LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِAugust 08/2010

Bible Of the Day
Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Today's Inspiring Thought: In the Image of God"
We humans are as diverse and different as our marvelous Creator's mind is capable of creating, yet we all share the astounding quality of being made in his image. This thought is amazing and so true because people are people who ever they are and where they are no matter how they look skin colour or size wise.. Although as people we look distinct and dissimilar yet in our worship of God, we experience unity and a common bond of love, peace, and fellowship. We were reflecting the image of our Creator. We are truly God's children and have a holy obligation to act accordingly

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
The Enemy of My Enemy/By ELLIOTT ABRAMS/August 07/10
Lines blur between Hezbollah, Lebanese army/By Victor Kotsev/August 07/10
An Opportunity for Syrian-Israeli Peace/By: Alon Ben-Meir/August 07/10
Middle East needs concrete solutions for peace, stability/Xinhua/August 07/10
What To Do About Hizbullah?/By M.J. Rosenberg/August 07/10
United the government will stand/By: Matt Nash and Nadine Elali/August 07/10
The truth about Lebanon/Giora Eiland/August 07/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August 07/10
Foreign Doctors Executed in Afghanistan, Taliban Claim Killing//Naharnet
Suleiman: Cabinet Plan to Arm Military "With All that is Necessary/Naharnet
Report: Suleiman Continues Consultations in Coming Days, Visits Diman Soon/Naharnet
Sayyed Hussein: Suleiman's Visit to South to Stress Importance of Confronting Israeli Aggression/Naharnet
Lebanon to Confront Israel at Security Council/Naharnet
Report: 3 High-Ranking State Employees Arrested on Suspicion of Spying for Israel/Naharnet
Who's Next? Lebanon in Shock after Karam's Arrest/Naharnet
IAF used Karam info to target Hezbollah leaders during July War/Now Lebanon/Naharnet
Asarta to Sleiman: UNIFIL continues to coordinate closely with LAF/Now Lebanon/Naharnet
Shami in Tehran for Talks with Mottaki on Bilateral Ties, Israeli Threats to Lebanon/Naharnet
Lebanese president visits site of border skirmish/Ynetnews
Security and Defense: Border battles/Jerusalem Post
Lebanon: Trapped in the Horror of War/Time
France names envoy to relaunch Syria-Israel talks/Reuters
Israel rattles saber in south Lebanon/Daily Star
Israel Demands Dismissal or Trial of Lebanese Officer who Opened Fire … or Else!/Naharnet
Sison Expresses US Support for Lebanon Sovereignty, Security: Regional Tensions Threaten Lebanon's Stability/Naharnet
Qaouq after Meeting Khamenei's Adviser: Iran is a Real Supporter of Lebanon and the Resistance/Naharnet
Bellemare Uncovers: Indictment Not Based on Conclusive Evidence/Naharnet
Khreis: The U.S. Threat to Halt Aid to the Army is Not Surprising Because it Always Supports Isr/Naharnet
MP Ali Osseiran: Congress is Shooting Itself in the Foot by Demanding a Halt to U.S. Aid to Lebanese Army/Naharnet
Chamoun's Party Advises Nasrallah ahead of TV Appearance to Take 'Path of Justice'/Naharnet
Karam's Family Urges Media Not to Spread Rumors Amid Report that 'Human Error' Led to his Arrest/Naharnet
Gaza aid flotilla to set sail from Lebanon with all-women crew/The Guardian
State sponsors of terror: Iran, Sudan, Cuba, Syria/World Tribune

Foreign Doctors Executed in Afghanistan, Taliban Claim Killing
Naharnet/The Taliban said Saturday they had killed "Christian missionaries" working in remote northern Afghanistan where the bullet-riddled bodies of two American and six German doctors were found. The police chief in northern Badakhshan province said the group of foreign eye doctors had been lined up and shot in dense forest, according to the testimony of a sole Afghan survivor. The Taliban later claimed responsibility. "Yesterday at around 8am, one of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners. They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all," said Zabihullah Mujahed, a spokesman for the Taliban. Christian aid group "International Assistance Mission" said it was "likely" the dead had been working for their organization.
"It is likely that they are members of the International Assistance Mission (IAM) eye camp team," said the organization in a statement on their website. "If these reports are confirmed we object to this senseless killing of people who have done nothing but serve the poor," it said. Mujahed said the group consisted of five men and four women foreigners, and one Afghan national, but provincial police chief Aqa Noor Kintoz said there were only three female foreigners and three Afghans among them. The Taliban spokesman said the group had been lost in the forest and were killed as they tried to escape. "They were carrying Persian language bibles, a satellite-tracking device and maps," he said. Kintoz said they were shot by armed men in a remote area of Badakhshan province, according to the testimony of "Saifullah", an Afghan who survived. The group of eight ophthalmologists had been traveling with three Afghans between Badakhshan and Nuristan provinces and spent a few nights in the forest, he reported Saifullah as saying. "On the last day they were confronted by a group of armed men who lined them up and shot them. Their money and belongings were all stolen," said Kintoz. He said that according to Saifullah's testimony he had escaped death by reading verses of the Quran, prompting the men to realize he was a Muslim and release him in neighboring Nuristan province. The police chief said local villagers had warned the group not to enter the dangerous forested area, but they had insisted they would be safe because they were doctors, according to Saifullah's statement. He said the bodies had been found in Kuran wa Minjan district, an area on the border with Nuristan province, one day's drive from the provincial capital Faizabad.(AFP) Beirut, 07 Aug 10,

Lebanese president visits site of border skirmish
Michel Suleiman arrives on Lebanon-border site of military incident which claimed lives of one Israeli soldier, three Lebanese servicemen; lauds army's actions as 'heroism'
Ynet Published: 08.07.10, 11:15 / Israel News
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman arrived at the site of Tuesday's border skirmish between Israel and Lebanon Saturday.
The incident claimed the lives of IDF Lieutenant Colonel Dov Harari and three Lebanese soldiers.
Suleiman was accompanied by Lebanese Armed Forces Commander General Jean Kahwagi and other high ranking officers. The two are scheduled to meet with UNIFIL's southern Lebanon commander later in the day. Suleiman reportedly lauded the actions of his military and the "heroism demonstrated by our soldiers."
Earlier Saturday, a senior Lebanese minister was quoted by Beirut-based Annahar newspaper, as saying that Suleiman's visit was meant to "stress Lebanon's protest over Israel's attacks on its sovereignty and its repetitive violations of UN Resolution 1701." Israel, he said, has no right to attack Lebanon. "We were the injured party and we have the right to defend our sovereignty by any means necessary," he said. He further commended the Lebanese army for retaliating as they did, saying the Israeli attack aimed to "foil the Arab initiative to stabilize the situation in Lebanon via a Lebanese-Syrian-Saudi summit."

The truth about Lebanon
Op-ed: Israel must warn that Lebanon provocations would lead to different kind of war
Giora Eiland Published: 08.05.10, 11:19 / Israel Opinion
The grave incident on the northern border Tuesday reflects Lebanon’s reality – a reality that many observers in Washington and Paris preferred not to see. It’s important that we know what Lebanon’s global image is, compared to this reality.
Border Skirmish
A Lebanese question mark / Roee Nahmias
Op-ed: Can Lebanon army be trusted in wake of Tuesday’s deadly skirmish on northern border?
The global image is as follows: There are two camps in Lebanon. The “good guys” camp includes the Christians, Sunnis, and Druze. This camp espouses peace, wants to boost Lebanese democracy, and wishes to move closer to the West. On the other end there’s the “bad guys” camp, which is based on Hezbollah and is supported by the “axis of evil” – Syria and Iran. These two camps are seemingly engaged in a struggle for hegemony in Lebanon.
Had the above description portrayed reality accurately, America’s and France’s conclusion would have been correct – the Lebanese state must be assisted politically, economically, and militarily in order to boost the “good guys” camp.
Regrettably, the reality in Lebanon is very different. The actual circumstances are as follows: There are indeed two camps in the country, yet they maintain an unwritten agreement that allows each party to utilize its relative advantage for a common goal.
And so, the “good guys” camp presents Lebanon’s beautiful face: It highlights the existence of democratic institutions, Francophone culture, tourism, and so on. At the same time, the other camp (Hezbollah) continues to maintain the (formal) authority to impose a veto on any political decision; this camp also continues to serve as the dominant military power in the country and the only one that determines where peace or war would prevail on the Israeli border.
This division of duties is very convenient for both camps and enables Lebanon to get the best of both worlds.
In the Second Lebanon War, Israel erred when it adapted its actions to a pattern that was convenient for the Lebanese: We only fought against Hezbollah. The result was, among other things, that while Haifa residents stayed in bomb shelters for weeks, Beirut residents went to the beach.
Diplomatic effort needed
The Israeli government would do well to use the latest incident in order to explain Lebanon’s realities to our global allies. Moreover, Israel must warn that should the northern provocations continue, they may lead to a third Lebanon war.
Such war would be different than the Second Lebanon War in one main aspect: It will be a war between Israel and Lebanon. The result would necessarily be great devastation in Lebanon, the destruction of its national infrastructures, and a grave blow to its military and institutions.
The next war being different than the previous one would not stem from a different diplomatic logic, but first and foremost from a military need. Should Israel limit its war to Hezbollah alone, the results would not be better than what we saw in the Second Lebanon War. We indeed improved greatly since that war, but so did Hezbollah.
We may be able to hit Hezbollah more successfully, yet it too would be able to hit Israel’s home front more effectively. The bottom line would not be encouraging. On the other hand, an inter-state confrontation would grant most advantages to Israel.
As nobody is interested in seeing Lebanon devastated – nor the Lebanese people neither Hezbollah, the West and Syria – the way to prevent the next war, or to win it should it break out, would be to use diplomatic action in order to prompt the US and France to convey the following message to Lebanon:
If you have demands of Israel (border changes, and end to overflights, etc.) we would help you on condition that you prove that you control the country and prevent provocations. If you fail to do that, and if you’re interesting in being controlled by Hezbollah and Syria, we will not help you if and when another war breaks out. Should Lebanon choose to be a satellite state of the “axis of evil” we would have no reason to prevent Israel from hurting you badly.

Lebanon to Confront Israel at Security Council
Naharnet/Lebanon does not reject a plan to hold a new Security Council session in the next few days to discuss the deadly clashes between Lebanese and Israeli soldiers earlier in the week, An Nahar daily said Saturday. It said Lebanon was not against such a session "because it has a lot to inform the (Council) president and the members about the (Israeli) provocation that led to the bloody" skirmishes. Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin, who chairs the Council this month, said a meeting over the clashes will be held "within days."
Lebanon will tell Council members about the circumstances of the Israeli patrol's insistence to cut down the trees rather than wait for UNIFIL to solve the dispute over the issue, An Nahar said. Israel's action led to the bloody confrontation between the two sides. The Lebanese ambassador to the U.N. will also complain about the recent threats by Israeli army officials against Lebanon, An Nahar said. Beirut, 07 Aug 10, 08:33

Suleiman: Cabinet Plan to Arm Military "With All that is Necessary
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman said Saturday that the cabinet will put a plan during its next session to arm the Lebanese military "with all that is necessary." "We have launched a counter-campaign to arm the military," Suleiman said in the southern town of Adeisseh about reported Israeli attempts to stop U.S. military assistance to Lebanon. The cabinet plan will be put "despite the (negative) stances of several countries on this issue," the president said. Arming the military is aimed at "protecting the dignity of the nation," he added. Suleiman inspected the army base that was attacked by Israeli troops in Adeisseh on Tuesday and met with soldiers there. He was accompanied by Defense Minister Elias Murr. On Friday, Head of the Army Administration Department Maj. Gen. Abdel Rahman Shehaitli informed Suleiman about the tripartite talks held in Naqoura two days earlier. Shehaitli reportedly told Suleiman that Lebanon asked UNIFIL to set rules on how to act at the U.N.-drawn Blue Line, particularly in areas where the country has reservations over. Beirut, 07 Aug 10,

Sayyed Hussein: Suleiman's Visit to South to Stress Importance of Confronting Israeli Aggression
Naharnet/State Minister Adnan Sayyed Hussein said President Michel Suleiman's visit to the south is aimed at stressing Lebanon's rejection of Israeli attacks on Lebanese sovereignty and repeated violations of Security Council resolution 1701. The minister told An Nahar daily in remarks published Saturday that Israel doesn't have the right to attack Lebanon despite a complaint it filed against the country at the Security Council. "We are the country that came under aggression and we have the right to defend our sovereignty with all possible means," he told An Nahar. He hailed the Lebanese army for confronting the Israeli aggression on Tuesday. Lebanese authorities "should fortify the interior and stress the role of the national dialogue in consolidating stability." Sayyed Hussein said that the Israeli attack was aimed at thwarting an Arab initiative that called for stability in Lebanon through the Lebanese-Syrian-Saudi summit and the visit of Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Beirut, 07 Aug 10,

Report: Suleiman Continues Consultations in Coming Days, Visits Diman Soon
Naharne/President Michel Suleiman will resume his meetings with Lebanese politicians and party leaders ahead of the national dialogue session scheduled to be held on August 19, al-Liwaa daily reported Saturday. It said that during the all-party talks, Suleiman is expected to launch an initiative based on the results of his meetings with the Lebanese politicians. The initiative would also stress the communiqué of the Lebanese-Saudi-Syrian summit held in Beirut which called for calm and dialogue and rejected violence, al-Liwaa said. Sources did not rule out a possible visit by Suleiman to the summer seat of Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir in Diman before the feast of the St. Mary the Virgin on August 15. Beirut, 07 Aug 10,

Report: 3 High-Ranking State Employees Arrested on Suspicion of Spying for Israel
Naharnet/Three "high-ranking non-civilian employees" have been reportedly arrested on suspicion of spying for Israel. El-Shark newspaper said that the three men were seized on Friday night. The daily's report came after similar information broadcast on OTV. However, the TV station did not provide further details about the detainees. Meanwhile, MP Marwan Hamadeh denied rumors about accusations that he was also spying for the Israeli Mossad.

Who's Next? Lebanon in Shock after Karam's Arrest
Naharnet/This week's arrest of a well-respected retired general and a Free Patriotic Movement official on suspicion of spying for Israel has sent shock waves through Lebanon and left many wondering how deep the Jewish state has infiltrated the country. Fayez Karam is the first political figure to be arrested in Lebanon as part of a wide-ranging probe launched in 2009 into Israeli spy networks. A well-informed source close to the investigation told Agence France Presse that after his detention last Monday on the orders of the prosecutor general, Karam confessed to spying for Israel. "You don't arrest someone like him without rock-solid proof and there was enough evidence against him," the source said. "He may not have given the Israelis much technical information, but his arrest has a huge political impact because of his position and rank," he added. He said Karam, 62, who stood in parliamentary elections last year, allegedly used cell phones with roaming numbers from European countries to contact his Israeli handlers.
He reportedly met them in Paris, where he traveled regularly, and was nabbed because of an unspecified mistake.
Ironically, in the 1980s Karam headed the Lebanese army's anti-terrorism and counter-espionage unit where he worked closely with FPM leader Michel Aoun, who was army chief at the time and who also served as interim prime minister.
Aoun returned to Lebanon in 2005, one month after Syria withdrew its troops following a 29-year presence.
Karam, who through the years has remained close to Aoun, was himself arrested by Syrian troops in 1990 and spent five months at the notorious Syrian jail of Mazzeh.
He went to Israel after his release through southern Lebanon, which was then occupied by Israel, and then headed to France where he set up a dry-cleaning business.
"He may have begun to spy for Israel in reaction to the harsh treatment he suffered during his detention at the Mazzeh prison," the source said.
Karam's arrest, which has been the talk of the capital Beirut, has shocked political circles in Lebanon, which along with Syria is still technically at war with Israel.
"We are stunned," said Simon Abi Ramia, a deputy with the FPM. "We just cannot believe it."
Another retired general who knows Karam well and who considered him to be a friend said the entire military community was incredulous.
"We're all in shock because he is really the last person you would expect to be implicated in this," the ex-general told AFP.
"He is extremely polite, honest and very disciplined," he added. "That's all we have been talking about this week at the officers' club."
Local media reports questioned whether Karam had provided Israel with information about Hizbullah since he was very close to Aoun. "Did Fayez Karam have details on the timing of the meetings that took place between Aoun and (Hizbullah chief Sayyed) Hassan Nasrallah?" asked al-Akhbar daily. Hizbullah members refused to comment on the case.
Some 100 people have been arrested in the spy probe, among them members of the security forces and telecommunications employees. Karam's arrest has many people now wondering who will be next. "When you catch a big fish like him you always have others that follow," the source close to the investigation said.(AFP)

Soaid: Tribunal Findings Shouldn't be Anticipated Even if Israel Involved in Hariri Murder
Naharnet/March 14 secretariat-general coordinator Fares Soaid said Saturday even if Israel had a hand in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's murder, no one should accuse any side of involvement in the killing before the international tribunal issues its rulings. Soaid told Voice of Lebanon radio that Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is asking Saudi King Abdullah and Premier Saad Hariri to engage in a battle to topple the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. He said Nasrallah believes that if Abdullah and Hariri failed to neglect the rulings of the court, they would be responsible for a Sunni-Shiite strife in Lebanon. The Hizbullah chief has ultimately given them the option of civil peace or justice, Soaid said.
He told VDL that President Michel Suleiman's visit to the south on Saturday was aimed at sending a message to the international community that the Lebanese state is keen on implementing Security Council resolutions. Beirut, 07 Aug 10,

Velayati: Accusations of Hezbollah are fabrications
August 6, 2010 /Ya Libnan
Ali Akbar Velayati, top adviser of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said during his visit to the Khiam prison museum on Friday that the rumors over indictments of Hezbollah by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) are not be “based on any sound evidence.” Velayati stated that accusations of Hezbollah were being fabricated to politically pressure the party and sow division within Lebanon. Velayati , who was accompanied by Hezbollah’s top official for south Lebanon, Nabil Qaouk added: “Lebanon will not permit its enemies to achieve their Satanic goals.” He praised Hezbollah group which he said is “proudly sponsored and supported by the government and people of Iran.”His comment came following reports of Hezbollah leader’s insistence that Prime Minister Saad Hariri should declare Hezbollah innocent in the murder of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The special tribunal for Lebanon (STL) which is an independent court was formed by the United Nations security council to try the killers of the former Lebanese PM. No one really knows what the contents of the STL indictments will be like , but the leader of the Iranian backed Hezbollah , Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah admitted in his speech on Thursday July 22 that some of his party members would be named in the tribunal’s formal charges but stressed that he will reject the indictments. Nasrallah also said last Tuesday that he will reveal proof and evidence in an August 9 press conference proving that Israel was behind the assassination.

United the government will stand
Matt Nash and Nadine Elali, August 7, 2010
The importance placed on Lebanon’s national-unity government following last week’s mini Arab summit in Baabda significantly raised the price tag on proposed changes to the cabinet, perhaps derailing the idea all together, analysts told NOW Lebanon.
In a statement released after the meeting of Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, the leaders called for "resorting to legal institutions and Lebanon's unity government to resolve any differences,” a clear indication that Hezbollah, and anyone who joined it, would provoke a fight, particularly with Syria, should they tamper with the cabinet.
In the lead-up to the meeting, As-Safir published a piece suggesting Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun floated the idea of shaking up the national-unity government that took months for politicians to cobble together following last summer’s parliamentary elections.
While Aoun later apparently denied this, the idea prompted a lot of talk.
Predictably, his arch-foe Samir Geagea rejected the idea out of hand, but even Aoun’s powerful associates sounded skeptical. Nabih Berri, arguably Aoun’s most adversarial ally, told An-Nahar that while he had fears concerning the structure of the government, he was not himself calling for any changes.
A day after Berri’s quote was published, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah – during the now-famous speech where he said members of his party will be indicted in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri – dodged a question on whether or not he supports a cabinet change.
“Hezbollah will not address the issue of cabinet change before the STL issues its indictment. After the indictment [is issued], we will see what happens,” he said.
The proposal, said Nassir al-Assad, a columnist with Al-Mustaqbal newspaper, was aimed at giving Hezbollah an option to blunt internal strife that an indictment against Hezbollah might create.
“It seems they [put the cabinet change option] on the table as a means of escalation and creating a new government that will deal differently with the STL, a government that would reject the STL’s demands,” Kassim Kassir, an analyst who has written for NOW Lebanon’s Arabic site, said.
However, Kassir, Assad and Nabil Bou Monsef, a columnist with An-Nahar, told NOW Lebanon that after the Baabda summit, cabinet re-shuffles are essentially a red line.
With two of the three regional leaders most influential in Lebanon throwing their weight behind the cabinet as it stands, the option of changing it becomes more difficult to implement. Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his allies, as noted apparently against the idea from the outset, will certainly not buck their patron Abdullah on this, and it would be awkward to say the least for Hezbollah’s allies to defy Syrian President Assad.
Since rising to power in the Amal Movement in 1980, Speaker Berri has been one of Damascus’ most unwavering supporters, a position it is hard to imagine he would change now, and after exerting much effort to mend fences with Assad, it would be surprising for Aoun or Druze leader Walid Jumblatt to risk crossing him. Indeed, Ibrahim al-Amine recently argued in Al-Akhbar that Jumblatt is unlikely to play ball in a government-change game, and Michael Young posited on this site that via the arrest of FPM official Fayez Karam, Syria is sending Aoun messages to keep him close to Damascus (and far from Tehran). The cost of cabinet changes as a response to any STL indictment against Hezbollah may prove too high but should not necessarily be entirely ruled out, Kassir said. “It seems that the option has been discarded, or maybe deferred for the time being, but it does still lie among the options available for Hezbollah if the indictment were to [name] its officials,” he said.

Asarta to Sleiman: UNIFIL continues to coordinate closely with LAF
August 7, 2010 /In a statement issued Saturday, UNIFIL said that its commander General Alberto Asarta Cuevas had affirmed to President Michel Sleiman during the latter’s Saturday visit to Aadaiseh that “UNIFIL will continue its operations in close coordination with the Lebanese army.”Sleiman visited Aadaiseh in South Lebanon on Saturday morning to inspect positions involved in Tuesday’s border skirmish between the Lebanese and Israeli armies. Two Lebanese soldiers, a journalist and a senior Israeli officer died in Tuesday’s fighting, the fiercest along the border since the 2006 July War.-NOW Lebanon

Walid Jumblatt
August 6, 2010
On August 5, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
The head of the Democratic Gathering bloc in parliament, Deputy Walid Jumblatt, held a press conference this morning at his house in Clemenceau. He started by saying: “I will present a brief historic introduction in an attempt to read into what is happening today,” pointing to the book “Beware of Small States” by British author David Hirst. Jumblatt stated: “When Lebanon was established in 1920, it was more like a group of small nations. Since then and until 2010, we are still seeing disputes over Lebanon’s role, identity, fate and history. This is why we are implicated in great and small shocks, some of which are political and other military. In 1958, some inside and outside of Lebanon tried to lead the country out of the Baghdad Alliance, i.e. to separate it from the Syrian alliance and Lebanon’s Arab duties. However, they failed and the 1958 revolution won.
“In 1975, civil war erupted and we must remember that in each of its bloody rounds in Lebanon, there were rounds of political talks abroad to allow the signing of the Camp David Accord. When Syria entered Lebanon and we were in a state of dispute with it, Kamal Junblatt said to President Hafez al-Assad that Lebanon will not be stable until the right-wing militias are disarmed…
“Kamal Jumblatt disappeared and Al-Sadat at the time conducted his damned visit to Tel Aviv and signed the Camp David Accord. These days also witnessed the beginning of the right-wing-Syrian dispute seen in the Fiyadieh events. Since 1978, we entered a stage of great tensions in South Lebanon and in 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, reached Beirut and tried through the May 17 agreement to drag Lebanon toward the Israeli camp and away from the conflict. However, they failed through the Mount Lebanon war, February 6 and the resistance in the South and everywhere… In 2004, we saw the issue of the dangerous and damned Resolution 1559 which called for Syria’s exit from Lebanon and the disarmament of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. At the time, they called the resistance a militia while Lebanese soil was still under occupation…
“In order to implement this international decision, which would not have been possible without a massive event, martyred Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri was assassinated and the Syrian army left the country right afterwards following the overwhelming wave of opposition which targeted Syria at the time. It is no secret that I was among those who accused Syria of the assassination. We accused it politically and then it turned out that this political accusation was not based on anything… In 2007, accusations emerged against Hezbollah saying that it was behind this assassination, while reports started circulating in public in Der Spiegel and before it in Le Figaro and some Arab newspapers. In 2010, the picture became clearer with the accusations made by Ashkenazi and the Israeli television which said that the indictment which will be issued in September will generate strife in Lebanon.
“Why will there be strife? In order to neutralize Lebanon, sabotage Lebanese-Syrian relations and lead the region toward a massive circle of violence that would serve Israel and America. This is the conclusion and this is what we mainly tacked in talks with the Syrian command. We are all with the tribunal and justice, and do not think that Syria is against this tribunal. However, it should not be used to serve purposes other than the ones for which it was formed…” On the other hand, he tackled the issue of the confrontation between the Lebanese army and the Israeli enemy in Aadayseh, saying: “Despite all the internal and external theories, there is an objective and natural complementarity between the army, the resistance, the people and the state. Enough theories!... The resistance, the army and the state are the best defenders of Lebanon and its South. We welcome international troops but as it is said: Know that heaven is protected by the shadows of swords. “We must hasten the formation of a special tribunal to try the agents, and let it be public. Let us stop eluding this issue as though we were afraid of trying agents. What is required is a public court to show the public opinion what the latter have done, knowing there are around 100 of them and that this number could be even higher. This court would try them and execute them, so that we can protect [the country] and prevent any additional political, security, cultural, banking and intelligence infiltrations. This issue does not tolerate joking because national, internal and external security is at stake…”

IAF used Karam info to target Hezbollah leaders during July War
August 7, 2010 /On Saturday Ad-Diyar newspaper, quoting anonymous sources, reported that during the July 2006 war the Israeli Air Force (IAF) received and used information provided by retired Brigadier General Fayez Karam on the movements of Hezbollah leaders. Karam, who is a Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) official, was arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of collaborating with Israeli intelligence. Ad-Diyar’s report said Karam befriended an Israeli officer during a training visit to the US in the early 1980s and supplied the Israelis with political analysis throughout the decade. After he was released by the Syrians in the early 1990s, the Israelis facilitated Karam’s move to Paris where he gave them information on the Syrian prison in which he was detained, the paper said. After his return to Beirut in 2005, Karam continued to visit Paris and answer Israeli questions about FPM negotiations for a memorandum of understanding with Hezbollah as well as OTV television’s employees and political connections, the paper said. Karam was close to FPM members involved in the negotiations with Hezbollah and the Israelis encouraged him to build relationships with Hezbollah and Syrian officials, the report added.-NOW Lebanon

Israel rattles saber in south Lebanon
US calls for reduction of tensions as its regional ally stages Mock air raids
By Patrick Galey /Daily Star staff
Saturday, August 07, 2010
BEIRUT: Israel continued to conduct mock air raids in the skies over Lebanon on Friday as the world awaited the findings of a United Nations investigation into the clash that killed four people along the Blue Line. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said that while results from a preliminary probe into Tuesday’s shootout between Lebanese and Israeli Army troops had been collected, its investigation was yet to ascertain which side was responsible for the pair’s bloodiest clash since 2006.
“We are still getting the facts from being on the ground. Of course, the issue is very sensitive and all the details need to be carefully investigated,” UNIFIL Deputy Spokesperson Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star. “The investigation will be done with all parties … as quickly as possible, but the priority is to be as detailed as possible.”
Outgoing United States Ambassador to Lebanon Michelle Sison, in a farewell statement bidding goodbye to President Michel Sleiman, called on both Israel and Lebanon to exercise restraint. “As we saw earlier this week, regional tensions can threaten Lebanon’s continuing stability,” Sison said. “We regret the loss of life on both sides. This terrible and tragic event reminds us once again that we must all work for progress toward the permanent ceasefire that [Resolution] 1701 demands. “The United States continues to call on all parties to work to diminish these tensions,” the outgoing ambassador added. Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reported that Israeli jets flew over several areas of the country, following up the mock air raids it conducted on Wednesday. “Israeli warplanes have been executing mock intensive air raids in Nabatieh, Iqlim al-Toufah, Marjayoun and Khiam airspace at a medium altitude since Friday morning,” the NNA said. In addition, southern towns of Tyre, Hasbaya and Bint Jbeil also experienced flyovers and dummy attacks.
The latest Israeli violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 – which stipulates that Lebanese sovereign territory not be breached – comes after two Lebanese troops and a journalist, as well as a senior Israeli soldier were killed along the Blue Line close to Adeisseh on Tuesday. The incident prompted a flurry of international and domestic reactions and increased speculation that a fresh Israeli-Lebanese conflict would soon erupt. The US State Department Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley, in a press briefing Thursday, rebuffed reports that Washington was considering cutting military aid to the Lebanese Army in the wake of this week’s violence.
“We have provided more than $600 million to the Lebanese Armed Forces and internal security forces under a variety of programs,” Crowley told reporters. “In any US-origin equipment that's been provided to Lebanon, we have very strong end-use monitoring to make sure it is used appropriately, and we have no indication that US equipment played any role in this incident earlier this week.” Crowley was speaking in response to an interview by Congressman Ron Klein, given to The Jerusalem Post, in which he said that US military aid to Beirut was up for discussion. Klein, who sits on the US Foreign Affairs Committee, told the newspaper that the issue of US funding to Lebanon was “certainly is going to come up in our conversations in the Congress.” “To start shooting as they did – one person killed, one seriously injured – is a very serious move by the Lebanese Army,” he added. Crowley was quick to quell the idea that US money would be diverted from Lebanon if the army started targeting Israel. “We provide support to Lebanon because it is in our interest to do so. We do so in close cooperation with the international community for the express purpose of improving Lebanon – the Government of Lebanon’s security capability, protecting its sovereignty, and contributing to broad security across the region,” he said. “We think improving the capability and performance of the Lebanese Government, both across the government, but including in the security sector, contributes to stability in the region and is in our interest,” Crowley added.

Khreis: The U.S. Threat to Halt Aid to the Army is Not Surprising Because it Always Supports Israel
Naharnet/MP Ali Khreis said Friday that it is not surprising the U.S. would threaten to stop military aid to the Lebanese army seeing as it always tends to support Israel.
Commenting on the Adeisseh incident earlier this week to the Central News Agency, he noted: "The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon has been an international witness to Israeli aggression against Lebanon since 1978 until this day.""Where was the U.S. Congress when Israel committed massacres, occupied Lebanese land, and kidnapped its citizens?" he asked.
Furthermore, he stressed that Israel assaulted Lebanon at a time when it was experiencing calm on the internal scene, especially in light of visits by Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Beirut, 06 Aug 10,

Lines blur between Hezbollah, Lebanese army
By Victor Kotsev /Asia Times Online
"Soldiers are instructed to open fire. This is the army's decision," a senior Lebanese officer, General Abdul al-Rahman Shitli, said on Wednesday evening while describing Tuesday's skirmish on the Israel-Lebanon border as calculated and approved by the proper channels.
A fully satisfactory account of the events that left a senior Israeli officer and at least four Lebanese dead remains to emerge. It appears, however, that a main beneficiary of the incident is
Hezbollah, and despite claims that its leader Hassan Nasrallah had been surprised by it, it is not hard to see the Shi'ite organization's shadow behind the clash.
There are two main versions of what happened: either Hezbollah instigated the clash, through its strong influence in the army, or the army tried to "out-Hezbollah" Hezbollah, perhaps in an attempt to reassert itself over the militia.
Firstly, the background to the crisis. The incident may have much less to do with Israel than with internal Lebanese tensions, and more specifically with the persistent rumors that the United Nations' Special Tribunal for Lebanon will indict members of Hezbollah next month in connection with the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri, Benjamin Joffe-Walt argues in a story published by The Media Line. He writes: "In a matter of weeks, Lebanon is set to face what some local analysts are predicting will be the beginnings of another Lebanese civil war and which others are predicting will be the largest political crisis since the country's former leader was assassinated five years ago."
Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla concurs: "Our own sources in the Lebanese military indicate that they were trying to avoid a major crisis; what they were trying to do in this latest border skirmish was to try to divert attention from the Special Tribunal crisis to the Israeli threat and try to galvanize support among Lebanese factions in support of the Lebanese army."
It is established that the Lebanese army fired first, and that the Israeli soldiers were operating inside Israeli territory, having notified, moreover, both the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese in a proper manner. Lebanese fire on troops of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) working on the border was "wholly unjustified and unwarranted", said US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley on Wednesday, shortly after UNIFIL reached a similar verdict. Despite some early reports to the contrary, Hezbollah did not directly participate in the violence.
Something that stands out is the Lebanese military command's open admission that their side fired first, and that they stand by their soldiers' actions (exemplified by General Shitli's words). This can mean one of two things: either they are desperately trying to cover up the fact that they don't have full control over the rank and file of the army, or that this was indeed a deliberate and calculated policy.
Israeli leaders also offered conflicting interpretations of the attack. It was a "planned terror attack", claimed opposition member of the Knesset (parliament) and former chief of staff General Shaul Mofaz. The border confrontation was apparently unplanned by the higher echelons of the Lebanese army, countered Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
It is possible that the Lebanese army attempted to re-assert its influence in the country and that this signals a willingness for it to gradually swallow up Hezbollah, willy-nilly, as the United Nations has insisted for years should happen.
If that is the case, the means the Lebanese military chose to pursue its goals might appear strange at first, but it would make sense in terms of the politics of the region. We have a crude recent precedent, when Turkey's diplomatic onslaught on Israel arguably served to weaken Iranian influence in the region. [1]
However, this would overlook a whole set of other circumstances: namely, the Lebanese army's profound weaknesses and level of penetration by Hezbollah. One of the main reasons why the army wants to avoid having to confront Hezbollah is the very real danger that its Shi'ite contingent (approximately a third) would desert and join the militants. (Similarly, the military broke down along sectarian lines during the civil war.) According to a Stratfor report:
Hezbollah has significant influence over and an established presence in the already weak and fractured Lebanese army. The organization makes it a point to discharge a portion of its recruits after they serve two years in the military wing and then enlists them in the Lebanese army. This allows Hezbollah to both control the composition of the army's ranking officers and influence specific operations. This latest border skirmish could be an illustration of Hezbollah's influence over the Lebanese army.
Sources in the IDF concurred, and suggested that a single radical Shi'ite officer was responsible, according to Debka File. Moreover, Israel also issued an ultimatum to Lebanon to dismiss or court-martial this officer.
The two probable scenarios are less mutually exclusive than might initially appear. Based on these descriptions and the political context in Lebanon in the aftermath of the civil war, it is likely that we are confronted with a very fluid reality, where at times it is difficult to tell where Hezbollah ends and where the Lebanese army begins. Both, in a sense, are struggling to incorporate and control each other, and this, on top of the general power vacuum in the country, has created numerous gray areas.
It is hard not to notice, however, that the incident left Hezbollah some breathing space, at least in the short term. Nasrallah was quick to capitalize on the opportunity to dust off his image of a popular resistance fighter: "The only thing that can defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression is unity," he said in an interview on Tuesday, offering the army his help against Israel, and in the same breath promising to divulge next week information exonerating Hezbollah and linking Israel to the Hariri murder. "The trilogy of Hezbollah, the Lebanese people and the Lebanese army was baptized today," he concluded, quoted by the Iranian Press TV.
Hezbollah's standing vis-a-vis Israel was also strengthened somewhat. Israel was caught off-guard, despite all its precautions and threats, and the Shi'ite organization can claim at least some indirect credit. Just when it seemed cornered by a Saudi initiative and increasingly isolated from its ally Syria, it managed to respond creatively, or at least to be perceived that way. (See Turning up the heat on Iran Asia Times Online, August 3, 2010.)
It is difficult to tell which way the balance between Hezbollah and the Lebanese army is going to tilt eventually. Tuesday's events came as a surprise to many observers who had viewed the army as a moderate counter-weight to the Shi'ite organization, and demonstrated how fluid the reality on the ground actually is.
Unless Lebanon slides back into civil war, a further shortening of the distance between the army and the militia in the mid- to long-term appears unavoidable. The big question is to what extent this process will result in a Lebanon that retains its national sovereignty, and thus its capacity to take a moderate stance on regional issues.
*Victor Kotsev is a freelance journalist and political analyst with expertise in the Middle East.
*(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and

Bellemare Uncovers: Indictment Not Based on Conclusive Evidence
Naharnet/Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare has reportedly said that charges facing suspects in the assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri are not based on conclusive evidence. As-Safir newspaper on Friday said Bellemare made the revelations before diplomats at the United Nations. According to a Western diplomatic source, the indictment will include in the first phase direct accusations against three Hizbullah members. As-Safir said Bellemare himself made this disclosure before a number of diplomats at the U.N. headquarters in New York. It quoted sources as saying that Bellemare uncovered that the indictment charges would extend to up to 20 party members. As-Safir said a report recently received by a Lebanese political side cites that diplomats who met Bellemare asked questions about the evidence upon which the STL Prosecutor relied on to accuse Hizbullah members. Bellemare, according to the paper, replied that the charges are not based on "conclusive," but rather "circumstantial" evidence. The STL Prosecutor explained that circumstantial evidence was not based on direct witnesses but on "expert" witnesses. Beirut, 06 Aug 10,

Israel Demands Dismissal or Trial of Lebanese Officer who Opened Fire … or Else!
Naharnet/Israel on Friday demanded the dismissal or trial of the Lebanese army officer who opened fire at Israeli soldiers in Tuesday's deadly tree-pruning operation that left dead and wounded on sides of the Lebanon-Israel border. Among the dead were a senior Israeli officer and two Lebanese soldiers and a Lebanese journalist. Israeli sources said Israel has threatened to "choose the appropriate method" in the event its demand was not met. Israel's response to any new attack at the northern border "is going to be harsh and unprecedented," the source warned. Beirut, 06 Aug 10,

Lebanese Army in South on Alert Again
Naharnet/Lebanese troops overnight went on alert again near the border village of Kfar Kila after a number of Israeli soldiers deployed in the opposite side.
Local media on Friday said no shooting incidents were reported at Fatima border crossing during the brief tension. They said cautious calm returned to the area about half an hour later following UNIFIL's intervention.

Qaouq after Meeting Khamenei's Adviser: Iran is a Real Supporter of Lebanon and the Resistance
Naharnet/Hizbullah's official in the South Nabil Qaouq said Friday that Iran was the first nation to provide aid to Lebanon after the July 2006 war. He said after holding talks with Iranian Supreme leader's adviser on international affairs, Ali Akbar Velayati: "Iran has presented more than it promised and it stands as a real supporter to Lebanon and the Resistance.""Its brave positions stand as a solid obstacle before American and Israeli agendas that threaten the region," Qaouq said.

An Opportunity for Syrian-Israeli Peace
By: Alon Ben-Meir.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=40428
First Published 2010-08-06
Although Syria may not be in a position to regain the Golan by force, it has shown tremendous capacity to deny Israel peace with Lebanon and the Palestinians, and can continue to do so for as long as Israel occupies the Golan, says Alon Ben-Meir.
While the world reacts to the recent flair-up of violence along the Lebanon-Israel border, other developments in the area could present an opportunity to advance regional peace if pursued. The recent visit by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Assad of Syria to Lebanon has in effect restored Damascus' dominance over Lebanon, thereby impacting the internal political dynamic in this fractured country. While Syria is likely to maintain its bilateral relationship with Iran for its own strategic and tactical reasons, the new undeclared understanding between President Assad, King Abdullah and Prime Minister Hariri of Lebanon was that Lebanon would remain outside of the Iranian orbit of influence. The message to Tehran was quite clear: Syria - with the backing of the Arab states - will resume its hegemony over Lebanon and both Iran and its proxy Hezbollah must accept this new political reality.
This new political configuration in Lebanon also suggests that for the right price Syria would align itself with the Arab world to blunt Iran's ambitions to become the regional hegemony. The implication is that Syria would be far less likely to come to Tehran's aid should either Israel or the United States decide to attack its nuclear facilities. Moreover, Syria, out of necessity to keep Lebanon out of such a potential conflict, would limit Hezbollah's political challenge to the Hariri government and prevent it from engaging Israel, should the scenario of potential hostilities between Israel (and/or the US) with Iran unfold. In this regard, the United States and Israel welcome this new development in Lebanon, as it may change their calculations with regard to an attack on Iran. Even more, the Saudi-Syrian move offers Israel an opportunity to resume peace negotiations with Syria and thereby improve the political atmosphere throughout the region in a dramatic way. It is an opportunity Israel should not squander.
An Israeli-Syrian peace accord would have long-term, significant implications on Syria's ties with Iran and its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. Changing Damascus' strategic interests and the geopolitical condition in the Middle East will require bringing Syria within reach of regaining the Golan Heights and normalizing relations with the US Doing so would have a direct impact on the behavior of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria has served as the linchpin between the three, and by removing or undermining Syria's logistical and political backing-which will be further cemented by an Israeli-Syrian peace-Hamas and Hezbollah will be critically weakened, and Hamas in particular may be forced rethink its strategy toward Israel. Peace with Syria would effectively change the center of gravity of Syrian politics in the region, which is shaped by Damascus' strategic interests.
Whereas Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear program are not likely to be mitigated by an Israeli-Syrian peace, it will certainly force Tehran to rethink its strategy vis-a-vis Israel. The irony is that while Israel continues to hype up the Iranian nuclear threat, it has lost focus on how to change the regional geopolitical dynamic and weaken Iran's influence throughout the region. Under any violent scenario between Israel and Iran, with an Israel-Syria accord, Tehran would no longer be able to count on the retaliatory actions by Hamas and Hezbollah because the interests of these two groups would now be at odds with Syria's strategic interest.
The international opposition to Israel's continued occupation is growing as the occupation of Arab land and the building of Israeli settlements are seen as the single source of continued regional strife and instability. Linking the occupation of the Golan Heights to national security concerns is viewed as nothing more than a pretext to maintain Israel's hold of the territory-even Israel's allies, including the United States, no longer buy into the linkage between this territory and national security. The fact that the Israeli government is ideologically polarized offers no excuse for policies that cannot be sustained in the long-term and which in fact could lead to renewed violence. If Israel is truly focused on national security, then it must relinquish the Golan Heights. Only normal relations with Syria and effective security mechanisms in place can offer Israel ultimate security on its northern border.
The rift between Turkey and Israel over Israel's incursion into Gaza and the tragic flotilla incident has strained their bilateral relations. As such, Israel has refused that Turkey renew its role as a mediator between Israel and Syria. However, there have already been measures taken to soften the rhetoric and tension between Israel and Turkey. These steps should be expanded with the goal of renewing trust between these two historic allies. Turkish mediators proved that they were able to achieve progress in the last round of negotiations between Israel and Syria, which ultimately collapsed with the launching of Israel's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. It is the interest of both Israel and Turkey that such trust - and progress on the Syrian track - be advanced. Turkey seeks Israeli-Syrian peace not merely for self-aggrandizement. For Turkey, a regional peace would have a tremendous effect on its own national security and economic development, just as it would for Israel's. The fact that Syria chose a negotiating venue through Turkey to regain the Golan should not be taken by Israel as a sign that it can indefinitely maintain the status quo without serious consequences. Although Syria may not be in a position to regain the Golan by force, it has shown tremendous capacity to deny Israel peace with Lebanon and the Palestinians, and can continue to do so for as long as Israel occupies the Golan.
President Bashar al-Assad, like his father, has indicated that advancing efforts to pursue peace with Israel is a strategic option. He has expressed a desire to conclude a deal in exchange for the Golan Heights and a healthy relationship with the US In response, Israel must choose between territory and real security; as long as Syria has territorial claims against Israel, Israel will never be secure on its northern border. Israel cannot make the claim that it seeks peace but then fail to seize the opportunity when one is presented. If Syria offers peace, normalization of relations, meets Israel's legitimate security concerns and Israel still refuses, the Golan will continue to serve as a national liability and a source of instability and violence.
*Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. His website is www.alonben-meir.com.
The Saudi-Syrian move offers Israel an opportunity to resume peace negotiations with Syria and thereby improve the political atmosphere throughout the region in a dramatic way. It is an opportunity Israel should not squander.
The international opposition to Israel's continued occupation is growing as the occupation of Arab land and the building of Israeli settlements are seen as the single source of continued regional strife and instability.
If Israel is truly focused on national security, then it must relinquish the Golan Heights. Only normal relations with Syria and effective security mechanisms in place can offer Israel ultimate security on its northern border.

Question: "What should we learn from the life of John the Baptist?"
Answer: Although his name implies that he baptized people (which he did), John’s life on earth was more than just baptizing. John’s adult life was characterized by blind devotion and utter surrender to Jesus Christ and His kingdom. John’s voice was a “lone voice in the wilderness” (John 1:23) as he proclaimed the coming of the Messiah to a people who desperately needed a Savior. He was the precursor for the modern day evangelist as he unashamedly shared the good news of Jesus Christ. He was a man filled with faith and a role model to those of us who wish to share our faith with others.
Most everyone, believer and non-believer alike, has heard of John the Baptist. He is arguably one of the most significant and well-known figures in the Bible. While John was known as “the Baptist,” he was in fact the first prophet called by God since Malachi some 400 years before his own birth. John’s own coming was foretold over 700 years previously by another prophet. In Isaiah 40:3-5 it states: “A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.’" This passage illustrates God’s master plan in action as God selected John to be His special ambassador to proclaim His own coming.
Little is actually known of John, although we do know that John was a Levite, one of the special tribe set aside by God to take care of all of the work associated with the temple (Numbers 1:50-53). John was the son of Zechariah, a temple priest of the lineage of Abijah, while John’s mother Elizabeth was from the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:5). John was also related to Jesus as their mothers were cousins (Luke 1:36). John lived a rugged life in the mountainous area of Judea, between the city of Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. It is written that he wore clothes made out of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist. His diet was a simple one—locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:4). John lived a simple life as he focused on the kingdom work set before him.
John’s ministry grew in popularity, as recounted in Matthew 3:5-6: “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.” We also see that he spoke very boldly to the religious leaders of the day, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, calling them a “brood of vipers” and warning them not to rely on their Jewish lineage for salvation, but to repent and “bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:7-10). People of that day simply did not address leaders, religious or otherwise, in this manner for fear of punishment. But John’s faith made him fearless in the face of opposition.
While his ministry was gaining strength, John’s message was gaining popularity. In fact, it became so popular that many people may have thought that he was the Messiah. This assuredly was not his intent as he had a clear vision for what he was called to do. John 3:28 tells us, “You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.'” This verse speaks of John cautioning his disciples that what they had seen and heard from him is just the beginning of the miracle that was to come in the form of Jesus Christ. John was merely a messenger sent by God to proclaim the truth. His message was simple and direct: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matthew 3:2). He knew that once Jesus appeared on the scene, John’s work would be all but finished. He willingly gave up the spotlight to Jesus saying, “He must become greater; I must become less (John 3:30). Perhaps there is no greater example of humility than the one demonstrated by both Jesus and John in Matthew 3:13-15. Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized by John in the river Jordan.
John rightly recognized that the sinless Son of God needed no baptism of repentance and that he was certainly not worthy to baptize his own Savior. But Jesus answered his concern by requesting baptism “to fulfill all righteousness” meaning that He was identifying Himself with sinners for whom He would ultimately sacrifice Himself, thereby securing all righteousness for them (2 Corinthians 5:21). In humility, John obeyed and consented to baptize Jesus.
John’s ministry, as well as his life, came to an abrupt end at the hand of King Herod. In an act of unspeakable and violent vengeance, Herodias, Herod’s wife and the former wife of Herod’s brother Philip, plotted with her daughter to have John killed. So incensed was Herodias at John for claiming her marriage to Herod to be unlawful that she prompted her daughter to ask for the head of John on a platter as a reward for her pleasing Herod with her dancing. John had previously been arrested by Herod in attempt to silence him, and it was a simple thing to send the executioner to the prison and behead John, which is exactly what happened (Mark 6:17-28). This was a sad and ignoble end to the life of the man about whom Jesus said: “I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John” (Luke 7:28).
There are several lessons we can learn from the life of John the Baptist. First, whole-heartedly believing in Jesus Christ is possible. John the Baptist could have believed in and worshipped any number of gods available to him before Jesus arrived on the scene. But at some point in his life John knew that the Messiah was coming. He believed this with his whole heart and spent his days “preparing the way” for the Lord’s coming (Matthew 11:10). But the road was not an easy one to prepare. Daily he faced doubters of various influence and popularity who did not share his enthusiasm for the coming Messiah. Under hard questioning from the Pharisees, John shared his belief: “‘I baptize with water,’ John replied, ‘but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie’" (John 1:26-27). John believed in the Christ and his great faith prepared him for hardships, but it kept him steadfast on his course until the time when he could say as he saw Jesus approach, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). As believers, we can all have this steadfast faith.
Second, anyone can be a strong and serious witness for Jesus Christ. John’s life is an example to us of the seriousness with which we are to approach the Christian life and our call to ministry, whatever that may be. We pattern our lives after John’s by first examining ourselves to be sure we are truly in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). Second, like John, we are to know and believe that “to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21), so we can be fearless in the face of persecution and death. John lived his life to introduce others to Jesus Christ, and knew the importance of repenting of one’s sins in order to live a holy and righteous life. And as a follower of Jesus Christ, he also was unafraid of calling out people such as Herod and the Pharisees for their sinful behavior.
Third, John shows us how to stand firm in our faith no matter what the circumstances. Paul reminded Timothy that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). But for many of us who live in freedom, persecution takes on a very mild form. As he lived in an occupied country, John had to be aware that anything contrary to utter devotion to the king or emperor was asking for trouble. Yet his message was unchanging, bold and strong. It was John’s belief, his message, and his continual rebuke of King Herod that landed him in prison. While it is hard to know for sure what John was feeling as he sat in prison, we can be sure that he might have had some doubts about the Lord who tested his faith. In fact, John gets a message out to Jesus asking, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" (Matthew 11:3). As Christians we all will have our faith put to the test, and we will either falter in our faith or, like John, cling to Christ and stand firm in our faith to the end.

The Enemy of My Enemy
By ELLIOTT ABRAMS
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411162454395320.html
Facing the threat of a nuclear Iran, the hostile Arab-Israeli relationship is giving way to a more complex
Being an Arab leader has its rewards: the suite at the Waldorf-Astoria during the United Nations General Assembly, travel in your own plane, plenty of cash, even job security—whether kings, sheiks or presidents, with or without elections, most serve for life.
But the advantages must seem dwarfed by the problems that face the Arab world this summer. The Shia in Iran seem to be building a bomb, Iran's ally Syria is taking over Lebanon (again), Yemen is collapsing (again), Egypt's President Mubarak is said to be dying and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is back on the front pages.
What's more, no one is sure who's in charge these days. The American hegemony, in place at least since the British left Aden in 1967 and secured through repeated, massive military operations of its own and victories by its ally Israel, seems to be fraying. Who will stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program, the Arabs wonder; they place no faith in endless negotiations between earnest Western diplomats and the clever Persians.
Israel is the enemy of their enemy, Iran. Now, the usual description of Arab-Israeli relations as "hostile" or "belligerent" is giving way to a more complex picture. Following the joint Arab military efforts to prevent the formation of the Jewish State in 1948, and the wars that followed in 1956, 1967 and 1973, this is a bizarre turn of events. Israel is as unpopular in the Arab street as it has been in past decades (which is to say, widely hated), but for Arab rulers focused on the Iranian threat all those the Israeli Air Force jets must now appear alluring. The Israeli toughness the Arabs have complained about for over a half century is now their own most likely shield against Iran.
The Arab view that someone should bomb Iran and stop it from developing nuclear weapons is familiar to anyone who meets privately with Arab leaders, especially in the Gulf. Now, the curtain is being pulled back: Just last month, the United Arab Emirates' ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, spoke publicly of a "cost-benefit analysis" and concluded that despite the upset to trade that would result and the inevitable "people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country," the balance was clear. The ambassador told an Aspen audience, "If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place." By speaking of "an outside force," Ambassador Al Otaiba did not specifically demand U.S. action; he left the door open for volunteers.
And two weeks ago, the Israeli press carried reports of a visit to Saudi Arabia by Gen. Meir Dagan, chief of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency; Gen. Dagan is the point man on Iran for the Israeli government. This follows stories in the Times of London two months ago claiming that the Saudis would suspend their air defense operations to permit Israeli fighter planes to cross Saudi air space en route to an attack on Iran.
All this will be denied, of course, as it has always been, but Arab-Israeli (and for that matter, Arab-Palestinian) relations remain far more complicated than headlines suggest. Even in states where there are no politics as we know it—there are no elections or the outcomes are decided by fiat in the presidential palace—all politics is local, and concerns about the Palestinians take a back seat to national and personal interests.
The minuet now being conducted by Arab foreign ministers with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is illuminating. The issue is whether the Palestinians should move to direct negotiations with Israel, in place of the desultory "proximity talks" that have been led by U.S. envoy George Mitchell. Mr. Abbas has been very reluctant to make this decision, fearing venomous criticism from Hamas and wondering if direct talks would actually lead anywhere except to a further crisis down the road if and when they break down.
Mr. Abbas has been laying down preconditions that make talks harder and harder to begin, asking in essence that the U.S. guarantee an outcome he likes on the central matters (refugees, borders, Jerusalem) before he will sit down at the table. Despite heavy American and European pressure, Mr. Abbas has been unwilling to decide anything. In fact, reversing years of effort by his predecessor Yasser Arafat to escape the tutelage of Arab states, he threw the ball to them. He would do whatever the Arab League told him to do.
But the Arab foreign ministers, meeting two weeks ago in Cairo, proved to be as wily as he. They decided to endorse direct talks, but with preconditions—and they left the timing to the Palestinians, thus leaving Mr. Abbas on his own. Their decision was to make Mr. Abbas bear any blame associated with the decision, while they ducked and returned to their hotel suites. They are for peace and talks with Israel, and they are helping the Americans, and they are backing their Palestinian brothers, unless of course things go sour, in which case it will be clear that Mr. Abbas made the wrong decision to enter (or not to enter) direct talks. All this under the guise of "Arab solidarity."
There isn't much solidarity this summer. For Syria, the only issue right now is regaining hegemony in Lebanon, and Syria is aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Syrian President Bashar Assad visited Beirut a week ago for the first time since Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon in 2005—a fitting symbol of the return of Syrian power.
But Syria's border with Israel remains dead quiet, for the regime seeks no direct confrontation. The last time it moved to assert a leadership role in the region, by the secret construction of a nuclear reactor with designs supplied by North Korea, Israel bombed the site to smithereens in September 2007. So Syria arms Hezbollah, menaces the Lebanese and watches to see how the Americans will handle Iran. There will be no serious negotiations over the Golan Heights until the Iran issue is settled, for any Golan deal would require that Syria break with Iran—and such a move depends entirely on whether the regime there is rising or falling in influence.
For Lebanon, divided as ever among Sunni, Shia, Christian and Druze, the main concern is the forthcoming decision of the international tribunal investigating the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Will it name Syria or Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist group that controls much of the country? And how will Hariri's son Saad, now prime minister, balance the need for stability against the desire for justice?
The fact that Mr. Assad of Syria arrived a week ago in a Saudi jet and accompanied by the Saudi King, Abdullah, shows Lebanese that Saudi support for their independence is a thing of the past. The Saudi message was clear: Make your own arrangements with Damascus and do not count on us. Until this week, the Lebanese border with Israel had been quiet since the 2006 war—Hezbollah and its Shia supporters were hurt badly enough to avoid a repetition.
For months there have been rumors of war this summer along the Israeli-Lebanon border, but that was never in the cards. Hezbollah, whose well-trained terrorists and rockets aimed at Israel's cities are supplied or financed by Iran, could attack Israel if Israel bombs Iran's nuclear sites. Thus Hezbollah's forces are both a deterrent to an Israeli attack, and a way for Iran to strike back at Israel if an attack occurs—an Iranian second-strike capability. The ayatollahs need Hezbollah intact and ferocious to scare the Israelis, so another Israel-Hezbollah war that might badly wound the Shia group is the last thing Tehran wants right now.
The incident last Tuesday, when Lebanese Army snipers shot into Israel, killing one Israeli officer and wounding another, is still not fully understood. It appears to be the work of the Lebanese commander in that area, a Shia considered close to Hezbollah. Perhaps the attack was his own nasty idea; perhaps Hezbollah ordered him to do it, using the Lebanese Army to change the subject away from the tribunal. Either way it is a reminder that Lebanon is not a normal country with an army under government control. It is a battlefield largely controlled by Syria and Hezbollah, and unable to determine its own fate.
For Egypt, there is one worry: Mr. Mubarak's health. With a presidential election coming in the fall of 2011, will his 30 years in power (since Sadat's assassination in 1981) end with a free election, or will the ill, 82-year-old Mr. Mubarak demand another term or the installation of his son Gamal as his successor? Meanwhile, Egypt's dominance of Arab diplomacy and its overall influence in the region are declining steadily.
The Arab League is still headquartered there, but it was symbolic of Egypt's diminished status that the key figure in the foreign ministers' meeting held there last week was Hamad bin Jassem of Qatar, the rich Gulf sheikdom with about 350,000 citizens, not Ahmed Aboul Gheit of Egypt, with a population of 80 million.
At stake in the succession crisis in Egypt is not simply who will rule the country, but whether a new president will maintain Egypt's chilly but reliable peace with Israel. Here too there are shared enemies, in this case Hamas and other Palestinian radical and terrorist groups; Israel and Egypt have maintained together (though with Israel shouldering 99% of the blame) a blockade on Gaza since the Hamas coup there in 2007.
The Egyptian regime feels no love for the Israelis, but there is significant security cooperation between the two countries; Egypt's rulers see the Shia in Iran, not the Jewish state, as the more dangerous threat to Arab power in the region. Egypt's decisions in late July to bar an Iranian Red Crescent ship carrying aid to Gaza from entering the Suez Canal and to prevent four Iranian parliamentarians from crossing the border into Gaza are the most recent proof of this Egyptian attitude.
Whatever Egypt's concerns about Iran, fears are far greater in the Gulf. Seen from those shores, the Palestinians are a constant drain on the pocketbook and, with Al Jazeera stirring things up through constant broadcasts depicting Israeli violence and Palestinian misery, a source of popular dissatisfaction. Israeli-Palestinian violence is poison for regimes that are concerned above all else with survival, and the "peace process" is a much-sought antidote. Everyone loves conferences that suggest "progress," though as the decisions at the recent Arab League meeting show, everyone will seek to avoid the hard decisions that serious negotiations might necessitate.
The Palestinian issue has been with them for decades and may last decades more; the rise of Iran is new and pressing, given its proximity—and the existence of a Shia majority in Bahrain and a significant Shia population in Saudi Arabia's oil-rich Eastern province. It is not difficult to think of Iranian pressure, money and even guns leading to riots and violent uprisings.
The Gulf regimes have long relied on American protection, and the U.S. maintains large bases in the UAE, Bahrain (the Fifth fleet's headquarters), Qatar and Kuwait. For these regimes and for the Saudis, Iran is a constant threat and the issue of the day is who will be, to use the old British phrase, "top country" in the region. Repeated American offers to negotiate with Iran, and statements from Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates respectively that an attack on Iran would be "incredibly destabilizing" or "disastrous" do not reassure them. They want Iran stopped. They are not sure the need to do that is understood as well in Washington as it is in Jerusalem—and at Israel Defense Forces headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Perhaps the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, if he is an Israeli pilot. In that case, all gestures of friendship will be forsaken or carefully hidden; there will be denunciations and UN resolutions, petitions and boycotts, Arab League summits and hurried trips to Washington. But none of that changes an essential fact of life well understood in many Arab capitals this summer: that there is a clear coincidence of interests between the Arab states and Israel today, in the face of the Iranian threat. Given the 60 years of war and cold peace between Israel and the Arabs, this is one of the signal achievements of the regime in Tehran—and could prove to be its undoing.
*Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

What To Do About Hizbullah?
By M.J. Rosenberg /TPM
 August 6, 2010, 10:02AM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/06/what_to_do_about_hizbullah/?ref=c2
The situation on Israel's northern border seems to be on the verge of erupting again. The details don't particularly matter, although it seems pretty clear that the Lebanese army instigated the latest violence. The good news is that this time the situation was contained and it appears possible, even likely, that the Middle East will be spared another summer war.
Israeli-Syrian relations are also simmering. But war is less likely to erupt because both Israelis and Syrians tend to prefer the current situation to the alternatives - although the Assad government desperately wants the Golan Heights back.
I tend to be unmoved by Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights. The Syrian people do not suffer because this small piece of the homeland no longer is theirs. Without the government-controlled Syrian media telling Syrians that they yearn for the Golan, they might have gotten over it decades ago.
More to the point, the Syrians are not the Palestinians. They did not see their land supplanted by another country. They did not lose every inch of Syria to Israel, as the Palestinians did, and no great historic injustice will be resolved if the Syrians get the Golan back.
The eradication of Palestine as an entity not only produced 60-plus years of Palestinian suffering, but is the reason Israel's legitimacy is questioned in so many quarters.
A successful peace process - one that ends with full Palestinian sovereignty over the 22% of Palestine that was under Arab control prior to the 1967 war -- would resolve an historic injustice and is the only way to ensure the security of both Israelis and Palestinians. And, as General Petreaus reminded us, it would end a conflict that endangers US interests - most significantly, US forces -- worldwide.
As for Lebanon, I do indeed wish the Israelis would leave the Lebanese alone. Every few years, Israel decides to "teach Lebanon a lesson" and inflicts pain and agony on a country that is targeted because various miscreants use it as a base against Israel.
The latest thugs using Lebanon for their own purposes are Hizbullah.
Yes, Hizbullah is a Lebanese organization, rather than being outsiders who use Lebanon as a mere staging ground for attacks on Israel. Nonetheless, it is a violent and radical organization - viciously anti-Israel -- that has managed to overwhelm the traditional Lebanese political groupings.
Lebanon, and especially Beirut, has traditionally been the most tolerant and live-and-let- live spot in the whole Middle East with the exception of its twin, the Tel Aviv-Haifa megalopolis. That era passed following two Israeli invasions and the creation of Hizbullah as a reaction to those invasions. Like it or not, Hizbullah now is a legitimate part of Lebanon's democratic government.
It would be wonderful if Hizbullah would go away rather than continuously increase its role in Lebanon's affairs. Instead, it continues to build up its arsenal, thereby increasing the possibility that Israel will attack Lebanon.
Israel claims the right to attack at any time of its choosing to deter the Hizbullah threat. Its military aircraft overfly Lebanon whenever it wants to, which is almost all the time, with no respect for Lebanon's sovereignty. Nor has it even provided the Lebanese government with maps showing where its thousands of cluster bombs (embedded during the last war) are located, meaning that any Lebanese can have their limbs blown off (or their lives blown away) because Israel refuses this most elementary act of humanity.
In fact, Israel insists on its right to hit any Arab (or, in the case of Iran, Muslim country) if and when it deems necessary.
If Iran gets the atomic bomb, which it hopefully will not, Israel will lose some of that freedom, which is the primary reason it so vehemently opposes a nuclear Iran.
Despite the propaganda, no serious Israelis believe that Iran would simply "nuke" Israel for the fun of it, thereby committing national suicide. Only the lobby here and its Congressional acolytes pretend to believe that.
Everyone else understands that Israel's goal is ensuring that its regional hegemony remains unchallenged by anyone, sort of a Israeli Monroe Doctrine. Even Turkey, a country far larger and more powerful than Israel, and a NATO member, is expected to respect that Israel is the regional superpower. How much longer can that last?
In any case, the situation on Israel's northern border is dangerous, and it is infinitely complicated by the close relationships between Hizbullah, Syria, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Hamas. That is why Israeli-Syrian negotiations are necessary before the whole situation blows up.
That is the conclusion reached by the International Crisis Group, a mediation organization composed of former top American diplomats. After multiple meetings with the key players in the area, it concluded that although the "balance of fear" prevents all-out war from breaking out, it would be "mistaken and foolhardy" to count on that for long.
At bottom, the ICG concludes, "the only hope for a real and durable solution lies in credible peace negotiations - and ultimately, agreements - between Israel on the one hand and Syria and Lebanon on the other."
And Syria is the key.
As I noted earlier, the Golan Heights is not an issue of justice, but achieving its return to Syria (combined with ironclad security guarantees for Israel) is critical to reaching an agreement. The good news is that achieving a Golan agreement should not be that hard. In fact, in 1999, during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's previous term as prime minister, he sent a message to then Syrian President Hafez Assad saying that he was willing to exchange the entire Golan for peace. (The language Netanyahu sent Assad is here.)
Netanyahu's term in office ended before any deal could be completed. But it was a good offer then (the Syrians thought so, too) and it's a good offer now. Netanyahu, of course, is no great enthusiast for peace with Syria (or any place else) these days. But Defense Minister Ehud Barak is and Netanyahu himself once was eager for a deal. (Daniel Levy points out here that Netanyahu, for all his bluster, has demonstrated far less taste for war that his bellicose recent predecessors: Peres, Barak, Sharon and Olmert).
Unfortunately, as the ICG notes, "what is lacking is high-level, [US] presidential engagement" and the sense that an agreement is "a US priority."
But why not? Other than fear of arousing the usual suspects who go ballistic at the idea of any US initiatives related to Israel, a push for an Israeli-Syrian agreement is a total winner, and not just for Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
As Israeli-American NYU professor Alon Ben- Meir explains:
Changing Syria's strategic interests will have a direct impact on Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah's behavior. Syria has served as the linchpin between the three and by removing Syria's logistical and political backing, which will inadvertently result from an Israeli-Syrian peace, Hamas and Hezbollah will be critically weakened.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah are direct by-products of the Israeli occupation, and only by ending its hold on the Golan will Israel be in a position to begin effectively to deal with Arab extremism. Peace with Syria will change the center of gravity of Syrian politics in the region, which is shaped by Damascus' strategic interests.
Whereas Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear program may not be completely mitigated by an Israeli-Syrian peace, it will certainly force Tehran to rethink its strategy toward Israel.
The irony is that while Israel continues to hype up the Iranian nuclear threat, and perhaps for good reason, it has lost focus on how to change the regional geopolitical dynamic and weaken Iran's influence in the region.
Peace with Syria will under any circumstances reduce the prospect of using force against Iran to resolve its nuclear threat....
Sounds good. So what is Obama waiting for?
The feeling in Washington is that President Obama, once burned by the lobby (over the settlements), is now timid about applying any pressure to Israel.
He shouldn't be. It is true that the very thought of Obama exerting leadership on the Middle East enrages AIPAC and hence terrifies the House and Senate Democratic campaign finance committees. But, even with a right-wing government, the Israelis are far more open to a deal with Damascus (and its allies) than the Washington power mongers. After all, it would be Tel Aviv and Haifa and not Bethesda or McLean that might have to be evacuated in another major war in the north. Not to mention much of Lebanon.
This is no game. Lives are at stake. And so is this President's reputation as a peacemaker rather than as a champion of the deadly international status quo.