqsa Intifada. At the time, Arafat told Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, “We chose the way that religion and history of all Muslims have entrusted to us.” In so doing, he appeared to have finally given the Palestinian cause to Islamism. Indeed, in the name of Islam’s third holiest site, the al-Aqsa mosque, he exhorted Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to join forces with Fatah’s manifold paramilitary groups, including the newly-formed al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
FP: After this change of heart, did Iran begin supporting Fatah again?
Schanzer: Iran provided funding to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, “mostly through Hizbullah.” Zakariya Zubeidi, one of the group’s West Bank leaders, confirmed that the Brigades coordinated with the Iranian-backed organization. “Without the help of our brothers in Hezbollah, we could not have continued our struggle,” he said. “They give us money and weapons. We coordinate our military operations.”
Iranian support for Fatah was also confirmed in the capture of the ship the Karine-A, carrying 50 tons of Iranian-supplied weapons through the offices of Hizbullah. Israeli sources suggested that the shipment was the work of the late Imad Mughniyeh, Hizbullah’s operations chief, who coordinated closely with the Iranians.
FP: So, why did Fatah continue to lose power in the territories?
Schanzer: The Fatah-backed Palestinian Authority took pounding after pounding from the Israeli military in response to continued terrorist attacks. With its government infrastructure reduced to rubble, Fatah could no longer fill a leadership role. Government services once filled by Fatah were replaced by Hamas and its long-standing dawa, or outreach network, which provided food, education and other vital services.
Meanwhile, the Iranian-backed Hamas faction began to compete for territory once unquestionably controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian tribes, families, and clans loyal to Hamas fought with those loyal to Fatah. As the mainstream media filed story after predictable story about Israeli-Palestinian violence, the increasingly common internecine Palestinian clashes went largely unreported.
FP: What impact did the death of Yasir Arafat have on this dynamic?
Schanzer: By the time Yasir Arafat died in November 2004, the territories were in utter disarray. In my view, it is around this time that Iran appeared to sense opportunity. Particularly as Saudi Arabian funding for Hamas dried up, Iran took in Hamas as a valued proxy. In light of the rapid decline of the Palestinian Authority, and now its leadership vacuum, Iranian funding for Hamas increased over the next two years, as Hamas consolidated its strength.
FP: What role did Iran play in the 2006 election and the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007?
Schanzer: The extent to which Iran helped Hamas prepare for the 2006 elections is not known. But, after Hamas’s electoral victory over Fatah, Iranian influence in the territories reached a zenith. Understandably alarmed, Israel and the United States encouraged the world to impose sanctions against the Hamas regime.
Undeterred, one Hamas spokesman confirmed that Iran “was prepared to cover the entire deficit in the Palestinian budget, and [to do so] continuously.” The Bonyad-e Mostazafan za Janbaza (Foundation of the Oppressed and War Veterans), a splinter of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the group that Arafat trained in the 1970s, was also believed to be providing Hamas with critical financial support. During a visit by Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh to Tehran in December 2006, Iran pledged $250 million in aid to compensate for the western boycott.
The standoff continued through June 2007, when Hamas launched a brutal lightning coup that toppled Fatah in Gaza. Within weeks, Fatah intelligence sources were openly accusing Iran of funding the coup and training the fighters. According to Palestinian intelligence chief Tawfiq Tirawi, “it was a joint program with Iran.”
FP: What are the implications of Iranian influence in the territories today?
Schanzer: As the Palestinian civil war rages between “Fatahland” in the West Bank and “Hamastan” in the Gaza Strip, Iran remains Hamas’ staunchest supporter. Iranian funds and weapons continue to be smuggled into Gaza. Analysts continue to express concern that this support may contribute to a Hamas conquest of the West Bank.
The incoming Israeli and American administrations must recognize that regional peace cannot be achieved until the Palestinian internecine conflict is resolved. And the only way to resolve this conflict is to remove Iran from the equation. As we have now established, Iran has been an integral component of the continued Palestinian turmoil.
More broadly, it must be recognized that Iran is playing a masterful game of chess. Amidst its alarming declarations of intent to achieve nuclear weapons, it has strengthened its Lebanese Hizbullah proxy on the Israeli border, while simultaneously arming its Gaza proxy. Great effort must be now expended to prevent Iran from planting another chess piece in the West Bank. A repeat performance of Gaza may be underway.
FP: Jonathan Schanzer, thank you for joining us.
Schanzer: Thank you Jamie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

ZAWAHIRI: JIHAD WILL CONTINUE DESPITE OBAMA
By Walid Phares
November 19, 2008
As observers were awaiting the release of the "official" al Qaeda position regarding the election of Barack Obama as the new President of the United States, seasoned experts on the Jihadist movement had little doubts as to the substance of the main message. As I have outlined in my appearances on Arabic television channels since November 4, Bin Laden or his second in command was expected to declare that their "Jihad" will continue despite the election of an African American President and despite Obama’s intention to withdraw from Iraq. Ayman Zawahiri did just that on Wednesday in his latest message to his supporters and his enemies: even if the war ends in Iraq, the global war will continue everywhere.
The tape was expected to appear a couple weeks after the election because of al Qaeda's method of monitoring the reactions of the international community, of the Arab and Muslim world and also of other Islamist authorities. The Bin Laden-Zawahiri style is to give the "last word," like a Caliph would. The points raised in the tape were almost all predicted by experts familiar with the Jihadi-combat mind set: Although a new president was elected - one who would reverse some of Bush’s policies, the new president will devise new strategies to defeat al Qaeda.. Zawahiri isn't buying the version proposed by other anti-American critics of Washington's War on Terror. Most of Europe's left, the Arab authoritarian regimes, and the Islamist fundamentalist establishment have all welcomed the news of an Obama victory and are tailoring new proposals for the region's future (of course to their advantage). But not al Qaeda. That's why this Zawahiri message is important. It is telling the world and allies that there will be no respite in the conflict.
The al Qaeda’s number two had to address the election of a Black President of the United States because of the two massive changes this choice has brought to the Jihadist agenda: On the one hand, Obama is very popular in the eyes of international public opinion; on the other hand the President elect is planning on withdrawing from Iraq and pushing forward in Afghanistan. All this changes al Qaeda's game. Zawahiri's tape had to address these "challenges" as pressure was mounting among Jihadists to deal with this election. Hence, the main points presented by the audio message are as follows:

1. The election of Obama is a defeat to the United States in Iraq and a victory to the Jihadists
In his tape Zawahiri congratulates the Muslim world "on the American people's admission of defeat in Iraq. Although the evidence of America's defeat in Iraq appeared years ago, Bush and his administration continued to be stubborn and deny the brilliant midday sun. If Bush has achieved anything, it is in his transfer of America's disaster and predicament to his successor. But the American people, by electing Obama, declared its anxiety and apprehension about the future towards which the policy of the likes of Bush is leading it, and so it decided to support someone calling for withdrawal from Iraq"

In al Qaeda's lexicon it is crucial to demonstrate to their supporters that it is "their" actions (terror in Iraq) which convinced, if not intimidated, American voters into voting against McCain and electing Obama. Zawahiri wants al Qaeda to be credited for the behavior of America's voting majority in the same way it took credit for the change in electoral direction that took place in Madrid after the March 11, 2004 attacks.

2. A warning to Obama: Don't send additional troops to Afghanistan

Zawahiri then sends a warning to President elect Obama:

"The second of these messages is to the new president of the United States. I tell him: you have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you. A failure in Iraq to which you have admitted, and a failure in Afghanistan to which the commanders of your army have admitted. The other thing to which I want to bring your attention is that what you've announced about how you're going to reach an understanding with Iran and pull your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan is a policy which was destined for failure before it was born. It appears that you don't know anything about the Muslim Ummah and its history, and the fate of the traitors who cooperated with the invaders against it, and don't know anything about the history of Afghanistan and its free and defiant Muslim people. And if you still want to be stubborn about America's failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them. And be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them."

If victory has been achieved by the Jihadists against the United States in Iraq by forcing the new Administration to pull out of that country, in Zawahiri's mind, another defeat awaits America in Afghanistan according to al Qaeda's latest message. The logic of endless Jihad seems to be that wherever American forces would be sent, the Jihadists will meet them for a fight until the US redeploys its contingents from around the world, back to "its borders" as previous al Qaeda messages have underlined.

4. The same US aggression remains

Concerned about the sympathy emerging from around the world and within the Muslim community regarding the new President, Zawahiri reminds his Islamist followers that "crimes have been committed and the mentality that produced them is still around." He doesn't want to see a shift in pubic opinion towards a "nicer" America. He says:

"As for the crimes of America which await you, it appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims. The Muslim Ummah received with extreme bitterness your hypocritical statements to and stances towards Israel, which confirmed to the Ummah that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims."

Clearly, Zawahiri is trying to draw red lines for the acceptance of Obama by the Arab and Muslim world. This audiotape is probably the prelude to a campaign by the Jihaidists to minimize Obama's emergence and classify him as just "another US President, with a different face."


5. You're not real

Then Zawahiri begins the Jihadi deconstruction of Obama's image. He declares:

"You represent the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malik al-Shabazz, or Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him). You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American Crusade in it to continue. And last Monday, your aircraft killed 40 Afghan Muslims at a wedding party in Kandahar. As for Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him), he was born to a black pastor killed by white bigots, but Allah favored him with guidance to Islam, and so he prided himself on his fraternity with the Muslims, and he condemned the crimes of the Crusader West against the weak and oppressed, and he declared his support for peoples resisting American occupation, and he spoke about the worldwide revolution against the Western power structure. That's why it wasn't strange that Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him) was killed, while you have climbed the rungs of the presidency to take over the leadership of the greatest criminal force in the history of mankind and the leadership of the most violent Crusade ever against the Muslims. And in you and in Colin Powell, Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him) concerning "House Negroes" are confirmed."

Zawahiri's words are strong and are aimed at putting pressure on all those in the region who rushed to announce that Obama will radically change the "regime" in the United States. The number two of al Qaeda is painting the President elect as an opportunistic politician who used all three faiths to access power. One can see that Zawahiri is trying to achieve two goals: maintaining his own flock fully indoctrinated against Washington regardless of the change in the White House; and pressuring the radical clerics in the Wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood circles - who are welcoming Obama's victory - into retreat from such "apostasy."

6. The War must continue..

Zawahiri's main message is to call on the Jihadists everywhere to resume the war relentlessly and to "strike." Yes, he argues, there was a victory when American changed direction in Iraq, but the road to full Jihadi victory is still long. Read it as follow: The fight over Iraq will continue until the establishment of an al Qaeda like Emirate in the Sunni Triangle, which would be then the real accomplished victory. The fight will go on in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia and beyond. In short, the al Qaeda world war against the rest won't stop because of an election in America. Zawahiri said:

"You also must appreciate, as you take over the presidency of America during its Crusade against Islam and Muslims, that you are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a Jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see. I tell the Muslim Ummah: America, the criminal, trespassing Crusader, continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses, because its criminal, expansionist Crusader project in your lands has only been neutralized by the sacrifices of your sons, the Mujahideen. This, then, is the path, so stick to it. To the Mujahideen. I tell them: may Allah reward you in the best way for your historic heroics, which have ruined America's plans and rendered its projects ineffective. So be firm and resolute. Your enemy's stagger has begun, so don't stop hitting him. I say to my brothers the Mujahideen in Iraq in general and the Islamic State of Iraq in particular, and to its Amir, the towering mountain Abu 'Umar al-Baghdadi: your enemy has admitted defeat, and the forthcoming stage is expected to be dominated by conspiracies and betrayals in order to cover the American withdrawal, so you must persevere, for victory is in an hour of perseverance. And I tell my brothers in Somalia: rejoice in victory and conquest. America is gathering its wounds in Iraq, and Ethiopia is looking for a way out, and for this reason, the stage of conspiracies and machinations has begun. So hold tightly to the truth for which you have given your lives, and don't put down your weapons before the Mujahid state of Islam and Tawheed has been set up in Somalia. And I tell all Mujahideen everywhere: Allah has granted you success and honored you by making you the most important cause of that, so be resolute on the path of Jihad until you meet your Lord while He is pleased with you."

As many experts in Jihadism have underlined - and as I projected in my last three books on Future Jihad - even if we decide to change course in Iraq or even in Afghanistan, the strategic intentions of the Jihadi Salafists is to engage in confrontation worldwide, including within democracies.

7. Until you surrender..

Echoing this assessment of the global Jihadi drive, Zawahiri asks the followers of this ideology -not just his membership - to relentlessly fight against what he perceives as the "Grand Crusade." A stark reminder that the forces, which waged their campaigns against the United States as of the early 1990s peaking on 9/11 and widening their warfare to dozens of countries since, aren't going back to the pre 9/11 mode. Once again, al Qaeda's number two offers a deal to the "infidel powers": quit and withdraw from this entire region or face a greater war. It is a chilling statement of the so-called Jihadi offensive. It is not just about Iraq: It is about the Planet as a whole. He goes on:

"And my fifth message is to all the world's weak and oppressed. I tell them: America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always. And the Mujahideen of Islam, by the grace of Allah, continue to be the spearhead of the resistance against it to restrain it from injustice, aggression and arrogance. As for my final message, it is to the American people. I tell it: you incurred defeat and losses from the foolish actions of Bush and his gang, and at the same time, Shaykh Usama bin Ladin (may Allah preserve him) sent you a message to withdraw from the lands of the Muslims and refrain from stealing their treasures and interfering in their affairs. So choose for yourself whatever you like, and bear the consequences of your choice, and as you judge, you will be judged."
Against all other reactions, both positive and neutral, vis-a-vis Obama's election, al Qaeda stands firm in rejecting the new leadership even before the President elect takes office in January. From a politico-psychological perspective the master of Jihadism Usama Bin laden cannot be overshadowed by another international leader, particularly if that emerging figure is the President of the "Great Satan." Zawahiri's response to the election seems to re-frame the results of the election, one viewed worldwide as one of change. To al Qaeda there is no altering of direction in their struggle and agenda. In their own logic, either Obama will end American presence altogether in the Greater Middle East, or nothing will really change in the global battlefield.
Conclusion
Once Obama’s victory was solidified, many wondered what al qaeda’s response would be. Many of observers thought that the election of Mr. Obama would wash away the grievances of al Qaeda and isolate the pockets of violence to a few valleys in Afghanistan. Zawahiri's answer is bluntly no. Obviously, by al Qaeda's book, this is a step forward but it is not enough. Pulling out of Iraq is a victory, as claim the Jihadists of all genres, but more victories are needed to end the war from their perspective. This indicates that the post 9/11 era may well be reversed in the mind of liberal democracies via electoral victories at home as was the case in Spain and now in the United States, but in the mind of the Jihadists - it is irreversible. Out of all points raised by the Zawahiri audiotape, I move to state that the central message is this: redeploy as you wish and change all the leaders you want, but know that we will continue our global fight against you. This means that the forthcoming Administration has a tremendous challenge to confront and it will have to do so by learning from the past and enhancing the strategies for the future. The landscape of the War with the Jihadists may be changed from what it was over the past eight years but it will be different from what it was during the 1990s. A whole new configuration is ahead of us.

*****
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.