LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 28/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 13,10-17. He was teaching in a synagogue on the sabbath. And a woman was there who for eighteen years had been crippled by a spirit; she was bent over, completely incapable of standing erect. When Jesus saw her, he called to her and said, "Woman, you are set free of your infirmity." He laid his hands on her, and she at once stood up straight and glorified God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant that Jesus had cured on the sabbath, said to the crowd in reply, "There are six days when work should be done. Come on those days to be cured, not on the sabbath day." The Lord said to him in reply, "Hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manger and lead it out for watering? This daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now, ought she not to have been set free on the sabbath day from this bondage?" When he said this, all his adversaries were humiliated; and the whole crowd rejoiced at all the splendid deeds done by him.

Catechism of the Catholic Church/§1730-1742
"This daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound... ought she not to have been set free"
The freedom of man: God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel' (Si 15,14) so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him»; «Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts» (Saint Irenaeus)...Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom... By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free" (Gal 5,1). In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free" (Jn 8,32). The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2Cor 3,17). Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God" (Rom 8,21). The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Lebanon's Enemy Within.By: Michael J. Totten 27/10/08
US raid is a warning to Assad-guardian.co.uk 27/10/08
Dr. Walid Phares on the US Raid into Syria. By: Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr. 27/10/08
Last Advice Before Election Day: Vote for National Survival.By: Dr. Walid Phares 27/10/08
ANALYSIS / US takes page from Israel's book in Syria strike-Ha'aretz  27/10/08
Road to Damascus-Times Online 27/10/08
Why are most Arab rulers silent on the plight of Iraq's Christians? The Daily Star 27/10/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October 27/08
Iran's Al-Quds Octopus Spreads its Arms-Jerusalem Post
US raid is a warning to Assad-guardian.co.uk 27/10/08
Nasrallah, Hariri meet for first time since 2nd Lebanon War-Jerusalem Post
British talks with Syria in disarray after US military raid-Times Online
Britain, Syria cancel joint news conference-Jerusalem Post
Iraq defends cross-border raid into Syria-Times Online
Belgium Seeks to Pull Forces Out of UNIFIL-Naharnet
Qinawy to Suleiman: Mubarak Worried about Lebanon's Unstable Situation-Naharnet
Report: Barak, Ashkenazi Discuss Ways to Stop Hizbullah Arms Flow-Naharnet
Israel on High Alert on Border-Naharnet
Hizbullah Denies Link to Ouzai Group-Naharnet
Kurds in Pro-Ocalan Protest Outside U.N. Headquarters in Beirut-Naharnet
Karami Praises Qabalan's Visit to Tripoli-Naharnet
US military source says strike result of 'Syria's weakness'-Ynetnews
US raid on Syria: Govt to decide stance-The Age
Iraq hopes US raid won't harm relations with Syria-Jerusalem Post
Rare U.S. Raid on Syria Targeted al-Qaida Network, U.S. Official-Naharnet
Eight people dead after US attack on Syrian town, says Damascus-guardian.co.uk
Early election looms for Israel as Livni fails to broker coalition-guardian.co.uk 
Officials Counter Ahmadinejad Health Rumors-New York Times 
A warning Syria's President Assad must heed-Times Online
Syria condemns ‘US aggression’ after cross-border raid-Times Online
Syria: US choppers attack village near Iraq border-The Associated Press
Helicopters attack border point with Iraq: Syria-Reuters
US forces kill 7 inside Syria: eyewitnesses (1st Lead)-Monsters and Critics.com
Only light weapons for Lebanon from US so far-Daily Star
Security forces 'seize 20 tons of dope' in Bekaa Valley-(AFP)
Sleiman receives envoy with message from Mubarak-Daily Star
Israeli general says Syria is arming Hizbullah-Daily Star
Nasrallah scoffs at rumor of assassination bid-(AFP)
More than 'just' peacekeeping: 60 ways in which the United Nations makes a difference-Daily Star
Siniora, Mish'al condole President Saleh on heavy rains' victims-Yemen News Agency
Oil, conflict with Israel keep Arab autocrats afloat - study-Daily Star
EIU cuts growth forecast for Lebanon-Daily Star
Sub-standard fuel blamed for blaze in Gemmayzeh-Daily Star
A reminder of why laws are useful - even in Lebanon.By Marc J. Sirois
A reminder of why laws are useful - even in Lebanon-Daily Star
Iranian Leaders Pushing for Preemptive Strike on Israel-Right Side News
Beirut market sees drop in trading as investors await effects of bailout plans-Daily Star
Bassil: President Suleiman Needs Our Bloc-Naharnet

Road to Damascus
Times Online 27/10/08
Britain has a chance today to bring Syria in from the cold
The US helicopter attack yesterday on a village several kilometres inside the Syrian border with Iraq gives greater urgency to the talks that begin today in London between David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Walid al-Muallem, the Syrian Foreign Minister. What had been seen as a chance for both countries to make a fresh beginning in their rocky relationship now becomes a salvage operation to persuade Syria to continue its search for better relations with the West. And as governments in both Europe and the Middle East prepare for the change of administration in Washington, Mr Miliband will try to persuade Syria that only by helping peace in Iraq and in the wider Middle East will it be able to play the central role in future peace talks that it has long demanded.
For both Britain and Syria, the talks represent an about-face. This is the first high-level contact since a visit by Tony Blair to Damascus in 2001 ended with an embarrassing lecture from President Assad on Palestinian “freedom fighters” and the evils of allied bombing in Afghanistan. The diplomatic pique was sharpened by Syrian opposition to the Iraq war and the well-founded suspicion that Syria was aiding the flow of arms and terrorist recruits across its border with Iraq. Relations hit bottom with the murder in 2005 of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, which the West suspected involved the Syrians.
Downing Street has nonetheless observed the old adage that no peace is possible in the Middle East without Syria. Mr Blair sent his foreign affairs adviser to Damascus several times to persuade President Assad to drop his support for Hamas and Hezbollah and to stop attempts to destabilise Lebanon. He was met with stony silence.
Things have changed for Syria. Among its Sunni Arab neighbours it has felt increasingly isolated, partly because of the Lebanon imbroglio but also because of its unpopular support for Iran. The UN inquiry into the Hariri murder has continued relentlessly. Damascus also tried vainly to ward off US pressure with promises to halt terrorist infiltration into Iraq - though as yesterday's raid made clear, it has not done enough.
Friendless in the region and chafing at his dependence on Iran, President Assad tried to break out of his isolation with a visit to Paris in the summer. The aim was not only to win over a strong critic of Syrian meddling in Lebanon but to rekindle relations with Europe, in the hope of a better trading relationship with the EU and of splitting the West's anti-Syrian front. And with an eye specifically on Washington, Damascus also began indirect talks with Israel in Turkey.
Britain has seen a chance to re-engage Syria. The combined US-Iraqi attack and the strong Syrian diplomatic reaction now make this urgent. With any substantial role for the Bush Administration in the region now slipping away, Britain must urge Damascus to change its course if it does not want to be left in in the cold by the next administration. That means making a commitment to go beyond propaganda in restarting talks with Israel; giving more support for the Iraqi Government; stopping the attempts to destabilise Lebanon; and ending support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
For Syria, the price of a new relationship with Europe will be, above all, to distance itself from Iran. Mr Miliband's job is to persuade his counterpart that it is worth paying.

A warning Syria's President Assad must heed
From The Times/October 27, 2008
James Hider: Analysis
The US airborne raid into Syrian territory marks the culmination of years of frustration with Damascus’s reluctance to police its own border with Iraq, the main point of entry for foreign jihadists.
Since the 2003 invasion, Syria, fearing that it could be the next target for regime change, has allowed Islamic militants to cross its desert borders freely. Significantly, the village of al-Sukkari farm, which US forces raided, is just over the border from the Iraqi city of al-Qaim, which, since 2003, has been a key funnelling point for jihadists entering Iraq on the so-called rat run to the Sunni cities of Ramadi, Fallujah and, finally, Baghdad.
But a raid into sovereign territory would have needed high-level US clearance and may have been intended as a warning to Syria at a time when America and Israel are trying to turn the regime of President Assad away from Iran and into peace talks.
Syria is a linchpin in the region, providing a link between Tehran and the Lebanese militia organisation Hezbollah. While it is a secular regime, Syria has allowed extreme Islamist groups to operate from its territory, using them both as an internal political pressure valve and to tie down US forces inside Iraq.
It has also sought maximum strategic return for its allegiances, keeping its close economic ties with Iran while simultaneously conducting indirect negotiations with Israel, through Turkish mediators.
Besides economic and diplomatic incentives to return to the international mainstream, military pressure has also been used against the Syrian regime. In September last year, Israeli war planes carried out a daring raid deep into Syrian territory to destroy what some Western officials suspect may have been a fledgeling nuclear or chemical weapons facility.
Despite making threats, Syria did not retaliate against Israel. Instead it continued to negotiate in secret on a possible peace deal that would lead to the return of the Golan Heights. The repressive but normally stable Syrian regime has also been rocked in recent months by a series of high-level assassinations and bombings, some blamed on Israel, others on the jihadists. While US commanders may have calculated that a cross-border raid was tactically necessary to tackle Islamist extremists using Syrian territory, the attack also sent a tough strategic message to Syria that it is not inviolate and must choose carefully whom it supports.

Rare U.S. Raid on Syria Targeted al-Qaida Network, U.S. Official
Naharnet/An extremely rare U.S. attack on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq on Sunday targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters streaming to Iraq, a U.S. military official said as Damascus warned of repercussions. The attack on the village of Sukkariyeh, around 550 kilometers (340 miles) northeast of the capital in the Abu Kamal area left eight people killed and was described by the Syrian government as "serious aggression."
The U.S. official, speaking to the Associated Press (AP), said the raid by Special Forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area struck because Syria was out of the military's reach.
"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told AP in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids. The foreign fighters' network sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, he said.
While American forces have had considerable success, with Iraqi help, in shutting down the "rat lines" in Iraq, and with foreign government help in North Africa, the Syrian node has been out of reach, according to the U.S. military official. "The one piece of the puzzle we have not been showing success on is the nexus in Syria," he added. The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq. A Syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown Sunday and fired on workers inside. It said civilians were among the dead, including four children.
A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh said some of the helicopters landed and troops exited the aircraft and fired on a building. He said the aircraft flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. Another witness said four helicopters were used in the attack.
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been some instances in which American troops crossed areas of the 370-mile Syria-Iraq border in pursuit of militants, or warplanes violated Syria's airspace. But Sunday's raid was the first conducted by aircraft and on such a large scale. In May 2005, Syria said American fire killed a border guard.
Syria's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the U.S. and Iraqi charges d'affaires to protest against the strike. "Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this aggression and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch and immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria," the government statement said.
Syrian state television late Sunday aired footage that showed blood stains on the floor of a site under construction, with wooden beams used to mold concrete strewn on the ground. Akram Hameed, one of the injured, told the television he was fishing in the Euphrates and saw four helicopters coming from the border area under a heavy blanket of fire. "One of the helicopters landed in an agricultural area and eight members disembarked," the man in his 40s said. "The firing lasted about 15 minutes and when I tried to leave the area on my motorcycle, I was hit by a bullet in the right arm about 20 meters (yards) away," he said.
The injured wife of the building's guard, in bed in hospital with a tube in her nose, told Syria TV that two helicopters landed and two remained in the air during the attack. "I ran to bring my child who was going to his father and I was hit," she said. The TV did not identify her by name. The area targeted is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency. Iraqi travelers making their way home across the border reported hearing many explosions, said Qaim Mayor Farhan al-Mahalawi.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 08:33

Phares on the U.S. Raid into Syria Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.
By Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.
27 Oct 2008
The U.S. heliborne raid launched from Iraq into Syrian territory on Sunday – reportedly killing eight – has spawned the expected “we’re the victims, you’re the aggressor” response from the Assad regime. Keep in mind, however, since the beginning of the Iraq War, the remote, porous Syrian-Iraqi border has been one of the hottest stretches of the vast Iraqi frontier in terms of weapons smuggling into Iraq, the infiltration and extraction of foreign terrorist-fighters, you name it.
I was there in Al Anbar Province’s Al Qaim sector – not far from where the Sunday raid was carried out – in the summer of 2007. And I can tell you for a fact, the borders were then not only impossible to adequately police, but the Syrians would sometimes fire automatic weapons from Syria into Iraq and over known American outposts. I’ve personally had Syrian tracer rounds popping over my head: Yet it was viewed as only mildly provocative by coalition forces, so we did not return fire.
Upon learning of yesterday’s raid, I spoke with a few Middle East experts including Dr. Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, for analysis.
According to Phares:
"We have to first look at this in a strategic sense: It is not likely that this operation is part of a vast move or some sort of new campaign launched at this stage by the U.S.-led Multi-National Force—Iraq in order to begin penetrating Syrian territory. For if that were the case, there would be a qualitative shift in strategy that would require a Washington reprogramming of the situation on the Iraqi-Syrian border.
“Will the Pentagon – thus the departing Bush Administration – engage in large-scale offensive operations nine days from the election and a few months from a new administration taking office? This leaves us with two possibilities: Either this was an isolated operation carefully calculated to strike at a hot target with strong assurances of success, as are the cases across the Afghan-Pakistani borders (Meaning also there is no real change on the Syrian-Iraqi border, just an opportunity to eliminate Jihadi targets). Or it also may be a Syrian Mukhabarat [military intelligence] maneuver aimed at triggering a U.S. special operation. All depends on who initiated the information about the target. Who fed the intelligence with what data, and how did MNF-I react to it. We will see.”
Also last week (three days prior to the raid), U.S. Marine Maj. Gen. John F. Kelly, commanding general of MNF-West, told reporters: "The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side. … We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement."
Phares says:
"Damascus can super-control its borders whenever it wants, or keep them open and uncontrolled whenever it wishes. For example, it is almost impossible for anti-Syrian-regime elements to cross the border or for opposition to flee across any Syrian border. But now suddenly those borders are uncontrolled and unmanageable when it comes to Jihadists traveling from Lebanon to Syria and from Syria to Iraq and back? Any geostrategic analyst will tell you that the Syrian regime has a strong almost remote-control of its borders. Whenever it is about the regime's security, it is difficult for bees to cross. When the regime wants groups to cross back-and-forth, the border becomes that open frontier they speak of and hard to control.
“Let's keep in mind that the Anbar Province is perhaps the most strategic piece of land in the region. It is the crossroad linking the Shia areas in Iraq to Syria and the Sunni Triangle to Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Syria's strategic projection is eventually to have indirect control over the area to insure a corridor inside Iraq. Hence I wouldn't be surprised that the Syrian Mukhabarat has deployed its Jihadi mercenaries across the land and the borders.
“My question about this operation though is its projection. Assuming it was successful, is it the first and last, or is it a message for the future? Either way this is a new game in the region.”
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Israel on High Alert on Border
Naharnet/Israeli troops went on high alert on the northern border with Lebanon over the weekend, stepping up their vigil along the border and dropping lightening bombs over apple orchards opposite the southern town of Iddaiseh. Press reports on Monday said Spanish peacekeepers serving within UNIFIL deployed along the Fatmeh gate at the Lebanese border with Israel as Lebanese troops patrolled the border area following the Israeli alert.
They said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak discussed the latest security and political developments in southern Lebanon with UNIFIL Commander Gen. Claudio Graziano at a meeting held in Tel Aviv at 6 pm Sunday. Barak has reportedly told Graziano that Israeli troops are closely monitoring the Lebanese border in light of Hizbullah's growing strength. Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 10:29

Report: Barak, Ashkenazi Discuss Ways to Stop Hizbullah Arms Flow
Naharnet/Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi have reportedly discussed "ways" to stop weapons flow to Hizbullah and implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. The two men met on Sunday, the same day Barak held talks with Commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Gen. Claudio Graziano. "The repeated violation of 1701 could lead us to upset the delicate balance that exists in Lebanon, and poses a substantive danger to the entire region," Barak said. He told Graziano the Israeli military is closely monitoring the Lebanon border, adding that Hizbullah has gained strength over the past two years with Syrian assistance.Ashkenazi also met with Graziano last week.
Pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat on Monday quoted a source clause to the Israeli defense ministry as saying that Gadi Eisenkot, the general who runs Israel's Northern Command, usually holds talks with the UNIFIL commander. It said that Ashkenazi's meeting with Graziano came either because of reports of an imminent Israeli withdrawal from the Lebanese side of the border village of Ghajar or because of threats to strike Hizbullah.
Citing Israeli sources, Asharq al-Awsat said Ashkenazi has informed Graziano that the Jewish state can no longer tolerate a heavily armed Hizbullah, particularly after the Shiite group doubled the number of its rockets, including long-range missiles. But Graziano, according to the sources, told Ashkenazi that Israel continues to overfly Lebanon which is also a violation of Resolution 1701. The Israeli general, however, replied by saying that without the reconnaissance flights not a single party, not even UNIFIL, could know about arms smuggling to Hizbullah. Monday's report by Asharq al-Awsat came a day after a senior Israeli military official accused Syria of arming Hizbullah in violation of the resolution that ended the 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese group.
"Syria has become Hizbullah's arms warehouse," military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin told ministers during the Israeli cabinet's weekly meeting, according to another senior official. Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 07:27

Belgium Seeks to Pull Forces Out of UNIFIL
Naharnet/Belgian Defense Minister Pieter de Crem has presented a memo to the Belgian inner-cabinet calling for the withdrawal of Belgian troops serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon . This process aims at bolstering Belgian military presence in Afghanistan, press reports said Monday. They said the memo calls for sending a team of 70 trainers to Kabul, Afghanistan early next year. The team will be moved to north Afghanistan three months later with the aim to fortify the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). De Crem's proposal would result in pulling all 355 members of the Belgian force from Lebanon, a matter that has caused much criticism in Belgium. Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 10:08

Qinawy to Suleiman: Mubarak Worried about Lebanon's Unstable Situation
Naharnet/Egypt's deputy intelligence chief General Omar Qinawy has reportedly relayed a message to Lebanese leaders that Cairo was worried about the "unstable political situation" in Lebanon. Media reports also said that Qinawy relayed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's concern that instability could have negative effects on the country's security situation. President Michel Suleiman's information office said in a statement Sunday that Qinawy and the Lebanese head of state discussed bilateral relations. They also talked about preparations for Suleiman's upcoming visit to Cairo, scheduled for November 8, according to the statement.
The Egyptian official also met with Premier Fouad Saniora, former President Amin Gemayel and Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat. He is expected to meet on Monday with Speaker Nabih Berri, and former prime ministers Najib Mikati and Salim Hoss. Qinawy's visit to Beirut comes as Saniora prepares to head to Cairo on Monday to participate in the meetings of the Higher Egyptian-Lebanese Committee. Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 04:52

Hizbullah Denies Link to Ouzai Group
Naharnet/Hizbullah on Sunday said the group of suspects arrested by a "military agency" in the Ouzai suburb earlier this week was not turned over to its officials.
Upon interrogating members of the group "it was found that they were not armed and were not involved in any illegal activity," a Hizbullah statement said.
It said members of the group were "released and not turned over to Hizbullah." Beirut, 26 Oct 08, 21:28

Lebanon Confiscates 20 Tons of Cannabis
Naharnet/Around 20 tons of cannabis in 25 trucks were seized on Sunday in the Bekaa region of eastern Lebanon, a security services official told AFP.
"Twenty-five lorries carrying about 20 tons of cannabis were seized on Sunday at Deir al-Ahmar" as part of an anti-drugs operation launched on Thursday by the security services, the official said. Three other vehicles loaded with a total of more than two tons of drugs were seized on Saturday in the same operation, along with equipment for processing hashish, he said. Several people have been arrested, the official added. The Bekaa Valley has long been known as fertile territory for narcotics, which flourished into a multi-billion dollar industry during the Lebanese civil war from 1975-1990. Illegal cultivation diminished for a while but has expanded again in recent years after the failure of alternative crop programs. The number of eradication campaigns has expanded but people in charge of destroying illicit plants are often threatened by traffickers.(AFP) Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 09:45

Kurds in Pro-Ocalan Protest Outside U.N. Headquarters in Beirut
Naharnet/Hundreds of Kurds have demonstrated outside the U.N. headquarters in downtown Beirut to protest against the alleged bad treatment in prison of rebel Kurd leader Abdullah Ocalan. The protesters began their march on Sunday at Borj Hammoud, a mostly Armenian district in the northeast of the city, waving Kurdish flags and photos of Ocalan. Many carried placards and chanted: "By our soul, by our blood, we sacrifice ourselves for you, oh chief."The protestors then issued a press release denouncing Ocalan's "inhumane treatment."Lawyers for Ocalan, who heads the banned Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), said this month that their client has been mistreated by warders at the northwest Turkish prison island of Imrali, where he is the sole inmate. Turkish authorities have denied the allegations.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 03:56

Karami Praises Qabalan's Visit to Tripoli
Naharnet/Ex-Premier Omar Karami on Sunday praised a visit to Tripoli by ranking Shiite cleric Abdul Amir Qabalan as an "historic event that reflects unity of Muslims." Karami made the remark to reporters after receiving Qabalan, deputy chairman of the Higher Shiite Islamic Council. "Lebanon had been subjected to a major crisis as a result of a malicious plot aimed at creating Sunni-Shiite conflict … Tripoli also was subjected to a similar plot aimed at sparking conflict between Sunnis and our Alawite brethren," Karami said. "The scheme achieved some success but we succeeded in exposing it by resorting to wisdom," Karami added. He discussed with Qabalan the need to consolidate ranks and maintain unity, a statement said. Beirut, 26 Oct 08, 20:21

il: President Suleiman Needs Our Bloc
Naharnet/Minister of Telecommunications Jebran Bassil on Sunday criticized calls for the creation of an independent parliamentary bloc, saying they are aimed at "weakening our reform activity, efforts aimed at regaining rights and achieving balance" of powers. "The presidency needs our parliamentary bloc" Bassil said in reference to Gen. Michel Aoun's Change and Reform Bloc and calls for electing a neutral parliamentary bloc loyal to President Michel Suleiman. Bassil said "we have joined a national unity government to agree with the other side on reforms, not to cover up on policies that we do not accept." He criticized "those who use the term neutrality and are proud of it. Beirut, 26 Oct 08, 19:50

Gemayel Calls for Reconsidering Hizbullah's Role
Naharnet/Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel on Sunday criticized the reported release by security forces of fundamentalists and turning them over to Hizbullah.
"Armed factions usually surrender to the state, not the other way around," Gemayel noted. "We really wish to know what is happening, because this clarifies more and more events of the north, which we look at them now from a different perspective," he added. "We ask where does the role of the security forces end, and at which point the role of other sides start?" Gemayel asked. "This should lead us to reconsider the situation, especially Hizbullah's role," he stressed. Beirut, 26 Oct 08, 19:12

NYT: Lebanon Asking for Heavier Weapons from U.S.
Naharnet/Lebanese commanders are anxious about the slow pace of American military support so far and say the army needs heavier weapons, the New York Times reported. "Of the $410 million that has been committed since 2006, less than half has been delivered — mostly ammunition, communications equipment, Humvees, trucks, rifles, automatic grenade launchers and other light weapons, and spare parts," the newspaper quoted Lebanese and American military officials as saying. "It is heavier weapons that are most needed," Lebanese officials told the daily.
"It is understandable, the frustration the Lebanese are expressing," said Mark T. Kimmitt, assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs.
In particular, they want an air defense system, which would allow them to argue that they could completely replace Hizbullah as a warding force against Israel in southern Lebanon, the Times said. The Lebanese also want precision antitank missiles and a rebuilt fleet of tanks to replace their aging American and Soviet models. Specifically, they want surplus Vietnam-era M60 tanks that would be rebuilt with American parts and transferred to Lebanon from Jordan, according to the daily.
Even though that shopping list does not include the most advanced weaponry, it has caused serious discomfort for Israel. "We don't want Lebanon to be run by Hizbullah," the newspaper quoted one Israeli official as saying. The fear, he said, is that the weapons might fall into the wrong hands.
Christopher C. Straub, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, said the focus is still on identifying Lebanon's exact military requirements and then finding the weapons to suit them. "They have first got to define the requirement," Straub said. "Everybody wants to rush to the equipment. But we have got to define the requirement."Yet one State Department official told the Times that conflicts in the U.S. administration are holding up any major deal, as some at the Pentagon and State Department are more eager to rebuild the Lebanon Armed Forces while others are reluctant to move too quickly, given Israel's concerns.
U.S. administration officials told the Times that so far, none of the deliveries of heavier weapons have been large enough to require a formal notification to Congress. Those deals are still in the early stages.
But still officials at the State Department and the Pentagon say they are convinced that rebuilding Lebanon's military is essential to peace efforts in the region.
"United States policy is that Lebanon be sovereign and independent and the Lebanon government and its institutions govern all of Lebanon's territory and disarm militias," Straub told the New York Times. "We recognize that is not going to happen overnight, but that is our policy."American officials also say they have faith in the independence and professionalism of the army. "They have demonstrated year after year after year that when we give them equipment, they take responsibility for it," said Kimmitt of the State Department.Beirut, 27 Oct 08, 08:57

Last Advice Before Election Day: Vote for National Survival
By: Dr. Walid Phares
October 27, 2008
In short, the financial drama that we’ve been living through is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of an attack against America. As I argued in previous writings, the first volley was OPEC’s driving the prices at the pumps as high as needed to crack our economic resilience. The hard core (and ideological) oil-producing regimes have been trying to affect the minds of millions of Americans in the same way al Qaeda’s propagandists did with the upset Spanish voters in March 2004.
Today OPEC launched its second offensive – possibly its last before election day - to reduce petrol production as prices fell very low. After hitting US citizens with an economic meltdown, it wants to smack them with a goods shortage crisis to force them into making the ultimate decision: jump into another realm. The current economically-induced crisis is only a treatment to provoke a regime change in America. As odd as it is, the forces pushing for the change “they need” have set the US Presidential election as a mechanism to morph this democracy into the uncharted future that awaits it, if the polls are on target.
Today Americans are readying, some have already begun, to elect a new President. This testimony I am putting forth aims at explaining my vision of this electoral benchmark in view of future developments, beyond November 4th, the next four to eight years and throughout the first part of the twenty-first century. This vote, more than any previous ones, will transform America’s destiny radically, and with it, the future of many nations, particularly those civil societies suffering from oppression around the world.
Most likely my analysis will be reviewed by a few hundred or maybe thousand faithful readers. It is not sent out to influence the outcome of the election for it is too small in a universe of extremely powerful winds driving the electorate, on both sides of the debate. The arguments I am advancing in this piece are the least visible in the agendas of both camps, at least in the next few days. But in the next decade and perhaps as early as the next few years or even months, historians and citizens will reexamine the dimensions of this discussion of the overarching grave menace hovering over US national security. This is why, as a scholar studying conflicts, I am writing about this particular election.
As an academic and counterterrorism expert, I do not get involved in partisan and strictly political processes. But as in 2004’s Presidential election, this week’s voting choice will affect the current and future national defense and survival of this country. Hence it is my duty as a citizen with knowledge in this field to share my views and projections with fellow citizens: For the choices given to voters are dramatically opposed in terms of defining the direction in which this country will move to defend its democracy and freedom around the world.
The United States’ Presidency is endowed with powers that can impact global history in addition to the evolution of America as a democracy and as a nation. In this era of confrontation with the global Jihadi threats and of proliferation of catastrophic weapons, the direction selected by the next US President will affect not only this generation but the next one as well. Hence, regardless of the voting results on the 4th and beyond, it is important to testify beforehand in writing, so that future readers would draw the lessons when confronted with similar choices. Therefore, my words will be rough and direct.
The national security experience
The US primaries produced two leaders and their running mates. With the utmost respect to their personal histories, sacrifices and achievements, are these three men and one woman the ultimate choice that could have been given to Americans? Their supporters feel it is the case while many others, including the partisans of those who were defeated in the parties’ primaries, claim otherwise. In my realm of study and concentration the question is different, simply because I believe national survival trumps everything else, in these times of world threats.
I frame it as follows: are the four contending politicians as aware of the enemy as the leaders of the enemy are aware of America’s weaknesses and resources? We will see. But I argue that we’ve seen US Presidents learning on the job, including the current president. On the evening of September 10, 2001, President George W Bush knew much less than Senators McCain and Obama on the evening of November 3, 2008; yet he confronted the country’s enemies for seven years while learning on the job.
Today, the average citizen’s instincts know more about the threat we’re facing than the combined advisors of Presidents Clinton and Bush before the War on Terror, as per the 9/11 Commission findings. So based on their records, speeches, length of service and publications regarding the national threat, one can project that the four leaders America has to consider for the two top offices would be ranked as follows: Senator John McCain comes first, Senator Joe Biden comes second and Senator Barack Obama and Governor Sarah Palin come equally third. This ranking is quantitative and verifiable. Based on a simple examination of past decades regarding McCain and Biden, and years regarding Obama and Palin, the strict “experience factor” in matters of war and peace, national security and defense, undoubtedly among the four, McCain would be the top man for the job, followed by Biden.
Hence since the Senator from Arizona has selected Palin as his running mate, he thus would assume the responsibility of her choice as his replacement if God forbid the worse were to happen. On the experience factor alone, it is ineluctable that, according to the famous phrase of Senator Hillary Clinton, I would trust the judgment of the former Navy Pilot, if awakened at 3 AM to address a national security calamity. But let’s go beyond the mere “experience factor.”
Choice on strategic direction
What counts at this stage, in addition to experience in matters of national security, is a sense of strategic direction into the future. Senator McCain often speaks of the man who will have to face incoming international crises. He is right on that point: conflicts are brewing and the next President will have to face them head on. Senator Biden has even alluded to crises being concocted to test Senator Obama (if elected). He may be right by accident. For I argue that what lies ahead of us is already happening and will happen: the forces aimed at confronting the United States and democracies around the world aren’t holding their breath to decide if they will resume their offensives or drop their agenda, depending on who will seize the White House in November. These forces have their plans for both McCain and Obama. They do not tailor their world view based on the lucky winner of US election, rather they tailor their plans, speed and maneuvers to defeat America based on the direction adopted by the winner of the Presidential contest in this country.
Therefore if the enemy wages future campaigns based on its perception of the next US President’s world vision and “generates crises” accordingly, then it is logical to compare the strategic agendas of both candidates regarding the confrontation to come. In other words, if the direction taken by the new President is new, and both candidates claim they will execute change, then it is a must to check these “new directions” and compare them with the potential threats.
Unfortunately the multiple debates between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees didn’t leave us with significant information about the global vision of both campaigns as to what the threat is and how to defeat it. Perhaps the scrambling by both camps to respond to the dramatic financial crumbling kept them away from drawing the map of the future regarding the global conflicts we’re engaged in. But that was a mistake in both camps, even though it was more politically profitable for the Obama ticket to concentrate on the economy, and it was a vital necessity for the McCain ticket to assuage the fears of everyday Americans, as polls showed the gap between the two camps.
Economy is a hostage to National Security
What both campaigns have failed to understand or were unwilling to admit is the broader context of the economic quick sands we’re in. Surely there are financial and managerial reasons behind the meltdown which we’re witnessing. But this failure is happening within the context of a wider economic war waged against the United States for strategic reasons.
Two arguments should have been part of the debate. They will come to haunt the future of this country nevertheless.
One: a systemic economic crisis –even if rooted in domestic mismanagement- cannot be resolved outside a healthier international environment. That is a reality which only future economists will confirm for us. Short of unleashing a full economic revolution leading to energy independence, America is doomed to swim in financial tensions and crises: the time of insulation from overseas pressures is over. We are seven –if not seventeen- years late for our vital fight of energy independence.
Two: We are being attacked by an “oil empire,” OPEC, which targets our ability to act internationally and eventually put us on our knees domestically. Not only our future economic renaissance is at risk but our present state of financial affairs is at a higher risk of further crumbling if we do not go on the offensive. Compare this with the state of the presidential debate: the answer is close to catastrophic. We’re not even discussing it nor are we informing the public about the dangers looming on the horizons. The current economic crisis is only a piece of the mega economic debacle being prepared for us. The response to the current drama is not even economic and none of the campaigns have even addressed the mega level for fears of electoral snags.
But if we compare the two candidates on strategic economic levels, we can conclude as follows: Obama offers to resolve the economic crisis separately from the mega economic confrontation worldwide while McCain only shyly hints at a wider scale beyond the corruption in Wall Street and the mismanagement in Washington DC. McCain wants to stop sending 700 billion dollars to “regimes who do not like us.” Obama wants us “not to borrow cash from China to send it to Saudi Arabia.” McCain – timidly - tells us there is a foe out there somewhere, while Obama doesn’t. Between the blur and the blindness, I chose the first.
Are we at war or not?
Naturally McCain calls what we’re doing since 9/11 a War on Terror. On Terror or on something else, that is another subject, but the former POW sees it as a “war,” with a goal to attain and against a “foe.” Obama rarely calls it a war, often putting the blame on the United States, and he is vague regarding the “enemy.” In an article during the primaries, where my favorite candidate wasn’t McCain, I wrote that a US President who doesn’t see the enemy cannot defeat it. In the national election, I state even more emphatically that a candidate who does not admit that there is a war waged against our democracy can hardly defend us.
I would understand if Senator Obama proposes to end the War on Terror as a whole. I would obviously disagree that he can, but I would see his rationale of a unilateral pull out of the conflict which, by the way, could explain his platform of “sitting down” with actual foes such as Ahmadinejad, Assad and others. The problem remains that his position regarding the “what is” is still unclear. Is it that he doesn’t believe that we were attacked in a global manner, or is it that he believes that we provoked such a Jihadi campaign? Well, between Obama’s non recognition of the conflict and McCain’s basic attitude that we are at war, regardless of how to win it and when, I’d chose the latter.
Defining the Threat
In the last seven years, my main thesis in the defense of our democracy and of civil societies around the world recommended a clear cut identification of the threat. For if the latter was unidentified, unclear or subject to camouflage, the entire strategy of resistance to the menace would be ineffective and would put the homeland and allies under tremendous risks. President George Bush tried to identify the threat doctrine of al Qaeda, its allies and of the Iranian regime. But as of 2006, he retreated from educating the public on the foe’s world vision. In this election campaign, we have two candidates with different visions on the threat. Senator McCain gives it a name: Radical Islamic Terrorism (he recently used the term “Jihadists” one time); and Senator Obama who doesn’t identify the ideology of the terrorists. Naturally I would prefer the candidate who defines it, even if that definition needs to be improved, in this case, McCain.
Iraq
Senator Obama voted against invading Iraq. That is a legitimate position. But one would need to know on what grounds? If the argument was that it was a strategic mistake to topple Saddam Hussein while we hadn’t found Osama Bin Laden, then the next challenge will be in Darfur. Will we allow the genocide against Africans to continue in Sudan if we still haven’t found the leader of al Qaeda in Pakistan? If Obama’s logic is about not engaging in any action as long as “Waldo” is on the run, US efforts in rescuing endangered populations is then doomed.
But if the Senator from Illinois was opposed to the removal of Iraq’s dictator because he prefers to leave the Shia and the Kurds to their horrendous destiny, then the matter is even more serious. Either way, I haven’t seen or read an Obama explanation that considers the 2003 campaign in Iraq as a weakening of the War on Terror: For had this been the case, then Obama may have a legitimate point. But his 2003 vote in the Senate, unless explained again, was an opposition to the War on Terror, not just to the War in Iraq.
If elected President, Obama will remove the troops from Iraq without disabling Iran’s and Syria’s abilities and ambitions to penetrate their neighbor. For if he intends to engage with Tehran and Damascus to cut deals over Iraq, how can the latter be equipped strategically to perform what coalition forces are now achieving? An abrupt letting down of Iraq will lead to a catastrophic domino effect in the region opening the path to Iran to reach the Mediterranean with all the unfathomable consequences on world peace.
Undoubtedly the Bush Administration wasn’t brilliant in managing the Iraq strategy. Surely there were other choices after Tora Bora in 2002 than Iraq. I’ll address them in future writings. But since President Bush’s team decided to do justice in Baghdad first, it could have done it faster, better and finished earlier. That is a valid critique of the Iraq war. Senator Obama’s criticism is diametrically different. He was opposed to remove Saddam or any other dictator, by force or by any other means. The reality is that for a candidate “for change” as it is claimed, his platform seems to be of status quo, to the advantage of the Jihadists, Baathists and other authoritarian regimes from Tehran to Caracas.
Senator McCain has criticized the management of the War in Iraq; and he was right. He wants victory to be the benchmark of withdrawal; he is also right. But I haven’t read yet what constitutes victory in Iraq. My sense is that many in Washington DC – traumatized by the Jihadi propaganda - aren’t sharing yet with the American public what’s lying ahead for us. This Presidential campaign is between a candidate, Senator Obama, who is not telling the people that he is against the whole war on terror; and the other candidate, Senator McCain who is not telling the voters how much more serious this war is with the Jihadists. In this case I would trust McCain simply because he has told us that we can’t quit, even though we need miles of explanations for what is next.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Senator Obama stated that he would transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to put pressures on al Qaeda. Taken as is, this statement is strategically sound. Moving forces from one battlefield to another is decided by strategists and is logical if the goal is to win in both places, i.e. in the war on terror.
But I am still unsure if Senator Obama’s grand plan is about winning the War on Terror since I haven’t seen his grand strategy about the confrontation with the Jihadists. Actually his opposition to the Iraq campaign, unlike Senator Clinton’s criticism, is based on opposition to the idea that we are in conflict with a worldwide web of radical forces. Until I read otherwise, my conclusion is that Obama’s long term strategy is to end the global war with the Jihadists and replace it with deals-cutting policies with radical regimes and organizations.
Hence in Afghanistan, his ultimate goal is to kill Bin Laden but to reintegrate the Taliban in Kabul. That would be the equivalent of eliminating Hitler but bringing back the Nazis to a post WWII Germany. His statements about attacking inside Pakistan if we have specific information about the location of Bin Laden are worrisome. He opposed sending troops to Iraq to save Shia and Kurds from Saddam, but he would order troops into a sovereign country, an ally and already at war with al Qaeda, to kill “Waldo.” This proposition makes so little sense that I read it through the prism of reverse psychology.
In fact, since Senator Obama wants to quit in Iraq, reconciliation with the Taliban in Afghanistan and a non-intervention in Darfur, he probably decided to claim “offensive” in the only place where it will not happen. A massive US attack in Pakistan to finish off al Qaeda, unless authorized by Islamabad, is contrary to all strategic logic and could enflame the sole Muslim nuclear power with the cataclysmic risks it entails. My sense is that the Senator chose to make this bravado in public precisely because he will never issue that order if he is elected. Instead he will direct his diplomats to “sit down” with the Taliban and try to cut a deal.
Senator McCain’s approach is more simple and pragmatic. He wouldn’t oppose sending troops from Iraq to Afghanistan if the military strategists would recommend so. He said a surge in Afghanistan may provide similar results as in Iraq: possible. I am not privy to his plans for “winning” in Afghanistan or his emergency plans for a dramatic development in Pakistan. But between an Obama policy that would lose Iraq, re-Talibanize Afghanistan and risk a nuclear flare in Pakistan, I’d still go with a more modest but realistic approach by McCain until better strategies are designed in the next four years.
Lebanon and Syria
Senator McCain committed to implement UNSCR 1559; that is, to disarm Hezbollah and support the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon. Senator Obama wants to “sit down” with Bashar Assad, Hezbollah’s ally. Obviously, I support McCain on this issue.
Israel and the Palestinians
Both Senators have committed to “the security of Israel.” In election times this statement is standard. Both Senators said they will support a two-state solution. At this stage of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, this is also a universally accepted deal. But Senator Obama’s approach to the Iran and Syrian regimes indicates that he will press Israel and the Palestinian Authority to “sit down” with Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well. The pattern of bringing in the “radicals” (at the expense of the democracy-seekers) seems to be a future foreign policy doctrine for Senator Obama. In the case of the Israel-Palestinian process, it will only weaken the moderates among the Palestinians and undermine the rise of peace-seeking forces, knowing that Hamas ultimately doesn’t want a Jewish state in the region and wants to obstruct the rise of a secular and democratic Palestinian state as well. Senator McCain, more cautious in this regard, supports the Camp David and Road Map processes, putting an Israel-Palestinian Authority agreement first. I would prefer this approach.
Darfur
Senator McCain would send US forces under UN sponsorship to help establish a protection zone for the African Muslim people of Darfur. Senator Obama’s approach of “cutting deals” with Tehran and Damascus cannot but follow the same logic to “cut a deal” with Khartoum’s regime. In genocide interventions, there are no deals to be cut other than saving people from dying and being ethnically cleansed. Hence, without hesitation, I would side with the McCain readiness to help “save Darfur” on the ground, a slogan used by Hollywood figures without advancing any practical solution to the genocide issue.
Alliances
Senator Obama’s spokespersons claimed their candidate will build wider alliances and reestablish a multilateral approach to international relations. This is an excellent principle which I have been promoting in my last three books but the question is “alliance about what?” If Obama sought outreach to build the widest coalition of Governments to defeat al Qaeda and its ilk, this has already been done. If the projected alliance is to reach more countries, including those who oppose our confrontation with the Jihadists - such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea - then we will be defeating our original purpose. If Obama wants to enhance relations with Russia and India against the terrorists, he will have to define Jihadism as a threat, which he hasn’t. He will have to agree with McCain and pre 2006 Bush that there are doctrines promoted by movements such as Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and Deobandism which are a common foe to this wide alliance he is seeking.
But that would contradict his opposition to the concept of a full confrontation with the Jihadi web. If by new allies he means France, Germany, the UK, Spain, and other European democracies, they are already in the fight with our common enemies. Even China is at war with the Jihadists. So who does Obama want to include in the projected new alliance? Unless the new coalition will be among those who want to end the War on terror. Senator McCain’s more modest approach doesn’t add much to the existing web of alliances. If elected he should break the taboos with other counter Jihadi countries and widen that type of alliance. He should do better than President Bush. I still prefer the modest advance of McCain over the foggy designs of Obama.
America’s image
Another slogan advanced by the Obama platform and inherited from the John Kerry Presidential agenda is the so-called “American image” worldwide and the necessity of reestablishing a “credible portrait.” Well, this myth has to be aggressively responded to because it only serves the Jihadist propaganda. Indeed, what do we mean when we say that America’s “image” has been muddied internationally? Is it because of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? And who are the people upset with the US image?
The Obama campaign and its intellectuals haven’t answered much on this simply because this so-called PR problem is in fact a component of a Jihadi offensive worldwide to deter the United States from provoking democratic change in the Middle East. Washington’s image is “ugly” by Salafi, Khomeinist and Baathist standards of course because American power (often used unintelligently) has caused the rise of freedom enclaves in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and beyond. That is why al Jazeera, al Aalam, al Manar and the Salafi web sites are exploding against “America’s image.” Surely the oil-producing regimes in the region and Hugo Chavez’s oligarchic elite dislike American support of reformers and democracy forces. When America promotes democracy (with tremendous mistakes) of course the anti-democratic web will muddy its image.
So what is the image the Obama policy would like to reestablish? The photo ops with Iran’s Mullahs, Damascus’ bloody dictator, Caracas’s populist leader, or Khartoum’s genocide perpetrator? Some Obama future Presidential advisors (if he wins) have been advocating a policy of humanitarian aid only. They argue that the US should act as a peace force only. Who are they kidding? Why wasn’t the US able to send humanitarian aid to the Kurds before the removal of Saddam Hussein, or establish a corridor in Darfur as long as Bashir is obstructing it, or help the North Koreans from starvation? The “academic circus” who pretend to understand the world better than your average citizen have shown us their brilliance in the 1990s. They were given eight precious years of a post-Soviet era and they failed miserably.
McCain’s plan for a better American image isn’t clear but US actions to give democracy a victory are the best long terms investments to get that image restored, because unfortunately, the systemic failure of the Bush Administration to use its own resources in the so-called war of ideas is a fact. A McCain White House will have to reform all resources authorized by the taxpayers to draw support around the world from hearts and minds. A McCain Administration will have a severe uphill battle to reach out to the natural allies around the world, and the Greater Middle East in particular: the peoples. Unfortunately, as we know from their advisors-to-be, an Obama Administration will cozy up with the oppressors worldwide as a way to “change” America’s image. It will only send humanitarian assistance – and cameras to cover the show - if and when the bad guys allow it. That is not a change in image that the masses around the world would want to see. My choice is between the uncertain success and the certain failure, I take the first.
Defeating Racism in America
One noble cause I would support without hesitation is to see a minority man or woman become the President of the United States. What a joy to see the son of an immigrant, a matter I can relate with directly, enter the White House. This is the country I decided to emigrate to almost twenty years ago. In the past quarter of a century, I saw the nation I joined wholeheartedly rapidly rejecting racism. An African-American General in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then Secretary of State, and then an African American woman becoming a national security advisor only to succeed her predecessor as a Secretary of State as well. A Middle Eastern American from Michigan becoming an Energy secretary, Hispanics and Asians across Congress and the executive powers including in the cabinet, and finally a half African American nominated for the Presidency of the United States, and very possibly a head of state in 2009.
That’s how racism has been defeated at the highest levels. But I resent the imposition of an ideological worldview on good hearted Americans under the aegis of the racism issue. For Senator Barack Obama to be nominated by a major Party is an ultimate defeat to racism. But his election to the Presidency is about his agenda not his (half) race. We would be all happy to see a minority becoming a President but not to use such an equation to give a pass to an international agenda which would hurt minorities and underdogs around the world.
To defeat racism and oppression of minorities worldwide the next President of the United States should be determined to save Africans from genocide, ethnic minorities from persecution in the Middle East and women from suppression across the Third World. That mission isn’t determined by skin color in Washington but by commitment to confront the oppressors of any type around the world.
Had the Obama agenda been unequivocally pro-freedom internationally, rejecting concession to totalitarianism, and very precise in identifying the threat doctrines of the terrorists, then he could have won my support with little questions asked.
The heart of the matter
Unlike many of my colleagues with whom I share counterterrorism views for the future, my choice for the next President was not shaped by the most visible components of the debate. It wasn’t “Joe the plumber,” “spreading the wealth,” the real estate crisis, the financial meltdown or the battle for taxes. These are crucial issues but I believe the economic problems we’re facing need more than one presidency and a mixture of solutions to address them and solve them. Pure Socialism or unleashed Capitalism aren’t going to fix the economy or satisfy the frustration of millions of Americans over the next decade.
Maybe the two party system isn’t able anymore to provide full answers in the 21st century. As a Political Scientist and a US citizen I think that the American system will correct itself gradually simply because there are no larger middle class societies around the world than the American one. The swing between liberal and conservative measures every decade or so are regulating factors until an appropriate system is found. But this normal swinging is now occurring during a world conflict and can be affected by outside forces aiming at the nation as a whole. It is Constantinople which is targeted, not its emperors. Those who are set on voting for Obama because they fear for their social security and healthcare and those who want McCain because they fear high government taxes are right to be concerned in their own way. I am concerned for a state of affairs where we may not have a national homeland, let alone either high taxes or a solvent social security program.
Homeland Security First
Yes, we need to live our lives the best we can; consequently, we need to make the best decisions about the next President and his agenda. But all that has to happen not in a void, but in the context of a secure homeland. Twice in this decade we saw the country vacillating. In September 2001, the coming down of the twin towers was an end of a peace era. Last September 2008, the coming down of our financial towers was an end of an era of economic security. Beware of a “September” that could bring down the towers of our national security.
The flames of the urban uprisings in France, of the train bombings in Madrid, of the subway blasts in London and the school massacre in Beslan are only writings on the wall. The OPEC aggression against the US economy, the formation of gas cartels by Iran, Qatar and Venezuela with the enticement to Russia to join; all that are just ominous signs of what is ahead. And in such a world environment, US homeland security seems to be where the final game will be played. As an analyst of terrorist strategies, I do believe that the most dangerous stages for our national security are yet to come and my concerns are very high as to how to address them. The penetration of our systems, including educational, legal, bureaucratic, technological, defense and security by the Jihadists is ongoing and is projected to expand. The world may have harsh crises but no crisis can equate the collapse of US Homeland Security. Al Qaeda has often stated that it wishes to commit genocide of four million Americans, including women and children. Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his regime have openly stated that a world without America is possible and better. These attitudes, if anything, indicate that the American national homeland is a target, a real target. If the enemy is successful one time in blasting our defense system to the core, the entire debate about the economy is over because there won’t be one to discuss.
There are large segments in our society which have been disabled from understanding that the nation is at risk. They were made to think that this war against us is a matter of foreign policy and a President who can just “talk” to some people out there will simply solve it and maintain the paychecks flowing. Many among us don’t understand that the world around us can simply crumble if we don’t have leadership that can strike a balance between defending the country and the free world and at the same time managing the economy successfully. But the bottom line is that these two are linked, deeply linked.
Senator McCain declared that the threat to the Homeland is a movement and an ideology, Jihadism. Senator Obama didn’t tell us if that is his view as well. Instead we saw shreds of political alliances between his campaign and groups affiliated with this particular ideology. I am not impressed with the “Weather Underground” network story as much as I am concerned about the access the political Jihadists will have to US National Security.
If that happens, Homeland Security will be at risk. Hence until I get answers to this fundamental question from Senator Obama’s campaign, I do have a national security concern. Until then I can project a spread of Jihadi sympathizer networks within the country and even throughout many layers of Government. Over four years, and possibly eight, such a growth would become malignant. Over less than a decade, Americans could find themselves in situations never experienced since the Civil War.
One ballot today – regardless of the sincerity and good intentions of candidates in November 2008 - can affect where and how future generations will have to fight for survival years from now. A strong counter argument was made to me about my concerns: among the national security advisors and experts to enter the executive branch with an Obama Presidency are people who see this threat with clarity, so why the concern? My answer as an analyst in Jihadi long term strategies is that, in the absence of a defense doctrine that identifies the threat, no one can guarantee that the enlightened counter terrorism experts potentially moving in as of January 2009 will be there the following year, in four or even eight years from now. This is the real bottom line.
If the Obama campaign had provided a strategic document on the Jihadi threat, my entire case wouldn’t have been necessary. I haven’t seen such a document or even a simple statement. Moreover, what convinced me that we’re dealing with a potential change toward the worse in US National Security are the writings and declarations of those who constitute the Senator’s academic and security elite. In fact, not only we may get four more years of the Clinton eight years – when the Terrorist doctrine was missed catastrophically - but we could get four years of unparalleled threat growth. I do hope I am wrong and I am still hoping I will get answers before Election Day.
Freedoms and Educating the public
Last but not least, and for the first time since the end of the Cold War, there seems to be a concern about a scrupulous respect for freedom of the press and of expression in some “ideological” quarters of a potential Obama Administration. Although I do believe that the Senator from Illinois has kept a strong record on the necessity of a balanced debate regarding the nation’s fundamental issues, and although Senator Biden has been a proponent of free speech, there are signs that radical groups could use Government positions to harass media that would be critical of an Obama Administration on national security grounds.
What’s more is the dangerous possibility that (short of a counter Jihadi doctrine) elements of Wahhabi and Khomeinist advocacy circles would take advantage of a “new direction” to strike at the counterterrorism community in the private sector, targeting the advances made for the last seven years in educating Americans about the threat. Such a development would be a red line for the nation’s defense. To be direct about it, already under the Bush Administration, the Wahhabi and Khomeinist lobbies have wreaked havoc throughout the bureaucracy, blocking major reforms needed to educate civil servants and citizens to learn about the threats looming over the country and its next generations. Under a McCain Administration there are no guarantees that the “Jihadophile lobby” will recede, but chances are much higher for new counterterrorism education to make a breakthrough than under an Obama Administration.
Under the latter, Muslim reformers in America won’t have an equal chance with the Jihadi pressure groups to have their message received by their communities. Middle East dissidents will have their stories marginalized in the public sector so that it won’t perturb the deals to “be cut with the regimes in the region.” All that is predictable and projectable, hence the options are really limited if not set in terms of choice.
The choice
On the one hand, Senator Obama has a character to be admired and has skills to make other politicians jealous. He would make America look very good. Had we not been in a confrontation with the Jihadist forces worldwide, I would have gladly voted for him. Strange as it may be for many of my colleagues, his alleged “socialism” doesn’t intimidate me, nor does his “radical liberalism.” America’s society will only absorb what it can digest.
On the other hand, Senator McCain is a national hero and a product of real American traditions. I would have liked for him to have been elected in 2000 so that he would have been the Commander in Chief on September 11 (with all respect due to President Bush). There are other men and women who are also qualified to lead this nation in these politically and economically trying times such as Senator Clinton, Governor Romney and others. But our political process has selected McCain and Obama and one of them has to become the President.
“Primo vivere” says the Roman adage. You’ve got to survive first and you’ve got to be free too. I have learned this the hard way. Hence in this 2008 Presidential election, I will vote on national security, that is national survival. All other issues are linked to our ability as a nation to make it through these very critical years. After having reviewed the two platforms from that perspective, and short of discovering what can change my analysis in the next few days, I wish Senator Obama good luck and I will vote for Senator McCain for the President of the United States.
Ultimately Americans will decide about their future and whatever it will be, we will continue to try to make it better for our children.
**Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Dr. Walid Phares is an academic, author and an analyst.

Nasrallah and Hariri meet for the first time in two years
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Hizbullah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Sunni leader Saad Hariri met for the first time in over two years, according to Hizbullah's al-Manar television station.
Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, left, meets with pro-Western parliament majority leader Saad Hariri, right, in Beirut, Lebanon, Monday.
Slideshow: Pictures of the week A statement issued by both parties after the Sunday night meeting stated that "there was an affirmation of national unity and civil peace and the need to take all measures to prevent tension ... and to reinforce dialogue and to avoid strife regardless of political differences."
The mutual statement described the meeting, part of which was aired on the Hizbullah TV station, as "honest and open, and added that the two men would be "in mutual contact." Up until Qatari mediation in recent months brought about an agreement between the Lebanese factions, the two men were rivals whose political conflict threatened civil war on the small country. Hariri met with five Hizbullah lawmakers as part of the reconciliation process to ease sectarian strife a month ago, which was seen as a prelude to Sunday's face-to-face meeting. The issue of Hizbullah's weapons is still to be officially discussed in the framework of a national dialogue to be held under the direction of Lebanese President Michel Suleiman.
Following government measures taken to curb the group, Hizbullah-led opposition fighters clashed with Sunni loyalists in May this year, and seized control over swaths of West Beirut, in the worst violence in the capital since Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war. The fighting led to the signing of the Doha Agreement the same month between rival factions, marking the end of an 18-month long political crisis in Lebanon. In early September, rival groups signed an agreement to end sectarian violence between Sunnis and Alawites - an offshoot Shi'ite sect - that killed and wounded scores in recent months in the northern city of Tripoli.
Brenda Gazzar and AP contributed to this report.
US raid is a warning to AssadSyria's relationship with the west may be improving, but yesterday's raid shows Washington still has its doubtsIan Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Monday October 27 2008 12.35 GMT Article history
Syrians mourn next the bodies of their relatives who were killed in the US strike on the village of Sukkiraya. Photograph: Ramzi Haidar/ AFP
Syria is making no effort to conceal its fury over Sunday's US raid across its border, targeting what was supposed to be a logistics base for foreign fighters crossing into Iraq. Perhaps what Damascus is calling an "outrageous crime" was a mini-version of the "October surprise" some had expected before the end of George Bush's presidency? In this case, it would be not so much an attempt to boost John McCain's flagging ratings but a final vengeful lunge against a country that others are now wooing but which still attracts profound hostility in Washington.
In the event, if the details being reported from Damascus are correct — that special forces landed by helicopter five miles from the Iraqi border, attacked a construction site and killed eight people, including four children rather than an al-Qaida cell — it was hardly a successful outcome from a US point of view.
Syria has always been hostile to the US-led invasion of Iraq and understandably nervous of the consequences of any spillover. The biggest effect has been that it has given shelter to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees. But in the first years after the war it also allowed Damascus airport and its long border with Iraq to be used by foreign jihadis heading to join the insurgency and fight the Americans and the Shia-led government in Baghdad.
Yet the irony of yesterday's raid is that in recent months Syria had tightened control of the border, even winning public recognition from the former US commander, General David Petraeus. Analysts say that one reason for this tightening of control was alarming evidence of "blowback" from al-Qaida-type groups mounting attacks in Syria and Lebanon.
Still, Syria has refused point-blank to renew intelligence cooperation with the Americans until they send an ambassador back to Damascus. US officials have made no secret of their frustration: so the unofficial message from Washington is that "if the Syrians won't deal with this problem we'll do it ourselves".
It is possible — though unlikely — that the decision to carry out yesterday's raid into sovereign territory was taken by a US military commander without seeking clearance from Washington. Assuming it was cleared at the political level, it may have been intended as a broader warning to Syria at a time when the US and Israel say openly that they are trying to persuade President Bashar al-Assad to detach himself from his alliance with Iran and coax him into meaningful peace talks with the Jewish state.
Indeed, the concept behind the raid appears to have borrowed from Israel, which last September bombed the alleged site of a nuclear reactor in northern Syria — even as it was contemplating pursuing peace talks with Damascus over the Golan Heights. This February's assassination of a key Hizbullah leader in the heart of Damascus was seen as another warning "message" to Assad.
The US attack also underlines the widening gap between the Bush administration and Europe over the Middle East, as expectations mount for change under an Obama presidency. It came as Syria prepared to take another step in from the cold today with its foreign minister visiting London to hear praise for its newly conciliatory policies in Lebanon — and to be urged to distance itself from Iran.
Walid al-Mualim is meeting David Miliband, the foreign secretary, for talks designed to encourage the country to play a more "constructive" role in the region. But the last-minute cancellation of a joint press conference suggests that Britain, at least, did not want to have to answer questions about the US raid.
In recent months Syria has helped broker an end to Lebanon's prolonged political crisis, established diplomatic relations with it and held several rounds of indirect talks with Israel, with Turkey acting as broker. In July Assad was invited by Nicolas Sarkozy to an EU summit in Paris.
But he has given no sign of agreeing to end Syria's long-standing relationship with Iran or to end its backing for Hizbullah and the Palestinian Islamists of Hamas: Assad may have to wait some time before being welcomed in Washington — by any president.

US helicopter attack on Syria kills eight
Syria | October 28, 2008
US MILITARY helicopters launched a rare attack yesterday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the Syrian Government condemned as "serious aggression". A US military official said the attack by special forces had targeted a network of al-Qa'ida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans had been unable to shut down the network in the area because Syria was out of the US military's reach.
"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official said. The cross-border raid came just days after the commander of US forces in western Iraq said US troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.
A Syrian government statement said the US helicopter gunships attacked Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, 8km inside the Syrian border. Four military helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction and fired on the workers inside, killing them. Four children were among the dead, the Syrians reported. A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh said some of the helicopters landed and the US troops left the aircraft and fired at a building. He said the helicopters flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. Another witness said four helicopters were used in the US attack.
Since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been some instances in which US troops crossed the 600km Syria-Iraq border in pursuit of militants, or US warplanes violated Syria's airspace. But yesterday's attack was the first conducted by aircraft and on such a large scale.
Syria's Foreign Ministry said it had summoned the US and Iraqi charges d'affaires to protest over the strike. "Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this attack and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi Government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch an immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria," a government statement said in Damascus.
Syrian state television broadcast footage showing blood on the floor of the construction site. The area attacked is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to support the Sunni insurgency.
The network of foreign fighters sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qa'ida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, a US military official said. While US forces have had considerable success in shutting down the "rat lines" in Iraq, the Syrian area has been out of reach, the official said. US major general John Kelly said last week that Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries, but Syria was a "different story".
He said the US was helping construct a sand barrier and ditches along the border. The White House in August approved similar raids by US special forces from Afghanistan crossing the border into Pakistan to attack al-Qa'ida and Taliban fighters there. Most of the foreign fighters in Iraq enter through Syria, according to US intelligence. Foreign fighters carrying cash have been al-Qa'ida in Iraq's chief source of income, contributing more than 70 per cent of the operating budgets in one sector in Iraq, according to documents captured on the Syrian border last year. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem accused the US earlier this year of not giving his country the equipment needed to prevent foreign fighters from crossing into Iraq. He said Washington feared Syria could use such equipment against Israel. Although Syria has long been viewed by the White House as a destabilising country in the Middle East, in recent months Damascus has been trying to change its image and end years of Western seclusion. President Bashar Assad has pursued indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey, and says he wants direct talks next year. Syria has also agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, a country it used to dominate, and has worked harder at stemming the flow of militants into Iraq. AP

Spokesman: Iran condemns U.S. raid into Syria
www.chinaview.cn 2008-10-27 22:36:07 Print
TEHRAN, Oct. 27 (Xinhua) -- Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, condemned Monday the U.S. raid into Syria, the official IRNA news agency reported. Addressing the correspondents in the weekly press conference, Qashqavi called the U.S. raid unacceptable. "Iran condemns strongly any form of violation of the territorial integrity of any sovereign state which leads to the death of innocent civilians," the report quoted the official as saying. Syria is the only Arab state which has allied with Iran over the region's major issues since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. On Sunday, U.S. forces ferried by helicopter crossed five miles into Syria from Iraq and launched a commando raid that left at least eight people dead.
The raid was directed at a network that used to send fighters from North Africa and the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and other fighters, the U.S. officials claimed.

Russia's Foreign Ministry has harshly criticized a U.S. military raid in Syrian
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's Foreign Ministry has harshly criticized a U.S. military raid in Syrian territory, warning it will escalate tensions in the region.
Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko says Moscow is seriously concerned by what Syria's government says was an attack by four U.S. military helicopters on Sunday near the Iraqi-Syrian border.U.S. officials say the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaeda-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq.Nesterenko said in a statement Monday that the war against terror must not be used as a cover for attacking sovereign nations. He says that such actions would undermine stability in the region.Russia has had close ties with Syria since the Soviet times.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Lebanon's Enemy Within
Michael J. Totten
WEB ONLY
Israel is floating the idea of a non-aggression pact with Lebanon. It isn't at all likely to work. The odds are minuscule that Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah will go along. But Lebanon will hold an election in a couple of months, and the offer of a non-aggression pact should play well with Lebanese voters who are uncomfortable with or hostile toward Hezbollah's vision of perpetual war with the “Zionist entity.”
Negotiating with implacable and inflexible enemies is foolish. No sensible person suggests that the United States negotiate with Al Qaeda, for instance. Peace talks with Damascus won't get Israelis anywhere either. Syria's tyrant Bashar Assad needs a state of cold war with Israel to justify the oppressive policies against his country's own citizens, and bad-faith negotiations yield him some measure of international legitimacy he doesn't deserve.
Hezbollah is “moderate” compared with the worst jihadist groups out there, but it simply cannot survive in its current form if it isn't engaged in at least a low level of conflict. Almost every militia in Lebanon relinquished most, if not all, of its weapons at the end of the civil war in 1990. Hezbollah's rationale for refusing is that its fighters are the only ones in the country willing and able to prevent another Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Without the perceived threat of another Israeli invasion, the justification for Hezbollah's very existence collapses.
Israelis would therefore be naïve in the extreme if they tried to establish a pact with Hezbollah itself, or a pact with Beirut that required Hezbollah's cooperation. Hezbollah doesn't stick to agreements and is less trustworthy than even Yasser Arafat turned out to be, when the Oslo peace process fell apart with the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000. Hezbollah doesn’t even pretend to want peace and will almost certainly gin up another shooting war on the border. “See?” Hezbollah will say to fellow Lebanese after violently provoking the Israelis to cross the border again. “We told you. You need us.”
The successful negotiation of a genuine non-aggression pact that every party in Lebanon would adhere to is not going to happen any time soon. Just listen to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Seniora: “Lebanon will be the last Arab country to sign a peace agreement with Israel.” He may be right, but not for the reason some people might think.Eli Khoury, Lebanese political consultant and founder of the excellent online magazine NOW Lebanon, explained it to me this way last year: “The last Arab country,” he said. “This is the statement of those who want to make peace but know that they can’t. They don’t want to get ganged up on by the Arabs. We are the least anti-Israel Arab country in the world.”
Lebanon probably really is the least anti-Israel Arab country in the world. It is certainly the most liberal, democratic, and cosmopolitan of the Arabic countries – at least the non-Hezbollah parts of Lebanon are. It is by far the most demographically diverse; roughly a third of its people are Christians, another third are Sunnis, and most of the rest are Shias. Iraq is the only Arab-majority country that can compete with Lebanon when it comes to ideological breadth. There are more opinions there than people, and more political movements and parties than even most Lebanese themselves can keep track of.
If you look at Lebanon's population outside the Hezbollah bloc – the majority of Christians, Sunnis, and Druze – you will mostly find people who are nowhere near hostile enough to Israel to be a serious threat. The Israel Defense Forces and the Lebanese Armed Forces have had an unofficial non-aggression pact in place for decades. The Lebanese government does not and will not pick fights with Israel. Most Lebanese have negative opinions of Israel, but that doesn’t mean they’re interested in going to war. As a whole, they are much more hostile than, say, Europeans, but they're a lot less hostile as a whole than Palestinians.
Most were furious at Hezbollah for starting the last war in July, 2006, and they didn't get around to (grudgingly and temporarily) supporting Hezbollah until they felt Israel over-reacted by bombing Lebanese targets outside Hezbollah's strongholds. Some even supported Israel's initial counterattack--at least before the air force bombed Beirut's international airport. A huge number of Lebanese Christians were Israel's allies during the civil war, and even a large number of Shias from South Lebanon volunteered to fight Hezbollah and joined the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army until the year 2000. Last time I visited Lebanon with my colleague Noah Pollak, I found, for the first time, billboards and signs with messages like “Wage Peace” and “No War” throughout the country in regions Hezbollah doesn’t control. As soon as the 2006 war ended, the Lebanese government pushed back hard against Hezbollah and refused to back down until Hezbollah mounted an armed offensive against the capital in May 2008.
Israel is hardly well-liked in Lebanon, but neither is Hezbollah, and neither is Syria. Even though a non-aggression pact is likely to go nowhere right now, suggesting one to Lebanese may help clarify something: most Lebanese don't actually know that Israelis prefer peace to war. They should, but they don't. They've been soaked with so much disinformation and propaganda for so long, and there's still a great deal of anger left over from Israel's invasions in 1982 and 2006. Most of Hezbollah's less fanatical supporters are drawn from the ranks of those who sincerely believe Israel is a threat to them and that Hezbollah is their only defense. This is nonsense on stilts – Israel wouldn't have invaded Lebanon at all in 2006 if Hezbollah had not first attacked. But this perception persists nevertheless.
Israelis are surrounded by enemies. Lebanese, likewise, feel surrounded by enemies, but unlike Israelis, they don't have an army strong enough to protect them. Some aren't sure which country threatens them more: Israel or Syria. Syria is surely the greater threat; Israelis are only a “threat” insofar they are sometimes attacked from inside Lebanon and feel the need to respond. Syria isn't even remotely threatened by Lebanon, yet its government really does want to conquer the country again, or at least rule it from a distance through proxies.
This should be obvious to most Lebanese, but I know from conversations with people across the political spectrum that it isn't. Many don't know whether they should support the Hezbollah-led “March 8” bloc in next year's election, or whether they should support the “March 14” bloc led by those who kicked out the Syrians in 2005. The Syrian regime is currently pretending to be more benign that it really is by offering, for the first time ever, to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon. Israelis are smart to signal, at the same time, that they sincerely do not mean Lebanese harm. No one in the Lebanese government or media will explain that to them. The “March 14” bloc is already sensitive to the near-constant accusation that it's a “Zionist hand.” Israelis need to get that message out by themselves.
Public opinion on the idea of a peace treaty with Israel is mixed. Some want a peace treaty now. Some even want an alliance with Israel, although they tend to keep quiet about that and are far more likely to share that opinion off-the-record with me than they are with their fellow Lebanese. Others don't want a peace treaty until outstanding issues--the supposed occupation of the Shebaa Farms, and the hundreds of thousands of unwanted and dangerous Palestinian refugees--are resolved. Even some otherwise sensible Lebanese I know wallow in conspiracy theories and believe Israelis want to conquer South Lebanon and steal water from the Litani River. Hezbollah's hard-core supporters don't ever want a peace treaty with Israel. But a non-aggression pact? An agreement that we’ll leave you alone if you leave us alone? Put that on a ballot in a popular referendum and it would pass overwhelmingly.
Of course, the Lebanese government wouldn't be strong enough to enforce it. Lebanon is tiny, weak, and under the gun from Syria, Iran, and their joint Hezbollah proxy. Too many Lebanese willingly submit to Syrian and Iranian vassalage, and they have by far the most well-armed private army in the country. Not even a non-aggression pact, let alone a peace treaty, is workable now.
Someday, though, all this will change. Sooner or later, Israelis will need to convince the people of Lebanon that they aren't a threat, that they don't want to invade, that they'd really rather open the border and have normal relations. Lebanon isn’t Gaza. Most of its citizens really do want peace and quiet. Someday that will be possible, and they need to know that Israel won’t be the obstacle.
There is a case to be made that Lebanese public opinion is irrelevant, since Hezbollah is strong enough to override the will of the state and the will of the majority anyway. Hezbollah, though, will not always be as strong as it is, and everything that weakens it – especially before an election – will help. Most Lebanese just want Israel and Syria to leave them alone. Damascus has no intention of leaving Beirut alone, but the overwhelming majority of Israelis have no interest whatsoever in more war with Lebanon. Lebanese need to know who their real enemy is before they go to the polls early next year and decide which kind of “resistance” makes the most sense.
British talks with Syria in disarray after US military raidCatherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent, and Deborah Haynes
Britain and Syria cancelled a planned joint press conference of their foreign ministers in London today as the fall-out continued over an American military raid into Syrian territory that left eight civilians dead.
The attack threatens to overshadow what was a long-planned visit to London by Walid Muallem, the Syrian Foreign Minister, aimed at repairing the two countries’ rocky relationship under the leadership of Tony Blair.
Damascus has been incensed by the attack, which Washington has yet to comment on. David Miliband had hoped to capitalise on Syria’s desire for stronger ties with the West to persuade it towards a more active role in the search for Middle Eastern peace. But talks today will inevitably be dominated by Syrian protest over the American military action.
A statement from the Foreign Office said that British and Syrian officials “have agreed that it would not be appropriate to hold a formal press conference as planned.” The Syrian Embassy, however, confirmed that Mr Muallem would go ahead with a solo briefing at which he was expected to denounce the incursion.