LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
October 24/06

 

 

Biblical Reading For today

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 12,13-21.
Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me."He replied to him, "Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?" Then he said to the crowd, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions." Then he told them a parable. "There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest. He asked himself, 'What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?' And he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!" But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?' Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God."

 

 

Free Opinions & Studies

The Caliph-Strophic Debate.Dr. Walid Phares. October 23, 2006

 

 

Latest New from miscellaneous sources for October 24/06

Sfeir: Lebanese politicians pay scant attention to families-AsiaNews.it

U.N. to Finalize Hariri International Tribunal Monday-Naharnet

Berri to Announce Fresh Initiative to Revive National Dialogue

Defying Israeli Jets Carry out 'Most Intensive Overflights' of Lebanon-Naharnet

German Navy off Lebanon Rescues Crew of Burning Syrian Ship-Naharnet

Israel jets fly over Lebanon despite French appeal-Reuters

PM Olmert: I don't intend to talk to Syria-Jerusalem Post

UN hands Lebanon 'final' Hariri tribunal plan-Independent Online

Israelis and Lebanese reach across war's divide-Reuters

Iraqi Refugees Trying to Adjust to Syria-Washington Post

Syria will not free Kilo-Ya Libnan

Peace with Syria should be explored: Israeli DM-People's Daily Online

Israeli combat flights over Lebanon to continue: DM-People's Daily Online

Gaza operation now-Ynetnews

Saudis meet Syrian opposition leaders-Ynetnews

Peretz: Lebanon flights – legitimate-Israel Today

Khaddam on Future TV: Assad Regime is on Brink of Collapse

UN-Lebanon peacekeeping-Monsters and Critics.com

 

 

The “Caliph-Strophic” Debate

Dr. Walid Phares
October 23, 2006
It seems that the US is having a hard time winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims, but an equally serious problem can be observed in the intellectual circles of America where some have had a difficulty coming to terms with the terminology of the War of Ideas. If the educated elite of the United States is incapable of identifying the ideology and the strategy of the Jihadists five years after 9/11, we not only have a problem with handling the War in Iraq, but also with the future of American national security as a whole.
An article published in Newsweek magazine on October 13, 2006 illustrates this problem. Entitled “Caliwho?” it asks why President Bush has raised the issue of an Islamic Caliphate. Lisa Miller and Matthew Philips, co-authors of the piece, begin by defining the term, “Caliphate” as a “fifty-cent word” posing a question of why a U.S President would use it four times in one speech. At first read, I thought the Newsweek journalists were lamenting the delay with which the chief executive of the nation has finally begun using this term - half a decade after September 11, and fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, has not the American public demanded that the US Administration and Congress take steps toward “informing” the nation about the enemy, its ideology, and its future goals? Since one of the most important objectives of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Salafi Jihadi networks around the world has been the re-establishment of a Caliphate - incorporating in it all Arab and Muslim states – one can only express relief that the term “Caliphate” has finally entered the President’s speeches.
However, as I continued to read further, I realized that the authors of the Newsweek article were putting forth quite a different view. They seemed to be appalled by the fact that the President “dared” to mention the “word” Caliphate and spoke of the Jihadists’ attempt to “extend the Caliphate, establish the Caliphate and spread the Caliphate.” Miller and Philips, writing with the certitude of Middle East Studies expertise, reminded their readers, oddly, that “many people (in the US) live long without using the word Caliphate” suggesting the uselessness of the President’s vocabulary.
Precisely this absence of understanding of the term Caliphate was the problem in the 1990s. During that decade, most instructors in American classrooms unfortunately succeeded at “dis-educating” the nation about the nature of the enemy by simply leaving out the term “Caliphate” of the curricula for Middle East Studies classes. If American students, many of whom would end up being recruited to newsrooms, have never heard about the Caliphate, Salafism, Wahabism or Khomeinism - let alone Jihadism – then the US was inevitably headed for a big trouble.
If in 1941, one would not know what “Reich” meant in the Nazi rhetoric, one would not be blaming those who would be helping others to understand it, but rather those who concealed the meaning from others in the years prior to the rise of Hitler. Since it has turned out that Americans were not properly educated by their Middle East Studies experts prior to 9/11, it is these academic and intellectual elites that should be put on the spot and questioned about their motivation to massage – for decades - Islamic history to make it more palatable to Western audiences. Why are the Newsweek authors blaming US government officials for taking up the task of teaching the nation about the true nature of the enemy when those charged with the task have obviously failed to do so?

Authors Miller and Philips continue further in misleading their readers. They blame the President for using a “pejorative” tone when referring to the “Caliphate” suggesting that the term is quasi-sacred and should be used with near-reverence. The authors treat the term as if it denoted a mere historical period and not an aggressive political project of the Jihadists of the 21st century. The term “Caliphate”, with all its linguistic and doctrinal derivatives in today’s Salafi terminology, is as charged and politicized as the “Third Reich” was to the National-Socialists during WWII. The “Caliphate” epitomizes all that the Jihadists are preparing for, working towards, and killing for. This word IS at the center of the War with Terrorism – it is not an obscure academic word as Miller and Philips would have us believe. The bringing back of the “Caliphate” is the chief reason why Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, Zarqawi, and Adam Gadahn have declared and waged a war against the people of the United States. Given its centrality to the Jihadist activities, the term must be treated seriously.
But Newsweek’s investigative team is more interested in the “political” implications of such a use. Maybe it could stir some trouble overseas as the alleged Guantanamo-Koran affair did before? Or perhaps it would mobilize another campaign by the traditional (Wahabi funded) elites against educating Americans on matters “they shouldn’t know more about?” Who knows?
The article attempts to “link dots” between the use of the term “Caliphate,” and the so-called abhorred use of the terms “axis of evil,” Islamo-fascism, Islamic radicalism, militant jihadism, or what they coined as the “too jargony but more scholarly term of Islamism.” While they weren’t technically wrong on the latter, the authors implied the President is perhaps wrong or “political” when he used the more focused ones. Miller and Philips interestingly targets the “people who prep him,” i.e. his speech writers, as perhaps pushing “complicating” words into the mouth of the commander in chief: in other words his advisors who probably encourages him to draw the attention of the American citizens to what the “Islamists” are up to. So, in sum, the article would suggest to call the enemy “Islamists” (the academic term) but not to reveal their objectives, one of which is to establish a Caliphate. Is the Newsweek article calling on US leaders, President or congressional leaders “not” to use the term Caliphate at all, so that readers and the public at large “wouldn’t” learn what the actual Islamists “want” to do? This would be a disservice to the public and in total contradiction with the noble mission of the press. One would imagine the media “asking” politicians to “expand” in their explanations not to shrink them.
But the matter would sound even more dramatic to Jihadism experts: For the article says “no one but students of Islamic history has much more than a vague idea of what it means.” Well, if we count on the educational system that “taught” America in the 1990s, you’d end up believing that Jihad is “spiritual yoga,” that Takfir is some Rock’n Roll Band, and that Umma is a Hollywood actress. Sure, if you count on our mostly Wahabi- funded Middle East studies programs you will get your Caliwhos and even your Caliwhats. Neither the US Congress nor the White House, let alone Homeland Security, are paid to teach students; campuses are, and handsomely. Unfortunately they did a bad job in educating their pupils, and now they are putting the blame on the graduated students. You didn’t have to be an expert on German history or philosophy in 1940 to know what a Reich is. Nor did you have to be specialists on Roman History and Latin to understand what fascism was. If today’s Joe and Jane Doe aren’t familiar with Caliphate it is because “someone” didn’t help them to make the acquaintance and that another someone is still obstructing that knowledge by alleging that this is only for the high cast of academics.
While tens of thousands of Jihadists are pledging to the Caliphate before they commit to suicide bombings, beheadings and wreaking havoc in civil societies around the world, some voices (not necessarily the authors of the articles but intellectuals who are offended by popular awareness) are complaining about even “raising the issue:” For the article, although finding that students in Islamic studies can barely understanding the Caliphate, yet uses a Merriam-Webster’s “dictionary” to educate the readers. The “Webster” reveals that a Caliphate is the office or dominion of a caliph: Then to add “the caliph is a successor of Muhammad…the spiritual head of Islam.” Well, in Islam there is no such a thing as the spiritual head of Islam. One wonders how did “Webster” come up with this “spiritual head of” concept other than projecting a Christian-centric concept?
Prophet Mohammed, according to the Islamic faith is the last Prophet and the messenger of Allah. He didn’t organize the Caliphate before he died. His followers established this system of succession, which with time became the head of the Islamic state, not an office for spiritual affairs. Even though the Caliphs were technically the successors to the Prophet at the head of the community, known as Umma, they were heads of Government, leviers of taxes, managers of prosperity, ultimate judges, and more importantly commanders in chiefs of imperial armies. Caliphs invaded countries and involved themselves in civil wars among Muslims. Dozens of Caliphs were killed in coup d’etat, putsches, battlefields, succession wars, etc. The Caliphate wasn’t just an office to interpret holy texts but it was also a real Governance and power position; the equivalent to Papacy and Emperor combined with all the military, political, economic, social and religious consequences. Trivializing the institution of the Islamic Caliphate for 14 centuries just to score points against a sitting President for eight years in infidel America is absurd.
Then Miller and Philips go on to lecture on the Caliphate-101: “After the Prophet Muhammad died in 632 A.D., his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, became the first caliph. (At the heart of the schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims, even today, is the question of succession: who has the right to become Islam’s caliph?) From the time of the Prophet’s death until the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, caliphs ruled over Muslims and presided over the Muslim expansion throughout the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. These were the caliphates; some beneficent, some warmongering, in concept not unlike any other empire or dynast.” So, the lesson from Newsweek article is that indeed the Caliphs were emperors and did wars. Some were clement other harsh, comparatively as in any other empire. But that is important for average American to know, and to European to remember: Caliphs were involved in geopolitics and have declared Jihads, as did Christian emperors for centuries. Hence, Caliphs aren’t spared criticism and aren’t shielded from historical analysis and judgment because they were strictly spiritual. Besides, even if they were, Caliphs aren’t deities and the Caliphate is a very earthly thing. Along with all other offices of power in world history, the Caliphates had blood on their hands, and no one can dispute that.
But what was missed by the writers was that the US President, and before him President Putin, US Congressional leaders from both parties and Arab clairvoyant leaders such as King Abdallah of Jordan and others, when they mention the Caliphate as a threatening goal, they are not playing historians. They are not talking about Caliphs Omar, Moawiya, Haroun el Rashid or Sleiman the Magnificent. Those are the Caliphs of history, not the commanders of 21st century al Qaeda. Adolph Hitler wasn’t a German emperor from the Middle-Ages but he pretended he was their heir. Mussolini wasn’t Julius Cesar but he played his role. Hence when world leaders are warning from the “Caliphate” they aren’t arguing with those who died centuries ago, but resisting the extremists who want to reawaken the dark ages again, but with modern weaponry.
The article though imputes rightly to Osama Bin Laden the many troubling statements about “his” caliphate. The writers quoted the man saying: “Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate, will not fall to you, God willing,” he said, “and we will fight you as long as we carry our guns.” Bin Laden’s rhetoric evoked, as it often does, an earlier, golden era of Islam, one that exists more in his imagination than in the lawless, crumbling city of Baghdad today”. Precisely, as I explain in my book Future Jihad, the Salafi Jihadists live in the past, borrow from the past but their bloody projects are in the present and loom over the future. When leaders, because of the mishaps of academics, respond to al Qaeda, they are sending a firm message: “This” Caliphate, which is against international law and the enemy of Muslim moderates as well, won’t be allowed to crush the international community and democracies. But our media unfortunately is not interested in a smart and vigorous response to the Terrorists, but only in what can be harvested domestically in partisan “debates.” This article is telling us that Bush (or the 1990s’ Clinton for that matter) or any future President shouldn’t utter the word Caliphate, even if it has been absorbed by the modern days Jihadists and used in their mobilization campaign. As if in 1941, American Presidents would have been criticized for the use of “Third Reich” because “many centuries ago, the Reich was perceived as the German nation re-gathered.” Puzzling, isn’t it?
But the originally academic inquiry turns quickly into the usual political thing. They write: “Backers of the war in Iraq—Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, not to mention hawks like Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania—jumped on the word and used it in speeches dozens of times.” It is sad to see a debate about a national security, war on Terror, war of ideas, history and ideology, rushed into “backers of wars, hawks, jump on word,” litany. For the Caliphate’s debate isn’t about Republicans and Democrats but about the victory of Democracy and the survival of the Republic. It is not a partisan thing but a national defense and world security matter.
And to top it, the article consults with the Islamist lobby on the issue and elevates it to the position of ex cathedra on all things Islamic. They write: “Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations, says Bin Laden’s word choices distort Islam for the world, and he wishes the president would take more care. When Ahmed heard “caliphate” Wednesday morning, he thought of the way Bush used the word “crusade” after September 11. “There’s a fundamental misunderstanding with the president and his advisers on core Islamic issues,” Ahmed said. “He’s getting bad advice, they’re misinformed on Islamic terminology.” Either that, or he’s making a strategic rhetorical choice.” With all our respects to opinions and analysis and to the spokesperson quoted, the question is not about who has the real interpretation of what caliphate is, or of what Jihad is for that matter. CAIR and al Qaeda could debate these matters at will, and one would wish to see this debate happening soon. I mean a real and open debate between the American Islamist-based group on the one hand and Mr. Adam Gadahn or Zawahiri on al Jazeera. That would be very informative, but obviously it is technically difficult since Gadahn is indicted and Zawahiri is wanted for justice, both for Terror. Nevertheless it would be more academically sound to interview some pro Bin Laden Salafi Jihadi clerics on what the Caliphate they are struggling for IS, and IS slated to become when time comes, and compare the input with what Western leaders are talking about: Apples shouldn’t be mixed up with Oranges in the War of Ideas.
Tony Blair, the enemy number two of the Jihadi-Terrorists after Bush, said a few weeks ago that, yes we need a war of ideas; but a campaign of intellect inside Western democracies, so that the public can be made aware of the realities of the War on Terror. He made a great point. For the Caliphate debate shows more clearly than anything, how “Caliph-strophic” the discourse is among our dominant intellectual elites.
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
© 2003-2006 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved
If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to Miramx1@aol.com.
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Sfeir: Lebanese politicians pay scant attention to families
The Maronite patriarch said that especially in these difficult times caused by the war, families needed the support of the state.
Beirut (AsiaNews) – The Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, has criticized the lack of attention paid by Lebanon’s political world to the family, an essential bond of society, and its social rights. During Mass in Bkerke yesterday, he said: “Especially in these difficult days, the Lebanese family needs the help of the state to be able to take on its economic, educational, cultural and social responsibilities, since many families have lost one or more members, have been forced to emigrate or have lost their homes and source of livelihood”. In such a situation, he asked whether “leaders, whatever their roles and political membership, have demonstrated that the family – which the fate of the country hinges on – is a matter of serious concern for them.”

U.N. to Finalize Hariri International Tribunal Monday
The U.N. Security Council was expected to finalize on Monday a draft on the formation of an international tribunal to look into the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri after the nullification of an article in the court's structure has cleared the way for its onset.
U.N. representative to south Lebanon Gere Pederson told As-Safir that the draft, to be finalized by the Security Council on Monday, would be handed over to the Lebanese government on Tuesday. The leading An-Nahar daily said Monday that Premier Fouad Saniora and Justice Minister Charles Rizk have obtained an "unofficial copy of the modified draft," adding that "the official copy will be handed over to the government" after the Security Council's approval. An-Nahar also said that article three of the governing principles of the tribunal, which deals with 'Crimes against Humanity' and subsequent immunity denial on the suspects behind such crimes, has been abolished in response to a request by China and Russia.
It said that amendments were then introduced to article two which tackles the Lebanese criminal law. "The new thing about this amendment is that any similar crime to be committed following the approval of the tribunal system will be subjected to the same laws," An-Nahar said.
U.N. Undersecretary General for Legal Affairs Nicolas Michel would hand over the final draft to Lebanon to be discussed during a cabinet session Oct. 30 for endorsement, according to An-Nahar. It quoted government sources as saying that they expect the cabinet to approve the final draft on the formation of an international tribunal to try the suspects in Hariri's murder. An-Nahar and As-Safir said that magistrates Ralf Riachi and Choukri Sader will have their own comments on the final draft after examining it.
Riachi and Sader traveled back and forth to the U.N.'s headquarters in New York to hold meetings on the formation of the court.
The Syrian state newspaper Tishrin has accused the United States, France and Lebanon of conspiring to frame Syria in Hariri's assassination, indicating increasing panic in Damascus as the international tribunal began to take shape. "There is a French, American and Lebanese plot aiming at intimidating Syria and framing it in the assassinating of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri," An-Nahar on Sunday quoted Tishrin as saying.
Hariri was killed along with 22 others in a massive explosion in downtown Beirut Feb.14, 2005. The assassination led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country in April 2005 after 29 years of military presence. The Syrian allegations are based on a French book recently published which pointed to a French, American and Lebanese contrive to frame Syria in Hariri's killing, intimidate it and abort the resistance methodology in the region.Beirut, 23 Oct 06, 09:40

Berri to Announce Fresh Initiative to Revive National Dialogue
Speaker Nabih Berri's promised Eid al-Fitr "gift" was apparently an announcement he was going to make at a news conference to be held on Wednesday of a fresh initiative to revive the stalled national dialogue, a signifying breakthrough in the dispute among the country's political leaders.
As the Lebanese celebrated Eid al-Fitr, the leading An-Nahar daily reported Monday that Berri's decision to hold a press conference Oct. 25 asserts his "seriousness in declaring a stand on the outcome of the conflict" between the anti-Syrian March 14 Forces and the opposition.
An-Nahar said the announcement of the news conference, to be held at 11 a.m. on Wednesday at Berri's Ein el-Tineh mansion in Beirut, came as a result of a marathon meeting Tuesday between Berri and Premier Fouad Saniora "away from the media." The paper quoted sources close to Saniora as saying that the talks focused on "everything that would support and consolidate the Lebanese unity."Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and General Michel Aoun have been repeatedly calling for the toppling of Saniora's cabinet and the formation of a national unity government.
Last week, Berri said an agreement to reinstate national unity had been reached and would be announced during the Fitr holiday.
Berri hinted earlier this month that there would be what he called a "feast's gift."Since then there has been speculation in the Lebanese media about the "gift" and what could it be.The feast's gift is given toward the beginning of the Fitr holiday which began Monday to celebrate the end of Islam's holy fasting month of Ramadan. Beirut, 23 Oct 06, 10:52

Defying Israeli Jets Carry out 'Most Intensive Overflights' of Lebanon
Israeli warplanes Monday carried out their "most intensive overflights" of Lebanon since the end of the Jewish state's offensive on the country, police said, despite a French warning to halt such missions. Two Israeli fighter jets mounted buzzed Beirut, police said, and four warplanes mounted similar low altitude supersonic runs over southern Lebanon, causing a sonic boom over the port city of Tyre, as Muslims celebrated the end of Ramadan.
"These are the most intensive overflights since August 14 ... and it looks like another defiance of 1701 and of French appeals," a police source said, referring to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended the 34-day war. The territorial violations came days after France, which currently leads the U.N. peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, said it might open fire on the intruding aircraft. Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz vowed Sunday that the flights would continue because of alleged arms smuggling to Hizbullah since the August 14 end of the war.
"Increasing intelligence indicates a growing effort to pass weapons into Lebanon," Peretz said, accusing the Lebanese government of failing to prevent arms smuggling as required by Resolution 1701.
"As long as these attempts continue, the legitimacy of our flights over Lebanon increases," Peretz said. "As long as Resolution 1701 is not carried out, we have no intention of stopping the flights over Lebanon."The flights have been increasingly criticized by the international community, with France warning on Friday against the violations."These violations are extremely dangerous because they may be felt as hostile by forces of the coalition that could be brought to retaliate in case of self-defense," French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 23 Oct 06, 15:42

German Navy off Lebanon Rescues Crew of Burning Syrian Ship
A German navy ship patrolling Lebanese waters under the United Nations maritime mandate rescued 12 crew members Monday from a Syrian-owned cargo vessel after it caught fire, Cypriot authorities said. Two members of the mainly Syrian and Egyptian crew from the Saint Vincent-flagged "Silina" were flown by German navy helicopter to the south coast port of Limassol in Cyprus where they were treated in hospital for first and second degree burns, police said. The remaining crew were ferried to Limassol aboard the supply ship "Frankfurt am Main."
Doctors described the two hospitalized sailors as being in a "satisfactory" condition.
A distress call was sent out at 05.30 local time (0230 GMT) after fire broke out in the engine room while the Silina was sailing from the Syrian port of Tartous to Limassol. It was located 64 nautical miles off the Larnaca coast in southeast Cyprus, and was not carrying any cargo at the time.
The "Frankfurt am Main" is part of the multinational U.N. maritime force established under Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the 34-day war in July and August between Israel and Hizbullah. Led by the Germans, the maritime force is tasked with securing Lebanon's coastline and preventing the illegal shipment of arms to Hizbullah. The Silina was being towed back to Syria on Monday, the authorities in Cyprus said.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 23 Oct 06, 20:07

Israel jets fly over Lebanon despite French appeal
23 Oct 2006 10:21:08 GMT
More BEIRUT, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Israeli warplanes swooped low over Lebanon on Monday, a day after the Jewish state rejected a call by France's defence minister to halt violations of its neighbour's airspace. The planes conducted mock raids over much of southern Lebanon and residents saw them flying low over the capital Beirut, but neither Hezbollah guerrillas nor the Lebanese army fired anti-aircraft rounds at them as they have done in previous years. Israeli jets have routinely flown over Lebanon since a 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah ended on Aug. 14 with a U.N.-sponsored truce and the expansion of a U.N. peacekeeping force, including a French contingent, in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government and the United Nations say the overflights, which Israel had continued to conduct after it ended its 22-year occupation of south Lebanon in 2000, violate both the latest truce and the terms of Israel's earlier pullout. Israel said on Sunday its combat planes would continue to fly over southern Lebanon to ensure that weapons are not smuggled into southern Lebanon from Syria to resupply Hezbollah. At the United Nations on Friday, French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie called Israel's violations of Lebanese airspace "extremely dangerous" and said they should stop immediately. She said an Israeli aircraft may mistakenly be seen by U.N. troops as having hostile intent, possibly triggering a "very serious incident".

Syria will not free Kilo
Monday, 23 October, 2006 @ 5:52 AM
Beirut & Damascus- Michel Kilo, Syria's leading secular opposition spokesman and activist, will not be released from jail according to Lebanon 's TV station LBC. The judge in charge of his case has reversed the decision made earlier to release him on bail.
According to Syrian reports, the decision to release him last Friday created a lot of tension within the Syrian regime. Michel Kilo, after all has been the leader of the Syrian opposition's drive to unify its ranks and become an effective political vehicle over the last two years.
According to Syrian reports , Kilo was the driving force behind the famous "Damascus Declaration" which united the opposition in Syria.
Kilo also was a key player in the Beirut-Damascus Declaration. Following the release of this declaration 10 of the key signors were arrested and sent to jail. 8 of the original 10 that were arrested have been freed. The only 2 that remain in jail are Kilo and Anwar al-Bunni, Syria's leading human rights activist.The reversal of the decision to free Kilo according to Syrian political observers is an "indication of greater troubles" to follow .
Source: LBC

Iraqi Refugees Trying to Adjust to Syria
By ALBERT AJI-The Associated Press
Sunday, October 22, 2006; 3:55 PM
DAMASCUS, Syria -- Mohammed al-Mawla is adjusting to life in his new home as an Iraqi refugee living in Syria. He operates an Internet cafe outside of Damascus and sends his two children to Syrian public schools. He fled the violence in his homeland in 2003 and is now one of more than 500,000 Iraqis living in Syria _ a number that is growing by tens of thousands each month, according to the U.N. A man about to enter a shop in Damascus Syria, Sunday, Oct. 22, 2006. Iraqi shops are increasingly seen at a number of Damascus' suburbs with the names of some Iraqi cities on their facades. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees reported this month that at least 914,000 Iraqis have left their homes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, with more than third fleeing since an increase in sectarian bloodshed at the start of this year. (AP Photo / Bassem Tellawi). (Bassem Tellawi - AP)
But al-Mawla, 42, fears the comfort he has found in Syria could quickly disappear if the money he has saved runs out.
"I sold my car in Iraq and used the money to open the cafe here, but the money I am making is hardly enough to survive on. I am scared for the future," he said.Though Iraqis who have fled to Syria receive Syrian government health care and their children are permitted to attend school, Syria does not issue them work permits and many are unemployed or work illegally.
As a result, many say the money they have saved is quickly dwindling. Their plight is not likely to ease, with more Iraqis arriving every day.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees reported this month that at least 914,000 Iraqis have left their homes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, with more than third fleeing since an increase in sectarian bloodshed at the start of this year.
Syria and Jordan have received a majority of the displaced who left Iraq, with at least 40,000 Iraqis arriving in Syria every month for the last four months, the agency said. More than 500,000 Iraqis live in Syria, many of them refugees like al-Mawla who fled after 2003.
According to a report released this month by the UNHCR, the U.N. Children's Fund and the World Food Program, 48 percent of the Iraqi refugees in Syria are children, 90 percent fled because of security fears, 58 percent are Shiite and a majority are from Baghdad.
One 37-year-old Iraqi refugee living in Syria, who asked to remain anonymous for fear that relatives still living in Iraq would be harmed, said he left Iraq last year after his family started receiving threats from militias. Though he said he feels comfortable in Syria because the Iraqi dialect of Arabic and traditions are familiar, he worries that the money he makes working at a pickle shop near Damascus will not cover food and rent on the home he shares with his brother. "We worry about the future. ... No solution to the Iraqi issue seems near," he said.

Peace with Syria should be explored: Israeli DM
Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said on Sunday that Israel should explore the possibility of achieving peace deal with Syria.
Speaking to the Jewish Agency's Board of Governors in Jerusalem, Peretz said that "Israel needs to demonstrate its willingness to make painful concessions if our main interests are (to be) maintained," stressing that Israel has to be "ready for every scenario of military confrontation" with its neighbor along the northeast border. Peretz noted that Syrian President Bashar Assad has recently made proposal of peace as well as threats of military confrontation in interviews with the international media. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has dismissed Assad 's remarks about peace with Israel and declared that he would never give back the Golan Heights. Peretz, in the meantime, stressed the need for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to take stronger action against the Qassam rockets plaguing the western Negev that borders the Gaza Strip. Peretz also said that the IDF would act against all Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip whenever a rocket would be fired from the area. "The moment it's fired into Israel, the army will act against all terror organizations without differentiating who it belonged to," Peretz added.
Source: Xinhua

Israeli combat flights over Lebanon to continue: DM
Israel Air Force (IAF) flights over Lebanon would continue, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said on Sunday, shrugging off outside criticism of its violation of Lebanese air. Peretz said at a cabinet meeting on Sunday that "the legitimacy for overflights increases" as the intelligence accumulated about Syria and Iran are intensifying efforts to transfer arms to Hezbollah. He accused the Lebanese government of failing to honor its obligations under the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 to keep Syria and Iran's weapons from reaching Hezbollah. "As long as the resolution isn't implemented, there is no other choice" but to keep flying over Lebanon, he said. Peretz's remarks came after French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie warned on Friday that Israel's air incursion into Lebanon could give others an excuse to disobey the ceasefire resolution and lead to self-defense firing from the UN troops.
Israeli military planes keep flying over Lebanon after the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended Israel's month-long conflict with Hezbollah this summer went into effect on Aug. 14. Defending the overflights, Israel argued that it has to do so to weak Hezbollah's presence in southern Lebanon and halt the ongoing arms supplies to the Shiite group.
Source: Xinhua

U.N.-Lebanon peacekeeping
By William M. Reilly Oct 23, 2006,
UNITED NATIONS, United States (UPI) -- The top U.N. peacekeeper in Lebanon says the 15,000 ceiling on troops authorized by the Security Council appears to be more than enough -- 10,000 should be enough to do the job of helping the Lebanese armed forces. About 7,200 pairs of boots already are assigned to the strengthened U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, but not all of them are 'on the ground,' as they like to say when referring to on scene. Some 1,200 Germans have joined the peacekeeping force and are patrolling coastal waters. Besides, Maj. Gen. Alain Pellegrini told reporters at U.N. World Headquarters in New York last week, considerable progress has been achieved in southern Lebanon since the Security Council resolution was approved Aug. 11, ending the 34-day conflict between Israel and Lebanon`s Hezbollah.  Pellegrini said the mission may not need to have more than about 10,000 soldiers. 'I`m very pleased to be able to report that considerable progress has been made since the adoption of Resolution 1701,' he said, calling the deployment a 'rapid expansion.' It is made up of European and non-European contributing countries.
The Israeli Defense Forces has now withdrawn from all of southern Lebanon, 'without any major disruptions,' but for a small border enclave, he said.
The withdrawal was the most significant event since the resolution was passed, Pellegrini said, adding the Lebanese military has also fully deployed up to the Golan Heights. 'An appropriate solution' is still being sought for the removal of Israeli forces from al-Ghajar, the one village which they still occupy, he said, explaining al-Ghajar is located on Lebanon`s border with the Golan Heights and has Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian citizens.
Pellegrini said the aim would be to have a UNIFIL unit stationed inside the northern part of the village to enable Lebanese armed forces to enter escorted by his blue helmets to affirm their authority over that section and to enable Israelis responsible for social and medical support for their citizens to cross the Blue Line from the south, with blue helmets escorting them.
Israeli breaches of Lebanese airspace remain 'our major concern' and they represent a clear violation of the council`s resolution, he said. But while he said UNIFIL has been dealing with the violations diplomatically, Pellegrini said the mission might later use force. 'If diplomatic means should not be enough, maybe we can consider other ways.'
This got more than a few people concerned.
Pellegrini, who is French, pointed out French troops on peacekeeping missions pack anti-aircraft weaponry and could use such weapons in self-defense.
This exacerbated concern, but several analysts quickly pointed out Pellegrini has made remarks in the past that have raised eyebrows. Many also were quick to point out he was a soldier, not a diplomat, and there were no plans to change the mandate under which the peacekeepers operate. They are allowed to shoot back if they are shot at. When asked about arms-smuggling in his session with reporters, the major general said UNIFIL had no evidence of any weapons smuggling from Syria and had also not found any illegal weapons inside the mission`s area of operations.
Also last week, the top U.N. envoy for peace in the Middle East, Alvaro de Soto, the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, delivered the monthly briefing on the Middle East to the Security Council. On Lebanon, he said 'heavy political tensions' remain a constant source of concern in the Mediterranean nation, while the United Nations was working closely with all sides to encourage political leaders to commit themselves to dialogue 'in order to bridge their differences,' a goal that the world body was also seeking throughout the region. As for the overall situation in the Middle East, de Soto said: 'The United Nation`s objectives remain security and full recognition to the state of Israel within internationally recognized borders, an end to the occupation for the Palestinian people in an independent, sovereign state, recovery of lost land to Syria, a fully sovereign and secure Lebanon -- through the full implementation of all relevant resolutions of this Council.'
Copyright 2006 by United Press International