LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 02/08

Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 2,16-21. So they went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds. And Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart. Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, just as it had been told to them. When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Free Opinions and Releases
The End of an Arab Year: A Country without a President and a Nation without an Impact.Mohammed Salah. 01/01/08
The Jihadi preemptive strike against Bhutto's war of ideas.By Walid Phares. December 01/08
Dynasties in the name of democracy-GulfNews. December 01/08
Bernard Goldberg Was Right. By: Carol Taber - familysecuritymatters. January 01/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 01/08
Jumblat Has Been Lying to Syrians, Will Not Give Opposition Veto Power-Naharnet
Hayek Projects a Little Bad News, a Lot of Good for 2008-Naharnet
Gemayel, Geagea Hit Back at Aoun's Fiery New Year's Eve Statement-Naharnet
Turkey mediating between Israel, Syria-Jerusalem Post
IDF 'played into Hezbollah's hands' says Knesset report on Lebanon war-Ha'aretz
Ghanem Calls for United Arab Will to Facilitate Lebanon Stability-Naharnet
First Online Movie Ticketing System in Lebanon-Naharnet
Syrian Activist Gets Jailtime-The Associated Press
Israel's Parliament Blames Army for Not Fighting Hizbullah Deep Into Lebanon-Naharnet
Saniora Hopes For Salvation in 2008-Naharnet
Damascus Did Not Understand France, Egypt Stances toward Syria-Naharnet
Aoun: Sfeir Represents the Church, Not the Public-Naharnet

Hayek Projects a Little Bad News, a Lot of Good for 2008
Michel Hayek, Lebanon's most famous psychic, predicted that the year 2008 will generally bring good news, but warned of some bad news.
Hayek said obstacles that faced the election of a new president for Lebanon will "soon disappear," but warned that a "spell" will continue to prevail at the Baabda Palace and its environs. He did not elaborate. He predicted that the next 18 months will be influenced by prosperous banking system, new investments, building of dams and tourist projects along the Lebanese coast. Hayek, however, warned that the Lebanese Forces as well as its leader Samir Geagea will be targeted in 2008. He also pointed to "negative intentions" against Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra and former MP Faris Soeid. Hayek predicted that Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun and a number of his aides will be subject to "vicious operations." He did not reveal the nature of these actions. Politically, Hayek spoke about historic hand-shakings that could bridge the gap among some Lebanese figures.Hayek expected Hizbullah to achieve an additional success in swapping prisoners with Israel, though at a "high cost." Beirut, 01 Jan 08, 15:18

Ghanem Calls for United Arab Will to Facilitate Lebanon Stability
MP Robert Ghanem called for a "united Arab will" to facilitate stability in Lebanon through ending the presidential vacuum and electing a new head of state that will "sponsor dialogue among the Lebanese." Ghanem, in remarks published by the daily An Nahar on Tuesday, expressed hope that a meeting of Arab foreign ministers scheduled for next Sunday could help put a Lebanon "settlement back on the track."The meeting is to focus on the thorny issue of Lebanon's presidential election after mediation efforts reached a dead-end. Ghanem thanked Egypt and Saudi Arabia for their efforts to revive the Arab initiative. He also hailed recent stances made by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his Egyptian counterparty Husni Mubarak toward Lebanon. On Sunday, Sarkozy said France will have no more contact with Syria until Damascus shows willingness to let Lebanon end its long-running political crisis and elect a new president, while Mubarak urged Lebanon's neighboring country to facilitate the vote of a new head of state. Beirut, 01 Jan 08, 09:59

Bernard Goldberg Was Right
Carol Taber - familysecuritymatters
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1386010
Recently, conservative writer and former National Review Online contributor W. Thomas Smith, Jr., was attacked in the blogosphere and media for his NRO blogging while he was in Lebanon. The attacks against him were not only baseless, but because the reaction to them was so appalling and shameful to our business, almost in too many ways to elaborate fully here, I’m moved to comment on the whole grisly affair.
At the extreme, Smith was accused of lying about stories that no one else uncovered or reported in Lebanon. He is said to have lied, yet the evidence given to that charge was that no one else reported what Smith did, nor were they even aware of the events he reported. So how does that make Smith a “liar”? In fact, there is absolutely no evidence, much less any sliver of proof, that Smith lied about anything. On the contrary, Lebanon experts like Tom Harb and John Hajjar, both senior officials with the International Lebanese Committee for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, contend Smith dared to report the absolute truth that no other reporter in that country had the guts to report or the skill to uncover.
Smith did not, in two cases, detail what he was actually witnessing versus what he was learning from various sources. But he never said he saw something when he did not, and what he wrote were short briefs IN A BLOG; he was not writing news features. Who provides footnotes and meticulous sourcing in a blog, otherwise known as a frequently updated online journal/diary? Almost no one...until now.
To examine closely what happened – what Smith actually wrote in his blog entries while in Lebanon, and what has since been said in the Left wing blogosphere about those entries and why – simply defies reason. And it has reinforced several things in my mind about both liberals and conservatives.
1) Although this has been covered extensively in the media, I have to say I agree that the liberal – progressive -- movement in this country has been hijacked by an amorality that is among the most profane in American history. Anything goes. Anything can be said and repeated over and over about another person regardless of the truth or consequences for that person. Any human being's career, reputation, family and life can be sacrificed if that person opposes the Left and its agenda. No trial. No hearing…just vitriol and wild-eyed, abusive condemnation regardless of injury to the accused. All for the cause: the furtherance of the Left's agenda, its religion. That this new media form has been hijacked for this sort of anarchic perversion is a very sad turn of events for all of us; it is Lord of the Flies revisited.
2) The conservative movement is so faint-hearted, most of them will not properly defend an embattled colleague. They will quickly sacrifice a colleague, or attempt to distance themselves from him or her, for the sake of appearing squeaky clean and avoiding any risk of attacks by the profane Left. It is shades of what was done to Sen. Trent Lott for paying tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond at Thurmond's 100th birthday party - the idea that it is safer and easier for the Right to collapse by “throwing someone under the bus,” putting a band-aid on the infectious Left - this apparently also was done to Smith. Author and media analyst Bernard Goldberg said it best in the title of his book: “Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve.”
3) Looking with a critical eye at all of this, from Smith's reporting to the criticism of that reporting, the far more likely scenario - and the one with which Harb, Hajjar, and others concur - is that Smith had far greater access in Lebanon than other reporters. He got too close to Hezbollah. He made discoveries about who is, and who is not, in bed with Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. And because of that, the decision was made that he had to be destroyed in the public eye.
In fact, Gen. Michel Sleiman (the pro-Syrian, pro-Hezbollah commander-in-chief of the Lebanese armed forces) purportedly made two international phone calls to the U.S. personally inquiring why Smith was not writing favorable things about him. According to Lebanese sources, these calls were made days before a correspondent for the New Republic (a Left wing magazine under fire for actual lies on the part of its “Baghdad Diarist”) first wrote at the controversial Huffington Post about Smith's blogging.
Smith interviewed Sleiman at length while in Lebanon, and Sleiman may well be the next president of Lebanon; yet he was unnerved enough by Smith to make two personal, international calls contesting that one reporter’s coverage of him. What did Smith know? Apparently, far more than Hezbollah and even the Lebanese Ministry of Defense wanted him to know.
Accusing Smith of not properly attributing sources in his blogging doesn't bother him. “Frankly, I should have,” Smith concedes. “Considering the power and influence of blogs, we all should.” But accusing him of lying, misquoting him, and making up stories about him, is far more serious. Truth is everything to Smith. It defines him. And those who have accused him of untruths have lied in their accusations - but don't take my word for it: read what Smith wrote, then read what some of his attackers from the Left claimed he wrote.
Smith has survived the onslaught against him while his compatriots did not rise to defend him, which makes him even more of a hero, as others have already said. But what will not survive, however sadly, is a decency and an integrity that used to be hallmarks of our free press and the people who earned their living within it. Our country was built as a nation of free men and women whom we believed we could trust to manage themselves within the law and standards of decency; this is what made us the successful democracy we are today.
But if this crumbles - as it seems to be doing right under our eyes – and if we fail to uphold our standards and values for future generations, as Tony Blair once said, what kind of society do we leave behind? And what, therefore, will this generation’s legacy be?
I shudder to think.
# #
Carol A. Taber is President of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Cedars Revolution Leader Walid Jumblatt Slams Syria, Hezbollah and Opposition
Written by LBC
Monday, 31 December 2007
MP Walid Jumblatt
Jumblatt said that he is ready to cooperate with Americans who genuinely want to help the Lebanese, accusing Hezbollah of facilitating or ignoring Syrian killings.
"I will not give the veto power for the sake of Hezbollah and their allies and the Syrian regime," he said.
"They can take it by force over our dead bodies" but "I am not going to give up the veto power for the sake of Hezbollah," he added.
He rejected the fact that he has ignored Hezbollah stance on abandoning a national unity government for the sake of electing a president.
"We didn't ignore them but we will not give the blocking minority which means to topple the Taif [Agreement] and to topple all the power of the government," said Jumbalat.
Jumblatt denied that he is not going to give Hezbollah the veto power they want because he is scared that he might lose his popularity.
He emphasized that his party's candidate is Michel Sleiman and they will stick to him.
Walid Jumblatt 12/31/2007
Last Updated ( Monday, 31 December 2007 )


The Jihadi preemptive strike against Bhutto's war of ideas
By Walid Phares
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/01/the_jihadi_preemptive_strike_a.php
Former Pakistani Prime Minster Benazir Bhutto was murdered because of herpotential actions in Pakistan, by the combined forces of jihadism in that country. In short, they executed her to pre-empt her future war of ideas. This was the bottom line and here is why.
The long-term plan of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1990s was to eventually spread to Pakistan and seize power, and, ultimately after 1999, to seize the nukes, too. Miscalculating on September 11, Osama bin Laden lost Kabul and the jihadi war room crossed into their eastern neighbor. Plan B was then to seize Waziristan and gradually Talibanize the country, grabbing the "doomsday" devices in the end. For the last seven years, the jihadi hydra protected by the fundamentalist tribes, hooking up with the local Islamist movements and with tentacles deep inside the defense and intelligence apparatus, attempted to spread in that direction. President Pervez Musharraf, unable to determine the extent of radical influence in his own services, moved slowly and reluctantly on the containment strategies. This lost time resulted in several assassination attempts and allowed a widening of the jihadi networks in the country. Reacting to the breach of national security, he tightened the rope on the opposition, frustrating his secular opponents and alienating the nation's Supreme Court.
The descent into generalized violence was spiraling out of his government's control and working to al Qaeda's satisfaction. Both bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as Taliban leader Mullah Omar, acting as jihadi supreme rulers of the country, pressed on with calls for assassination and fatwas for regime change. By 2006, Mr. Musharraf was fighting on two fronts: taking on the jihadi forces, including the homegrown ones on the one hand; and dealing with the pressures from his secular opposition on the other hand. From early 2007, as Taliban operatives based in enclaves in the border areas continued to strike inside Afghanistan, al Qaeda's messages beaming out of Pakistan and violence were unrestrained. The United States pressed Mr. Musharraf to change direction.
The advice from Washington (which was endorsed by the West and not opposed by moderate Muslim countries) urged the general (who was also serving as president) to: 1) open up to the opposition and allow the exiles to come back to the country, despite sour past relations; 2) hold general elections and welcome a new democratically elected cabinet; 3) relinquish his command of the armed forces if elected president; and 4) launch an all-out military campaign against Pakistan's Taliban.
Reading the map accurately, Mr. Musharraf heeded almost all suggestions. He allowed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to return and head her large party, although he made it more difficult for her colleague, Nawaz Sharif — Mr. Musharraf's direct political enemy — to proceed as swiftly in his return to the political scene. Mr. Musharraf announced a general legislative election slated initially for next month. He was re-elected as president by the current legislature and resigned from the top military office. And last but not least, he indeed sent several divisions to the frontier valleys to battle the terrorists on their own turf. But by changing direction, he opened a Pandora's box for his government and for the political process he freed.
Former political enemies weren't smooth on reconciling: While Mrs. Bhutto began negotiating with Mr. Musharraf, demanding a purge in the military, Mr. Sharif called for Mr. Musharraf's resignation. In addition, the president of the high court refused to recognize the general's election as president. These turbulences triggered frustrations among the military as it was marching to confront the most lethal enemy in the North-West region. And taking advantage of this dizzying political storm, the jihadi forces launched their urban offensive culminating with the suicidal Red Mosque intifada in Islamabad in the summer. And as Mr. Musharraf was steering the wheels toward political reconfiguration, terror attacks targeted various cities as well as military personnel across the country.
But the return of Mrs. Bhutto to Pakistan sent a positive message to the public and a negative one to the radical Islamists. The daughter of a prominent leader, a member of a political family, a former prime minister in her own right — and, above all, a liberal Muslim woman — Mrs. Bhutto projected the possibility of a leap toward more balanced politics and greater steps toward pluralism — two ingredients for progress toward democracy. Her dialogue with Mr. Musharraf made possible the return of Mr. Sharif and the global march to new elections. The bickering politicians didn't let go of their sour feelings toward each other, but the political process was about to gradually return to the country.
The prospect of the January elections would be good for all parties. The president would be proving that his institutions are solidly democratic, thus legitimizing his own office. The opposition would gain the seats it needed to access the cabinet or become powerbrokers at the assembly. Mrs. Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party was projected to be the largest bloc, and through a coalition in parliament, she was to become the next prime minister of this powerful Muslim country. That is precisely why she was murdered.
Indeed, the greatest losers in the upcoming elections, and in any democratic elections mobilizing large and experienced secular forces, would be the Islamists. Their six-party coalition achieved legislative power because of the absence of the secular and democratic forces. Now that Mr. Musharraf isn't in love with the jihadi forces anymore, several assassination attempts later; and after the seculars saw with their naked eyes what the fundamentalists were preparing for the country, the slice of Islamist vote was projected to shrink.
Mrs. Bhutto was the reason for this future political defeat. But beyond these political considerations, it was a war of ideas that the Taliban and their ilk feared the most. It is one thing for the radicals to measure themselves in comparison with the military's authoritarianism. But it is another thing to be blasted ideologically by a woman who would dominate Pakistan's politics. By jihadi standards it was unbearable to see Lady Benazir seizing the premiership of the executive power. A staunch modernist and a genuine Muslim, she would have been their worst nightmare. With her in power, forget about the Talibanization: There would be no suppression of women and no brutalization of minorities. There would be fierce empowerment of civil society. This is why the combined "war room" of al Qaeda, the neo-Taliban and the Pakistani jihadists decided to eliminate her.
In October, Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban commander in South Waziristan, threatened to kill Mrs. Bhutto upon her return. Mrs. Bhutto was aware of the Taliban and al Qaeda threats but dismissed them. Ata press conference in Dubai in NovemberMrs. Bhutto said "she did not fear 'militants and extremists,' acknowledging that Afghan and Arab militants as well as those of the Red Mosque had threatened her," Dawn TVreported. "She said that threats to her life had been whipped up to 'intimidate me and the people of Pakistan.' " She added, "I don't believe that a true Muslim will attack me. I believe Islam forbids suicide bombings." But the jihadists had previous tried to assassinate her in a prior bombing as she returned to Pakistan in October.
Since then, as she criticized Mr. Musharraf for his political failures, the state of emergency and her house arrest, Mrs. Bhutto nevertheless relentlessly attacked the "radical Islamists," whom she accused of terror and oppression. In those days between the first attempt and her slaughter on Thursday, Mrs. Bhutto acted as the single most influential, courageous and symbolic female leader in the Muslim world. She was waging a war of ideas on her own in the most dangerous jihadi environment on the planet. Had she survived to win the legislative elections, she would have become the most efficient Muslim prime minister in the war against the terrorists.
Benazir Bhutto was stepping into a hornets' nest with her face uncovered. She was executed by the Taliban in a manner that was almost frighteningly reminiscent of the massacre of Afghan women who refused to wear the burka. Now it is up to her party, her followers and her allies to pick up the struggle from where she fell and move forward with her legacy. They need to focus on the greater goal of salvaging democracy by uniting their efforts with the president to hold these elections against all odds, even at a different date, and to back their national army in a global effort to defeat the terrorists.
Pakistan is crossing a dangerous path, but the security stakes are the highest in the world, obviously because of the nuclear weapons. The assassination of Mrs. Bhutto has also another apocalyptic dimension. Since November 2001, bin Laden has revealed that the ultimate goal of al Qaeda is to claim what "is theirs," i.e. the atomic power of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Many jihadi leaders have since asserted the duty to equip the caliphate to come with the most powerful armaments in the world. The gradual advance of the Taliban into their eastern neighbor is aimed at reaching those nukes: Either they would infiltrate the intelligence agencies and the army or they would take advantage of chaos and collapse. The attempts to kill Mr. Musharraf and the assassination of Mrs. Bhutto converge into one thread, a maximum violence leading to a coup d'etat by their supporters inside the military. Once the cataclysmic scenario was achieved, the rest is left to dark imagination.
Armed with such devastating power, the suicidal jihadists will have an open field for their missiles, which could target India and the U.S. presence in the region, as well as Europe and the Russian hinterland. Eventually even China would be at their mercy. The alibis are endless as long as there are "infidels" to confront. Hence the world after such a day cannot function peacefully. Because of such an intolerable possibility, Washington, Brussels, Moscow, New Delhi and Beijing, as we speak, should be readying the world for such threats.
*********
Walid Phares is director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. January 1, 2008 12:29

Dynasties in the name of democracy
By Linda S. Heard,
Special to Gulf News
Published: January 01, 2008, 00:37
The tragic death of Benazir Bhutto has shaken supporters and political foes alike. To her grassroots followers she represented hope and opportunity. To the West, and particularly the US, she encapsulated a vision of a secular, moderate and democratic Pakistan. On Sunday, the courageous woman's 19-year-old son Bilawal Zardari, a history student at Oxford, quoted his mother as saying "democracy is the best revenge".
But now we learn that this teenager has been appointed to fill his late mother's shoes as head of the Pakistan's People's Party (PPP), which is surely the antithesis of what real democracy is all about.
It's understood that the mantel of power will fall to a relative in a monarchical system but how can those who espouse democracy — government by the people for the people — anoint a leader only because of their name and still remain credible?
It's clear that the PPP is not so much democratic but feudal, which is not only unfair to voters who genuinely seek democracy but also to a grief stricken young man, who is now dutifully obliged to take up where his mother left off once he has completed his studies.
It was the same for Benazir, who during her student days was a vivacious, bright, intelligent, fun-loving and generous young woman fond of sweets and romance novels. But those carefree days were short lived.
Following the imprisonment and hanging of her father former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto she was duty-bound to head the PPP and at the age of 35 was elected prime minister herself, for which she was unprepared.
Closeted by the old guard on whom she was forced to rely due to her own lack of experience it's hardly surprising that her two terms of office were tainted by accusations of corruption. If she had lived chances are, older and wiser, she could have emerged as the type of leader Pakistan so badly needs. As the author Tariq Ali recently wrote "the Bhutto family should not be asked for any more sacrifices".
This dynastical phenomenon in countries that purport to be republics or democracies is, of course, not limited to Pakistan. India has long been in its grip and the same can be said for North Korea, which calls itself a communist state, but is, in fact, a father-to-son dictatorship.
Prime example
A prime example in this part of the world is Syria where Bashar Al Assad, an ophthalmologist, had little choice but to accept his father's presidential mantel upon the latter's demise.
Lebanon is similarly dynastical. Arguably the most powerful Maronite Christian political dynasty was conceived in the 1930s by Pierre Gemayel, an assassinated minister of industry. His son Bashir was killed in 1982 just days before taking office as president and was replaced by another son Ameen, who chose voluntary exile in 1988. Tragically, Ameen's son Pierre last year met the same fate as his grandfather and uncle.
Given the country's history, it came as little surprise to most Lebanese when Saad Hariri, son of the assassinated former prime minister Rafik Hariri, became heir not only to his father's business empire but also his political aspirations.
And indeed, there is concern on the Egyptian street that President Hosni Mubarak's son, Jamal, is also being groomed to take over his father's duties at a propitious moment, although the government works had to quell those rumours.
Likewise, the Philippines have long been ruled by political clans. For instance, President Gloria Arroyo's father was a legislator before becoming president, while a study by the Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism found two thirds of the country's Congress comprises members of dynastical families. It's little wonder, therefore, that attempts to legislate against this trend have been consistently thwarted.
While one may be able to excuse developing nations for not strictly adhering to the letter of democracy during an evolutionary political process, what excuses can we make for the "Land of the Free", which holds itself up as a bastion to be emulated?
Are we seriously to believe out of a nation consisting of over 300 million educated people those whose names end with Kennedy or Bush or Clinton are the most suited to hold the top job? Isn't this a coincidence too far?
Today, as many as 40 per cent of Americans have only known a White House inhabited by a Clinton or a Bush. And if Hillary succeeds, that percentage will rise.
In truth, in most of the world democracy is far from alive and well. Moreover, democracy is in danger of becoming an empty overused word that no longer symbolises rule by the people for the people but rather a capitalist system run by elites that pays only lip service to the concept of citizen first. It's fuelled by globalisation and markets rather than principles. It should be redefined.
We'll never know whether or not Benazir Bhutto was up to that job but as a charismatic, strong woman blessed with exceptional courage, she'll be sorely missed anyway.
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com.

The End of an Arab Year: A Country without a President and a Nation without an Impact
Mohammed Salah
Al Hayat - 31/12/07//
The day before the last of 2007 doesn't seem to be much different from that same day last year. The same files remained open and unsolved. The Arab situations are getting worse and thereby do not call for welcoming the New Year with optimism. Moreover, it is no longer pessimistic to say that the situation is prone to deteriorate more on the Arab front in the year that will begin after tomorrow. In fact, this is a mere reading of reality. Indubitably, these files will become more burdensome, as new dilemmas and crises, and may be disasters, add up to the list. Annapolis conference and the US vow to proclaim the Palestinian state before the end of 2008 did not alleviate the prevailing sense that this vow will not become a reality and this is mere talk, even if the American President George Bush and his administration are convinced otherwise.
The days that preceded the convention and their happenings, the incidents on the Palestinian scene, and the preoccupation of the Arab states with internal files that could threaten their regimes and people at once…All these facts have reinforced the conviction that the media that usually tracks the events of every year will report at the end of next year that the Palestinian file hasn't been solved and that the new US administration is getting ready in the upcoming year to review it and prepare the necessary vows for it. The situation is not much different for the rest of the Arab files, which are nearly similar. The facts on the ground in Iraq do not presage an imminent pullout of the US forces despite the US pledge too.
The situation in South Sudan and Darfour has probably calmed down as a result of painkillers but it is prone to flare up once again next year because the causes of the flare-up are still reacting. The situation in Somalia doesn't bode well.
The Arab summit scheduled to take place next March in Damascus will not be different from all the former summits and it is unlikely that solutions will be put forth for all the Arab dilemmas. It is also unlikely that a new era will set off, wherein the Arabs will be involved in solving their problems, which are being tackled on the tables of the international organizations and the great powers.
The year 2007 is leaving the Arabs and the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict turn into a struggle between two movements on the Palestinian scene. The New Year is here and Lebanon is without a President and the Arab nation without an impact. The rallies and conflicts have cancerated more than one Arab country. They spread, metastasized, infiltrated, and scoffed the bodies of Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, and Somalia. People grew to have one hope: that the cancer of the internal Arab conflicts will not scoff another country.
The New Year is here and most of the other Arab countries are going through various dilemmas. These range from the decrease in the standards of living, the deterioration of the economic and social situations, the flare-up of conflicts between political and religious elites, all the way to the depletion of efforts and money on issues that no longer top the priorities of modern world countries. Between the conflicts of the Arab regimes among each other and the struggles of the Arab forces and movements inside a single Arab world, and the confrontations between government systems and the political opposition forces, the Arab world is delving into a war of dilemmas. These will not make the year 2008 any different. On the contrary, some people's only hope is that the situation remains the way it is now since the Arabs' situations in the past decades point out that today is better than tomorrow, that tomorrow is better than the day after, and that the present year is much better than next year