LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
December 7/06

Bible Reading For the Day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 15,29-37. Moving on from there Jesus walked by the Sea of Galilee, went up on the mountain, and sat down there. Great crowds came to him, having with them the lame, the blind, the deformed, the mute, and many others. They placed them at his feet, and he cured them. The crowds were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the deformed made whole, the lame walking, and the blind able to see, and they glorified the God of Israel. Jesus summoned his disciples and said, "My heart is moved with pity for the crowd, for they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, for fear they may collapse on the way."The disciples said to him, "Where could we ever get enough bread in this deserted place to satisfy such a crowd?" Jesus said to them, "How many loaves do you have?" "Seven," they replied, "and a few fish." He ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, gave thanks, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. They all ate and were satisfied. They picked up the fragments left over--seven baskets full.

Free Opinions
Hizbullah has overplayed its hand -By Michael Young 07.12.06
Education Versus Jihad.By: Walid Phares 07.12.06
National Goal and 'National' Squares-Dar Al-Hayat 07.12.06
A puzzling run for president in Lebanon-Los Angeles Times 06.12.06

Latest New from miscellaneous sources for December 6/06
Hypocrisy paralyzes Lebanon-Ya Libnan
Defiant Lebanese PM Siniora calls for dialogue-Neuters
Siniora: We want to build Lebanon not dig bunkers-Ya Libnan
Saniora Appeals to Protesters in Lebanon-Washington Post -
Lebanon opposition vows to step up protests-AP
Maronite Church Calls for Early Presidential Elections-Naharnet
Aoun Pledges To Put Saniora Government in 'Deep Coma'-Naharnet
Ray of Hope in Resolving Lebanon's Political Standoff-Naharnet
Turkish PM to Discuss Lebanon with Assad-Naharnet
Berri Vows No End to Protests-Naharnet
France, Israel Fail to Resolve Differences on Overflights-Naharnet
France, Germany Urge Syria to 'Stop Supporting Forces' Seeking to Destabilize Lebanon-Naharnet
Lebanon: Civil War or Nasrallah's Peace?Washington Post
Gates says military action against Iran and Syria would be costly-International Herald Tribune
Countries press Syria on Lebanon matter-Seattle Post Intelligencer
Cluster bomb blast kills man, wounds another in S. Lebanon-Ha'aretz
Lebanon Army Commander Urges Compromise-Forbes - NY,USA
Turkish prime minister leaves for talks in Syria-International Herald Tribune
A New Civil War in Lebanon?CNN
Lebanon at risk for war by proxy-Boston Globe
Hizballah: Human Shields and Information Warfare-ThreatsWatch.Org -
Egypt: Cell Linked to Regional 'Terror' Groups, Syria-Lebanon Border Bombing-Naharnet
Israeli Report: Hizbullah Used Civilians as Human Shields-Naharnet
U.S. Defense Secretary Nominee Against Attack on Iran, Syria-Naharnet
News Bulletins from the Daily Star for 07/06
Erdogan discusses Lebanon's sovereignty with Assad
Aoun threatens 'escalation of popular pressure'
Siniora invites opposition back to dialogue table
Compromise plans fail to break deadlock in Beirut
Israeli war-probe panel complains of non-cooperation
US Treasury targets individuals, businesses in South America for allegedly channeling money to Hizbullah
France, Israel still at odds over Lebanon overflights
Can Siniora's financial skills get him out of political trouble?
March 14 Forces call for talks, insist demonstration will fail
Work complete, Russians head home
Higher Shiite Council: Discord 'shouldn't be turned into a sectarian dispute'
Bkirki dilutes support for prime minister
 

Hizbullah has overplayed its hand
By Michael Young -Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 07, 2006
In the broad details, there are striking similarities between the communist takeover in Czechoslovakia in 1948 and what is occurring in Lebanon today; between the "coup of Prague" and the "coup of Beirut," which Hizbullah and its comrades are presently sweating to implement.
As in Lebanon, the Czechoslovak communists benefited from a Cabinet crisis to kick off massive street protests. They controlled the government and the security ministries, and chose to act because they were expecting to lose ground in upcoming parliamentary elections. The communists had to strike quickly at a time when their external patron, the Soviet Union, was entering into a confrontation with the West. Indeed, Moscow had forced the Czech government to reverse its initial acceptance of Western aid under the Marshall Plan, fearing this would take Prague out of its orbit and offer more legitimacy to non-communist forces.
In Lebanon, too, Hizbullah is being pressed by its external patrons, Iran and Syria, to overthrow a system they fear losing. Syria seeks to reimpose its hegemony over Lebanon, and its priority is to undermine the tribunal dealing with the Hariri assassination. Iran, for its part, doesn't like the fact that United Nations Security Council 1701 is stifling Hizbullah along the Israeli border. Hizbullah may not control security ministries as the communists did in Czechoslovakia, but it has influential allies in the military, and its militia is more powerful than the army. It may not fear losing elections, but its setbacks in the July-August war, particularly the destruction visited on Shiites, obliged it to mobilize its supporters against the government so they would not turn their anger against the party. Like the Czech communists, Hizbullah is using both institutions and the street to seize power. It has also succeeded, like the communists did with the socialists in Czechoslovakia, in neutralizing a key actor whose opposition could have decisively damaged their ambitions: the Aounist movement.
Hizbullah's strategy is now clear, its repercussions dangerous. The party is pushing Lebanon into a protracted vacuum, in which low-level violence and economic debilitation become the norm. Hizbullah is calculating that its adversaries will crack first, because they have more at stake than do poor Shiites when it comes to the country's financial and commercial health. Its leaders know the powerful symbolism associated with dispatching thousands of destitute people into the plush downtown area, which best symbolizes that financial and commercial health - the jewel in late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's reconstruction crown.
Hizbullah's reckoning is profoundly cynical. Its manipulation of the alleged Shiite ability to withstand more hardship than other Lebanese shows disdain for Shiite aspirations. The fact that everyone will lose out after an economic meltdown, which is coming, seems obvious. But that Hizbullah should take it as a sign of strength that Shiites would lose relatively less because of their poverty is abhorrent. The party has nonetheless made clear to its interlocutors that it will not give up on Syria and Iran. Hence the perilous path it is pursuing, along with Syria's satellites and the futile Michel Aoun as water carriers.
The ideal Syrian and Iranian scheme looks like this. Syria's condition to allow a return to stability is that the March 14 majority agree to give up on the Hariri tribunal. Once that happens, Emile Lahoud's presence would no longer be as essential, so there might be room for a presidential election. The winning candidate would be neither from March 8 nor March 14. And it would not be Michel Aoun, whom Syria and Hizbullah don't trust, even as they ransack his vanity. The likely victor could be someone like Riyad Salameh, the Central Bank governor, or the army commander, General Michel Suleiman, who can play both sides. At the same time, a new government would be formed in such a way as to grant the opposition veto power, if not more. The Iranian and Syrian goal would be to have in hand the means to block any Lebanese effort to consolidate Resolution 1701 through further normalization of the situation in South Lebanon. This would be the culmination of a downward spiral for anti-Syrian forces, and with Hizbullah as their enforcer, Syria and Iran could systematically dismantle the remaining outposts of Lebanese autonomy.
Things won't be so simple, however. Hizbullah is straight-jacketed by two Syrian demands - no Hariri tribunal and no bargaining on Lahoud's removal - and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah cannot indefinitely bat away package deals to resolve the government crisis, particularly if this heightens Sunni-Shiite animosity. Besides, Syrian haste on the tribunal is pushing the party into a very damaging altercation with the rest of Lebanese society, and potentially the Sunni Arab world, which Iran cannot be happy with. The party knows it will soon have to prove that it backs the tribunal. It can also see that the situation in South Lebanon is improving, following Israel's agreement in principle to pull out of the Lebanese side of Ghajar. Stability is returning to the border area under the eyes of the international community, thanks to a plan the Siniora government helped shape. That is why Hizbullah, Syria and Iran regard the government and the expanded United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon as threats. It is perhaps no coincidence that the tension in Beirut is forcing the army to redeploy units away from areas where they had moved under Resolution 1701.
The Syrian and Iranian project can be derailed by a combination of other scenarios as well: Sectarian tension increases to the extent that President Bashar Assad's regime is threatened by a violent Sunni backlash from Lebanon, and perhaps Iraq; the international community, notably Israel, decides it cannot accept a return to the status quo ante in South Lebanon; and Lebanese leaders in danger of physical or political elimination because of a Syrian return - principally Walid Jumblatt, Saad Hariri, and Samir Geagea - pursue a bitter, existential fight, preventing Hizbullah from controlling the situation on behalf of Damascus and Tehran. The implacable theorems of Lebanon's formula of national coexistence have demolished far more powerful forces than Hizbullah.
Another flaw in Syrian and Iranian reasoning is hubris. Despite the tactical parallels in the staging of a coup, Lebanon is no Czechoslovakia. Tehran, Damascus, and Hizbullah imagine the country can be conquered, with Hizbullah somehow emerging on top. Only the fundamentally intolerant can fall for such a tidy, straightforward conceit. But that's not really how things work in Lebanon's confessional disorder. We may be in the throes of a faltering coup, but the ultimate challenge is to avoid being inadvertently manhandled by Hizbullah into a war nobody wants.
***Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Erdogan discusses Lebanon's sovereignty with Assad
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed Lebanon's sovereignty and the ongoing violence in Iraq with Syrian President Bashar Assad Wednesday as part of Turkey's efforts to play a greater role in regional affairs. The two leaders called for greater regional cooperation to lower Middle East tensions. They stressed "the necessity to exert efforts to lower tensions in the region," the state news agency SANA said, and played up the importance that "states of the region cooperate to achieve security and stability." Assad and Erdogan also agreed "to pursue coordination and consultation between their countries on questions concerning the Middle East and of mutual interest," the agency said.
Erdogan, who flew to Syria early Wednesday, was making his second regional diplomatic initiative in four days after visiting Iran. Before leaving Turkey, the premier said his talks in Damascus would focus on many of the issues he discussed with the Iranian government, such as the rising tensions in Lebanon, the insurgency in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When he first announced his plans to travel to Syria in November, Erdogan said he would ask Syrian leaders for "positive contributions" in Lebanon following the murder of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, the sixth Syria critic to be slain in Lebanon over the last two years. He was met at Damascus airport by Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Otari and later met with Assad.
They started with a one-on-one meeting shortly after Erdogan's arrival in Damascus before an enlarged session with their delegations, the Syrian state news agency, SANA said. "Our aim is to contribute to peace in the Middle East," Erdogan said Tuesday in Ankara.
On Tuesday, he reiterated his opposition to the possible break-up of neighboring Iraq amid bloody feuding between religious and ethnic groups, saying Iranian leaders he met in Tehran last Sunday agreed.
He said he also planned a trip to Lebanon for talks with Premier Fouad Siniora and to visit the Turkish UNIFIL contingent there.
On Tuesday, US President George W. Bush's nominee for defense secretary, Robert Gates, spoke highly of Turkey's role as a constructive partner in the Middle East.Turkey is a US ally and member of NATO, but it is also a mostly Muslim country that has close ties with most Middle Eastern states. It also enjoys friendly, but occasionally tense, relations with Israel. - Agencies

Aoun threatens 'escalation of popular pressure'
By Rym Ghazal -Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 07, 2006
BEIRUT: As the opposition demonstration in the heart of the capital seemed to lose some of its momentum on its sixth day, Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun said protests will escalate if Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government fails to accept demands for a unity government.
"If the prime minister and his camp continue to monopolize power, there will be an escalation of popular pressure," Aoun told AFP in an interview on Wednesday. "We will paralyze the government, we will force it to go into a deep coma," he said. A joint statement released by the opposition called for "greater determination" from its supporters on Sunday, which it said would be "a historical day in which the deaf ears hear and blind eyes see and we finally reach our demand for national unity." The city of tents downtown, relatively empty during the day Wednesday, slowly gathered occupants as the night wore on. The "massive" student presence promised by an opposition organizer for Wednesday was canceled for security reasons.
"If Siniora wants to negotiate, he will have to present us some proposals, but we will not accept anything less than true power-sharing and a blocking minority share" in the government, Aoun said. The FPM leader and Hizbullah ally criticized the "blind"
backing of Western and Arab states for a government he said has "lost popular confidence."
"We welcome favorably Arab and other meditation attempts," he said. "But the mediators should be at an equal distance from all parties."
Aoun accused the parliamentary majority of "monopolizing power" and of acting in a similar manner to their former "Syrian masters," referring to the Syrian tutelage of Lebanon that ended in 2005."Those who are ruling us today were in power during the era of Syrian tutelage," Aoun said.
"They only changed their masters," he said, alluding to support by the US and Europe for Siniora's government.
Aoun said he was willing to assist in the formation of an international tribunal to try those suspected in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which the government says is the real reason for the demonstrations and demands for a "blocking third."
"I am ready to adopt the tribunal, but we have not been informed about the text and it needs to be discussed in Parliament," he said.
Aoun said he also supported an international donor conference for Lebanon set to be held in Paris in mid-January.
The conference is intended to secure long-term assistance to help Lebanon recover from Israel's summer war on Lebanon, which caused more than $3.5 billion in damage. "But this corrupted government, which has an economic strategy based only on loans and debts, is incapable of carrying out reforms that would allow a better use of the assistance," Aoun said. Meanwhile, economic, commercial and agricultural associations linked to the opposition called on their members to attend Sunday's protest and pressure the government to resign.

Compromise plans fail to break deadlock in Beirut
But saudi ambassador says he has 'big hope'
By Nada Bakri -Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 07, 2006
BEIRUT: Compromises proposed by Lebanese and Arab diplomats have so far failed to end Lebanon's deepening political crisis, despite positive remarks from the head of the Arab League and Saudi Arabia's ambassador in Lebanon of a near deal Wednesday. Meanwhile, a surprising statement issued by the Maronite Church called for an early presidential election as a means to move out of the current political crisis.
The demand was quickly dismissed by pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, whose term was renewed under Syria's hegemony over Lebanon.
The Church also pleaded for Speaker Nabih Berri to convene Parliament so it may find a way out of the crisis.
While no comment was issued from Berri on the Church's call, Arab League chief Amr Moussa said there was a "gleam of hope" that the Lebanese crisis might be defused soon, on the eve of his visit to the US.Moussa denied that he had carried with him to Beirut an initiative about expanding the government earlier this week.
He said he presented to the various political leaders in Lebanon a "basket of ideas" to be discussed by the opposition and the anti-Syrian ruling coalition.
Moussa said the rival sides "generally hailed" his ideas, which included endorsing an international tribunal to try suspects in the killing of former Premier Rafik Hariri, the formation of a national unity government and an international donors' conference to be held in January in Paris to help rebuild Lebanon after the summer war.
He did not elaborate, saying the parties involved were still studying them.
"They may introduce amendments or add proposals," Moussa said after a meeting in Cairo Tuesday of a ministerial committee on Iraq.
He said he would discuss the situation in Lebanon with US officials during his visit to Washington Wednesday.
Moussa is now waiting for Berri to relay the opposition's response to his ideas, after the government expressed their initial approval.
Berri dispatched a member of his Amal Movement to Damascus Wednesday to meet with Syrian officials. The outcome of the meeting was not known as The Daily Star went to press.After the Cairo meeting, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Faisal said "there was some optimism that Lebanese parties could reach an agreement."
The Arab foreign ministers who took part in the meeting urged bickering Lebanese leaders to return to the dialogue table to solve the country's problems.
Saudi Ambassador Abdel-Aziz Khoja said there was "more than one gleam of hope, big hope" the Lebanese might resume national talks sponsored by Berri, a key ally of Hizbullah. Hizbullah and its allies in the opposition have been staging demonstrations for the past week aimed at forcing Siniora's government to resign.
"I was pretty confident during my talks with Speaker Berri that doors are open and there is more than one gleam of hope, big hope the Lebanese will meet again," Khoja said following a visit to Berri.
"I have a big hope that at any moment everything will go back to normal and dialogue and consultations and agreement will resume," he added.
Khoja said that Berri was "more optimistic" than at any previous time and that he had determination to resume talks, and should be given time to sort things out before he calls for it. "I found Speaker Berri very optimistic and open and he told me 'I turned on the engine,'" Khoja said.
However, Lebanese efforts to break the political standoffs failed after an initiative floated by a Sunni scholar was rejected by both camps.
Former MP Fathi Yakan met late Tuesday with Siniora to present a proposal to form a national unity government in which the opposition enjoys veto power, but that would endorse the international tribunal, draft a new electoral law and then hold early parliamentary and presidential elections.
But, rather than discussing Yakan's proposal, Siniora suggested expanding his 24-member Cabinet to include 19 ministers from the March 14 Forces, nine from the opposition and two independent ministers. The opposition indicated that Siniora's proposal fell short of their demands.
"The answer was the government's insistence on its previous positions," the National Gathering said in a statement on Wednesday.
Sports and Youth Minister Ahmad Fatfat, who attended Tuesday's meeting at the Grand Serail, said on Wednesday that the opposition refused the premier's proposal because it does not give them veto power.
"We proposed giving them a one third that will guarantee them a say in all decisions, but without giving them the power to overthrow Cabinet. We are proposing participation, they are refusing," Fatfat added. "They want to control Cabinet and be able to overthrow whenever they want to," he said.

March 14 Forces call for talks, insist demonstration will fail
By Therese Sfeir -Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 07, 2006
BEIRUT: The March 14 Forces called Wednesday for dialogue between political parties to be held within "constitutional institutions," and insisted ongoing opposition protests would fail to topple the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. MP Walid Jumblatt's Democratic Gathering parliamentary bloc said dialogue was the only means to resolve political disputes in Lebanon. The bloc called on Parliament to "restore its political role in this delicate period to resolve pending problems within constitutional institutions," while also urging "all political parties to deploy further efforts to overcome this national crisis and to preserve internal unity." However, the bloc said the opposition's demands for a national unity government with a "blocking minority" were aimed at "placing the country's military, administrative, political and judicial affairs in the hands of the Syrian-Iranian alliance."Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani condemned the recent clashes. "I strongly denounce the acts of violence and extremism Beirut has witnessed and which warns of sectarian strife" he said, adding: "I urge the wise men in the opposition to put an end to protests, which don't reflect Lebanon's civilized side." Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea told Al-Jazeera television the March 14 Forces would not agree to opposition demands for a "blocking minority because it would paralyze the country."Geagea took aim at MP Michel Aoun in particular, saying the Free Patriotic Movement leader was only backing Hizbullah "to improve his political status."
"What is happening today is not about creating a unity cabinet but an attempt to hamper the creation of an international tribunal and the implementation of Resolution 1701," Geagea said. An LF delegation including MPs Strida Geagea, Farid Habib, Antoine Zahra and Elie Keyrouz met Wednesday with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir in Bkirki.
A statement issued following the meeting voiced the LF's "determination to fight all attempts to topple the government by Syria's allies in Lebanon."
Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh said initiatives and negotiations to resolve the crisis were being discussed by former President Amin Gemayel and other officials behind the scenes. Siniora and Arab League chief Amr Moussa were "still waiting for a response from the March 8 Forces," he added. President Emile Lahoud meanwhile urged "all Lebanese and spiritual leaders to adhere to the Constitution."
"By doing so, consensus will be guaranteed among all the Lebanese and all parties would be part of the country's decision-making" process, he said.

Higher Shiite Council: Discord 'shouldn't be turned into a sectarian dispute'
By Mira Borji -Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 07, 2006
BEIRUT: The Higher Shiite Council said Wednesday that the formation of a national unity government was the only way out of the political deadlock afflicting Lebanon, calling on the Lebanese to unite and reject foreign interference in the country's internal affairs. "Resorting to foreign forces deepens divisions among the Lebanese and thwarts the work of the state," the council said in a statement. "When have foreign forces been alternatives to national unity?" the council asked. "National unity can only be preserved through a national unity government aimed at rescuing the country from the crisis it is plunging into."The council said the current crisis in Lebanon was the result of an "absence of national cooperation" in the political decision-making process. "The present discord should remain political ... it shouldn't be turned into a sectarian dispute which foreign parties take advantage of with no regard for the Lebanese people's interests," the statement said. As opposition protests in Downtown Beirut to demand the government resign entered their sixth day, the council said the demonstrations were constitutional and peaceful."The popular moves aim at defending the Constitution and coexistence while abiding by Lebanese law," the statement said. "The protesters are expressing their natural right in a civilized and peaceful way away from chaos and riots, despite provocations."Condemning the death of Ali Ahmad Mahmoud, a 20-year-old Amal member killed Sunday night during violent clashes between opposing Sunni and Shiite party supporters, the council called on authorities to arrest the "criminals and bring them to justice.""Mahmoud's killing was caused by provocative behaviors and inflammatory speeches," the council said. The council warned Arab states against taking sides in Lebanon's enduring deadlock.  "Being biased hampers the Arab role which might contribute to resolving the current Lebanese crisis," it said.

A puzzling run for president in Lebanon
Christian Michel Aoun is alienating his traditional backers and violating Lebanon's unwritten rules.
By Tony Badran, TONY BADRAN is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, focusing on Syria and Lebanon. His blog can be found at beirut2bayside.blogspot.com.
December 6, 2006
IF YOU'RE LUCKY enough not to be obsessed with Middle East politics, you may be surprised to learn that the keynote speaker at Hezbollah's massive Beirut demonstration last week was not a Shiite Muslim but a Maronite Christian. Michel Aoun, the army general who was driven into exile by Syria in 1990 but has been oddly friendly with Syria and its local allies since his return to Lebanon last year, addressed an overwhelmingly Shiite crowd and called for the resignation of Sunni Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Aoun's primary objective is to become president. To achieve this goal, he concluded a political alliance with Hezbollah in February, hoping to build a strong enough coalition to win the presidency (a position that by long custom goes to a Christian leader).
With one year remaining in Syrian-installed President Emile Lahoud's term, time is running out for Aoun. Even with Hezbollah's support, he lacks the seats to be elected by parliament. Toppling the current government, however, might be a first step toward a full shift in the country's internal political balance.
Aoun's personal ambitions are quixotic at best. But his drive to be president has been a great gift to Hezbollah, allowing the extremist party to disguise its current attempt at a sectarian coup against one of the Arab world's few democracies as a broad national movement. Lebanon is made up of large minorities of Shiites, Sunnis, Druze and Christians of various sects, along with dozens of smaller groups. To create the illusion of a national consensus, you need useful idiots from outside your own sect. This is where the general comes in.
Aoun has chosen the Shiite option. His soft policy toward Syria (including ambiguous statements about an international tribunal to try the assassins of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri) is aimed at securing Syrian acceptance of his presidential bid. Is it likely that the same regime the general fought in a bloody 1990 war will be interested in making him president of Lebanon? Aoun's newfound ally, Suleiman Franjieh, a longtime Syrian loyalist and a fellow Maronite, seems to think so. Franjieh may envision a new alliance among Maronites, Shiites and the ruling Alawites in Syria.
But Aoun's calculations fail to take in some dangerous regional realities. Syria is more than pleased to see Aoun attacking the anti-Syrian government. So is Iran, whose supreme guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently predicted the defeat of U.S. and allied interests in Lebanon. Wittingly or not, Aoun is serving these foreign masters for free.
There's a cardinal rule in Lebanese politics that the president must be acceptable both to his own community and to the others. Aoun is neither. His positions have been antithetical to the Maronite patriarchate, the seat of moderation in the community and a strong opponent of using street rallies to unseat the government. Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah and Syria's puppets has infuriated the anti-Syrian Christian community, which aimed much of its anger at him after the assassination of Maronite Cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel last month. Now, by agreeing to be the vanguard of a Shiite-led coup attempt against a Sunni prime minister, he has broken an unwritten rule against getting his community involved in a Sunni-Shiite conflict, potentially putting the already polarized Maronite community at risk.
Meanwhile, there is strong opposition to his candidacy from the main Sunni and Druze leaderships. Their lack of trust in him is exacerbated by his vague position on the international tribunal in the Hariri assassination — unquestionably the priority of these leaderships, as well as of France and the U.S.
It's not even clear that the Shiite parties Amal and Hezbollah would back him for president. Although they have been happy to use Aoun as a club to beat the majority coalition, the Shiites have never made any public endorsement of him. That may be because Aoun has shown the Shiites too that he can't be trusted. During recent national dialogue sessions among the country's leaders, Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement reportedly tried to cut a deal that fell short of what his Hezbollah allies were seeking, embarrassing Hezbollah and prompting it to scuttle the deal.
In the end, the fact that the various communities are opposed to him will make Aoun's gambit a long shot. But his tone-deaf presidential bid should be instructive to anybody who believes that the current street theater in Beirut reflects the will of the Lebanese majority.
For all the chaos that plagues Lebanon, the country's sectarian balance imposes a complex and durable structure of protocols, restrictions and unwritten rules on the various communities. When these boundaries are transgressed, the result is often conflict. The region has a similar set of unwritten rules, and Aoun's support for a possible (Syrian- and Iranian-backed) Shiite coup against the Sunni prime minister has sent the Sunni Arab powerhouses strongly backing Siniora and warning against Iranian interference.
As such, Aoun is but the latest in a line of challengers of Lebanon's unwritten codes. He will fail like all the others; the question is how much damage he causes in the meantime.

Maronite Church Calls for Early Presidential Elections
The Maronite Church on Wednesday called for early presidential elections to help settle the serious crisis which is threatening to split Lebanon.
The council of Maronite Bishops, in a declaration of the church's principles, also urged leaders of the community and other Lebanese spiritual groups to agree on a "code of honor" to settle differences through dialogue, reject violence and armed confrontations and refrain from agitation.
The Maronite declaration of principles called for ratifying an agreement with the United Nations on an International Tribunal to try suspects charged with the 2005 assassination of ex-premier Rafik Hariri and other related "terrorist" crimes.
It warned against linking Lebanon to regional and international disputes and called for the formation of an "entente government" to contain the explosive situation.
If the entente government could not be formed, the statement noted, efforts should be exerted to form a government of "independent" figures to adopt a new elections law based on the principle of small electoral constituencies that can "truly represent" the various Lebanese communities.
The statement also called for the full implementation of the Taef Accord, which ended the Lebanese civil war in 1990, and stressed on the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. The Maronite Church stressed on the need for settling the question of armed Palestinian factions in Lebanon. Commenting on Hizbullah's weapons, without mentioning the Shiite faction by name, the statement said weapons in Lebanon should be "strictly controlled by the legitimate security forces."The council of Maronite Bishops also called for an urgent meeting of the Lebanese parliament to tackle the serious crisis which is splitting the nation. The council, which held its monthly meeting at suburban Bkirki under Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, called on Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to convene the house to deliberate the issue that has paralyzed constitutional institutions. The statement noted that the "confusing situation through which the Lebanese are going is regrettable. Constitutional institutions have been paralyzed." It said: "nothing is left except parliament, but it doesn't convene." "That is why," the statement added, "we plead with its speaker Nabih Berri to convene it so it may find a way out of the crisis." Beirut, 06 Dec 06, 14:58

Baker Commission Calls for Comprehensive Mideast Peace, Ending Syria's Meddling in Lebanon
A top-level policy panel urged U.S. President George Bush to show a "renewed and sustained commitment" to a "comprehensive peace plan" involving Israel on the one hand and the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon on the other.
"This commitment must include direct talks with, by and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians -- those who accept Israel's right to exist-- and Syria," the report submitted to Bush said, stressing that the new initiative be built on the president's June 2002 vow to work for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. "The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict," the group co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker said in a thinly veiled jibe at Bush's reticence to press Israel for concessions.
As part of the new diplomatic push, the panel calls for the "unconditional" convening of an international conference bringing Israel, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians together to negotiate peace along the lines of the 1991 Madrid conference which led to the Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestinians.
Concerning Syria, the group said Washington should press Israel to return the Golan Heights, which it seized from Syria in the 1973 war, as part of a full bilateral peace agreement that would involve a halt to Syrian support for radical Palestinian and Lebanese "militants" and an end to Syrian meddling in Lebanon. The United States should offer security guarantees, including a possible deployment of U.S. troops to the Golan, as part of the deal, it said.
But Israeli Interior Minister Roni Bar-On on Wednesday called on Israelis to move to the Golan Heights to strengthen the country's defenses against the "axis of evil," which, according to him, runs through Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and the radical Palestinian movement Hamas.
The Baker report also said that efforts to resolve the Iraq war must include a renewed drive for Arab-Israeli peace.
"The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability," read the report.
On Iraq, the commission said bluntly that Bush's policy in the war-torn country "is not working," prodding the administration to embrace diplomacy to stabilize the country and allow withdrawal of most combat troops by early 2008. Bush received the report in an early morning meeting at the White House with commission members. He pledged to treat each proposal seriously and act in a "timely fashion."(AFP-AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 06 Dec 06, 19:05

Berri Vows No End to Protests
Speaker Nabih Berri, whose supporters are among the thousands of opposition protestors camping outside the Grand Serail for a sixth day Wednesday, vowed no end to the anti-government campaign to topple Premier Fouad Saniora's cabinet. "The opposition will not abandon the streets," said Berri, who also heads the Amal movement which is allied with Hizbullah. "This is a final and big decision…the ball is in their court," Berri told the leftist daily As Safir in reference to the pro-government camp which the opposition accuses of being corrupt and wanting to have a final say in Lebanon's decision making process. Saniora's supporters on the other hand accuse the opposition of seeking to block vital decisions such as giving a final green light to the international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 murder of former Premier Rafik Hariri.
"If some have not learned from past discords in Lebanon and want to take back the country to what it was 16 years ago, let them (bear the responsibility)," Berri warned following several days of clashes between pro and anti-government protestors that left one Amal supporter dead.
The slain man was buried on Tuesday in an emotionally-charged ceremony during which thousands of angry mourners called for the fall of the government.
Arab diplomats, fearful of a return to civil strife, are attempting to mediate the crisis, while Western governments expressed support for Saniora and his cabinet. The opposition has held demonstrations since Friday outside Saniora's offices in downtown Beirut where he and several ministers have been residing since the Nov. 21 assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. "I wasn't with going to the street because I was afraid of the consequences of this choice. Today, those who let the dialogue table reach a dead-end should bear responsibility and not those who had no choice left," Berri said.
Talks between the country's top rival leaders collapsed last month over the international tribunal and demands by the opposition for the formation of a government of national unity.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 06 Dec 06, 12:51

Turkish PM to Discuss Lebanon with Assad
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that he will visit Damascus on Wednesday to discuss the situation in Lebanon, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Erdogan told his party's parliamentary group in Ankara that he would meet Syrian President Bashar Assad and other officials.
"Our aim is to contribute to peace in the Middle East," he said. "The reg When he first announced his intention to travel to Damascus in late November, Erdogan said he would ask Syrian leaders for "positive contributions" in Lebanon after the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, which the ruling majority has blamed on Syria. He said he also planned to travel to Lebanon for talks with Premier Fouad Saniora and to visit the Turkish peacekeeping contingent in the south, but did not give a date for the trip.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 06 Dec 06, 07:53

France, Israel Fail to Resolve Differences on Overflights
France and Israel failed to patch up differences Wednesday over Israeli overflights on Lebanon, which French U.N. troops call menacing and Israel insists are needed for security. French peacekeepers say they came within seconds of shooting down Israeli F-15 fighters that nose-dived repeatedly over their positions in south Lebanon on Oct. 31. The incident incensed the French military. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, after meeting Wednesday with her French counterpart in Paris, defended the flights as a needed security precaution to watch movements of missiles like those fired by Hizbullah on Israel during the 34-day war in July-August. "The only reason for these flights is to get information," said Livni at a news conference alongside French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. Livni said Lebanon's border with Syria, seen as a transit route for weapons to Hizbullah, remained open.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 paved the way for a cease-fire to end the war on Aug. 14, calling for respect of Lebanon's borders and a Lebanese effort to prevent the smuggling of weapons from Syria. "It's an important achievement we have to consolidate ... and ensure the respect of the embargo and -- at the same time -- a halt to the overflights," Douste-Blazy said. French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has called Israel's overflights "extremely dangerous," saying peacekeepers could see them as hostile and fire in self-defense.
There are about 1,600 French peacekeepers in south Lebanon, part of a 10,000-strong force from about 20 countries that seeks to maintain south Lebanon as a weapons-free zone. Along with the Lebanese army, the force is intended to keep Hizbullah fighters away from the Israeli border.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 06 Dec 06, 13:47

Ray of Hope in Resolving Lebanon's Political Standoff
There was a ray of hope Wednesday with a Sunni scholar in the opposition stepping in to break one of Lebanon's most dangerous political standoffs which has raised fears of a resurgence of sectarian strife. Fathi Yakan, a former Sunni parliament member, visited Prime Minister Fouad Saniora late Tuesday to discuss ideas on resolving the crisis. As the two leaders met at the Grand Serail after nightfall, thousands of Hizbullah-led opposition protesters were gathered outside Saniora's offices in yet another evening of rallies aimed at bringing down the government.
In a new tactic Tuesday night, many of the protestors who have been camping out near the Grand Serail, aimed two powerful floodlights at the government complex. Lebanese army troops have also installed more barbed wire and other fortifications. The leftist daily As Safir said Wednesday that the opposition leadership follow-up committee has put off "Phase-B" of their anti-government campaign until Friday to give Yakan's initiative a chance. Yakan said he has been assigned to meet Saniora on behalf of the National Convention which is headed by former Prime Minister Omar Karami. He said that his government visit also came following a meeting he held on Monday with Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on finding "exits" to get Lebanon out of its crippling political impasse. Yakan said that he has asked Nasrallah to quit the streets and go back to national talks, picking up from where they last failed following Saniora's call for a cabinet session to approve a Special International Tribunal for Lebanon to try suspects in the Hariri assassination.
"An earlier suggestion to form a threefold government with two independent ministers is an acceptable issue for debate," Yakan told reporters after an hour-and-half meeting with Saniora. "Toppling the prime minister through street protests is a red line," Yakan warned. "I believe everybody has faulted."
"Under these circumstances, no one is able to control the situation," Yahan said, adding that the only way out of this danger is by calling off street protests.
Youth and Sports Minister Ahmed Fatfat, who attended the meeting at the Grand Serail, said the government gave Yakan its own proposals which include the possible expansion of the current cabinet to satisfy opposition demands.(Naharnet-AP) Beirut, 06 Dec 06, 09:06

A New Civil War in Lebanon?
Sunni-Shi'ite tensions have a long history in Lebanon, but the latest upsurge is fueled by a battle for regional supremacy between powers thousands of miles from Beirut
By NICHOLAS BLANFORD/BEIRUT
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 05, 2006
Angry Shi'ite mourners punch the air with their fists and chant vows of revenge as the coffin of Ahmad Mahmoud passes by, draped in the Lebanese national flag and sprinkled with rose petals. Shot dead Sunday evening during street fighting between Sunni and Shi'ite youths, the 20-year-old Mahmoud is being lionized by the Hizballah-led opposition as the first "martyr" of its protest campaign to topple the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. But some Lebanese fear that Mahmoud may be remembered as the first casualty of a new civil war.
Mahmoud's death has ignited long-simmering tensions between Shi'ite and Sunni communities, which have even begun to eclipse Lebanon's more familiar Christian-Muslim divide and instead parallels the sectarian schism throughout the Middle East that has been reopened by the conflict in Iraq.
"It's obvious now that there is a very serious problem between Shi'ites and Sunnis. And I think it's going to get worse," says Mohammed Attar, 25, one of several thousand mourners attending Mahmoud's funeral at the "Two Martyrs" cemetry in Beirut's Shi'ite-dominated southern suburbs. As Mahmoud's coffin is carried into the pine-tree lined cemetery, the mourners slap their foreheads, a Shi'ite gesture of mourning, and chant, "Far and wide, the Shi'ites will shake the ground."
A very different sentiment is aired nearby in the mainly Sunni district of Tarek Jdeide, where a group of laughing young men chant crude insults at Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hizballah's charismatic leader. "If the Shi'ites topple the government, Hizballah will take power and we will have a Shi'ite state, but we won't let that happen," says Yussef Beydoun, 21. "Tarek Jdeide will continue to be a citadel of resilience against the Shiites."
The Shi'ites, a traditionally neglected and impoversished segment of Lebanese society, are generally thought to represent the largest of Lebanon's 18 sects, though a recent survey of eligible voters put their numbers at about the same as the Sunni population, at around 30% each. Census figures, however, are unreliable and potentially explosive in a country where top positions are apportioned according to sect, which explains why there has been no official survey of the Lebanese population since 1932.
Although a Shi'ite, Mahmoud lived in the Sunni neighborhood of Tarek Jdeide. While mourning pictures of Mahmoud plaster the ochre-colored wall of his simple two-story home, most of the drab apartment buildings and storefronts carry posters of slain prime minister Rafik Hariri or of his son, Saad, displaying their allegiance the Sunni political leadership. Mahmoud was killed on his way home from a mass sit-in downtown, where tens of thousands had demanded the ouster of the government.
Local residents say he was killed by fellow Shi'ites who had been rampaging through the district. "I think they shot him because they thought he was a Sunni," says Mustafa Jaroushi, 21. But the Shi'ites of the nearby district of Shiyah blame Hariri's Sunni supporters for Mahmoud's death, saying residents of Tarek Jdeide threw stones and fired shots at them as they passed the neighborhood on their way home from the sit-in.
Whatever the truth behind Mahmoud's death, it was not an isolated incident but came amid outbreaks of violence in several mixed Sunni-Shi'ite areas of Beirut this week that have left dozens injured and inflamed sectarian tensions. Hundreds of Lebanese troops have deployed in Beirut's trouble spots. But using the Lebanese Army in this way is untenable, warned its commander, General Michel Suleiman. Suleiman says that sectarian violence "drains the army's resources and weakens its neutrality," and warned, "This weakness will make the army unable to control the situation in all areas of Lebanon."
The Sunni-Shi'ite battle is also being fought out on the airwaves, where the Hariri-owned Future TV and Hizballah's Al-Manar network have been accusing their sectarian rivals of stoking the conflict. A key Sunni cleric, Sheikh Ali al-Jozo, the mufti of Mount Lebanon, has repeatedly attacked Hizballah, describing Nasrallah as a "dictator" and accusing him of advancing a foreign, Syrian-Iranian agenda.
The Sunni regimes of the Middle East, fearing that their traditional dominance of the Arab world is being challenged by an expansionist Shi'ite Iran in coordination with allies such as Syria, Hizballah and Hamas, have rallied to support Siniora's embattled government, underlining the sense that there is more at stake than a parochial tussle over power sharing in Lebanon.
Talal Salman, editor of Lebanon's As Safir newspaper, wrote Tuesday that this Arab backing for Siniora has increased the defiance of the Hizballah-led opposition, making "an inter-Lebanese solution to the crisis out of reach".
Still, the notion of a "Shi'ite crescent" emerging in the Middle East may be based more on Sunni fears than Shi'ite ambitions. The anti-Western alliance, which includes Sunni Palestinians, is more political than religious in nature, motivated by antipathy toward Israel and a determination to rid the region of U.S. influence. Hizballah calculates that by toppling the Western-backed government in Beirut, U.S. influence in Lebanon and the wider region will be curbed. The conflict playing out in Lebnaon, then, may not simply be based on the country's age-old sectarian tensions, but in a regional power struggle that pits the U.S. and its Sunni-Arab allies against Iran and its anti-Western Arab partners. And that may be why Ahmad Mahmoud is unlikely to be the last casualty of Lebanon's political turmoil.

Think Tank: Hezbollah Used Human Shields
By AMY TEIBEL 12.05.06,
An Israeli think tank with strong links to the military released videos and testimony Tuesday it said proved Hezbollah guerrillas used civilians as human shields during last summer's war in Lebanon.
The report's authors hoped to challenge allegations that Israel committed war crimes when it attacked residential areas during the war.
Although no formal war crimes charges have been filed against either side, Israel has taken the brunt of international criticism. Israel is especially sensitive about the possibility of legal action because of previous lawsuits and indictments abroad against Israeli leaders and military officers.
The 300-page report, compiled by a military intelligence expert who has an office in the Defense Ministry, argues that Lebanese government and media reports of the number of civilians killed in Lebanon were exaggerated.
More than 850 Lebanese, most of them civilians, were killed in Israeli airstrikes and artillery attacks during the 34-day war, which began after Hezbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. The guerrillas bombarded northern Israel with nearly 4,000 rockets, killing 39 civilians. Also, 120 Israeli soldiers were killed in the violence.
Israel says its attacks against Hezbollah targets in populated areas did not violate international law.
The report, first released to The New York Times, said Hezbollah operated from civilian areas to deter the Israeli military and gain a propaganda advantage if an Israeli counterattack caused civilian casualties. Guerrillas stashed weapons in hundreds of homes and mosques, had missile transports closely follow ambulances and fired rockets from positions near U.N. monitoring posts, the report said.
Much of the material was released earlier, but some was recently declassified, including interviews with Hezbollah prisoners and aerial photographs showing the Hezbollah buildup in civilian areas.
One video included in the report showed what it identified as a captive Hezbollah guerrilla telling interrogators how the militia rented houses in residential areas to secretly store missiles.
"Even the owner of the house, he knows he's giving (the building) to Hezbollah, they rent it for instance, but its not possible for him to know what's in it," said the man, identified as 30-year-old Maher Hassan Mahmoud Kourani.
A Hezbollah official dismissed the Israeli report as "totally untrue," saying it was part of "a campaign to vilify Hezbollah and justify the unjustified Israeli massacres in Lebanon."
"These allegations are part of Israeli propaganda aimed at protecting Israel's generals and officials who face accusations of committing massacres against Lebanese civilians during the summer war," Hussein Rahhal, Hezbollah's media chief, told The Associated Press in Lebanon.
Amnesty International said the report did not contain many new allegations. "In terms of the fact that Hezbollah had weapons, tunnels, militia facilities in villages, no one disputes it. Hezbollah does not dispute it," said Claudio Cordone, a senior director of research at Amnesty. Cordone called for an international inquiry. The Israeli study was prepared by military intelligence expert Reuven Ehrlich, a retired lieutenant colonel who heads the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a private think tank.
"I think it could offer a response to allegations of human rights organizations on why the Israel Defense Forces operated in civilian areas," he said.
Ehrlich's study, citing Israeli military intelligence, disputes Lebanese and media accounts of civilian casualties, stating that at least 450 and as many as 650 of the Lebanese killed were Hezbollah operatives. Three chapters in the report addressing the war crimes issue were prepared by the Israeli military's legal department in conjunction with Foreign Ministry lawyers, the report said. Experience has prepared Israel for the possibility of such charges. In 2001, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was tried in absentia in Belgium, though not convicted, in connection with a 1982 massacre in Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut.Critics who have accused Israel of war crimes in Palestinian territories have sought to arrest Israeli military officers overseas, and some have only narrowly escaped incarceration. Since 2000, several European countries including Britain and Belgium have given war crimes cases "momentum across the continent," Human Rights Watch said in a recent report. Complaints have been filed against military chief Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz and his predecessor, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, in connection with a 2002 airstrike that killed a Hamas leader and 14 others, nine of them children.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

Lebanon: Civil War or Nasrallah's Peace?
Washington Post 06/12/06
By Jefferson Morley | December 5, 2006; 1:53 AM ET | Category: Mideast
As Middle East newspapers were warning this weekend that Lebanon is on the brink of civil war, Beirut enjoyed a moment of civility.
As tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators began an indefinite occupation of the city's center last weekend, thousands of marathon runners skirted the massive protests without incident.
Amidst the country's worst worst political crisis since the end of a bloody civil war 15 years ago, Lebanon also displays habits of accommodation that some hope will help it avoid the most dire of scenarios. But a peaceful democratic resolution, some commentators say, will most likely benefit the man most antagonistic to Washington and Israel -- Sayyed Nasrallah.
The latest developments show a deepening impasse between the opposition, led by Hezbollah, the Shiite party and militia, and the pro-Western government it seeks to topple.
• Tensions mounted Monday as thousands turned out to mourn a Shiite demonstrator who was killed during clashes in a Sunni neighborhood Sunday.
• The government responded to the weekend demonstrations by deploying more troops to the capital to head off the possibility of sectarian violence, according to Aljazeera.net.
• AP reported that Egypt's president and Russia's foreign minister are calling for for calm.
In Lebanon's diverse online media, commentators on both sides proclaim their own peaceful intentions while fearing the worst of the opposition.
Fingerpointing Powers
On Friday, the pro-government Arabic daily Al-Mustaqbal warned that the demonstrations organized by Hezbollah and supported by some Christians were actually the makings of a coup orchestrated by Syria and Iran.
"The direct goal of the Syrian-Iranian coup against the situation in Lebanon is to thwart the [establishment of] an international tribunal [to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri]," said Al-Mustaqbal, according to a translation by the pro-Israeli Middle East Media Research Institute.
Iran and Syria, said the Sunni daily, also hope to thwart the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which mandates the disarmament of Hezbollah's militia.
"This is a coup against the very existence of the state. Oh [Lebanese] Army, as of today you face the test of defending the state, the regime, and its institutions," said the Al-Mustaqbal editors.
But Al Manar, Hezbollah's Web site, charges that it is pro-government forces preparing for civil war by distributing guns in the Mount Lebanon region, north of Beirut.
Hezbollah, of course, has its own militia, as Al Manar acknowledged. But "Hezbollah's chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah sought on many occasions to reassure the Lebanese that the sole use of the arms of the resistance is to confront the Israeli enemy adding that these weapons will not be used internally," the editors said.
Ya Libnan, a pro-government site, was not reassured.
"Hezbollah's ongoing propaganda campaign to brainwash its followers has resulted in hundreds of thousands of misinformed people, manipulated into believing that their government is illegitimate," said YL columnist Mohammed Hussein. The current demonstrations, he said, are a "sneak peak of a Hezbollah dictatorship."
But Monday Morning, a nationalist newsweekly based in Beirut and also distributed in Syria, set aside blame of Hezbollah, saying sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis are stoked by the United States and Israel for their own advantage.
"The basics of the problem are anchored in Iraq and its neighbor Iran. The two countries fought a long war in the 1980s, during which Washington gave help to both belligerents. The US's strategic goal was to ruin two major Muslim states which regarded Israel as a major enemy and a target," said Monday Morning editors. Now, America's goal is to "let the Muslims fight each other and bleed on both sides. This reality will ease the situation from the American-Israeli side."
The secular Daily Star said Lebanon faces the same "trying circumstances" as Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
"On the one side are indigenous forces -- Arab and Iranian mainly -- that seek to assert an indigenous identity and often militant ideology, and on the other side are forces that prefer a political order that weds local interests with close ties to Western powers and international alliances," said the Daily Star editors.
"Street confrontations that remain peaceful are an established means of expressing various views, but these must be channeled into existing political and constitutional mechanisms that remain the only credible means of brokering a compromise that meets the legitimate demands of all sides," the editors concluded.
Lebanon's best-known journalist, Ghassan Tueni, called for a dialogue to contain the mushrooming crisis. Tueni, the former An Nahar editor whose son was assassinated last year, suggested that talks with Tehran would be a "launching platform" for a "dialogue in the name of all the Arabs," including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. At stake, he said, is not just the future of Lebanon but the Arab nation.
'At the Crossroads'
The debate about civil war is also raging beyond Lebanon.
Civil war is not inevitable, said the French academic, Pascal Boniface, in a column for the Gulf News.
"There is some pessimism due to the following reasons - the divide between the communities is growing, the external powers, Syria, Iran, Israel, France and the US, have their own antagonistic agenda. But history could come to the rescue of Lebanon as the Lebanese people are against collective suicide," he wrote.
"The Christians are aware that fresh fighting will mean the end of their influence. Hezbollah is at the crossroads. It is both a national Lebanese movement and a Syrian ally. Whether it would prefer one role to the other could be the deciding factor of a civil war or not."
Nadim Zaazaa, a Lebanese contributor to Islam Online, was less optimistic.
"Once again, Lebanon is at crossroads. And once again, Lebanon doesn't seem to be up to the challenge. The country is sadly too futile to withstand the pressures it is facing. It may be true that Lebanon has stood firm in the face of the Israeli aggression, but there is a different test that Lebanon has repeatedly failed: the challenge of upgrading the Lebanese polity to a capable medium that can adapt to and interact with the social, economic, and political changes that it comes across. The roots of such a problem reside in all aspects of the Lebanese reality -- the history, the constitution, society, and even the individual mindset of every Lebanese."
Hezbollah's "street theatrics" endanger the country, say the editors of the Khaleej Times in the United Arab Emirates. "Hezbollah won itself plaudits and support from Arabs, Muslims and the rest of the world for the exemplary courage and perseverance it demonstrated in the face of Israeli aggression earlier this year. This newspaper had joined other media in the Middle East and elsewhere in hailing the victory of Lebanese people including Hezbollah over a ruthless power armed to its teeth."
"Which is why it is unfortunate that Hezbollah should squander that hard-earned public support and sympathy in such a pointless exercise, which could seriously destabilize an already volatile country."
In Israel, there is widespread feeling that the Hezbollah-led demonstrations will end, not with civil war, but a political victory for Nasrallah.
As the liberal Haaretz said, "What appears to be an internal political demonstration - so far conducted nonviolently - against a government that the demonstrators view as illegal, corrupt and unrepresentative is liable to end with the establishment of a pro-Syrian government, which would be under the influence of Nasrallah and his supporters, including the Christian Michel Aoun."
In a column for the the centrist Ynet News, Eyal Zisser, a professor at Tel Aviv University, said that "the demonstrators' restraint, as well as the fact that they chose to hide behind General Aoun, demonstrated that Nasrallah's sights are not set on a bloody civil war. Nasrallah is simply seeking to subdue [pro-Western Prime Minister] Fouad Siniora and to force him to surrender to his demands."
"What can be expected is a typical Lebanese bazaar, where both sides will ultimately emerge only partially appeased: Siniora will be forced to surrender to some of Nasrallah's' demands and Nasrallah will have to retract some of his other demands," Zisser concluded.
By Jefferson Morley | December 5, 2006; 1:53 AM ET | Category: Mideast

ALC on the Resignation of Ambassador John Bolton
December 5th, 2006
The American Lebanese Coalition (ALC) was profoundly sorry to learn of Ambassador John Bolton’s decision to end his service as the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations and that President Bush accepted his resignation.
We totally concur with the President’s statement that Ambassador Bolton had “articulately advocated the positions and values of the United States and advanced the expansion of democracy and liberty”. His achievements at the UN Security Council within the past year on key resolutions, such as the ones on North Korea, Sudan and Iran are remarkable. His advocacy of much needed reforms within the UN is to be commended.
And very importantly for us, is Ambassador Bolton’s commitment to the sovereignty and stability of our motherland Lebanon, and the right of the Lebanese people to be free. His work in that regard at the UN is exceptional. For this, he earned the Cedar Shield last May from the Lebanese-American community, a highly esteemed award granted to US Officials who show unique efforts in supporting freedom and democracy for Lebanon.
As an umbrella coalition representing Lebanese-American grassroots organizations, the American Lebanese Coalition owes a debt of gratitude to Ambassador Bolton for his effective role in the enactment by the United Nations Security Council of relevant resolutions that advanced and protected Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution.
We wish Mr. Bolton continued success in his future endeavors.

National Goal and 'National' Squares
Elias Harfouch Al-Hayat - 04/12/06//
Noble goals are not always the most feasible means of achieving clean ends and results. The demand for the formation of a national unity government in Lebanon may appear to be one of these clean ends that is sought after by the powers that coalesce under the banner of Hezbollah, but reaching such a goal has been hampered by dangerous hurdles that allow us to ask the question of whether this purpose is worthy of such a price.
The first obstacle is the sectarian nature of the demonstrations that have plagued the 'national squares' in the Riyadh Al-Solh and Martyrs squares. You can even say, depending on the angle from which you look at it, that Hezbollah is becoming modest or departing from the truth when it considers that these mass demonstrations enjoy much support, representing the various communities and attitudes that constitute what is known as the opposition, to the point that they can somehow be characterized as 'national'. The fact of the matter is that the mobilization of these masses is characterized by a single sectarian color, in spite of the different political currents that converge in their ranks.
An address by Aoun here or a church mass there is not enough to remove this ambiguity. It is also a mistake for Hezbollah not to admit to this fact and not to heed its dangerous repercussions.
The second obstacle is the constitutional impasse that the opposition (under the banner of Hezbollah) has dragged the country into. The call for the overthrow of the government in the street is not consistent with any known constitutional custom, nor is it consistent with the commitments which, supposedly, the party took upon itself when it agreed to enter the political game. It is true that to demonstrate is a legitimate right guaranteed by the Constitution to citizens under the law, but demonstrations are not the usual means by which governments are changed in States that call themselves democratic. It is a means of expression, the effectiveness of which is measured by the government's responsiveness to it. At the end of the day, the political decision remains ultimately in the hands of those legitimate elected institutions which are accountable at the ballot boxes when the time comes to head to them, as stipulated by the Constitution.
The third obstacle in the way of the opposition is the Arab rallying around the government of Premier Fouad Siniora on the part of the main Arab countries. This amassing places the opposition forces in confrontation with the direction of Arab efforts in the interests of the majority of the Arabs. This in turn leaves them vulnerable to various kinds of indictments, in light of the polarization the region is experiencing, giving it a distinctively sectarian cast on account of the progress of Iranian influence and the rise of Iran's regional aspirations. Hezbollah is reaffirming its commitment to Arab interests and rejects any reference to the impact of the Iranian role on its objectives and action. However, the convergence of most Arab countries on rejecting its actions in the street against the government raises questions about the objectives of such actions and the extent of the convergence between Hezbollah's goals with Arab interests.
The Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, admitted courageously after the war last summer that, had he known beforehand the magnitude of the devastating aggressive Israeli response to the operation, he would not have carried out the kidnapping of the Israeli two soldiers. If so, then it is not right that the Secretary-General has decided to launch a protest movement in the streets of Beirut, given the hazardous dimensions of the movement and its devastating effects on the Lebanese internal fabric. This does not leave room for different readings or varied estimates. What is happening in Beirut now threatens of a dangerous sectarian confrontation; the indicators are clear in more than one place in the capital and other regions that had been characterized by peaceful coexistence in darkest days of the civil war.
Nor does it change the current situation the accusation that there is a 'conspiracy' embroiled in this scheme or repudiate their responsibility under the pretext that the aftermath of what is taking place was not known. The reality of the situation is that it is our responsibility to save the country from this collapse. National solutions cannot be achieved in Lebanon across sectarian roads. Other parties had experimented with this approach in the war years, and they ended up retreating to their sectarian hovels after having played a role in the process of internal destruction

Education Versus Jihad
Walid Phares
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: December 5, 2006
In the few hours following the terrorist attacks on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, media in the United States began looking for answers. The very first series of questions asked by all was indicative of the state of mind of most Americans: “Why do they hate us?” Five years later, as we analyze the conflict from a homeland security and war on terrorism perspective, and probably years from now, when historians have had enough time to contemplate it, the bigger question regarding the 9/11 attacks will be: “Why didn’t Americans know?” Indeed, as I argued in my book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America and the West, one of the most dramatic failures of US strategic defense against Al Qaeda on Sept. 11 and against the jihadist war against America during the 1990s was that neither the government nor the public knew they were at war and that a terrorist declaration of war had been in effect against America for years.
The central conclusion of the 9/11 Commission’s examination of the failure was that “Americans had a failure of imagination”—meaning that even if the US was better equipped technologically and more alert on intelligence levels, something was missing in the US resistance to terrorism. The commission was unable to comprehend why analysts, decision makers and leaders—even as information about fragments of threats poured in— didn’t conclude that there was an Al Qaeda offensive and, more dangerously, that a global jihadist war had been mobilizing forces around the world and within the West against democracies, in general, and America, in particular. One of the commissioners, during the summer 2004 hearings, asked repeatedly: “Why didn’t the US government acknowledge that a war was declared in 1996 and in 1998 against America?”
Many US leaders and commentators after him added: Why hadn’t we declared war back at them, before the attacks took place, if, indeed, the jihadists have been on the offensive for a decade?
These and other questions continue to haunt US counterterrorism strategists, legislators, security planners, academic researchers and, obviously, citizens at large. The weight of this inquiry is increasing, as the public knows that 9/11 wasn’t a single event in America’s history but, unfortunately and dramatically, a single benchmark in a series of past and future attacks and offensives against US interests worldwide and, more importantly, the national security of the homeland.
The eyes and ears of the American public and international public opinion have been absorbing the escalation of violence in acts and rhetoric by the various jihadist groups worldwide— from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Madrid to London—over the past five years since the Manhattan massacre. The speeches by Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and, lately, their American product, Adam Gadahn, as well as the fiery declarations by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, if anything have showed that radical Islamists, regimes and organizations are massing resources to further attack not only the US presence overseas but, more worrisomely, America’s homeland.
Thus, with all this pressure on the country’s national security and its economic and demographic future, answering the basic questions since 9/11 becomes crucial. More and more of these fundamental questions are still lingering over matters related to homeland security, foreign policy, counterterrorism and justice: After “why do they hate us?” another question has been raised in the debate: “Who are they?”
Indeed, as we watch Al Qaeda undergoing a metamorphosis from a regime-protected network in Afghanistan to a landless web of branches around the world, the US and Europe are increasingly encountering a second-generation Al Qaeda and, even beyond it, what governments are now identifying as “homegrown” jihadists.
This troubling development of the enemy of 2001 into a hybrid of new shades of terrorists in 2006 is not really due to the changing nature of the threat but to the initial misunderstanding of its nature by Americans and democracies in general. For it is clear to connoisseurs of jihadism that mutation is one of its essential characteristics. It should also be understood that, given its ideology and history, jihadism, far from being a mere emotional reaction to American or other foreign policies, “is” by itself a movement with goals, strategies and changing tactics.
Unfortunately, most Americans weren’t enabled to absorb the basics of their rising enemy so that they could prepare, mobilize and win. But beyond the 911 Commission’s conclusion of a “failure in imagination,” I have argued, and continue to argue that the initial and structural failure of understanding is in western and, specifically, American education.
Here is why:
CULTURAL INABILITY
If you look at all incidents that involved intercepting, interpreting and learning about terrorism directed against America— specifically, the jihadist type—throughout the decade that preceded 911, you’ll realize that, in most cases, both overseas and domestically a black hole dominated the decision making process regarding both preemption of jihadism and consequences of falling to do so.
In 1993, the US government treated the Twin Towers attacks as “a police operation” with criminal ramifications, not as an operation by a worldwide jihadist movement. This gave the enemy eight years to prepare future attacks. In 1996, the takeover of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the war fatwa issued by Bin Laden were treated as matters of foreign policy.
In 1998, Al Qaeda’s second declaration of war and the subsequent attacks against the embassies in Africa were treated as terror strikes, but not as a war of ideas followed by a war of terror. After the failed attempt to attack airliners over the Pacific (the “Bojinka” plot) and the millennium conspiracies, came the USS Cole attack. During these years of jihadist offensives, the government was advised by experts and academics who dismissed jihadism as a threat and recommended the opposite of a US War on Terror—i.e., a demobilization of the forces facing this specific ideology.
But more dismaying was the fact that the public was not informed of the threats against the homeland, precisely because the classrooms, the backbone of the nation’s future, were misinformed and the talents graduating year after year were deprived of the right to learn about the threat and, therefore, to serve their government and nation proportionally to the menace.
American graduates of Middle East studies, history and security studies weren’t equipped with the right knowledge. Hence, their final professional destinations suffered from this miseducation. If one reviews the curriculum in place between 1980 (when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran) and 2001 (when Bin Laden attacked America), one can see an inexplicable and immense hole in teaching students about the roots, development, rise, logic, strategies, tactics, methodologies and literature of the movements that targeted the US during those two decades. It was an educational breach of historical dimension. Why did it happen?
THE WAR ON US EDUCATION: 1980s-1 990s
One of the major results of the 1973 oil crisis was the rise of a determination by many oil producing regimes that the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, “understand” the greater Middle East, the Arab and the Muslim world and, accordingly, design its policies toward those regimes and ideologies on the basis of this “understanding.”
OIL CLASSROOM NEWSROOM
As a result, millions of dollars were invested in American and European educational institutions as a way to “foster” this understanding. But instead of fostering an objective understanding or spreading impartial knowledge, the growing influence of Wahabism, an extreme form of Islam, and other such ideologies on the nation’s campuses played a dangerous role: Because of the ideological nature of the donors, the financed programs followed the guidelines of the donor regimes and organizations, which obviously narrowed research and teaching to issues remote from the major historical crisis in the region, other than the modern Arab-Israeli conflict. It removed all serious attention to the rise of Islamism, jihadism and even Baathism, as well as the deep ethnic and religious conflicts and the mass abuse of human rights in that part of the world.
A careful review of curricula and research projects established within the US educational system, both public and private, since the 1980s stunningly reveals that American classrooms were deprived of knowledge on social, historical, ethnic and ideological movements rising to challenge the United States. Moreover, as I taught comparative studies for over a decade and lectured on many campuses in the 1990s, I came to realize that defense, strategic and security studies were heavily influenced by “regional” studies when it came to identifying the backgrounds of international terrorist movements emerging from the greater Middle East and penetrating western societies. History and Middle Eastern studies had been corrupted by Wahabi and other funding with an impact on political science, international relations and, ultimately, defense and security studies across the land.
A thorough review of the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, the Middle East Studies Association of America, the International Studies Association, the Middle East Institute and other professional education associations, of the hundreds of books, publications, articles, talks and research grants distributed by Ivy League universities and other colleges lead to only one conclusion: The gap is immense. There are no traces of the roots of jihadism and its long-term objectives against democracies and the United States. Instead, prominent scholars produced an enormous amount of literature precisely deflecting scholars and students away from the most serious issues related to American defense and security after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The “hole” was so vast and the “deflection” (not to use the term “deception”) so wide that a systemic problem strode the field producing waves of effects into the professional worlds of the media and policy. An academic lobotomy led to an incapacitation of the public learning process about the national security threat and created a cultural crisis in perception. In short, if one isn’t taught about the political thinking of the enemy and his ideological objectives in the classroom, where else would one catch up?
MOLLIFICATION OF NATIONAL PERCEPTION
With this systemic crisis inside America’s educational system expanding during the 199 Os, a “mollification” of the national perception of the threat began. Deprived of the basic data and information about the terrorist threat, citizens were at the mercy of the elites’ debates. The latter, during the years leading to 9/11, were increasingly apologetic toward America’s most lethal enemies: Salafist and Khomeinist jihadists.
Despite the series of attacks, speeches and visible moves of radical jihadists worldwide, US national perception was blurred by the academic and educational deflection. Jihadism, for example, was described by leading “specialists,” many of whom have advised media and government for years, as a “theological experiment and spiritual phenomenon.”
Those who spread the doctrine of jihadism in America during the 1 990s had no counter check from the public or government, while even a minimal manifestation of Nazism, anti- Semitism or domestic violent racism was quickly countered. Clearly, Americans never lacked for imagination, but they were deprived of the necessary information.
THE WAR OF IDEAS AND DERAILMENT
OF NATIONAL ANALYSIS
When historians analyze the War on Terror in the near future, they will most likely look back at the war of ideas preceding 9/11 and understand the role academia played as a central battlefield leading to the weakening and defeat of the country, before it rose back in resistance. For if the fields of foreign policy, regional studies and international relations teaching—the most sensitive feeders for security and defense decision-making—were obsolete in identifying the “enemy,” all that is left to national security is the last shield, which is the hope that intelligence and counterterrorism sensors can catch the raiders at the doors or beyond the gates. And that’s what didn’t occur in 1993, 1998 and 2001.The terror offensive against America was preceded by a War of Ideas, blurring the eyes of the nation.
"Derailing National Analysis"
If intellectual blurring starts in classrooms, it soon reaches the newsrooms and, eventually, the intelligence rooms and war rooms. If young Americans are mistaught the ideology, political culture and intentions of the enemy while at school and in college, once graduated, they will carry this misperception with them as they find jobs and are recruited in all the layers of national analysis. Students enter the media, legislative research, security, intelligence, foreign policy, justice, think tanks and other sectors crucial for national decision making at the bottom levels and rise up to the ultimate positions.
By failing students in the classrooms, the educational system caused a national analysis failure: Media failed to report terrorism as it should have, impacting government’s various levels of policymaking; intelligence analysis, deprived of cultural understanding, saw the data but couldn’t put the bigger picture together; courts couldn’t process the concepts of terrorism beyond criminality; and, ultimately, both the legislative and executive branches were denied sound advice on the war already in progress against the country.
In conclusion, the failure in education led to a derailment of national analysis.
REACTION TO 911: HOMELAND SECURITY
The public and the political leadership had to react to 9111 by sheer instinct, both overseas and domestically, rather than rely on knowledgeable analysis. The War on Terror’s first counteroffensive took down the Taliban regime from Afghanistan. The second counteroffensive brought down Saddarn Hussein, but not without generating a severe and continuing debate on the Iraq war at home and internationally.
Here again, the past systemic educational crisis of the 1980s and 1990s deprived the public and even politicians from solid ground on which to engage in an educated discussion on Iraq, Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and beyond. Even though Americans have deep instincts regarding the “intentions” of the enemy, they surely rely on the expert elite to provide the objective and raw education and information about the foe—in this case, the totalitarian forces and the jihadists, in particular. That is the first current problem.
The second problem has to do with internal national security. Also by sheer instinct, America rushed to establish its Department of Homeland Security, a vital organ in the defense of the nation: The 19 perpetrators of 9/11, but also the dirty bomb maker; the Virginia palnt ball gang; the American fighters with Al Qaeda and the various US-born jihadists have all penetrated American national defense or been raised and tralned inside the homeland.
As detailed in Future Jihad, in one of the most extreme scenarios—parts of which are now coming to fruition—future jihads will launch as a result of the growth of the jihadist ideology inside the United States and a subsequent recruitment to action. Clearly, more jihadist terror is to be expected—not less—if only because the doctrinal factory is still working, with greater technological resources at its command.
Hence, the essence of homeland security resides in its ability to mobilize the public and its talents and isolate the wouldbe terrorists before they become actual terrorists and strike.
EDUCATION AND US HOMELAND SECURITY
As a result of the situation I have described, it is crucial for US homeland security to operate with a full understanding of the ideology and strategies of the terrorists, particularly those publicly threatening this nation and other democracies-the jihadist terrorists. But in order to win the War on Terror within the national territory, homeland security must be able to count on the public and its resources and talents. To make the point again: The real field of resistance to terror is in the wider national and local communities.
Isolation of the menace of terrorism starts within society. A more enlightened classroom will provide a more equipped society. Also, a more readied public will better understand and assist the ethnic communities struggling against terrorism. Instead of leaving extremists to take leadership of vulnerable communities, a better-educated liberal and anti-terrorist youth can help mobilize against it. On a national scale, Americans should be educated to identify the ideology instead of relying on negative ethnic stereotypes.
As a result of that intellectual empowerment, society could be the first line of defense against infiltration, penetration and potential urban warfare by the terrorists.
COUNTERING JIHADISM IN COURTS
The legal system is perhaps the most sensitive segment of the national resistance to jihadism. From the top of the pyramid to its bottom, tribunals, judges, defense lawyers, prosecutors and, more importantly, juries are critical to establishing a fair but educated processing of the terror cases as they arise.
Experienced in bringing expertise to courts in terrorism cases, I was able to pin down the weaknesses during the processing of jihadist-related material. Regardless of the procedural mishaps of the prosecution or the out-of-court maneuvers of defense lawyers, the fact is that lack of education has tripped up at least four of the players: the prosecution, the defense, the judges and—especially—the juries.
How can the latter, formed out of ordinary citizens, understand the content of jihadist material if they weren’t exposed to it while in school? How can citizens fathom the jihadist tactics such as taqiya (simulation of identity and behavior) if they were not exposed to it before? In fact, how can the juries reflect on basic concepts such as jihad against the infidels and genocidal attitudes? And how can they distinguish between committed radicals and law-breaking individuals uninterested in ideologies? Last but not least, as to the debate on monitoring terrorists within the country and civil liberties, educated and specialized judges are the real answer to the problem. But that basic education, so crucial to the judge’s thinking process, must start years earlier.
A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR: COUNTERTERRORISM EDUCATION
I strongly recommend rapid-pace reform of a specific segment of national education in the United States, with comparable application in other democracies around the world, in order to prepare society and national governments for better intellectual resistance to terrorism. These recommendations constitute a strategic plan for a national counterterrorism education:
1. Embrace the right of people to have access to a comprehensive education about the threat that has been and is facing the nation. That right is inalienable and universal. All citizens, not only those volunteering for the front lines, have the right to receive this education by the appropriate means and the most qualified parties.
2. Prepare the younger segment of the population for the global threat of terrorism as early as the cognitive process allows, with the help of qualified psychologists. A carefully structured program in homeland security has to be established to gradually prepare the students for national shocks, dramatic development and identification of threats. On the identity of the threat, middle and high school social studies classrooms should be introduced to the history and evolution of the enemy’s ideas. The objective is to enable teachers to answer students’ questions arising from the media and social environment.
3. Initiate the most dramatic reform at the level of colleges and universities so that courses on the War on Terror and home- land security are made available and integrated into concentrations, certificate and degree programs in these two fields.
4. Explain the roots of terrorism through courses in disciplines and fields crucial to the learning process regarding the War on Terror and homeland security, particularly courses in history, political science, international relations, comparative studies and all relevant cross-disciplinary fields. The explanations must include different perspectives, so that students are better prepared for a global understanding of the threat.
5. Significantly reform the field of Middle East studies, starting with a program protected from militant and ideological funding and relying on a balanced teaching of the region, its various problems, crises, identities, trends and ideologies. A sub-research field in jihadism studies must be established to serve as a focus for the study and analysis of the various movements related to jihadist terror doctrines.
6. Equip public libraries and institutions with adequate learning material focusing on the history and evolution of the terrorist threat, but also on the collective emergency efforts expected from the public to prevent or respond to terror attacks.
7. Initiate another series of measures to address one of the most severe problems in the United States: the spread of “terror apologist culture” through the publicly owned or dedicated media. Congress must rapidly request a comprehensive reform of the public media as a prelude to reforming public education. The Public Broadcasting Service, C- Span and National Public Radio must undergo a significant change in content and focus to provide balanced material regarding the terror threat. This reform is owed to the public as part of its right to reliable information related to the crucial issues of security and survival.
8. Direct federal grants related to national security and foreign affairs toward providing support to educational projects, non-governmental organizations, private think tanks, publications and other efforts aimed at educating and informing the public on these issues.
9. Broadcast and publish for societies worldwide information about democracy and pluralism to combat terrorist ideologies. Congressionally funded Al Hurra TV and Radio Sawa should also be able to air special educational programs regarding these topics.
It is a fact that America’s homeland security is highly dependent on the US educational system. Terrorists use knowledge to harm this nation and other democracies in the name of their ideology. And knowledge is what Americans and other civil societies need to resist terrorism and reach a secure and peaceful end to this ongoing conflict.
**FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Visiting Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy and the author of “Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America.” Email: Phares@walidphares.com