LCCC ENGLISH
DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 11/07
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus
Christ according to Saint John 12,24-26. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a
grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat;
but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and
whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life. Whoever
serves me must follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be. The
Father will honor whoever serves me
Opinions
Syria's Asking Price For a Vacuum in
Lebanon-By:Walid Choucair-Dar
Al-Hayat. August 10/07
Perpetual political
drama is not what Lebanese expect from their leaders.The
Daily Star. August 10/07
Why We Must Label Al-Qaeda Terrorism "Jihad Martyrdom"-By
Robert Spencer.
August 10/07
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources
for August 10/07
Iranian and Syrian officials deny fueling violence in
Iraq-International Herald Tribune
Syria claims it too is victim of Islamic terrorism-AsiaNews.it
Gunships Pound Fatah al-Islam Bunkers-Naharnet
Bush: U.S. 'Cannot Live with' Iran's Support for
Hizbullah, Nuclear Program, Anti-Israel Warnings-Naharnet
March
14: No Compromises Over Presidential Elections-Naharnet
Geagea
Warns Lahoud against Handing over Power to Military, Suleiman May Run for
Presidency-Naharnet
Aoun accuses US of destabilizing Lebanon-Ya Libnan
US Promotes Free Elections, Only to See Allies Lose-New York
Times
Change and Reform bloc MP denies swipe at Church-Daily Star
Lebanon Today after Yesterday! Newropeans Magazine
US opens new front in diplomatic war over
Lebanon.International Herald Tribune
Barak: No expansion of frontline in north.Ynetnews
Research shows Lebanon's coast in danger of being
devastated by tsunami-Daily
Star
Army crushes Fatah al-Islam offensive-Daily
Star
Salloukh defends his 'authentic' role as foreign
minister-Daily
Star
Change and Reform bloc MP denies swipe at Church-Daily
Star
Qabbani urges Lebanese to rescue their
'collapsing' country-Daily
Star
Siniora, Feltman discuss US aid for army-Daily
Star
'Lahoud can do nothing but go home on Nov. 23'-Daily
Star
USAID inaugurates plant to boost Tripoli food
industry-Daily
Star
Hoss highlights need to combat 'sickness' of
corruption in society-Daily
Star
Independent Christian voters 'shifted support'
from FPM to Gemayel-Daily
Star
Lebanese banks show growth amid political
turbulence-Daily
Star
AUB Alumni Independent Group clarifies
ambiguities-Daily
Star
Ammiq marshes: an 'animal motel' in the Bekaa-Daily
Star
Canadian Agency Knew About US Renditions in 2002, Report
Says.Bloomberg
Russia Boosts Military Presence at Home and Abroad.Moscow News
Bush: U.S. 'Cannot
Live with' Iran's Support for Hizbullah, Nuclear Program, Anti-Israel Warnings
U.S. President George Bush warned that Iran would have "a price to pay" for its
ongoing effort to supply Iraqi militants with weapons to attack American forces
and said Washington "cannot live with" Tehran's support for Hizbullah, suspect
nuclear program and anti-Israel warnings.
Bush, holding a pre-vacation press conference on Thursday, said he was not
surprised at pictures showing cordial meetings between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki and top Iranian leaders in Tehran but that he hoped the prime minister
was delivering a tough message. "You don't want the picture to be kind of, you
know, duking it out," when on a diplomatic mission he said, putting up his fists
like a boxer. But "if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to
have a heart-to-heart with my friend, the prime minister, because I don't
believe they are constructive," said Bush, who called Iran "a very troubling
nation."
Bush's comments came days after he disagreed sharply with Afghan President Hamid
Karzai about Iran's influence after Karzai called Tehran a positive force in
combating extremists in his country. And they came as top U.S. officials worried
about the pace of political reconciliation in Iraq, amid misgivings in
Washington about whether Maliki, a Shiite, truly wanted or was able to build
bridges to minority Sunnis.
Iran, which the United States blames for fomenting much of the bloodshed in
Iraq, had earlier given visiting Maliki its full support for restoring security
but told him a pullout of U.S. forces was the only way to end the violence.
According to the state-run IRNA news agency, Maliki thanked Iran for its
"positive and constructive" work in "providing security and fighting terrorism
in Iraq." Bush expressed skepticism and warned Iran: "There will be a price to
pay" if its agents are caught undermining U.S.-led efforts in Iraq. "There will
be consequences" for any Iranians shipping weapons, including sophisticated
roadside bombs, inside Iraq, said the U.S. president, who branded Tehran "a
destabilizing influence" in the Middle East.
Bush cited Iran's support for Lebanon's Hizbullah, Tehran's suspect nuclear
program, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel warnings, which
he said Washington "cannot live with."
"That's something, obviously, we cannot live with. They have expressed their
desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a
nuclear weapons program. That, in itself, coupled with their stated foreign
policy, is very dangerous for world stability," Bush said. "They are funders of
Hizbullah. Hizbullah is intent upon battling forces of moderation. It's a very
troubling nation right now. "
"Should I be concerned of a picture -- should the American people be concerned
about Iran? Yes, we ought to be very concerned about Iran. They're a
destabilizing influence. They are a government that has -- its declared policy
is very troubling, obviously, when they announce -- when Ahmadinejad has
announced that the destruction of Israel is part of its foreign policy," he
added. "My message to the Iranian people is, 'You can do better than this
current government. You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a
position where you can't realize your full economic potential,'" Bush said.
Asked whether he was confident that, in past talks, Maliki shared his view about
Iran, Bush replied: "Does he understand with some extremist groups there's
connections with Iran? And he does. And I'm confident." Maliki's talks appeared
to confirm the increasingly warm relations that have emerged between majority
Shiite Iraq and overwhelmingly Shiite Iran following the fall of Saddam
Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime. In a highly symbolic move, Maliki met the
families of seven Iranian officials arrested in Iraq by U.S. forces on
accusations of being members of an elite Revolutionary Guards force on a mission
to stir trouble. Iran insists the men were diplomats and is livid that the
United States has shown no sign of releasing them. "The Iraqi government will do
all it can to release these people," Maliki said in Tehran, expressing optimism
that the officials would be freed and condemning their arrest.(AFP-Naharnet)
Beirut, 10 Aug 07, 07:22
Independent
Christian voters 'shifted support' from FPM to Gemayel
Aoun lost significant number of votes by adopting nationalist rhetoric
By Hani M. Bathish
Daily Star staff
Friday, August 10, 2007
BEIRUT: Independent Christian voters in Metn motivated by confessional loyalties
shifted their support in Sunday's Metn by-election from MP Michel Aoun's
opposition Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) to March 14 Forces candidate and former
President Amin Gemayel, said Abdo Saad, director of the Beirut Center for
Research and Information.
Saad, who compiled statistics on the by-election, told The Daily Star this
historically independent Christian bloc accounted for 15 percent of all
Christians who voted in the Metn. A cluster of about 10 villages around Bikfaya
- which Saad said he considered to be the Christian heartland of the Metn - is
home to a large percentage of the independent Christian voters.
"In 2005 they went with Aoun because, at the time, he represented their
aspirations and because Aoun was opposed to the four-party electoral alliance
[that grouped Christian and Muslim parties]," Saad said.
Aoun lost a significant number of Christian votes as his rhetoric changed from
using confessional terms to a more nationalist tone and as March 14 Forces
accused Aoun of aligning the FPM with Syrian and Iranian interests. FPM
candidate Camille Khoury's majority among Christian voters in the Metn was 79
votes - he won the polls by a paper-thin margin of 418 votes.
"Gemayel gained in all areas of the Metn, compared to the 2005 general
elections, except for Bourj Hammoud," Saad said, adding that the Tashnag Party,
for the first time, mobilized less than 80 percent of its Armenian voters.
"Usually they mobilize around 90 percent," he added.
Despite this, an unprecedented number of Armenians - 27.9 percent of eligible
voters - went to the polls last Sunday, compared to 26 percent in 2002. "Between
7-8 percent of Tashnag supporters voted for Gemayel this time," Saad said.
The only village in the Metn that has consistently voted against Gemayel and his
Phalange Party is Majdal Tarshish, a predominantly Shiite village, Saad said.
The Shiite minority in Metn voted overwhelmingly for FPM: Khoury tallied 97.4
percent of the Shiite vote, while Gemayel received 18 Shiite votes.
Gemayel garnered 56.3 percent of Maronite votes in Metn, while Khoury got 79.8
percent of Armenian votes and 57.6 percent of Orthodox Christians' votes. The
coastal, central and upper Metn areas registered an increase in support for the
March 14 Forces and Gemayel's Phalange Party from the 2005 general elections, at
the expense of the FPM and their political allies.
On the coast, 43.4 percent of voters went with the March 14 Forces in the
by-election, while in 2005 the March 14 slate won 29 percent of the coast's
ballots. In the central Metn, March 14 Forces got 59.2 percent of votes in 2007,
compared to 44.8 percent in 2005. In the upper Metn, March 14 got 47.2 percent
of the vote in 2007, compared to 35 percent in 2005.
Kamal Feghali, an elections specialist and authority on demographics, told The
Daily Star that Gemayel had taken a majority of 52 percent of votes from
naturalized Lebanese citizens in the Metn by-election, a disparate group that
includes 16 Christian and Muslim sects.
The situation was reversed in the 2005 general elections, with the FPM candidate
in the Metn at the time, MP Nabil Nicholas, getting a majority of naturalized
Lebanese votes, Feghali added. At 14 polling stations in Jdeideh, Nicholas got
1,144 votes in 2005 from naturalized Lebanese, while the March 14 candidate got
625 votes.
March 14 politicians have made it a point to stress that the FPM candidate was
elected with the help of busloads of naturalized Lebanese brought in to vote
from Syria, but the election results do not support this assertion. In last
Sunday's by-election, Gemayel got 1,110 votes from the same 14 polling stations
in Jdeideh from naturalized Lebanese Christians and Muslims, while the FPM
candidate got 831 votes, Feghali said.
March 14: No
Compromises Over Presidential Elections
The March 14 majority alliance on Thursday termed "decisive" the forthcoming
presidential election, rejecting any compromises on holding it.
The alliance, in a statement issued after a meeting of its follow-up committee,
also said the election of a new head of state is "not subject to compromises or
black mail."
Electing a head of state to succeed pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud is "a top
priority at the Christian and national levels and a land mark along the march
for independence."The statement rejected all proposals made by the Hizbullah-led
March 8 opposition that link electing a new president to the formation of a
so-called national unity government that gives Syria's allies veto powers. It
also rejected attempts by the Hizbullah-led opposition to "impose a certain
candidate" for president, in reference to Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel
Aoun.
Such attempts by the March 8 camp, according to the statement, reflect efforts
by Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime and its Local allies to hurl Lebanon
into "political vacuum" and push the Christians out of the nation's political
system. Beirut, 10 Aug 07, 16:24
U.S. Opens New Diplomatic Front to Free Lebanon from Syrian Influence
The United States has quietly opened a new diplomatic front in its efforts to
free Lebanon from Syrian influence, with a move to undermine the authority of
Damascus-backed President Emile Lahoud. The behind-the-scenes campaign began to
bear fruit last month when the U.S. State Department sought and won the
replacement of Lebanon's ambassador to the United States, Farid Abboud, an ally
of Lahoud who had served in Washington for eight years, officials in Washington
said.
The Lebanese foreign ministry, run by Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's government,
transferred Abboud to Tunisia and chose career diplomat Antoine Chedid to
succeed him in Washington. But Lahoud has refused to sign Chedid's letter of
accreditation, meaning he is not considered an ambassador.
On Thursday, though, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took the unusual step
of inviting Chedid to her office to personally welcome him to the United States,
effectively recognizing the diplomat as Lebanon's ambassador, although his
official title is Charge d'Affaires.
"It's good to receive you on behalf of the democratic government of Lebanon,"
Rice said in comments seen as a slight to Lahoud and Abboud, whom the
administration had snubbed for years. "I am sure we will have very close
contacts because the United States is and wants to be a friend of a free and
sovereign Lebanon."
Chedid, who has previously served in Washington and is well-known and admired as
a professional, replied by making clear he represents Saniora's government and
that he was honored by his reception since arriving in late July. Washington has
long sought to bolster Saniora and reduce Syria's role in Lebanon. Earlier this
month, President George Bush signed an executive order letting the U.S. freeze
the assets of anyone deemed to be working to destabilize efforts to promote
Lebanese security and sovereignty.
An official with the Lebanese Embassy declined to discuss the circumstances of
Chedid's appointment but noted that the envoy already held the rank of
ambassador in Lebanon's foreign service and that matters of protocol would not
interfere with his mission. In addition to Rice, Chedid met Thursday with the
top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, David Welch, and Iraq coordinator David
Satterfield, both of whom he knows from previous jobs. He will also soon see
Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley, officials said. One U.S.
official familiar with the situation said the slew of high-level meetings
accorded Chedid is intended as both a signal of support for Saniora's government
and a diplomatic slap in the face to Lahoud, whose term in office is due to end
in November.(AP)
Beirut, 10 Aug 07, 11:33
Geagea Warns Lahoud against Handing over Power to Military, Suleiman May Run for
Presidency
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea warned pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud
against handing over power to the military if a new president was not elected by
November 23. Geagea said Lahoud was behaving outside the realm of the
constitution and the regime "as though (the presidential) Baabda Palace is owned
by Emile Lahoud." "Lahoud has no right to hand over or not hand over (power),"
Geagea said in remarks published by the daily An Nahar on Friday.
"He just has to leave Baabda Palace at the end of his term," Geagea warned,
adding that "we will not allow anyone to stage a coup."
Al-Mustaqbal lawmaker Nabil De Freij said that according to the constitution,
the president does not have the right to hand over power to anyone except the
next head of state. "If his term expires and no new president is elected, Lahoud
can do nothing but go home at midnight November 23, when his term in office
ends," Du Freij told The Daily Star. Lahoud has said that he wanted to hand over
power to the Lebanese army and not to Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's government
if a new head of state was not elected by Nov. 23. Du Freij, however, argued
that the constitution does not give Lahoud that right.
Meanwhile, Michel Murr, a staunch ally of Gen. Michel Aoun, said he supports the
leader of the Free Patriotic Movement as candidate to the presidency.
Murr hinted at the possibility that army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman could
nominate himself for the presidency if parliament failed to elect a news head of
state.
"If Lebanese consensus (over Suleiman) is achieved, the Constitution could be
amended within a quarter of an hour," Murr told Thursday's Kalam al-Nass on LBC
television. Beirut, 10 Aug 07, 08:54
Gunships Pound Fatah
al-Islam Bunkers
Helicopter gunships pounded terrorist bunkers in the northern refugee camp of
Nahr al-Bared Thursday and troops advanced across the rubble to uproot Fatah
al-Islam militants. The state-run National News Agency (NNA) said the Gazelle
gunships fired a total of 12 rockets at Fatah al-Islam bunkers as the troops
advanced to wipe out the remaining terrorists in the camp. Agence France Presse
quoted an officer as saying "the army made a breakthrough in the last quarter
where the Fatah al-Islam gunmen are entrenched."The soldiers "destroyed some
buildings with explosives, uncovering the entrances to underground tunnels and
fortifications" still held by the die-hard extremists, he said. An army
spokesman confirmed there had been progress on Thursday.
"This advance is progressing slowly because of the rubble and the booby-trapped
terrain," he said.
Meanwhile, the military continued to bombard Nahr al-Bared, starting a number of
fires in the impoverished shantytown, an AFP correspondent said.
Sheikh Mohamad al-Hajj, a Muslim cleric who has acted as a mediator in previous
bids to end the crisis, said the army has agreed to let his team enter the camp
again to contact Fatah al-Islam. But a military spokesman would not confirm
this, saying only that the army "seeks the unconditional surrender of the
gunmen."
More than 200 people, including 136 soldiers, have been killed since the
conflict started on May 20. Most of the camp's 3o,000 residents have fled since
the battles erupted, but about 60 women and children related to Fatah al-Islam
fighters remain in Nahr al-Bared. The army has accused the Islamists of using
them as human shields.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 09 Aug 07, 16:43
Change and Reform
bloc MP denies swipe at Church
Daily Star staff
Friday, August 10, 2007
BEIRUT: Change and Reform parliamentary bloc MP Abbas Hashem provoked a storm of
criticism with comments about the Church attributed to him in Thursday's press.
In a statement from the Lebanese News Agency published in newspapers, Hashem
listed the "black army" - a reference to Christian religious leaders - among
groups that he said had been defeated by Free Patriotic Movement leader MP
Michel Aoun in Sunday's Metn by-election.
Hashem also included the Lebanese Forces and the Phalange Party on the list.
"Napoleon Bonaparte fell against political, financial, family and Church
feudalism," while Aoun prevailed over all of them and has become "this century's
Bonaparte," said Hashem in the statement.
On Thursday, the MP said his comments had been misinterpreted. "I never
mentioned the Church, nor have I said anything about Christian leaders," Hashem
added.
He said when he had been asked about the Metn by-election results, he had
compared Aoun to Napoleon "without mentioning the Church, which I respect, and
without saying anything about any religious figure."
"Everybody knows who is behind" attempts to twist his words, he added. "They
have one origin. This campaign has vile objectives, because it put words in my
mouth. What is certain is that it will not affect the Church's support for me."
- The Daily Star
Syria's Asking Price
For a Vacuum in Lebanon
Walid Choucair- Al-Hayat - 10/08/07//
A number of international and most regional players are anticipating a political
vacuum after the 24th of November - the end of the term of Lebanese President
Emile Lahoud.
Both opposition members and loyalists are taking measures and planning
contingencies on the basis that the presidential vacuum will last at least a few
days if not months. They will then await the arrival of a God-sent solution in
the form of an international, regional and Lebanese settlement - after which a
true Lebanese President can be elected.
After initially basing their demands for a national unity government on the
importance of political participation and a lack of trust towards the current
government, Lahoud and Hizbullah among others are now using the dangers of a
presidential vacuum as an argument for a transitional national unity government
that could hold presidential elections. The current majority government is
threatening in turn to unilaterally elect a president in the second round of
parliamentary voting - for which the government possesses the requisite 50% + 1
majority - if the opposition makes good on its threat to withhold parliamentary
quorum in case they are not assured the election of a candidate of their choice.
The Western and Arab nations, adamant that elections be held on time (between
September 25 and the end of Lahoud's term), are alternatively offering carrots
and sticks to actors threatening to stall them - namely: Syria.
Naturally, these actors - along with the March 14th majority - assume that the
emergence of a presidential vacuum would be the work and choice of Syria. Thus,
many regional powers are counting on Speaker Nabih Berri to push for avoiding
such a vacuum and on Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir to pressure Christian
MPs from Michel Aoun's bloc to attend the parliamentary session in accordance
with a key Church 'principle' of upholding national and constitutional
processes.
Meanwhile, Western nations - including France, Italy and Spain - are offering
carrots to Syria in the form of promises to end its isolation from Europe. The
United States brandishes the stick by threatening more measures (like its
freezing of assets of those seen to be undermining Lebanese sovereignty and
democracy) against Syria should they push their allies in Lebanon to set up a
second government to rival that of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
A number of questions arise over these measures - regardless of whether they
remain exclusively American or become international: Do they seek to prevent a
presidential vacuum - or does the greater danger lie in the creation of a second
Lebanese government? If these measures refer to the subversion of democracy
implied by the latter, does that mean that Washington would 'tolerate' a
temporary vacuum?
Furthermore, in the event of the formation of a parallel military government,
would Washington dish out a punishment or would it instead bet on the military
leadership's refusal to assume such a difficult role - especially in light of
General Michel Sleiman's pledge to remain neutral in the event of such a
development?
The questions do not end there. Another important one is how the international
community will react to Syria's asking price for avoiding a presidential crisis
in Lebanon. It does not seem overly worried about punishments against its
Lebanese allies should they participate in the occurrence of a vacuum or
creation of a parallel government. Syria's conditions are more likely to be all
- and not some - of the following:
- An invitation for Syria to attend the international summit planned by Bush in
Washington for this coming November. Indications are that Washington is ready to
consider this - especially in light of calls for inviting Syria by other Arab
nations, including those with less than ideal relationships with Damascus.
- A Syrian say in determining the president of Lebanon - a say that Washington
and some of its European allies have refused to grant
- A reconsideration of the creation of an international tribunal to try the
killers of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri - something neither Western nor Arab
players are willing to consider
- A guarantee that Prime Minister Fouad Siniora will relinquish the premiership
- to which leader of the Al Mustaqbal Party Saad Hariri has replied that Siniora
is a "red line." Thus, the presidential vacuum has become the prime Syrian tool
for the prevention of another government led by Siniora - who represents and has
stuck by the essential principles of the current Lebanese majority - should all
its other demands be rejected
Why We Must Label Al-Qaeda Terrorism "Jihad Martyrdom"
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/10/2007
During the question period after my notorious YAF talk last Thursday, it came up
again: one of the students asked if we weren't conferring legitimacy on Osama
and Co. by calling them jihadists instead of something like mufsidoon:
evildoers. That is just one small indication of how influential this idea has
become -- and of course it enjoys great influence in the State Department.
Now one of its foremost proponents, a man named Jim Guirard, who called me up a
few years ago and spent a great length of time trying to convince me to get on
board with this idea, writes in its defense in Accuracy In Media. He's
responding to this excellent column by Walid Phares, about which I commented at
some length here.
Guirard affects a cutesy, folksy writing style, beginning with the three
question marks and hapax legoumenon he uses in his title, "Is AQ-style Terrorism
'Jihadi Martyrdom' or 'Irhabi Murderdom' ???" Perhaps it is unsporting or
invincibly crabbed of me to note such a thing, but I must say I found it
incongruous that a man who has the Pentagon's ear and confers with the highest
American military officials writes like a lovestruck teenage girl. With all his
cuteness and misspellings, Guirard seems practically to be begging not to be
taken seriously. But since he is taken seriously, and his ideas are taken
seriously, they are worth dealing with again.
In a recent article in the Family Security Matters website -- innocently
re-printed by AIM.org on July 18 -- Lebanese expatriot [sic!] Dr. Walid Phares
quite sharply, and by name, attacked me and three like-minded anti-terrorism
strategists (Dr. Michael Waller of the Institute for World Politics, Dr. Doug
Streussand [sic!] of the Marine Corps Staff and Command College and Col. Harry
Tunnell of the National Defense University).
That's "expatriate" and "Streusand."
That angry writer's complaint was that the four of us are refusing to follow his
(and so many other's) current addiction to Osama bin Laden's self-sanctifying
language of so-called "Jihadi Martyrdom" -- namely, the five-word al Qaeda
narrative of so-called Jihad (holy war) by purported mujahideen (holy warriors)
and alleged shuhada (martyrs) who are supposedly destined for Jennah (Paradise)
as a reward for killing all of us kuffr (infidels) and in due course disposing
of al-Shaitan al-Kabir (the Great Satan). Dr. Phares insists that this is the
one and only valid framework within which to properly and sufficiently attack al
Qaeda-style Terrorism.
Phares doesn't say that at all, of course. He says that the concept of hiraba,
unlawful warfare, which Guirard says we should use to label contemporary
jihadist activity, "implies that a 'genuine' war against a real enemy does exist
and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this
cunning explanation puts 'spin' on Jihad but leaves the core idea of Jihadism
completely intact." Thus obligingly calling jihadism hiraba could leave us open
to having to confront in the near future a jihad deemed genuine by those so
anxious for us to relabel Osama's efforts. In other words, it doesn't get to the
heart of the matter: the persistence of religious violence arising within an
Islamic context. It leaves that wide open as a possibility for the future.
But Guirard doesn't deal with this point. Instead, he contents himself, like
Dinesh D'Souza and so many others, with the manipulative little slur of charging
that his opponent agrees with bin Laden -- with all the unsavory associations
that brings: they're both hotheads, hardliners, fascists at heart, doncha know?
But this sidesteps the questions of why the version of Islam purveyed by Osama
and the other jihadists has gained such traction within the Islamic world, and
why the jihadist claim to represent "true" or "pure" Islam has so much
resonance. And since Guirard and his ilk refuse to acknowledge that that is even
happening, they can't formulate any worthwhile response to it.
In sharp contrast, Marine Corps LtG James Mattis has recently condemned this
sort of AQ narrative as "tyranny in false religious garb." But when we, the four
accused, recommend a new counter narrative which attacks the Salafi-Wahhabi-UBL
conspiracy's deceitful self-labeling, Dr. Phares berates us (as he might now
General Mattis, as well?) as somehow "representing the views of classical
Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood" ( !!! )
Not quite. Phares actually said: "When researched, it turns out that this theory
was produced by clerics of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim
Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent Jihad and Jihadism from being depicted by the
West and the international community as an illegal and therefore sanctioned
activity." It is, again, a shame that Guirard did not see fit to address that
except with a sneer.
But, of course, it is Walid Phares himself, not us, who is so insistently
parroting al Qaeda's patently false description of itself and its suicide mass
murders as "Jihadi" (Holy Guys) defenders of Allah and the Qur'an.
See, Guirard's fundamental assumption, behind the cutesy language ("'Jihadi'
(Holy Guys)" indeed), is that jihad is a good thing, a holy thing, and that the
jihadists have appropriated it in defiance of Islamic theology and law. And that
therefore, if we start using the terms that actually apply to them and their
activities -- criminals, unlawful warfare, rather than jihadists and jihad --
the moderate Muslim majority will feel empowered to rise up against them, and
take back Islam.
It would be great if it were true. But unfortunately it's just a fantasy. The
imperative to wage war against unbelievers in order to establish over them the
hegemony of Islamic law wasn't invented by Al-Qaeda; it is taught by all the
Sunni schools of jurisprudence, and by the Shi'ites also. This doesn't mean that
every Muslim takes it seriously. But it does mean that it's just whistling in
the dark to think that Al-Qaeda's claim to represent Islamic purity can't draw
on genuine elements of Islamic theology that encourage bellicosity.
Fantasy-based policymaking is never wise.
In sharp and everlasting contrast to this de facto embrace of the enemy's
self-serving description of political, cultural and religious reality, this
writer's proposed counter narrative condemns the al Qaeda, al Sadr, Hizballah,
Hamas and other "Death to America" terrorists as waging Hirabah (unholy war,
forbidden "war against society") by mufsiduun (evildoers, sinners and
corrupters) and munafiquun (hypocrites) destined for Jahannam (Eternal Hellfire)
as punishment for having become al Murtadd al Qaeda (the al Qaeda Apostasy)
against Qur'anic Islam -- namely, for having tried to drag all Muslims into a
most unholy war against Abrahamic America and the West.
"This writer's proposed counter narrative..." (emphasis added). But do Muslims
worldwide, whether jihadists or not, really listen to Jim Guirard's version of
Islam? If there were major Islamic sects or leaders teaching this sort of thing
and representing it as "Qur'anic Islam," that would be one thing. But there
aren't.
Likewise Kilcullen's new lexicon, in Guirard's reprinted article below, is based
not on reality but on what we really wish jihad were all about:
In further explanation of this "Know Thine Enemy" frame of reference for
understanding who the Terrorists actually are, as opposed to who they falsely
claim to be, the following is a "war of words" essay of mine which appeared in
the June 29, 2007 issue of the Marine Corps--oriented SmallWarsJournal.com
website -- entitled "Petraeus Aide's Call for a New Lexicon." Rather than my
trying to paraphrase that carefully constructed truth-in-language thesis, here
it is verbatim:
In his multi-faceted article, "New Paradigms For 21st Century Conflict," David
Kilcullen of General David Petraeus' senior staff in Baghdad recommends five
major initiatives to be taken in developing truly effective counterterrorism
(COIN) strategies, operations and tactics against al Qaeda-style Terrorism (AQST).
In briefest of terms, these are to (1) Develop a New Lexicon, (2) Get the Grand
Strategy Right, (3) Remedy the Imbalance in Government Capability, (4) Identify
New Strategic Services, and (5) Develop Capacity For Strategic Information
Warfare. While others will comment in learned fashion on all five of these
topics in due course, this commentary will concern only the first -- the
proposed New Lexicon.
To make a medical analogy, this is an enemy which is not in the nature of a
state-based, clearly definable tumor to be neatly cut out by a scalpel but is,
instead, an ideology-based cancer which been metastasizing for several decades
(particularly the last one) and is attacking far-flung elements of Western
Civilization 'round the clock and seeking a "death by a thousand cuts" result.
The first of Kilcullen's five steps toward an effective antidote -- a worldwide
chemotherapy-type counterattack -- on the raging AQST cancer is his call for "a
new lexicon based on the actual, observed characteristics of [our] real enemies
..."
In so doing, he clearly recognizes that in order to meet Tsun-Tzu's ancient
admonition that we must "Know The Enemy," we absolutely must have a truthful
common language by which to achieve that end and then to communicate such
knowledge effectively to multiple audiences.
Although he does not list particulars of this proposed new lexicon, here are
more than a dozen of the Arabic and Islamic words of which he would almost
surely approve. They are the words, the semantic tools and weapons, we will need
to break out of the habit-of-language box (largely invented by Osama bin Laden
himself) which currently depicts us as us the bad guys, the "infidels" and even
"the Great Satan" -- and which sanctifies suicide mass murderers as so-called
jihadis and mujahideen ("holy guys") and "martyrs" on their heroic way to
Paradise.
Importantly, the ubiquitous (It's everywhere! It's everywhere!!) word Jihad is
entered four times, in order to more clearly define its several confusing and
often conflicting meanings.
irhab (eer-HAB) -- Arabic for terrorism, thus enabling us to call the al
Qaeda-style killers irhabis, irhabists and irhabiyoun rather than the so-called
"jihadis" and "jihadists" and "mujahideen" and "shahids" (martyrs) they badly
want to be called. (Author's lament: Here we are, almost six years into a
life-and-death War on Terrorism, and most of us do not even know this basic
Arabic for terrorism.)
Hirabah (hee-RAH-bah) -- Unholy War and forbidden "war against society" or what
we would today call crimes against humanity. Among the many al Qaeda-style
crimes and sins which constitute this most "unholy war" are such willful, and
unrepented transgressions as those enumerated in the next section of this
proposed glossary of terms.
Jihad al Akbar (gee-HAHD ahl AHK-bar) -- this "Greater Jihad" is a personal and
spiritual struggle or striving to become closer and more faithful to Allah and
his teachings as set forth in the Qur'an.
Here is the problem with this whole endeavor in microcosm: Hassan Al-Banna
(founder of the Muslim Brotherhood), Abdullah Azzam (cofounder of Al-Qaeda) and
others argued that the idea of jihad as a spiritual struggle as based on a weak
hadith -- a tradition of Muhammad that couldn't be taken as authentic. They
gained many recruits by arguing this successfully among Muslims. And so now here
come Kilcullen and Guirard, reminding Muslims that jihad is primarily an inner
spiritual struggle. How will the Muslims who have bought the argument that all
that is based on a weak hadith react? Will they lay down their arms? Or chuckle
at the ignorant infidels?
Jihad al Saghir (gee-HAHD ahl Sahg-HEER) -- "Lesser Jihad" can be a physical --
and even a military -- struggle to protect or to free Muslims and non-Muslims
from oppression, but only in strict accordance with reasonable and non-terroristic
standards set forth in the Qur'an, which provides that only the Caliph (or
head-of-state?) can legally declare such a Jihad. Osama bin Laden is neither....
Fine. Until you realize that many Muslim authorities identify as "oppression"
anything except a Sharia state. The implications of that for the above statement
are clear. And only the state authority can declare a jihad? Unfortunately,
there is a difference of opinion on this question among contemporary Islamic
scholars. Some argue that Muslims may wage war in order to establish that
Islamic state, and then continue to wage war against unbelievers under its
aegis. Others contend that the Islamic state must be established by peaceful
means, and only then may Muslims wage jihad warfare. The latter position was
held by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, the influential Pakistani jihad theorist who died
in 1979, Sheikh Muhammad Said Ramadan Al-Buti, and Sheikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Din
Al-Albani. The former view is held by Islamic scholars such as Muhammad Amarah
and Khair Haykel, as well as by Azzam and, of course, other mujahedin today.
It is important to note, however, that Maududi and Al-Buti, as well as others
who hold this view, don't reject the idea of jihad against unbelievers in order
to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Maududi, after all, wrote that
non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of
God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to
their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an
obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make
them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”
So in other words, this is just a disagreement about means, not about ends.
...Just for starters, imagine the khawarij (outside the religion) al Qaeda's
great difficulty in winning the approval of any truly devout and faithful
Muslims whatever once these genocidal irhabis (terrorists) come to be viewed by
the Umma (the Muslim World) as mufsiduun (evildoers) engaged in Hirabah (unholy
war) and in murtadd (apostasy) against the Qur'an's God of Abraham -- and as
almost surely on their way to Jahannam (Eternal Hellfire) for their Satanic
ways....
Yes, that would be great. But pretending that truly devout and faithful Muslims
will follow the lead of non-Muslims in defining these things is naive in the
extreme.
Of course, to sustain the validity of such condemnatory labels, there must be a
true-to-the-Quran basis for their application to the al Qaeda, al Sadr,
Hizballah, Hamas and assorted other Terrorists.
Indeed.
This is readily available in the fact that at the heart of AQST's own false
labels and equally false promises of a sex-orgy Paradise is a pattern of plainly
satanic and cultic violation of many of the fundamental precepts of authentic
Islam -- including such sinful transgressions and such de facto desecrations of
the Qur'an as:
o Wanton killing of innocents and noncombatants, including many peaceful Muslims
Here we go again. Define "innocent" and "noncombatant." British jihadist Anjem
Chaudary says no non-Muslims are innocent. How will this stop him?
o Decapitating the live and desecrating the dead bodies of perceived enemies
o Committing and enticing others to commit suicide for reasons of intimidation
Qur'an 9:111 guarantees Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah.
And that's not suicide, in the jihadist view. How will Guirard's lexicon
overcome that idea?
o Fomenting hatred among communities, nations, religions and civilizations
o Ruthless warring against nations in which Islam is freely practiced
o Issuing and inspiring unauthorized and un-Islamic fatwas (religious edicts)
o Using some mosques as weapons depots and battle stations, while destroying
others
o Forcing extremist and absolutist versions (and perversions) of Islam on fellow
Muslims, when the Qur'an clearly says that there shall be "no compulsion in
religion"
Qutb and others argue that the "no compulsion" verse does not rule out fighting
until "religion is for Allah." Will Guirard's use of this verse change any
jihadist minds?
o Distorting the word "infidels" to include all Christians, all Jews and many
Muslims, as well -- when the Qur'an calls them all "Children of the Book" (the
Old Testament) and "Sons of Abraham," and calls Jesus one of Islam's five main
Prophets
People of the Book, not Children of the Book. Anyway, fine, don't call them
infidels. They still must be fought and subjugated, per Qur'an 9:29.
o Deliberate misreading, ignoring and perverting of passages of the Qur'an, the
Hadith and the Islamic Jurisprudence (the Fiqh)
Such as? The jihadists claim that the peaceful Muslims do this. Guirard claims
that the jihadists do it. The real challenge is to refute the jihadist use of
Islamic texts and teachings in a way that blunts the force of jihadist
recruitment. Peaceful Muslims haven't done it yet.
One final note. Guirard argues that what he is doing here was done effectively
during the Cold War:
A look-back lesson from the Cold War argues strongly that we should have done a
far better "war of words" job of challenging -- rather than all too often
parroting -- the Soviets' and Fascist Fidel Castro's false narrative of
so-called "Liberation by purported Progressive Movements and alleged Popular
Fronts who were destined for heaven-on-earth People's Democracies as a reward
for killing us Reaganite Fascists and disposing of American Imperialism."
Recognize the remarkable parallels? Both then and today, the deadly dangerous
problem is that of "semantic infiltration," which the late, great Senator Pat
Moynihan and Dr. Fred Charles Ikle -- Ronald Reagan's Under Secertary of Defense
for Policy, who is today still active at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies -- carefully defined in the early 1980s as follows:
"Simply put, semantic infiltration is the process whereby we come to adopt the
language of our adversaries in describing political reality. The most
totalitarian regimes in the world would call themselves 'liberation movements.'
It is perfectly predictable that they should misuse words to conceal their real
nature. But must we aid them in that effort by repeating those words? Worse, do
we begin to influence our own perceptions by using them?"
Back then, it was a case of Leninist, Maoist and Castroite tyranny wrapped up in
false "Liberationist" lingo. Today, it is the neo-Leninist, fascist-Left and
pseudo-Quranic narrative of "Jihadi Martyrdom" which General Jim Mattis so
correctly condemns as "tyranny in false religious garb" -- while all too many of
us continue the "useful idiocy" parroting.
(Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose !!. N'est-ce pas ??)
Sure. We should challenge the jihadist idea that Sharia equals justice. And we
should call it tyranny. But that is not the same thing as formulating some
genuine way to counter jihadist claims to represent true Islam. Inventing our
own benign little Islam and hoping that Muslims will buy it won't do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the
director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven monographs, and
hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam
Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith and the
New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the
Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.
Democracy in
Lebanon: Lessons from the Lebanese Cuisine
by Elie Al-Chaer*
CDL | August 08, 2007 | Visit: AlChaer Blog
After the Metn elections, much debate is taking place these days about the
viability of democracy in Lebanon, its values and its prospects, given the
intense emotional charging that preceded the elections and the role money may
have played in the process. These factors may have turned off many voters and
disillusioned young generations in the promise of their democracy, even some
seasoned Lebanese politicians like former Prime Minister Salim Al-Hoss who was
quoted saying in a statement that the Metn by-election polls had proven again
that "democracy in Lebanon is an illusion where money and emotions rule."
To begin, all elections, even in the finest of democracies, are held with an
element of money and emotions. To what extent these 2 factors “rule” the
process, corrupt the vote or dictate the outcome is controlled by the rule of
law. Elections are but one step in the democratic process; the primary and
essential step remains always the rule of law.
Defining democracy in the abstract is a daunting task and the subject of
encyclopedic volumes of discussions and debates. For me, the easiest way to
understand democracy is to look at it as a practical concept; think of it as a
plate of the world famous Lebanese salad: Tabbouleh.
Tabbouleh is a Lebanese salad dish. Its primary ingredients are finely chopped
parsley, cracked wheat (Burghul), diced tomato, chopped onions, lemon juice,
olive oil, salt and various other seasonings. The main tools needed to prepare
the dish are a sharp knife to chop, dice and slice and large bowl to mix the
whole.
Tabbouleh’s taste varies by region, from country to country, town to town, and
sometimes from one house to the next within the same town. Each region has its
recipe for the mix, including its measures, special seasonings and preferred
flavor. However, the one thing all regions agree on is that you cannot prepare
Tabbouleh without its main ingredients (e.g. parsley) and a sharp knife. Once we
agree on the concept of diversity of Tabbouleh preparation within its
universality, it becomes easy to accept democracy as a main dish in our Lebanese
political mezza.
A Recipe for Democracy “à la libanaise”
1) Five bunches of parsley:
The “parsley” (main ingredient) in any democracy is the rule of law. Without it,
there is no democracy. That does not simply mean electoral law; it means:
i) Fair and modern constitution that protects basic human rights for all
citizens without discrimination
ii) A modern penal code that protects the innocent and punishes the criminal
swiftly and justly
iii) A modern code to protect the civil rights of individuals against private or
public intrusion
iv) A fair tax code that redistributes wealth and protects the poor and
vulnerable population
v) A modern electoral law that guarantees one vote for one citizen
The essential tool for implementing the rule of law (the sharp knife) is an
independent, transparent and qualified justice system with equal access to all
and equal enforcement on all.
2) Two large tomatoes:
The second main ingredient for a successful democracy is the rule of reason. The
viability of any representative democracy rests as much on the wisdom of its
well-informed citizenry as on its laws. Two main safeguards are essential for
the rule of reason; these are:
i) insuring the public is always well- informed by protecting access and
providing transparency
ii) insuring the free-flow of knowledge by protecting the openness of the
marketplace of ideas
3) Two cups of burghul:
These are auxiliary precautions necessary to protect against abuse of powers. As
James Madison said in the Federalist Papers: "If men were angels, no government
would be necessary ... A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary
control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of
auxiliary precautions." These would be:
i) separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary
branches of government
ii) a system of checks and balances through which branches of government check
each other, to ensure that the power of the government is both limited and
controlled.
4) One large onion:
That would be the freedom protection against the unhealthy accumulation of too
much power in the hands of one person; be it political power, military power or
economic power.
5) Seasoning and the mix:
That is done to taste and will have to be adjusted until you reach the right
measures. We are talking of course about the process of apportionment and also
districting within the electoral law. You only get it right with experience – of
course if you learn from experience.
6) Sample before you serve:
This is what happens in by-elections, general elections and referenda. Voters
get to say what they think of the taste, the ingredients and the chef. And in
the words of James Madison: “as long as the reason of man continues to be
fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be
formed.”
We Are Not Re-Inventing the Wheel
We may have invented Tabbouleh but we certainly did not invent Democracy nor we
are about to re-invent it. So why not look at other systems and borrow from them
what may work for us. Instead of always asking others for fish (to tell us what
to do), let us for once learn how to fish ourselves or ask others simply to show
us how they’ve done it.
Take the USA, for instance, allegedly one of the most influential powers in
Lebanese politics these days: In the fall of the year 2000, the citizens of the
USA voted to elect a president. Candidate Albert A. Gore received 50,999,897
votes and candidate George W. Bush received 50,456,002 votes placing Bush
543,985 votes behind Al Gore in the popular vote. The constitution of the USA,
however, clearly states that a president is elected by a majority of the
electoral vote, regardless of the popular vote. Only three times before (1824,
1876, and 1888) in more than 250 years of the US constitutional history, the
electoral vote did not reflect the popular vote. What was most impressive about
the year 2000 presidential elections was not the outcome, but the legal process
through which the candidates challenged each other in the courts of law for ~ 2
months until the Supreme Court (9 judges) ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Bush. With
great dignity and majestic grace, Gore (winner of the popular vote by 543,985
votes; about 1/5 of the Lebanese population) conceded in a public address to the
nation and one of the most moving speeches in political history. Here is an
excerpt:
“Good evening.
Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming
the 43rd president of the United States…Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken.
Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I
accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next
Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a
people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept
my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new
President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together
in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines
and that our Constitution affirms and defends.” “…I know that many of my
supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome
by our love of country.”
He closed by saying: “It is time for me to go. Thank you and good night and God
bless America.”
Al Gore could have easily bypassed the institutional and constitutional process,
claimed that he represented the majority of Americans (which he did), used this
as a basis to continuously emphasize his political power, taken his supporters
to the streets to protest the outcome and plunged his nation in civil unrest.
But a dignified patriot knows better, and for love of country forsakes all.
Obviously this is not intended as a review of American history but as an example
for us to learn how great leaders build great nations; by respecting the rule of
law and by stepping aside “gracefully” at the right moment.
It is also intended to illustrate how the rule of law rather than popular
elections is what preserves a democracy and brings forth internal peace for its
people.
Of course, the electoral and legal systems in Lebanon are not to be compared
with those of the USA; yet we have one advantage: being a smaller nation, we
should be able to manage our affairs more easily. What do we lack? May be just
the right leadership!
Admittedly, the system is not perfect. But fixing it begins by adopting a fair
and balanced electoral law, in which every vote counts (one citizen, one vote),
and districting and apportionment are not manipulated for electoral advantage.
Without getting into the details of a model electoral law, any law should at
least regulate the use of money in elections – i.e. require accountability and
limit spending for all candidates in order to level the field of competition
financially – and should be enforceable against all.
What Happened in Metn?
First and foremost, the Metn by-election should be interpreted for what it
really was: a by-election to fill a parliamentary seat vacated by the
assassination of MP Pierre Gemayel. As such there were winners and losers. The
candidate that obviously won the election was Dr. Camille Khoury. The 2 other
candidates lost.
Many may regard this as a narrow technical reading of the elections; for most,
however, it is a simple reality. The margin of victory should only be relevant
for the candidates themselves and their parties if they wish to broaden their
base and run again in the future.
The mistake that many in Lebanon make today on both sides of the political
spectrum (some with good intentions but others maliciously), is to blow the
results of this by-election out of proportion and beyond their immediate
implications.
Firstly, it was a by-election in a single district with ~48% voter
participation, and it generated a clear winner.
Secondly, it was not a referendum on who better represents the Christians or the
Maronites in Lebanon today, and therefore gets to name the next Maronite
president - Michel Aoun or the Christians of the March 14 Coalition - for many
reasons: technical (legal) and political.
Technical (legal) reasons:
1) The question of who better represents the Christians and their interests was
not on the ballot
2) The opinion of the Christians in the Metn district does not necessarily
reflect the opinion of all Christians in Lebanon
3) Not all the Christians of Metn participated, and
4) Non-Christians from Metn were also polled.
So technically, the winner was Dr. Camille Khoury.
Political reasons:
For more than two years now, the March 14 Coalition brandished itself as a
national non-sectarian movement, representative of all Lebanese people, guided
by the Taef accord and the famous oath of the late Gebran Tueini on March 14,
2005. As such, its candidates in any district should seek approval of all the
district’s voters regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation. In fact, one
would expect their candidates to reach out nationally beyond their sectarian
base and their campaigns to brag about the diversity of their electorate rather
than recluse to the votes of a single sect looking for a measurable yet hollow
majority.
Surprisingly, many in the March 14 Coalition (most vocal being Samir Geagea),
are doing just the opposite. They persist in reporting the results along a
sectarian distribution in an effort to claim superiority in representing the
Christians and the Maronites. That in itself is a political failure of the March
14 Coalition, and on many levels:
1) It turns the coalition into a federation of sects, rather than a coalition of
national leaders. As such, Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblat could no longer claim
to represent the Christians and Shiites of Beirut and the Shouf let alone
Baabda-Aley, North Lebanon and the Bekaa; gutting thereby their parliamentary
majority of any political clout – “politically speaking”.
2) Applying the Geagea logic to the results in Beirut II will leave the Future
movement with less than 20% of the Sunni voters; unless someone can provide a
fact-based reason for why more than 80% of the voters in a largely Sunni
district (Beirut II) would boycott a by-election at times of high political
tension.
3) The rhetoric used by some of the March 14 leaders is similar to the one used
by Michel Aoun after the elections of 2005. Basically, presuming
extra-institutional representative powers based on the popular votes of one sect
in one district. Where do you cash this "check" in an institutional government?
No matter how one looks at it, the March 14 Coalition lost the by-election in
Metn, technically and politically. The only political victory they may arguably
claim goes to the cabinet of PM Siniora, and that by no means confer on the
Christian leaders of the March 14 coalition the right to select the next
president of the republic.
On the other hand, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and its allies, ran in 2005
on a sectarian platform, capitalizing on the anger of the Christian voter at the
quadripartite alliance (Hariri, Jumblatt, Berri, Nasrallah), which totally
marginalized the Christians. Christian leaders from Kornet Shahwan (now in the
March 14 Coalition) who found it expedient at the time to participate with the
Muslim alliance, to the dismay of Bkerki, paid the price heavily; the FPM won a
majority of the Christian votes, albeit their representative power within
Parliament was limited. What happened afterwards, the FPM used their victory and
the mandate they acquired from the Christian communities of Lebanon to reach out
nationally. They managed to broaden their political platform beyond its narrow
sectarian appeal. Yes they may have sacrificed some of the Christian base but
that’s what popularity is for: you take it to a spin and find out how far it
carries you. Nationally speaking, it was a political success. The quadripartite
alliance disintegrated and half of it is allied with the FPM today.
In the 2007 Metn by-election, the FPM and its allies used the same old mantra
again (defending the Christians) without retracting from their broader national
appeal. They won again, this time with a cross-section of the national
electorate; very astute by all accounts!...but not enough to give the FPM and
its allies exclusive right to select the next president.
Therefore saying that the Metn by-election ended politically without a victor is
not accurate. In a parliamentary democracy, you do not seek to vanquish your
opponents; you simply seek to unseat them – unless of course we are following a
totalitarian model of elections, very common in our region of the world, and
unless we really prefer Tabbouleh “à la syrienne”.
Not so Perfect, but a Democracy!
Despite all what was said and done, and despite the many flaws in the process,
one cannot but thank the government of PM Siniora for remaining as neutral as
humanly possible in a society like Lebanon, and insuring that the by-elections
were conducted in a transparent manner and according to existing Lebanese law.
Perfecting the law and streamlining the process remain our sincere desire; as
long as we work for it, we will be on the right track towards a better
democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Elie D. Al-Chaer, PhD, JD. Scientist and lawyer; director of the Center for
Democracy of Lebanon.