LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJune 24/2010

Bible Of the Day
Isaiah 5/20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
5:21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
5:22 Woe to those who are mighty to drink wine, and champions at mixing strong drink;
5:23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice for the innocent!
5:24 Therefore as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as the dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust; because they have rejected the law of Yahweh of Armies, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
5:25 Therefore Yahweh’s anger burns against his people, and he has stretched out his hand against them, and has struck them. The mountains tremble, and their dead bodies are as refuse in the midst of the streets. For all this, his anger is not turned away, but his hand is still stretched out.
5:26 He will lift up a banner to the nations from far, and he will whistle for them from the end of the earth. Behold, they will come speedily and swiftly.
5:27 None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the belt of their waist be untied, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken:
5:28 whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent. Their horses’ hoofs will be like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind.
5:29 Their roaring will be like a lioness. They will roar like young lions. Yes, they shall roar, and seize their prey and carry it off, and there will be no one to deliver.
5:30 They will roar against them in that day like the roaring of the sea. If one looks to the land behold, darkness and distress.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Sarkozy and the Syrian Role/Randa Takieddine/23 June/10
A Modern Regime for all Lebanese/Mostafa Zein/23 June/10
CANADA TO BAR ISLAMIC PREACHER/National Post/23 June/10
Bassil's plan is only a ploy/Daily Star/June 23/10
Turkish backing is just a desperate Palestinian fantasy/By Mkhaimar Abusada/June 23/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 23/10
Cyprus Responds to Lebanon: No Ships to Gaza Via Cyprus/Naharnet
Suleiman Frustrated with Assad 's Insistence to Meet Lebanese Party Leaders/Naharnet
March 14 MPs Urged to Propose Draft Law on Palestinian Rights/Naharnet
Dangers Posed By Hezbollah/Voice of America
Haifa, Hezbollah deny media report about Gaza-bound ship/GulfNews
Supplies Flow Into Gaza as Israel Eases Land Blockade/Voice of America
Release journalist, group tells Syria/UPI.com
Report: Hezbollah and Syria are organizing the Lebanese flotilla/Israel Defense Forces
'Israel fully responsible for any attack on Lebanon' - Lebanese FM/Daily Star
Lebanon to UN: Israel will suffer consequences if our ships are attacked/Ha'aretz
Israel 'fully responsible for any attack': Lebanon/AFP
Pan-Arab narrative a myth in Lebanon/The Guardian
Report: Hezbollah prepares retaliation for potential Nasrallah assassination/Ha'aretz
Aoun, Assad discuss Israeli threat to region/Daily Star
Media outlets divided over intended target, motives of Zahle explosion/Daily Star
Gemayel says neutrality 'not weakness' but key to stability/Daily Star
PLO Rejects Naturalization, says Palestinian Rights Not Up For Bargaining/Naharnet

Cyprus Responds to Lebanon: No Ships to Gaza Via Cyprus
Naharnet/Cyprus authorities responded to Lebanon, saying a ban on ships sailing from its ports to Gaza still applies. Transport Minister Ghazi Aridi has given permission to the aid ship "Julia" to leave the northern port city of Tripoli for Cyprus. The ship, carrying humanitarian aid and pro-Palestinian activists from various countries, will reportedly sail to Cyprus in the coming days before heading to Gaza. Cyprus Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou said the ship will not be allowed to proceed to Gaza. "The prohibition on ships to reach Gaza from Cyprus is still applicable," Kyprianou said commenting on Aridi's statement. A Cyprus police spokesman said that the police had contacted the Foreign Ministry and would act accordingly.
Beirut, 23 Jun 10, 07:08

Report: Nasrallah Scrapped Turkey Visit after Security Negotiations Dragged on
Naharnet/Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has cancelled a reported trip to Ankara for fear that an Israeli hit team would assassinate him despite a promised fourfold security shield, counter-terror sources told the Israeli DEBKAfile website. They said Nasrallah did not feel safe enough to take up Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's invitation to visit Ankara despite the promised protection of the intelligence agencies of Iran, Syria, Turkey and the party's own service. Nasrallah found that two scenarios of his itinerary to Turkey were risky. Under the first plan, Nasrallah would be flown to Ankara by a Syrian or Iranian military aircraft, DEBKAfile said. The other plan was for the Hizbullah chief to make his way to Turkey secretly by road through Syria. Nasrallah decided that the 10-hour journey on Syrian highways would expose his convoy to surveillance by Israeli drones, according to the website. As the negotiations between Nasrallah and Turkish security MIT officials in Beirut on his personal security dragged on, Erdogan cooled on the prospect of hosting him, DEBKAfile said. Erdogan was convinced to shelve plans for Nasrallah's visit and order the MIT team to return home, it added. Beirut, 23 Jun 10, 09:35

Suleiman Frustrated with Assad 's Insistence to Meet Lebanese Party Leaders
Naharnet/The French mission to study French-Syrian relations has criticized in its report issued last week meetings that bring together President Bashar al-Assad with Lebanese party leaders, the daily As-Safir revealed Wednesday. The mission said such meetings "weaken" the Lebanese state. As-Safir said the Committee chaired by French Socialist leader Elisabeth Guigou has conveyed a complaint by President Michel Suleiman, who is close to Syria, in which he regrets his Syrian counterpart's insistence to meet Lebanese party leaders "while relations should be confined to official representatives of the two countries." The report quoted Suleiman as telling the Committee that "Syria is stronger than Lebanon and has a historical influence on a large segment of the Lebanese people."Suleiman added that Damascus "must not demonstrate these influences against the interests of Lebanon.""Things would be better off when Syria feels that Lebanon is not antagonizing it," Suleiman thought. Beirut, 23 Jun 10, 11:02

Gemayel says neutrality 'not weakness' but key to stability
By Elias Sakr /Daily Star staff
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
BEIRUT: Neutrality does not indicate weakness but rather guarantees stability, whereas siding with a certain regional axis has always dragged Lebanon into wars and conflicts, Phalange Party chief Amin Gemayel said on Tuesday. “Why do we always have to wait for battles, conflicts and disputes to revert to an equation based on no vanquished nor victor?” Gemayel asked in a news conference. “Neutrality is not an alternative to weakness as some claim but rather allows us to focus on our domestic situation to promote national unity and face all dangers as well as Israel’s arrogance that poses danger against Lebanon and Arab states,” he added. Gemayel stressed that, what he termed “positive neutrality,” does not contradict Lebanon’s commitment to supporting the Palestinian cause but rather leads to a united Lebanese resistance to face regional and international challenges. “We need a period to allow the re-structuring and strengthening of the state and army so as to make of the Lebanese people a resistance and build a united resistance that starts with domestic immunity to face regional and international challenges,” Gemayel said. Touching on the Lebanese-Syrian ties, Gemayel called for distancing the relation between both countries from regional and international power balances.
“We want this relation to be a solid one that is not influenced by regional circumstances or international affairs,” Gemayel said.
The former president also urged for the re-evaluation of bilateral agreements in line with the Lebanese Constitution.
Syria and Lebanon only established formal diplomatic relations in October 2008, more than 60 years after they both were granted independence from a French mandate by the League of Nations. Among the debated bilateral issues, the demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian border tops the agenda.
Media reports said last week following President Michel Sleiman’s visit to Damascus that Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to start the demarcation process with the Lebanese-Syrian maritime border. The media reports quoted sources as saying that Damascus considered the demarcation of the land border at the current timing a US rather than a Lebanese demand.
Syria had earlier agreed to start the demarcation process from the Lebanese northern border while March 14 parties demand the demarcation of the southern border to legitimize demands before the international community to liberate the occupied Shebaa Farms. The Shebaa Farms area was captured by Israel during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and is regarded by the UN to be within Syrian territories. While Damascus has publically declared that the farms are Lebanese land, it did not however provide Lebanon with official documents.
Commenting on last week’s proposal to grant Palestinian refugees civil rights, Gemayel said the submission of such a law for approval without prior discussions was “unacceptable.”

Media outlets divided over intended target, motives of Zahle explosion
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
BEIRUT: The motives behind an explosion in Zahle on the eve of Lebanese Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir’s visit to the Bekaa city were still unclear on Tuesday.
While some media outlets reported that sabotage behind the explosion, with the possibility that the blast may have been aimed at Sfeir, others ruled out a terrorist act.
Al-Liwaa newspaper, citing a security official, said Tuesday Sfeir was not a target. It said probes did not find evidence to prove that the explosion was caused by a bomb blast given that the blast did not leave a crater and was not triggered by explosive material. Shell fragments were also not found in the victim, the official told Al-Liwaa. As-Safir newspaper on Tuesday said investigations focused on one of two possibilities – that the blast was either aimed at Sfeir or the Lebanese Army. Pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat had said the explosion on the eve of Sfeir’s visit, the first by a Maronite patriarch to the Bekaa in 72 years, has been described as an act of “sabotage” until this hypothesis is proven invalid. It said Lebanese authorities have arrested three people in connection with the powerful explosion that ripped through a used car-parts shop in the industrial city of Zahle shortly before midnight Saturday, leaving one person killed and two others wounded. The shop belongs to Khaled Dallah from the eastern town of Bar Elias. Al-Hayat said Ziad Hussein, from Majdal Anjar, died as a result of severe burns sustained in the fire caused by the blast. It said the wounded – Khaled Hamzeh Hammoud and Amer Ajami, who also hail from Majdal Anjar – were taken to the Lebanese-French hospital in the Bekaa where they are being kept under heavy police guard. Preliminary investigation found that the explosion took place while preparing a bomb. Sources following up on the probe into the incident had said that Hammoud, Ajami, and Dallah have been arrested. Al-Hayat, citing high-ranking security sources, said the explosion occurred when Hussein, along with his friends Ajami and Hamzeh, went into the shop after he had obtained a key from Dallah, who asked them to wait for him in the industrial city while he got dressed. Al-Hayat quoted Bekaa figures who visited Hamzeh in hospital as saying that the fire engulfed the shop when Hussein turned on the generator placed in his car. – /Naharnet

Aoun, Assad discuss Israeli threat to region
By The Daily Star /Wednesday, June 23, 2010
BEIRUT: Syrian President Bashar Assad and Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun agreed Tuesday to promote coordination and cooperation regarding issues of interests to both countries. Assad and Aoun discussed “the latest regional and international developments particularly in view of the Israeli continuous threats aimed at destabilizing the region’s security and stability,” said a statement by the Syrian state-run news agency (SANA). The statement added that the Syrian president and the former army general highlighted positive developments in Syrian-Lebanese ties and efforts to enhance cooperation on several levels. The meeting was attended by Aoun’s son-in-law Lebanese Minister of Energy and Water Resources Gebran Bassil. Aoun’s visit to Syria follows recent Israeli accusation against Damascus of providing Lebanese group Hizbullah with sophisticated weapons that could “alter the regional balance of power and destabilize the region,” according to Israel. “I am against surrendering a knife and against anyone that does not want the Resistance in Lebanon,” Aoun said following the Reform and Change bloc’s weekly meeting upon his return from Damascus. Aoun added that his visit to Damascus “was being postponed for some time and took place today when the timing became appropriate. “Discussions tackled the regional situation,” Aoun said, as he played down the odds of a war against Lebanon “unless some domestic party continues to provoke strife.
“I hope that they deal with issues that bother the people since Hizbullah’s weapons do not,” Aoun said in response to criticism of Hizbullah’s arms. Commenting on demands made last week to grant Palestinian refugees their civil rights, Aoun said the issue could not be dealt with in its entirety, but a comprehensive resolution should be adopted. Aoun added that Lebanon could “not carry the burden alone” as he called on “major powers that voted to divide Palestine to assume the responsibility of Palestinian refugees.” – The Daily Star

'Israel fully responsible for any attack on Lebanon' - FM
By Agence France Presse (AFP) and The Daily Star
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
BEIRUT: Lebanon said on Tuesday it would hold Israel responsible for any attack, in response to Israeli warnings that it would use “all necessary force” to stop aid boats planning to sail to blockaded Gaza. “Israel will be held fully responsible for any attack on Lebanon,” the Foreign Ministry said in a letter to the UN. “While Lebanese laws do not allow the sailing of ships directly to shores under Israeli authorities including Gaza, Lebanon cannot prohibit a ship from leaving its ports if its cargo, passengers and destination all comply with Lebanese law,” it said in the letter. The vessel would need Cypriot authorization to depart for Gaza from its shores, but officials in Cyprus said on Tuesday that the island was keeping in place a ban on ships departing for Gaza. Organizers in Lebanon have said they may change course before reaching the island and head straight toward the Palestinian territory. Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations warned the world body last week that the Jewish state was entitled to use “all necessary force” to stop the Lebanese activists’ boats. On Monday, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak also reiterated a warning that Lebanon would be responsible for any “violent and dangerous confrontation” with vessels sailing to Gaza from its shores.
“We hold the Lebanese Cabinet responsible for any ship that sails from its shores as well as for its passengers’ load since it could lead to collision that could in turn lead to violence,” Barak said following a meeting with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. In defiance of the Israeli warnings, Lebanese civilian groups are still planning to transport aid, including medical supplies, by sea to the Israeli-blockaded Palestinian territory via Cyprus. Lebanese Public Works and Transport Ministry granted permission Monday for the ship to sail first to the Mediterranean island of Cyprus as the state of war between Lebanon and Israel prevented the boat from heading directly to Gaza. One of two boats, the Naji al-Ali, on Monday received Lebanon’s green light to depart for Cyprus on the first leg of the trip to Gaza. It is currently docked in the northern port of Tripoli.
A second ship, the Mariam, also plans to carry aid to Gaza in another attempt to break the four-year siege of Gaza with some 50 women activists on board, including 30 Lebanese. The Mariam has not yet been given Lebanese clearance to sail. Israel came under international censure over its May 31 seizure of a six-ship aid fleet bound for Gaza, in which nine Turkish activists were shot dead by Israeli naval commandos in clashes on the lead boat. A Lebanese freighter which tried to deliver aid to Gaza last year was intercepted by Israeli warships.
Israel imposed the blockade of Gaza after Hamas militants overran the territory three years ago. But the blockade did not achieve Israel’s aims of keeping weapons out of the territory, pressuring Gazans to turn on their Hamas rulers or winning the release of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas-linked militants for four years. – AFP, with The Daily Star

Bassil's plan is only a ploy
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Editorial/Daily Star
We thank Energy and Water Minister Gebran Bassil for his plan to provide an uninterrupted flow of electricity to all of Lebanon by 2015.
We thank the minister for preparing a fairly detailed and comprehensive plan. We fully anticipate an avalanche of interpretation to follow, with varying evaluations of his numbers and plans for implementation.
We thank him for raising the level of discourse on this vital issue – it is indeed good and refreshing to have such a plan as the basis for debate.
We must acknowledge that Bassil – sitting in the one of the trickier ministerial chairs – is clearly a man with a keen sense for what the public wants to hear, and also for the manner in which the public wants to hear it. He has given us the proper prose, the research background and the coefficients which the citizenry has long aspired to hear.
We also do not believe a word of it. Oh yes, the Cabinet of Prime Minister Saad Hariri – who is a political foe of the minister – approved the proposal unanimously, but do not be misled by that oddity. Lebanese cabinets of all stripes have approved a petrified forest of plans ideal, grand, far-reaching, forward-looking, game-changing and revolutionary, all of them left to rot without the faintest sign of life or implementation.
What Bassil has done is raise by several degrees the level of electioneering. Other than for political purposes, this plan is a chimera. Doing anything of this scale in Lebanon would require a political investment of mammoth proportions. To this point, we have not even heard that his parliamentary bloc will carry this plan into the future – or even beyond this term of office. We question whether his bloc will even acknowledge its parental relationship to this proposal, once this Cabinet and Parliament have become history.
No, to make headway on this issue, Bassil would have to convince his father-in-law, Change and Reform Bloc head MP Michel Aoun, to embrace the plan and throw his full and constant support behind it. Was that Aoun asking Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus on Tuesday for assistance in realizing this effort?
However, the real reason why this plan will not come to fruition is the system of the Lebanese state. The real flaws in infrastructure and design are in the system. The system lies. It does not have any institutions or practices to guarantee the implementation of the proposal. Our experience is that the system amounts to little more than a charade. Bassil’s plan, for all its beauty, does not fit the country for which it is intended. This is not a plan for a country that ranks 34th on the Foreign Policy index of failed states.

Turkish backing is just a desperate Palestinian fantasy
By Mkhaimar Abusada /Daily Star
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Israeli attack on the Turkish-flagged “Freedom Flotilla” that aimed to break the siege and blockade on the Gaza Strip is threatening the once strategic relationship between Israel and Turkey. Turkey considers the incident an attack on its sovereignty and has warned that relations with Israel will never be the same.
Turkey was the first Islamic country to recognize Israel in March 1949. Over a period of 60 years, the two countries developed a very strong relationship. Israel has been a major supplier of arms to Turkey. Military, strategic and diplomatic cooperation between Turkey and Israel were accorded high priority by the governments of both countries, which share concerns with respect to the instabilities in the Middle East. They have joint military committees and have held joint military exercises until very recently. Trade and tourism between them is considered the best in the Middle East region, which is otherwise hostile to Israel.
But diplomatic relations between the two countries were strained after Israel launched a war on the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009 that took the lives of more than 1,400 Palestinians, mainly civilians. Turkey heavily criticized Israel’s conduct during its assault on Gaza, and Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s subsequent walk-out from the World Economic Forum in Davos humiliated Israeli President Shimon Peres and ignited a wave of criticism and incitement from both sides. But relations between the two countries had already changed since the election in 2002 of the Islamic Justice and Development party.
The Palestinians, especially Gazans, along with other Arabs, have welcomed the bold and courageous policies of Erdogan, describing them as representative of a new Ottomanism. The Israeli attack on the flotilla gave even more prominence to Turkey and its government. Palestinians in Gaza waved Turkish flags and decorated their homes with portraits of Erdogan. Ismail Haniyya, the deposed prime minister of Hamas, posted a Turkish flag next to the Palestinian flag during last Friday’s sermon.
Erdogan has defended Hamas and told the Obama administration that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but rather a resistance group dedicated to fighting the Israeli occupation. He also called on the international community and the Quartet to engage Hamas because it won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006. The world condemnation of Israel’s raid on the flotilla and new calls to end the siege on Gaza have even led many Israelis to declare that it is Israel that is now under siege while Hamas is gaining more international recognition.
But how far can Turkey go with its current policy toward Israel and Hamas? Some analysts are skeptical of Turkey’s new Middle East policy and believe that the refusal of Europe to accept Turkey into the European Union caused Turkey to shift its policy eastward and advocate the Palestinian cause to improve its position vis-à-vis the United States and Europe. Some have also suggested that this new policy is only a public relations stunt to show the Islamic world that Turkey is on its side, because Turkey had long been silent on major issues important to Arabs and Muslims, not least the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
And Turkey has its own domestic constraints: first, the secular military establishment is strong enough to intervene when it feels that Turkish secular values are threatened. In spite of the recent weakening of secular elements, the battle between secularists and Islamists is far from over in Turkey.
Second, Turkey’s war with its Kurdish minority must be taken into consideration in analyzing Israeli-Turkish relations. Israeli support for Kurdish rights is one of the key factors in the damage done to Israeli-Turkish relations. Turkey is also a member of NATO, which is dedicated to the collective national security of its members.
The Palestinians are obsessed with any country or leader that advocates their rights and stands up against Israel. The Palestinians supported Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Saddam Hussein of Iraq for that very reason. Now the pattern is being repeated with Erdogan. The failure of Palestinian leaders to end the Israeli occupation and liberate occupied land has led Palestinians to cling to desperate fantasies. Even though many of these leaders exploited the Palestinian cause for their own personal agendas, Palestinians have not learned the lessons from past experience.
Can Turkey terminate its relations with Israel? And if so, would Turkey do that for the sake of the Palestinians and Islam? Palestinians should know that no one can help them if they cannot help themselves. The key is to reorganize their internal house and adopt a national political program that can be used to recruit international pressure on Israel.
**Mkhaimar Abusada is a professor of political science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.

CANADA TO BAR ISLAMIC PREACHER
Kathryn Blaze Carlson, National Post · Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/CANADA+ISLAMIC+PREACHER/3183829/story.html
An Indian Muslim televangelist who was banned from Britain last week for "unacceptable behaviour" will not be allowed into Canada to speak at an upcoming conference in Toronto, sources familiar with the situation have told the National Post.
Dr. Zakir Naik, who has said "every Muslim should be a terrorist" and that Jews are "our staunchest enemy," was to headline next month's Journey of Faith Conference -- which is billed as one of North America's largest Islamic conferences and is expected to attract upward of 10,000 people.
Dr. Naik, the Mumbaibased founder of Peace TV and a widely respected lecturer in India, has a laundry list of views that could have led to his exclusion from the U.K. and Canada, both of which require an Indian citizen to obtain a visitor visa.
The 44-year-old medical doctor recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith. He has said that a man is within his right to beat his wife "lightly," although in a July 2009 YouTube video he cautioned against hitting her on the face or leaving a mark.
The "Keep Zakir Naik Out of Canada" Facebook group, which was launched over the weekend, also points out his view that Western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing revealing clothing.
Among the chief reasons British Home Secretary Theresa May decided to quash Dr. Naik's U.K. speaking tour later this month, however, were comments he made in a widely circulated 2007 video.
"If [Osama bin Laden] is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him....
"If he is terrorizing a terrorist, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him," said Dr. Naik, who has delivered hundreds of talks in India, Canada, the United States and the Middle East. "Every Muslim should be a terrorist."
Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said he and the congress have been informed that Dr. Naik will be "stopped at the airport," and sources familiar with the situation confirmed Dr. Naik does not have a visa to enter Canada.
"We are very happy that government agencies, having been made aware of his statements, have taken this decision," Mr. Fatah said.
Mr. Fatah said he sent a mass email to federal MPs last week, warning them of Dr. Naik's views. "We certainly don't want hate-mongers to come here."
"To me, the rules as to who can come into this country were written for this kind of person," said Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "The comments are highly inflammatory, and highly provocative. When you put them together in one cauldron, you have a stew of hatred."
Dr. Naik, president of the Islamic Research Foundation in Mumbai, was reached via email yesterday but would not comment on his pending visit to Toronto. In fact, Dr. Naik may not yet know that he is unwelcome in Canada, sources said.
In his email to the National Post, Dr. Naik pointed to a June 20 statement regarding
the "overzealous and islamophobic exclusion order" issued by the U.K. The statement seeks to clarify his comments, which the foundation argues were "taken out of context."
The Journey of Faith Conference is chaired by Imam Saed Rageah, whose Toronto mosque, the Abu Huraira Centre, made headlines last fall after a group of young worshippers vanished and were feared to have joined a Somali militant group.
Imam Ragaeh declined an interview request yesterday, but passed along a Web video via email of Dr. Naik defending his comments and promising to challenge the U.K. ban.
According to the Journey of Faith event website, the "hope" of the July 2-4 conference at the downtown Metro Toronto Convention Centre is for Muslims to "renew their forgotten relationship" with the Koran. As of last night, the site still listed Dr. Naik as a featured speaker.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada declined to comment on the case yesterday, citing the Privacy Act..

Saudis: Green Light for Israeli Attack on Iran
Ryan Mauro - Front Page Magazine, June 22nd, 2010
http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=5576
The Iranian regime does not just seek the destruction of Israel, but seeks to overthrow the pro-American Sunni Arab regimes, ushering in an era of Shiite dominance of the region. These Arab countries, despite their public denials, are wishing for the very scenario that the Obama Administration is trying to prevent: An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And there are growing signs that such a strike is being prepared for.
The call for a “Greater Iran” stretching from Palestine to Afghanistan and vanquishing Saudi Wahhabism by the head of Hezbollah in Iran shocked the media, but the entire Middle East was already well-aware of this objective. The Iranians waged a proxy war against Yemen and Saudi Arabia last year, providing a tremendous amount of support to the radical Shiite Houthi rebels. The regime has been trying to dominate Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories via proxies, and the governments of the Arabian Peninsula have accused Iran of stirring up unrest in their lands for years.
“The Saudis are as threatened as Israel by Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” Aaron Klein, the Jerusalem Bureau Chief of WorldNetDaily.com, told FrontPage. He has broken numerous stories about the fear of Iran expressed by Arab officials behind the scenes.
“Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia secretly back an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Saudis are particularly active in coordinating with Israel since their oil interests are at stake in a major war,” Klein said.
The Saudis have been sharing intelligence with Israel about Iran and they reportedly told the head of Mossad in early 2009 that Saudi air space could be used to carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. There have been consistent reports of secret high-level meetings between Israeli and Saudi officials over the past two years, and the Saudis have just simulated a scenario where Israeli aircraft pass over a thin stretch of their territory to attack Iran to make sure there is not a confrontation. Predictably, the Saudis have denied the arrangement, saying they’ll never allow their nation to be used to attack another country.
The panic over Iran’s activities in the region and pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities can be clearly seen in the Saudi media and Saudi officials are increasing the tempo of the warnings. The former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, spoke in Beirut last month and said that the Arabs must do everything they can to stop Iran from going nuclear. He said that if Iran succeeds in doing so, the situation is irreversible and the Arabs will face an increasing danger. Of course, he combined his call to stop Iran with criticism of Israel’s own nuclear stockpile, as is to be expected.
Egyptian officials are also taking a stronger line, particularly since the arrest of 49 Hezbollah members in the country planning attacks on Israeli targets. Hezbollah reacted to the arrests by calling for the overthrow of the more moderate regimes in the region, including that of Egypt. The Egyptian Prime Minister accurately said that Hezbollah had “virtually declared war.” On May 3, the former ambassador to Israel clearly stated on Egyptian television that Iran is not a friend. Last July, the Egyptians publicly allowed Israel to send two missile boats and a Dolphin-class nuclear-capable submarine to transit the Suez Canal, practicing a potential deployment for a strike on Iran. And last week, over a dozen U.S. ships and at least one Israeli warship transited the Suez Canal with Egyptian forces providing security. This comes as a senior Egyptian security official anonymously said that his government sees an Israeli strike on Iran happening as early as this July.
There are more countries than just Egypt and Saudi Arabia supporting an Israeli strike. A member of Israel’s parliament from the Likud Party said in March that a “wall-to-wall coalition” of Muslim countries had secretly contacted Israel, some of whom the Israelis do not even have diplomatic relations with, expressing their support for any measure taken to stop Iran.
In January, for the first time, an Israeli minister visited the United Arab Emirates to participate in an energy conference and the UAE teamed up with the Saudis to pressure China into supporting sanctions on Iran. Algeria has accused Iran of supporting terrorists fighting the government, and Morocco cut off ties with Iran in March 2009 because of their promotion of extremist Shiite Islam through non-governmental organizations.
Ethiopia is an opponent of two of Iran’s allies, Sudan and Eritrea, and has accused the latter of supporting Somali terrorists that they have gone to war with. Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has frequently called Hamas a puppet of the Iranians and has blamed them for Israel’s 2009 offensive into Gaza. The other countries in the Arabian Peninsula have had their own problems with Iranian meddling. The Israeli MP’s claim is not far-fetched.
This doesn’t mean that an Israeli strike on Iran doesn’t bring serious risks to the Sunni Arabs, though. Iran has repeatedly stated that Arab countries hosting U.S. military bases will be retaliated against if an attack happens. The Arabs, however, feel they have no other choice but to support Israel, especially considering they will likely be attacked regardless of whether they permit the strikes.
“There’s too much at stake for them,” Klein said. “They are betting an Israeli strike, as dangerous as it is, will be successful.”
The Arab countries also have to be concerned about domestic unrest in the aftermath of an attack. However, a recent poll indicates this will not significantly affect the stability of their governments. They were able to remain in power when the U.S. invaded Iraq, an action more infuriating to their populations because of their shared Arab identity.
A Pew Research Center poll dated June 17, 2010 found that strong majorities of the people in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt view Iran negatively, lack confidence in Ahmadinejad and oppose Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. A majority of those in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon opposing a nuclear-armed Iran actually favor the use of military force if necessary to stop them. The popular backlash resulting from an Israeli strike may not be as much of a threat as is assumed.
Ironically, these Arab countries appear to be actually promoting Israeli military action against Iran while the U.S. is trying to stop it. If Israel ultimately decides to strike Iran, the Arabs will join the Obama Administration in condemning them—but privately, they will be thanking their Jewish adversaries for saving them from having to handle a nuclear Iran, an enemy far more threatening to them than Israel ever was.

The Israel Test
A briefing by George Gilder
May 25, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2676/the-israel-test
George Gilder is a leading intellectual and advocate for Israel, free markets, and technological innovation. He has served as a speechwriter for several Republican candidates and is an expert in supply-side economics. On May 25, George Gilder addressed the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia on the subject of his book, The Israel Test.
According to Mr. Gilder, the Arab-Israeli conflict is shaped by the undeniable fact that Israel is a fully modern state, while its neighbors are not. America must recognize this stark division to navigate the minefields of Middle Eastern politics and advance its own interests, to which Israel's success is inexorably linked.
Mr. Gilder initiated his talk by pointing out the many contributions to science made by Israelis in the 20th and 21st centuries. This has been driven by the country's general shift from agriculture to the world of capitalism and ideas, even though all indicators rank the Israeli education system as inferior to the American one. Mr. Gilder proceeded to give the example of the Rambam Hospital in Haifa, which has pioneered research into multiple sclerosis, treatment of burns, and embryonic stem cells.
Mr. Gilder then highlighted what he sees as the central problem in current U.S. policy in the Middle East. While policymakers are divided on what they view as the chief priority, Mr. Gilder believes that they have lost a "sense of goal," as they fail to recognize that Israel is the greatest asset the U.S. has in the region. For instance, most microprocessors for computers, developed by Intel, were originally invented in Israel, whereas Apple uses a flash memory invented in Israel. In other words, Israel is essential for American "economic interests."
Mr. Gilder contrasted Israel's contributions to "technology of life" with the Iranian nuclear program, which he termed "technology of death." Mr. Gilder added that although many of Israel's enemies are angered by its success, Israel nonetheless currently has a good leader in Prime Minister Netanyahu, who understands the interplay between economics and military power, as well as the war on terror.
Asked why Israel moved from a socialist economy to free markets about 10-15 years ago, Mr. Gilder asserted that it was due to the 1000% inflation that Israel suffered, as well as the arrival of a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union who understood that socialism was not working.
In response to a question about whether Arab attitudes toward Israel had softened in recent years, Mr. Gilder answered in the negative. He argued that Palestinian culture in particular is still bent on eliminating Israel and resents Israel's success. Indeed, while the per-capita income in the Palestinian territories tripled in the period 1967-1987, GDP declined by 40% after Arafat's return from Tunisia and the formation of the Palestinian Authority. Rather than a two-state solution with Israel, Mr. Gilder proposed that the Palestinians should try to form a confederation with Jordan.
**Summary written by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi.

Address by The Canadian FM, Cannon Regarding UN Security Council Resolution 1929
To view this document on the department website, please click on the following link:
http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/speeches-discours/2010/2010-045.aspx
Address by Minister Cannon Regarding UN Security Council Resolution 1929
No. 2010/45 - Ottawa, Ontario - June 22, 2010
The global threat posed by state and non-state actors’ potential use of nuclear weapons remains very real.
Further to Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper’s statement this morning, I can present additional information on the sanctions that Canada has imposed against Iran.
These sanctions are designed to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, and they send a clear message to the Iranian regime that international standards cannot be flouted without consequences.
This action is aligned with UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which was adopted earlier this month. Resolution 1929 builds on successive UN Security Council resolutions.
If Iran continues to defy its UN obligations, it could undermine security in the Middle East and around the world. Canada will continue to hold Iran accountable for its actions.
UN Security Council sanctions introduce restrictions that further limit Iran’s access to uranium, nuclear materials and technology, both directly and through third parties, such as key members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
I would like to emphasize, in no uncertain terms, that these sanctions are not intended to punish the Iranian people. Canada has the utmost respect for the people of Iran and their proud history.
Rather, these targeted measures are a direct response to the Iranian regime’s continued violation of its international obligations, further to numerous UN Security Council resolutions.
As a member of the United Nations, Canada has a responsibility to ensure that Iran’s nuclear activities do not continue to threaten peace and security in the region and elsewhere. Indeed, all UN members must act quickly and collectively to address the Iranian regime’s continued deceit and intransigence.
Canada is therefore imposing additional sanctions and using its G-8 presidency to maintain pressure on Iran.
Canada has implemented all Security Council decisions pertaining to Iran to date, and we continue to implement our controlled engagement policy vis-à-vis Iran.
These measures also send a strong message to all states—particularly those with nuclear aspirations—that failing to comply with the international standards will result in consequences.
The Iranian regime must cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, most notably by suspending its enrichment-related activities and by addressing serious concerns about the military dimensions of its nuclear program.
We further urge Iran to agree to a constructive dialogue with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States with a view to reaching a diplomatic solution as soon as possible.
In the absence of a positive response from Iran, Canada stands ready to implement additional sanctions to address Iran’s egregious violations and continued threat to global peace and security.
Canada will keep in close step with our international partners to urge Iran to comply with international law.
Canada will also continue to use our G-8 presidency to maintain international focus on Iran’s nuclear program.
Iran was a key issue of discussion when I met with my G-8 counterparts at the foreign ministers’ meeting in Gatineau last March. It will certainly be a key issue of discussion when leaders meet in Muskoka this week.
Finally, I would like to stress that Canada’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program in no way detract from our equally serious concerns with Iran’s human rights situation.
Just two weeks ago, we marked the one-year anniversary of the disputed elections in Iran that led to appalling repression by the Iranian regime.
The ongoing use of violence and intimidation, and the arrest of opposition members and supporters, is intolerable.
The Iranian regime must uphold its human rights commitments by allowing freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly; by protecting religious minorities; by respecting the human rights of prisoners and detainees; and by ensuring the equal treatment of women and girls.
Work toward international peace and security, and the promotion of human rights are mutually reinforcing.
We cannot hope to have one without the other. This is what Canada stands for.
Thank you.

The Left's New Enemy: "Empire"
by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
June 22, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/8526/the-left-enemy-empire
We know what Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao wanted (state control of everything) and how they achieved this goal (brutal totalitarianism); but what do their successors today want and how do they hope to achieve it? It's a curiously un-examined subject.
Ernest Sternberg of the University at Buffalo offers answers in an eye-opening article in a recent issue of Orbis, "Purifying the World: What the New Radical Ideology Stands For." His begins by sketching out what the contemporary far Left (as opposed to the "decent Left") opposes and what it wants.
What the Left opposes: The prime enemy is something called Empire (no definite article needed), a supposed global monolith that dominates, exploits, and oppresses the world. Sternberg summarizes the Left's all-embracing indictment of Empire:
people live in poverty, food is contaminated, products are artificial, wasteful consumption is compelled, indigenous groups are dispossessed, and nature itself is subverted. Invasive species run rampant, glaciers melt, and seasons are thrown out of kilter, threatening world catastrophe.
"Empire," the key text of left-fascism.
Empire achieves this by means of "economic liberalism, militarism, multinational corporations, corporate media, and technologies of surveillance." Because capitalism causes millions of deaths that a non-capitalism system would eliminate, it also is guilty of mass-murder.
The United States, of course, is the Great Satan, accused of hoarding disproportionate resources. Its military oppresses the poor so its corporations can exploit them. Its government promotes the pretend-danger of terrorism to aggress abroad and repress at home.
And Israel is the Little Satan, serving as Empire's sinister ally – or maybe the Jewish state is really the master? From World Social Forum meetings in Brazil to the United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban and from mainline churches to NGOs, Zionism is represented as absolute evil. Why Israel? Beyond not-so-subtle antisemitism, it alone of Western countries lives under a barrage of constant threats, which in turn compel it to engage in constant wars. "Stripped of all context," Sternberg notes, "Israel's actions fit the needed image of aggressor."
To fight Empire's superior resources, the Left needs to ally with anyone else opposing it – notably Islamists. Islamist goals contradict the Left's, but no matter; so long as Islamists help fight Empire, they have a valued place in the coalition.
What the Left seeks: One catchword is authenticity: Empire's artificiality makes indigenous culture analogous to endangered species. Culture should be indigenous, organic, and sheltered from Empire's crass commercialism (e.g., Hollywood), its bogus rationalism, and its false concepts of freedom.
A second catchword is democracy: The Left rejects the distant and formalistic structure of a mature republic and instead celebrates grassroots, non-hegemonic democracy that offers a more direct voice. The democratic process, Sternberg explains, " will proceed through meetings freed from the manipulative reins of law, procedure, precedent, and hierarchy." These high-flying words, however, disguise a recipe for despotism; those laws, procedures, precedents, and hierarchy serve a very real purpose.
History, apparently, has not ended.
A third is sustainability. To integrate economies into the earth's ecosystem, the new order "will run on alternative energy, organic farming, local food markets, and closed-loop recyclable industry, if any industry is needed. People will travel on public transit, or ride cars that tread lightly on the earth, or even better, ride bicycles. They will occupy green buildings constructed of local materials and inhabit cities growing organically within bioregions. Life will be liberated from carbon emanations. It will be a permanent, placid way of life."
Socialism definitely forms part of this picture but economics no longer dominates, as once it did. The new leftist goal is more complex than mere anti-capitalism, constituting an entire way of life. Sternberg dubs this movement world purificationism, but I prefer left-fascism.
He then asks the vital question: Will the Left's latest incarnation once again turn totalitarian? He finds it too early to answer definitely but points to several "totalitarian warning signs," including the dehumanizing of enemies and accusations of mass murder. He warns of an inflection point when left-fascists "stand true to their cataclysmic rhetoric and strap on suicide belts or take up arms to become martyrs." In other words, the dangers are real and present.
So much for those fashionable theories of two decades ago, trumpeted as the Berlin Wall fell, about the end of ideology. The Left retrenched after the fall of Leninism and now threatens humanity with a new version of its anti-Western, anti-rational, anti-liberty, anti-individualist ideology.
**Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

IDF reinforces post on Riyaq Hill
June 23, 2010 /NOW Lebanon’s correspondent in the South reported on Wednesday that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reinforced its previously established post on the Riyaq Hill facing the southern town of Kfar Kila and the Fatima Gate. Israeli troops put up sand barriers around the post one kilometer away from the Fatima Gate, said the correspondent. /-NOW Lebanon

Aridi says no Mariam aid ship
June 23, 2010 /Public Works and Transportation Minister Ghazi Aridi told As-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper on Wednesday that he has no information regarding a Lebanese aid ship dubbed Mariam. “There is a campaign called Mariam, and the organizers of the campaign to lift the Gaza blockade did not say there was a vessel carrying that name.”
He added that the only aid ship, Julia, is currently docked at the Tripoli port, saying it has been dubbed Naji al-Ali. “I do not know anything about a second aid ship.”
This surfaced after reports said two Lebanese aid ships called Julia and Mariam will head to Cyprus before going to Gaza.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak reiterated a warning that Lebanon would be responsible for any "violent and dangerous confrontation" with vessels sailing to Gaza from its shores.-NOW Lebanon

Nawwaf al-Moussawi
June 23, 2010
On June 22, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
In a press conference held this morning at the parliamentary council, Deputy Nawwaf al-Moussawi said in response to the statements of the American Embassy spokesman regarding the fact that issues raised during the legislative session conveyed accusations: “Public opinion knows that what we said was not an accusation, rather a display of the clear recognition of the [American] administration’s funding of campaigns to disfigure Hezbollah’s image in the ranks of the Lebanese youth, made by Assistant Secretary of State and former American Ambassador in Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman.
“The one who was transparent in his statements was Feltman and not the spokesman of the American embassy. Therefore, if the embassy wishes to be transparent – as it said in its statement – let it show the people and the media what the American administration is doing, especially in the context of the so-called offer of aid. If the American Embassy wants to be transparent, I ask it to present a full list of the names who received more than $500 million, which it said was aid to support the Lebanese people. Let it announce these names in full, in a transparent and honest way, instead of hiding behind municipalities in which the crumbs of this sum were spent and instead of concealing the names of key figures, parties and media outlets.
“We are discussing the possible filing of a lawsuit against the American administration against the backdrop of Feltman’s statement, in which he recognized that his administration was violating the Lebanese community, sovereignty and national security, and instigating campaigns which are bound to affect Lebanese national unity. We are also discussing the filing of a lawsuit against those who received these funds. If the embassy wishes to be transparent, let it announce the names so that they are included in the lawsuit.
“Did the American administration offer Israel more than four million cluster bombs which were dropped on Lebanon during the July 2006 war. At least 2.5 million of them are still present on Lebanese soil. As a deputy and a Southern citizen, I address this question to the American Administration, it and the whole world knows that it provided 25 countries around the globe with internationally-banned cluster bombs. When I raise this question, I know that the American administration will not answer it, considering that between 2006 and 2008, Senator Patrick Leahy asked Condoleezza Rice three times if the administration offered cluster munitions to Israel, and each time she responded by saying that the Department of State was very transparent and was still investigating the issue.
“Yes, the American administration offered Lebanon 2.5 million cluster bombs in aid, and they are still in our land claiming the lives of martyred children and farmers on a daily basis. In this context, we reserve the right to file a lawsuit against the American Administration before the Lebanese and international judiciary, namely before the International Justice Court and the War Crimes Court. We as Lebanese citizens and individuals were harmed by these bombs and are still subjected to their threat. Moreover, as a Lebanese state, we are entitled to file a lawsuit against the American administration due to its full involvement in this crime, which is undeniably a war crime because it is targeting civilians through the use of internationally-prohibited weapons. This is what I wanted to present before the public.”
He was asked: “Did you sense official Lebanese cooperation?” to which he responded by saying: “This issue has the full interest of the people and has become the object of discussion in all sectors, regardless of their belonging. Officially, you know that the topic was raised around the national dialogue table, and I will follow it up to the end because what happened was truly scandalous. The fact that the American administration instigated the Lebanese against each other and tried to divide them, clearly shows how this administration is using certain fronts with fictive names to gain political influence. We will follow up this issue. I have called for an investigation in this regard. If America wishes to be transparent as it claims, let it present a full list of the names so that we know where these massive amounts went.”
In response to another question, Deputy Moussawi said: “We knew these names before the Assistant Secretary of State made his statement. However, had we said at the time that the American Administration was funding a campaign to disfigure Hezbollah’s image, we would have been accused of treason. Today, we all heard the blunt recognition of these acts and the American Administration distributed the content of Feltman’s testimony in English. I thus call on you to read it because what I said in parliament was an accurate delivery of what Feltman said…” Also in response to a question, he stated: “When we decide to file the lawsuit, the judiciary will launch its investigations. When this is seen, we will present the information we have in this regard.”

Rights… For Exploitation
Wed, 23 June 2010
Abdullah Iskandar'
http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/155761
The humanitarian status of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon’s camps is tragic and disastrous in every meaning of the word, while the level of deprivation that prevails in them is limitless on all levels. This situation has been ongoing ever since these camps were created following the displacement of the Palestinians from their country in parallel with the establishment of the state of Israel over six decades ago. However, the increase and depth of the disaster are due to the demographic growth within these camps, which was not caused by sudden or new factors. The status of the refugees in Lebanon is organically linked to the nature of the country and its demographic and sectarian structure which – since the establishment of the camps – has prevented the Palestinians in Lebanon from enjoying a status similar to the one enjoyed by their counterparts in other Arab countries. In this context, there seems to be some sort of concord between all the components of the country over this official state policy toward the camps, at times in the name of the right of return and at others to prevent naturalization – each of which is used based on the requirements of the prevailing circumstances.

As for the promotion of solidarity and lamentation seen throughout the past stage as well as during the current one, it is expanding in concomitance with the insistence of those responsible for it on having the refugees remain inside their camps. This may be some sort of racial separation exercised by each and every one of the country’s components, whether directly or indirectly, to the point where it has become a quasi-official policy. In the meantime, the serious reassessment of this policy calls for another type of concord in Lebanon and not mere statements, regardless of how fervent they may be. On the other hand, in regard to what is currently being put forward, it is likely that its goals extend beyond the tragedy of the Palestinians in the camps and rather falls in the context of civil sectarian conflict – especially since the issue of the Palestinians’ humanitarian situation has become an international topic due to the Israeli blockade on Gaza, as each side is trying to exploit this reality in its favor.

In any case, regardless of the actual intentions in regard to giving the refugees their civil rights, such a step will carry massive costs for the state, which is already suffering from a debt amounting to $55 billion and is facing livelihood demands it is unable or unwilling to fulfill due to the additional burdens they will entail. Therefore, at a time when the Lebanese are as deprived as the refugees and their rights as violated, the enthusiasts about the rights of the refugees should have suggested the ways to fund the step and should have considered the extent of the compatibility between this step and what is being offered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is also bankrupt.
On the other hand, and in order for the step to have credibility, the proposals should also have tackled the rights of the refugees in the context of the overall status of the Palestinians in Lebanon, the issue of sovereignty inside the camps, the arms outside the camps and the military posts near the capital and on the Eastern border with Syria, which the parties participating in the national dialogue agreed to remove.
Nonetheless, prior to all these steps, the question on the table revolves around the meaning behind the proposition of this topic in parliament and not inside the Cabinet. It was raised in parliament based on the wish of its speaker, the leader of the Amal Movement, which once waged the fiercest battles against the camps. This granted the proposal at this point in time, a political character revealing suspicions surrounding the exploitation of the status of the refugees in the domestic conflict. Moreover, it entailed an acute sectarian division which penetrated all the blocs and political factions inside the Council, at a time when it would be naïve to think that such a division was unexpected – if not intentional. In short, it appeared that the Christian deputies were opposed to granting the refugees their human rights, while the latter step was supported by the Muslim deputies.
Such a climate secured the right circumstances for the distribution of statements in Sidon, calling for the displacement of the Christians. Regardless of the identity of the side standing behind these statements and the overall condemnation of their content, they are opening that lethal hole in the coexistence prevailing over the country.
For the refugees in Lebanon to lead a decent life – like in any other place around the world – is an indisputable right. However, the pitching of the issue the way it was seen and at this point in time, as well as the accusations of treason which accompanied it, rendered it the object of domestic exploitation instead of it being related to the defense of the dignity of the refugees.

Sarkozy and the Syrian Role
Wed, 23 June 2010
Randa Takieddine
http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/155760
At the end of his visit to France, Samir Geagea said that he was reassured that Paris was still concerned with “Lebanon first.” In other words, Geagea meant that he received reassurances from French officials that their opening to Syria was not made at the expense of Lebanon. In the same context, Patriarch Sfeir said France had affirmed to him its constant support for Lebanon and that its relations with any other country were not at its expense. French President Nicholas Sarkozy has repeatedly said that those responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri should be tried.
In fact, France has huge interests in Lebanon; the two countries’ ties are not just historical, but economic, cultural and political. Lebanon is an important country for France, which is proved by the fact that the position of French ambassador to Lebanon is ranked as one of the highest in the French Foreign Ministry. Everyone is aware of the importance of Lebanon in the hearts of the French, and this is proved by successive French visits to Lebanon, by ministers, MPs and advisors. However, this does not mean that Lebanon is a strategic priority for Sarkozy. He is mainly concerned with securing an international role that would give him momentum on the peace process front. From the beginning, he realized that Lebanon is a small country with a weak leadership that cannot take the initiative of peace negotiations with Israel. He has raised this issue twice with the Lebanese president, Michel Sleiman, who told him that it is not possible, and not within his prerogatives.
Sarkozy responded to Sleiman by saying that a head of state must take bold initiatives and undertake a pioneering act, and enter peace negotiations.
However, Sarkozy realized that the key is Syria, not Lebanon. In his view, Syria has become more important with regard to what Sarkozy is after on the peace track front. He has focused his efforts on showing openness to Syria and has carried out this policy by relying on his closest advisor, Claude Gueant, the secretary general of the presidency. Gueant has forged close ties with Syrian officials, their envoys from Lebanon, and the Syrians who regularly visit him. Sarkozy has also renewed ties with Syrian President Bashar Assad. France was fundamentally important in seeing Syria exit its international isolation, with the agreement of the American administration, just as it was fundamentally important during the tenure of Jacques Chirac in completely isolating Syria, after the assassination of Hariri.
Today, Sarkozy is seeking a role with regard to Syrian-Israeli negotiations. However, he has run up against Syrian rejection of a mediator other than Turkey. Sarkozy has also confronted the lack of a vision by his friend and ally, Benjamin Netanyahu. Sarkozy expressed his irritation with Netanyahu in a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres, who quickly advised Netanyahu to head to France and meet with its president, and deal with relations that were on the brink of deterioration. Sarkozy repeatedly tried to convince Netanyahu of the need to make concessions to the Palestinian people, and even with regard to negotiating with Syria, but to no avail.
Sarkozy’s wager on strong ties with Syria is also connected to the Iranian nuclear issue. The French president thought that he could distance Syria from Iran, but has realized that it was a naïve belief, since Syrian will not abandon its regional cards, whether it is Iran, Hizbullah or Hamas, in order to improve its ties with the west. The French president might believe that the relationship with Syria involves seeing Iran not undertake any acts against France. Sarkozy also wagered on the entry of French companies and investments into the wide Syrian market, compared to the narrower Lebanese one. However, he also ran up against red tape and laxity on this front, in terms of official Syrian decisions. Despite these obstructions, Syria remains more important in the mind of the French president, because it is influential. He saw this when the Lebanese president was elected, and the assassinations stopped, and Saad Hariri was able to form a government. Sarkozy expressed a willingness to receive General Michel Aoun in France because his friend Bashar Assad advised him to. Now, after having received Patriarch Sfeir, the doors are open for other visits.
It is true that Syria has friends who are close to Sarkozy, such as the Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani, and the Agha Khan, along with the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. However, he has formed the idea himself that he is intent on seeing relations remain with the most important element in the Middle East, in order to achieve a certain role. Sarkozy believes that good relations with Syria, and with Israel, are more important in his strategy than emotional and historical ties with Lebanon. He is not searching for emotions, but for an active and influential international role.

A Modern Regime for all Lebanese
Tue, 22 June 2010
Mostafa Zein/Al Hayat
http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/155447
When Rafiq Hariri was assassinated in 2005, sectarian impulses were unleashed, along with buried hatreds. Lebanon became fertile ground for all kinds of intelligence agencies. Militias discovered a golden opportunity to recover their past glory. Some leaders, who had missed out on these glories, hurried to form “armed forces” that they summoned up from Osama bin Laden’s Tora Bora, and international mercenaries, preparing to create a new Middle East, as the United States had declared.
Those with long experience in this kind of activity, who had been wronged by the earlier dissolution of their militias, took revenge for the years of oppression and injustice. Newspapers, radios and satellite stations were turned into trenches, from which they fired at this person or that, or courts, whose most trifling sentence is the assassination of an entire sect, or resistance centers to bring down ruling regimes.
There was mass hysteria, in which took part politicians and clergy, believers and atheists of all levels, and from all sects. Very few maintained their sense of balance, and building a nation and state remained the basis of the way they saw things. Among those were former Prime Minister Salim Hoss, who was accused of betraying his sect, and former Speaker Hussein Husseini, who was also accused of being outside the “consensus” of his sect. The latter resigned from Parliament, in protest at going back to a backward parliamentary election law, from the 1960s.
After five years of this hysteria, and the anchoring of sectarian barricades, and the claim by influential individuals that they are discussing the establishment of a state for all people, Husseini reminded us during a talk to the media on the occasion of convening National Dialogue, that the Parliament he headed in 1989 endorsed constitutional reforms and the Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation and Coordination with Syria, and the establishment of the Higher Lebanese-Syrian Council.
He said the three Syrian officials – Abdel-Halim Khaddam, Ghazi Kenaan and Hikmat Shehabi, in coordination with militia leaders, worked against the agreement, obstructed its implementation and excluded Husseini from the speaker’s post, to preserve their influence.
Since Husseini was a key witness to that era, and determined to protect the future of Lebanese-Syrian relations, and a supporter of building a civil state, his comments about this phase are more than historical testimony. These comments are directed at all Lebanese, so that they be careful when it comes to the National Dialogue participants at Baabda Palace, who have taken it upon themselves to plan the future of the regime and the state.
The participants in dialogue have not left behind the mentality of the militias, or the logic of the civil war. They only gathered around the table after receiving reassurances on their domestic and external alliances. Those who did not get such reassurances actively sought them in order to guarantee their future and their position of influence. Samir Geagea was absent from the most recent sessions. He was on a trip that took him to Cairo, where his leadership of the Christians was recognized, and where he was dubbed a “great thinker” by the secretary general of the Arab League. He then went to France, which continues to “monitor Syria,” as its foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, put it. Geagea’s trip was an attempt, outside the country, to revive the alliance that arose after Hariri’s assassination, after it collapsed inside the country.
The leaders of the sects are MP Walid Jumblatt, Speaker Nabih Berri, Hezbollah, the Phalange Party and Michel Aoun: they are concerned with the dialogue table. None of these players is expected to exit this domestic political equation, in order to build a modern regime for all Lebanese. This is the logic, and this is what we have learned from past wars.
Hussein’s comment reminded us that Lebanon has statesmen, and not just sectarian leaders, who were excluded from National Dialogue – which was left to those with experience in civil wars. It is ironic that we are waiting for them to build a modern system for all the Lebanese.