LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September8/06

Commentary of the day : Saint Ambrose
“Put out into deep water and lower your nets”
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 5,1-11.
While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. After he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch." Simon said in reply, "Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing, but at your command I will lower the nets."
When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come to help them. They came and filled both boats so that they were in danger of sinking. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man." For astonishment at the catch of fish they had made seized him and all those with him, and likewise James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners of Simon. Jesus said to Simon, "Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men." When they brought their boats to the shore, they left everything and followed him.

Latest New from The Daily Star for September 8/2006
Lebanese youth call on US to respect democracy
German FM brings airport security team to Lebanon
March 14 insists Hizbullah unable to defend Lebanon
Officials silent on details of UN draft for Hariri tribunal
Siniora dismisses maritime siege as trivial
Israel decides to extend naval blockade another 48 hours
Fadlallah lashes out at critics of the resistance
France to monitor coast, help lift blockade
Welch prods Lebanon to move toward disarming Hizbullah
UN human rights team to open local investigation
Jumblatt: Only place for arms is with government
Warehouse firesees UN aid go up in smoke
MEA confident it can weather losses of $45 million
Iraqi PM takes control of air force, navy
UN food program readies to wrap up efforts in Lebanon
Manufacturers await lifting of sea blockade, with challenges to follow
Once more with feeling, and some better preparation, please
Spain urges Iran to show flexibility on nuclear work
Egypt rounds up 90 suspected Islamists
Postwar reflections in Lebanon, Israel, but not US -By Shibley Telhami
Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 8/2006
Israel withdraws from more areas in south Lebanon-UN News Centre
Lebanon air blockade lifted; naval stays-AP
Lebanese parliamentarians end sit-in to protest Israeli blockade-Raw Story
Blair tries to quell call for his resignation-Kentucky.com 
Israelis cave in and open Lebanon The Australian
Blockade's end 'a move towards peace' NEWS.com.au
Lebanon calls for prisoner exchange-Euronews.net
Israel to lift Lebanon blokaede-Xinhua
Israel to lift Lebanon blockade-Toronto Star
Russia proposes aid to Lebanon to rebuild infrastructure-RIA Novosti
Spanish parliament to vote on sending troops to Lebanon-International Herald Tribune
Lebanon blockade to be lifted at 6 PM despite IDF objectionHa'aretz
The extra victory of Hezbollah-Ha'aretz
Bush ranks Iran and Hezbollah with al-Qaeda-Sydney Morning Herald
Israel's Shimon Peres says Hezbollah used Russian-made weapons-Israel Insider
Arab Gulf countries race Hezbollah to rebuild Lebanon-International Herald Tribune
Annan: Lift Lebanon Blockade, Disarm Hezbollah-FOX News
Claim: UN filmed Hezbollah kidnappings-Political Gateway
Hezbollah wins only the propaganda war-Kankakee Daily Journal
Annan: Troops not There to Disarm Hezbollah-Zaman Online
Bush: 'We Stand With Democracies' President Talks About Israel CBS News
No serious talks on swap deal with IsraelScotsman
Bush vows to use all anti-terror tools-AP

Israelis cave in and open Lebanon
Abraham Rabinovich, Jerusalem
September 08, 2006
BOWING to heavy international pressure, Israel was to lift its two-month-long air and sea blockade of Lebanon overnight, after accepting assurances that foreign peacekeeping forces would enforce an embargo on arms destined for Hezbollah.
The Israeli move was hailed by Lebanese officials who said it would permit their country's war-battered economy to begin a revival.
The blockade dates back to the start of the 34-day war between Israel and the Shia militant group in July.
The Lebanese Government and the UN have agreed that German naval forces will patrol the Lebanese coast to prevent arms smuggling.
Israeli officials said they were confident the Germans would prevent the rearmament of Hezbollah by sea. Until German vessels arrive in two weeks, the patrols will be conducted by vessels from Italy, France, Britain and Greece.
German and French inspectors will check cargo arriving at Beirut airport for weaponry.
While it will be fairly simple for peacekeepers to monitor the goods offloaded at Lebanese ports and at Beirut's international airport, Israel remains concerned about arms coming across Lebanon's 330km-long unfenced border with Syria, the principal route for arms supplies to Hezbollah.
The Lebanese army has deployed forces at the nine crossing points between the two countries but, complying with Syrian demands, has so far declined to accept backup forces from the UN.
An official in Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said "creative solutions" would have to be found to enforce a land embargo.
This presumably includes monitoring the crossing points by Israeli drones which are a constant presence in Lebanese airspace. Israel still hopes that there will be an international presence at the crossing points.
Israel is principally concerned about the smuggling of long-range rockets with heavy payloads capable of striking the centre of the country.
It views these as strategic weapons, unlike the short-range Katyushas which accounted for the bulk of the 4000 rockets that struck northern Israel in the recent fighting. Almost all long-range rockets in Hezbollah's possession were destroyed by the Israeli air force in the first hour of the war.
The long-range rockets are long and bulky and could not be smuggled across the mountainous border area except in trucks via the nine crossing points, say Israeli officials, making it possible to track any such attempt.
An official in Jerusalem said Israel reserved the right to enforce the arms embargo along the border if other means failed.
He said there was no evidence of arms crossing the border since the ceasefire went into effect on August 14.
The decision by Mr Olmert and his senior ministers to lift the air and sea blockade unconditionally was made over the objections of the Israeli military and of the families of the two Israeli soldiers in Hezbollah hands.
Family members met Mr Olmert yesterday to ask why Israel, before agreeing to lift the blockade, had not at least demanded that Hezbollah provide evidence that the two soldiers are still alive.
Israel has been under intensive pressure to terminate the blockade from the international community, which is eager to see normal life restored to Lebanon.

Blockade's end 'a move towards peace'From correspondents in Spain
September 07, 2006 08:38pm
Article from: Agence France-Presse
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has welcomed Israel's decision to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon later in the day following international assurances over an arms embargo on Hezbollah.
Mr Annan, in Spain for talks on the international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, said the end of the eight-week blockade at 1am Friday (AEST) would "allow a permanent ceasefire and stabilise the situation between Israel and Lebanon".
He added that the UN hoped the end of the blockade would "move us towards a wider peace process in the region, including the Palestinians, the Syrians and all parties" concerned.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office announced the end of the blockade Wednesday, saying that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mr Annan had informed Mr Olmert "that international forces are ready to take up control positions over Lebanons seaports and airports".
Israel therefore agreed to "leave the aforesaid control positions and, at the same time, the international forces will enter".
Israel imposed a blockade on Lebanon on July 13 when it bombed the runways of Beirut international airport, one day after launching a massive offensive on the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.
The Jewish state has kept up the restrictions despite widespread international protests and the start of a UN-brokered ceasefire on August 14.
Israel said it would lift the air and sea blockade only once it was sure Beirut was enforcing an arms embargo against Hezbollah.
Mr Olmert's office said the international community had now provided such assurances.
But there was anger in Israel that the decision to lift the blockade came with no guarantee on the release of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah - a key aim of its month-long war on the Shiite militia.
"Israel should only have agreed to lift the Lebanon blockade in return for information on the fate of our two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah," said Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, a member of Mr Olmert's Kadima party who is a former defence minister and chief of staff.

Lebanese parliamentarians end sit-in to protest Israeli blockade
Deutsche Presse Agentur
Published: Thursday September 7, 2006
Beirut- Lebanese parliamentarians ended Thursday their sit- in which started last week to protest Israel's air and sea blockade on the country. The 128-member parliament held a session and decided to end the sit-in as Israel announced that it was ending its 56-day blockade on Lebanon later Thursday.
Israel was due to lift the blockade at 1500 GMT, having received international assurances over an arms embargo on the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office announced.
The move was welcomed by all Lebanese parliamentarians who said it was long overdue and would help bring life into the country's economy.
Israel imposed a blockade on Lebanon on July 13 when it bombed the runways of Beirut international airport, a day after launching a massive offensive against Hezbollah which was prompted by the Shiite group capturing two Israeli soldiers near the Israeli border with Lebanon.
The Jewish state has kept up the restrictions despite widespread international protest and the start of a UN-brokered ceasefire on August 14.
The lifting of the blockade brought relief to airport and port officials such as Hassan Koreitem, director general of Beirut port.
"The Beirut port will start working on Friday when the first vessel is set to arrive," Koreitem said.
At Beirut international airport officials and employees were busy preparing to receive passengers of the first flight of the Lebanese national carrier Middle East Airlines which was due to land at 1500 GMT from Paris.
"We will start receiving our regular flights starting 1500 GMT Thursday," Mohammed Shabeddine, deputy airport manager, said.
Flights had been flying to Beirut via the Jordanian capital following the ceasefire.
Before the MEA flight lands at Beirut international airport it will fly over the Central district of the capital, while people will gather near the parliament where a vigil will be held to support the country's "independence and integrity."
Lebanese house speaker Nabih Berri was due to deliver a speech at the Lebanese parliament at 1500 GMT in the presence of parliamentarians and Lebanese businessmen. Lebanese officials have blasted the Israeli blockade and described it as a violation of UN resolution 1701 which brought an end to the conflict that killed more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians.
© 2006 DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agenteur

Lebanon calls for prisoner exchange
Israeli blockades on Lebanon should be gone by 6 o'clock local time this evening, as Israel hands over control of all ports to International forces.
Israel imposed the embargo eight weeks ago after Hizbollah captured two of its soldiers, sparking a bloody month long war.
Israeli Governement spokeswoman Miri Eisin said:
"We will stop the aerial blockade of flights into Lebanon with the arrival of German forces who will be in the airport implementing the embargo supervising mainly the cargo which arrives into Beirut International Airport."
Lebanon had vowed to force the blockade if it wasn't lifted by Friday. Now the country is seeking talks with Israel.
Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh has said that the two Israeli soldiers will not be released unless there are negotiations for a Lebanese prisoner exchange.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will send an envoy to Lebanon to discuss the matter by the end of the week.
Meanwhile on the ground the UN peacekeeping force continues to take shape. Five thousand international troops should be in place by next week.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair will reportedly make his first visit this weekend to the region since the conflict started. He has said he is under no illusion about the peace process.

Russia proposes aid to Lebanon to rebuild infrastructure
10:36 | 07/ 09/ 2006
BEIRUT, September 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will offer Lebanon assistance in rebuilding its infrastructure and help with financial aid through UN funds, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday.
"We will offer concrete assistance in rebuilding the infrastructure - roads and bridges," Lavrov told a news conference before his trip to Beirut. "But we have to understand the plans that the Lebanese government has and how our means could meet their demands."
The UN is presiding over humanitarian efforts and is to deploy 15,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon to ensure a ceasefire after month-long fighting between the Lebanon-based Hizbollah radical group and Israel, which claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Lebanese and about 160 Israelis.
"We are also considering financial aid, primarily through various funds under UN structures," the foreign minister said.
Russia has already provided $2 million worth of aid to Lebanon during the crisis, when it sent four aircraft with goods requested by the Lebanese government to Cyprus, where they were passed on to UN workers, who delivered them to Lebanon.
Lavrov said Russia could provide financial aid through such UN structures as the World Food Program, the World Health Organization and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. "We can send to Lebanon substantial funds that Russia allocates to these structures, in accordance with existing regulations," Lavrov said. Russia is also considering participation in the international peacekeeping force in Lebanon, the foreign ministry earlier said.

Spanish parliament moves toward sending troops to Lebanon
The Associated Press
Published: September 7, 2006
MADRID, Spain Spain moved Thursday toward sending up to 1,100 troops to Lebanon, with the prime minister saying international security depends largely on peace in the Middle East — this time between Hezbollah guerrillas and Israeli forces that fought a 34-day war.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, stopping off here en route to New York after a 12-day tour of the region to discuss Lebanon and the Iranian nuclear standoff, thanked Spain for its plans to become the third largest contributor to the expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
Annan said the new force should be strong enough by the middle of September for Israeli forces to withdraw from south Lebanon. He said he was optimistic about turning the Israel-Hezbollah truce into a more lasting peace, calling himself "convinced we cannot but succeed, and we will succeed."
On Iran, Annan said he hoped for a negotiated solution to the standoff despite Tehran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment — a process that can be used to generate power or make nuclear weapons. "The best solution will be a negotiated one," Annan said at a news conference with Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Zapatero spoke as the Spanish Parliament prepared to debate and vote on a government proposal to send up to 1,100 troops to Lebanon and lead one of the U.N. force's multinational brigades. Passage was expected, although conservatives have complained the government has not been up front about how dangerous the mission is. Still, they were expected to vote yes.
Zapatero said it was Spain's duty and in its interest to try to foster peace.
"To a large extent, stability in the international order means stability in the Middle East," Zapatero said.
The vote coincided with a busy diplomatic day in the Spanish capital.
Besides the visit from Annan, Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani met with the Spanish foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, and briefly with Zapatero.
Moratinos asked Iran to be "flexible" in upcoming talks with a European Union negotiator, the Spanish Foreign Ministry said.
The possible Lebanon mission has proved politically divisive in Spain.
Spain's conservative opposition Popular Party, which backed the war in Iraq while in power and sent 1,300 troops there, wants to know how long Spanish troops will stay in Lebanon, at what cost and if they will be assigned such tasks as disarming Hezbollah guerrillas.
Smaller opposition parties have also said they will vote yes, but are also eager to hear exactly what the Spanish force will be asked to do.
But the conservatives are also using the occasion to try to exact a political toll on Zapatero, saying he depicts himself as a pacifist but has actually sent more soldiers abroad than any other Spanish premier.
Under Zapatero, Spain has sent troops or police to Haiti, Congo and expanded an existing Spanish presence in Afghanistan. Spanish troops are also deployed in the Balkans.
"He is not sending the troops on a peace mission but a bellicose one and he knows it," Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said Monday.
The Socialist government took power in March 2004 elections just days after Islamic terror bombings that many Spaniards apparently believed stemmed from Spain's troop presence in Iraq. The terror attacks killed 191 people.
Zapatero opposed the war vehemently in the Spanish election campaign, calling it illegal because it lacked a U.N. mandate, and fulfilled a promise to bring home the Spanish troops shortly after taking power.
The administration also enacted a law requiring parliamentary approval for overseas troop deployments. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government had dispatched the troops to Iraq without consulting the legislature.
Zapatero "put on a pacifist, down-with-war medal to win the elections," the Popular Party's No. 2 official, Angel Acebes, said last week. Now Zapatero has taken off the medal "and shown that it is all a farce."
The government counters that this new deployment is legitimate because it has a U.N. mandate and Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to a peacekeeping force.
MADRID, Spain Spain moved Thursday toward sending up to 1,100 troops to Lebanon, with the prime minister saying international security depends largely on peace in the Middle East — this time between Hezbollah guerrillas and Israeli forces that fought a 34-day war.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, stopping off here en route to New York after a 12-day tour of the region to discuss Lebanon and the Iranian nuclear standoff, thanked Spain for its plans to become the third largest contributor to the expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
Annan said the new force should be strong enough by the middle of September for Israeli forces to withdraw from south Lebanon. He said he was optimistic about turning the Israel-Hezbollah truce into a more lasting peace, calling himself "convinced we cannot but succeed, and we will succeed."
On Iran, Annan said he hoped for a negotiated solution to the standoff despite Tehran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment — a process that can be used to generate power or make nuclear weapons.
"The best solution will be a negotiated one," Annan said at a news conference with Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Zapatero spoke as the Spanish Parliament prepared to debate and vote on a government proposal to send up to 1,100 troops to Lebanon and lead one of the U.N. force's multinational brigades.
Passage was expected, although conservatives have complained the government has not been up front about how dangerous the mission is. Still, they were expected to vote yes.
Zapatero said it was Spain's duty and in its interest to try to foster peace.
"To a large extent, stability in the international order means stability in the Middle East," Zapatero said.
The vote coincided with a busy diplomatic day in the Spanish capital.
Besides the visit from Annan, Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani met with the Spanish foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, and briefly with Zapatero.
Moratinos asked Iran to be "flexible" in upcoming talks with a European Union negotiator, the Spanish Foreign Ministry said.
The possible Lebanon mission has proved politically divisive in Spain.
Spain's conservative opposition Popular Party, which backed the war in Iraq while in power and sent 1,300 troops there, wants to know how long Spanish troops will stay in Lebanon, at what cost and if they will be assigned such tasks as disarming Hezbollah guerrillas.
Smaller opposition parties have also said they will vote yes, but are also eager to hear exactly what the Spanish force will be asked to do.
But the conservatives are also using the occasion to try to exact a political toll on Zapatero, saying he depicts himself as a pacifist but has actually sent more soldiers abroad than any other Spanish premier.
Under Zapatero, Spain has sent troops or police to Haiti, Congo and expanded an existing Spanish presence in Afghanistan. Spanish troops are also deployed in the Balkans."He is not sending the troops on a peace mission but a bellicose one and he knows it," Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said Monday.
The Socialist government took power in March 2004 elections just days after Islamic terror bombings that many Spaniards apparently believed stemmed from Spain's troop presence in Iraq. The terror attacks killed 191 people. Zapatero opposed the war vehemently in the Spanish election campaign, calling it illegal because it lacked a U.N. mandate, and fulfilled a promise to bring home the Spanish troops shortly after taking power.
The administration also enacted a law requiring parliamentary approval for overseas troop deployments. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government had dispatched the troops to Iraq without consulting the legislature.
Zapatero "put on a pacifist, down-with-war medal to win the elections," the Popular Party's No. 2 official, Angel Acebes, said last week. Now Zapatero has taken off the medal "and shown that it is all a farce." The government counters that this new deployment is legitimate because it has a U.N. mandate and Israel and Hezbollah have

Blair tries to quell call for his resignation
LAWMAKERS DEMAND DEPARTURE DATE
By Beth Gardiner
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair was locked in a fight yesterday to keep control over when he leaves office, with 15 Labor lawmakers demanding he step down. They included eight junior members who resigned to protest his refusal to do so.
Blair warned the rebels that infighting would jeopardize the governing Labor Party's effort to hold onto power, while top officials sent strong signals that the prime minister intended to leave office within a year.
Blair's office could not immediately confirm reports that the prime minister intended to make a public statement on his future today. The prime minister intended to use a scheduled visit to a London school with Education Secretary Alan Johnson to make his intentions clear, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported.
The revolt of low-level officials was unlikely to dislodge Blair from office, though it could help force him to speed up his departure, and it raised fears the eventual change of command in Britain would be rancorous and messy.
Blair, who led Labor to its third straight election win last year, has said he would not seek a fourth term. He also promised to give his successor -- widely expected to be Treasury chief Gordon Brown -- time to settle into office before the next election, expected in 2009.
Pressure for the prime minister to announce a departure date has intensified in recent weeks, fueled by widespread anger at Blair's handling of fighting between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants.Labor legislators anxious about a slide in popularity -- one recent poll showed the party 9 points behind the opposition Conservatives -- fear the uncertainty about his tenure is damaging their electoral hopes.Many Labor stalwarts were furious at Blair's stance on the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, saying his refusal to call for an early cease-fire was simply a parroting of President Bush's position, which critics saw as tacitly allowing Israel to bomb Lebanon for weeks.

The extra victory of Hezbollah
By Israel Harel -Haaretz
The government went to war with the defined goal of bringing back the kidnapped soldiers. It claims to have won the war - on points only, to use the chief of staff's metaphor. And the abducted soldiers who were not returned home and Hezbollah's ability to launch 250 rockets on the last day of the war in which Hassan Nasrallah was beaten - those too are, among other things, the signs of victory.
Israel, a regional power in its own eyes that was fighting a small guerrilla outfit, did not have the power, sense, or willpower to condition the cease-fire on the release of the soldiers, or at least to demand their hand-over to a third party that could guarantee their welfare. Our victory was so great that we insisted that a force consisting of 15,000 UN soldiers, including ones from "friendly states" such as Malaysia and Indonesia - and France, of course − would serve as a buffer between us and the enemy that we routed.
And Hezbollah, after its defeat in battle, continues to lose the psychological war as well. For example, in the case of the videotape. The organization decided not only what and when to broadcast, but also who, and at what price, its propaganda would be broadcast in Israel. And the "winners," in their folly, eagerly show again and again the infuriating, schaudenfreude-laden propaganda. This war proved once again, Nasrallah (and more than a few Israelis agree with him about this, as well) must be saying to himself, that the Jews lost not only their operational abilities and their drive to engage the enemy militarily, but also their senses.
Nasrallah truly deserves all the honorifics that have been heaped upon him in Israel. And his army, according to the theories of the experts at Channel 10 news who analyzed the videotape, is also the best and most daring army in the Middle East. Be afraid, O Israel. Not only do we fall into its maw again and again, but also with masochistic enjoyment we bolster its propaganda.
Even though the tape has no particular news value, the main television news channel fell over itself in broadcasting Hezbollah propaganda. And as if that were not enough, it is also paying a fortune for the right to praise our bitter enemy. The part of the tape on the kidnapping, after all, is intended to glorify the name of Nasrallah and his organization, and that is the goal behind its release. With such determined fighters, we Israelis say to ourselves, and on the basis of past experience, there is nothing for it but to pay the outrageous price being demanded. The main thing is for the children (in Israel, as everyone knows, the fighters are children. That's why the war in Lebanon turned out the way it did) to come home.
The multiple repeat broadcasts of the segment of the tape of Ron Arad is even more problematic. The moving sight of the man who has long become everyone's long lost relative is intended to tug at our heartstrings. True, we told ourselves after watching, even Nasrallah cannot bring back Ron. But if he gets his asking price and gets it now, the fate of the most recent kidnapped soldiers will not be the miserable fate of Ron. That is the explanation for the clever timing behind the tape's release.
Tens of thousands of people gathered at Tel Aviv's Rabin Square last week with a demand that was so humanitarian and so Jewish: the redemption of prisoners. Deep chords from bygone days were struck. Who could resist identifying with the mothers' pleas, the wives' longing, the fathers' sadness? Certainly not the beaten-down government that promised to bring the boys home and is now searching for public support.
Some observers, however, were counting the number of participants: Hezbollah and Hamas. Each additional body in the square added to their pleasure. The greater the internal pressures within Israel, the more it will pay. And if Ariel Sharon released hundreds of terrorists in exchange for Elhanan Tennenbaum, a criminal, for whom no one demonstrated, how much more will Ehud Olmert pay, especially after a large and well-publicized demonstration, despite his commitment to never again give in to extortion by kidnappers.
Nasrallah confessed that he had not expected such an aggressive Israeli response. He did expect, and the past proves that he and the rest of the kidnappers are not wrong, that Israel would once again release hundreds of terrorists in exchange for the abductees. The rally played into his hands. As did the videotape. And in the near future there will be more rallies for the release of the next batch of abductees. And so it goes.
To Olmert's credit, it must be said that when he launched the war in Lebanon, he tried to break the vicious circle. The attempt failed, but that does not mean there are no other ways to free the soldiers. If Olmert does not want to lose the meager achievements of the war, which even Nasrallah admits to, he must make Hezbollah and Hamas realize that Israel went to war on both fronts in order to change the rules of the game of kidnapping. And if he resists a mass release of terrorists, he might even be able to recapture his credibility and reputation. More important, Israel's deterrent power will be restored and the plague of kidnappings will be removed.

The "Azzam-Zawahiri" tape: a longer reading..
By Walid Phares
PS: I've posted a quick analysis of the "Azzam al Amriki" (AKA, Adam Gadhan) few days ago. This is the longer version reading of the 45 minutes tape. It include the short one plus additional thoughts. Because of web links, I will leave the two versions. A short note will be posted later analyzing the "reaction" of media and analysts. W.P.
It includes: Who is behind the message, who is it destined to, the ideological paltform, argumentation tactics, the enemies of Jihad in America, the friends of al Qaeda, the al Qaeda offer,
The video tape issued by al Qaeda’s “as-sahhab” production, in which Ayman Zawahiri introduces Jihadist Adam Gadahn to the world as a senior speaker (in English) to the American people on behalf of the movement, should be taken seriously. Not necessarily at the level of detecting the next Terror attack but at the level of understanding this prelude to Future Jihad both in America and within the West. I wasn’t surprised at all by the 45 minutes elaboration by convert Gahdan regarding all of the issues he raised. For “Azzam al Amriki” is the clearest specimen of Jihadism’s second generation within the US, in as much as the 7/7 videos revealed the type of future Jihadists for Great Britain’s second generation. However, when one would listen carefully to the taped video, you’d find a treasure of knowledge and indicators for the current state of thinking of al Qaeda and its ideologues. In short it is a sample of what is on the mind of Salafi Jihadists for the United States and the West. Following are few of the issues I noted:
1) The hand behind the message
When Arabic and English languages experts listen to the speech and compare his debit and shifting from one idiom to the other, they would conclude that M Adam Gadahn has been under an intense linguistic program to learn the Arabic language. He attempts to speak it rather like Bin Laden’s Peninsula accent then Zawahiri’s Egyptian intonation. Besides, he has also developed significant skills in Koranic citations as well as media training. However, when it comes to the logic of the arguments as presented in English, and compare them with literature disseminated in North America, or with online chats in English, or even with speeches by radical clerics touring US and Canadian cities, the “language” is amazingly one. For any seasoned analyst of Jihadi rhetoric in English, or even North American English, it is a fact that the level and type of arguments, the chain of issues cited, and other details, if anything could indicate that the “speech writer” may well be a well-versed leading militant in Jihadi affairs with academic training and American political know how. In short, Azzam’s videotaped message is indeed “American.” Experts have heard it in US and Canadian cities and on internet.The bones of the speech are Jihadi but its beef is American. Whether Gadahn was reading from a prompter or not –and I believe he was with great skills- I tend to believe that such a speech –rather than being dismissed as mere propaganda- is a message coming to us from what’s already inserted inside America, which leads me to the second point
2) Who is it destined to?
Many commentators rushed in multiple directions to determine the target audience of Gadahn’s video. Some argued that it is basically to boast about al Qaeda as a way to compete with other groups, such as Hezbollah. Others said it is “mere propaganda.” More focused analysis projected a direct link with upcoming Terrorist strikes. Let me admit, with the deplorable state of our Jihadism studies in North America, reading the mind of al Qaeda in terms of strategy is still a real challenge. In fact, the speech is a little bit of all what was mentioned. Yes, it brags, it competes, it is propaganda and it is a warning for what is to come. And surely, a classical interpretation of the Jihadi doctrine could interpret Gadahn’s message as “convert or we strike,” or also “this is your last chance before we strike.” But in the center of “Azzam’s” 45 minutes there is a road map with some side paths. It is basically addressed to those who will carry a “Jihad in America,” possibly asserting Adam Gadahn as their leader. Also, this is a very intelligent move to pierce the linguistic shield of America’s media and reach US citizens directly, as a way to spread confusion at least among those who have a hazy understanding of the Jihadists. By the way, expect this speech to be aired on al Jazeera’s English Channel in the near future, repetitively.
3) The ideological platform
“Azzam” lays out the ideological and political pillars of Jihad against America and the West, in English. In a summary, as he clearly assert, the essence of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and other religions are false and against Allah’s will. In his words, “Islam is the only true religion,” and not following it as prescribed, “will lead to fire afterlife,” but also to defeat to infidels in this world. Gadahn reveals the extent of his group’s hatred against Christianity and Judaism and against the other (what he coin as “Pagan”) religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Al Qaeda’s speeches in the past included attacks against other religions but rarely was the whole speech dedicated to that effect. Besides, Gadahn attacked the Muslims who believe in coexistence with other religions and who do not follow Jihadism. In short, the “Azzam” video reconfirms clearly (in an English language what "academic translators" won’t be able to distort and camouflage) that al Qaeda’s movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.
4) Argumentation tactics:
“Azzam’s” speech exposes the streams of ideologies he is attempting to merge. While his rhetoric is pure Jihadist, he uses many arguments produced by radical anti-American intellectuals, mixing American politics with Islamist concepts. The “speech writer,” emulating many commentators on al Jazeera or al Manar, hopes to rally many among those who “hate Bush and Blair” but stops short of stating that Jihadism will hate all future US Presidents and British Prime Ministers “if they do not convert.” The California convert mixes all the historical dramas worldwide from Crusades, Inquisition, Hiroshima, Concentration camps, with killings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, the “writer” skips the Genocides of Sudan, and the massacres of Algeria, the Kurds, Shiites perpetrated by Salafists or Baathists.
5) The enemies of Jihad in America
All citizens-taxpayers are legitimate targets for al Qaeda, repeats Gadahn after Bin laden and Zawahiri. But now Americans can hear it in an American accent not through the translations offered by the networks. Only those who are actively fighting the enemy are to be spared. Otherwise the wrath of al Qaeda will punish the infidels at large and the American and European “Crusaders” in particular. In addition to the traditional threat against the chief executives of the two worse enemies, the US and British Governments, George W Bush and Toni Blair, sensationally but not unexpectedly, an al Qaeda spokesperson –American for the circumstance- “name” a number of intellectual-enemies in this country: Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer and Michael Sheuer. In my observation of the movement, this is a crossing of a red line. Rarely Jihadi Terrorists at this high level media exposure, named symbols of their enemy’s intelligentsia. But more troubling is the fact that scholars Pipes and Spencer, and journalist Emerson have been consistently “marked” for political attacks by US-based Islamist organizations and web sites. A simple internet search (you may google it instantly) would show readers that these three leading critics of what they have always described as “radical Islam” have been already portrayed by lobbies in this country and under its laws, as “Islamophobes.” The convergence of qualification between al Qaeda and these American organizations of US intellectuals is certainly disturbing. As far as the naming of Michael Sheuer on that list, it could be analyzed as a reminder of his past role as a chief of the Usama Bin Laden unit at the CIA years ago. And in addition to “experts” named in the tape, Gadahn goes on a ferocious attack against American “Tele-Evangelists” and their media (you can easily figure out who) showing the other type of foes al Qaeda is very upset with.
6) The “friends” of al Qaeda?
“Azzam” performs another unusual move in this speech. He names “sympathetic” personalities for whom he has messages for action because of –what he considers- good deeds or sympathy to al Qaeda’s cause. Regardless of what would this identification leave as political consequences in the US and Britain, the “American” voice of al Qaeda, M Gadahn, calls on well known journalist Seymour Hirsh to “reveal more” than what was published in a New Yorker article on the War: Obviously an open call by al Qaeda to M Hirsch to resume the verbal attack against the present US War on Terror. Then “Azzam” turn to two British journalists and thank them for their “admiration and respect for Islam” and encourage them to do the final step: Convert. He names British MP George Galloway and journalist Robert Fisk. M Galloway has been very vocal in his support of the Jihadist causes worldwide and has accused the West of planning on “destroying the Arab and Muslim peoples,” including on al Jazeera, few days ago. M Fisk is a long time critic of Western policies and has for many times sided with the arguments of radical regimes and organzations against their opponents in the region. But more troubling in Gadahn’s tape was his direct call to Jihadists within the US Armed forces to work patiently till the time comes. He reveals that “they” have been involved in a large number of “conversions”, and that they “should continue to aggregate while escaping the surveillance of their military authorities.” This theme, which I covered briefly in Future Jihad, is of great concern to US national security. The “Azzam” speech brings further concerns as to the credibility of this threat.
7) The Al Qaeda offer: Conversion or fire
“Azzam”’s mission in this tape was to deliver a message. His bottom line is this: We –the Jihadists- have you cornered everywhere and you are not going to win this war. He seems to say that the US led coalition won’t win the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and no where else. And he announces that war will ravage this country (America) as well. He tells Americans that the Jihadi hand is already inside the US and “Azzam” is the kind of voice you will be hearing in the future. His central message is typically Jihadic: “Surrender, convert or the fire:” Meaning war on Earth, all of it, and Hell fire after death.
This fascinating and revealing taped-speech bring the American public even closer to what lays ahead for this generation and the next one as long as the Jihadist ideology is spreading inside America and worldwide. For what turbaned Adam Gahdan said inside that professional studio other “Azzams” are hearing inside American and worldwide madrassas.
**Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America. Phares@walidphares.com
September 6, 2006 10:09 PM Print

Lebanon Between the Fraction and the Whole
Hassan Haydar Al-Hayat - 07/09/06//
A British correspondent said after returning form Lebanon following a tour of the southern Beirut suburb and other areas in the South of Lebanon that he was 'stunned' by the scale of destruction he witnessed.
He explained that when watching TV footage of the Israeli bombardment and the razed villages, he felt that the scale of destruction was large, but was never actually aware of how large until he saw it first hand. Since towns and villages appear small and detailed on the screen, making it impossible to convey the actual impression of a horrifying ongoing war, as he stood amid the rubble of buildings, he felt increasingly small in comparison to the huge and anxiety-inducing scene surrounding him.
But the problem lies in the fact that the small screen is the favorite choice for many others, who chose to turn a blind eye on the real, huge scene that Lebanon has now become. So they and those with them sink in partial details which they believe to be the only picture needed to convince others, while discarding the rest of the pieces.
It is the same case with the leadership of Hezbollah, which is still insisting that its battle with Israel and Israel's failure in carrying out an overwhelming invasion south of the Litani River, as in 1982, and destroying Hezbollah's militia and its cache of missiles, were enough proof to convince the Lebanese people and the world that Hezbollah did in fact win the war, without looking at the whole picture caused by the war.
It is as if there is a premeditated separation between the fighters of the 'reckless Hezb' and the village in which they sought shelter and from which they waged battles, and which have completely disappeared now.
It is as if the destroyed southern villages, its displaced inhabitants, and the afflicted southern suburb, with its shocked inhabitants, broken bridges, devastated factories, dead and wounded civilians is another image that is not related to the military confrontation in which Hezbollah asserts to have destroyed, with mythical heroism, the myth of the invincible army, as if the whole issue was a battle of myths not connected to reality and what it entails in any way.
There is also the question of: if Hezbollah really did win the war, why is Lebanon still blockaded and why is its land still being occupied when it is supposed to have won the war? As a winner in a conflict, shouldn't it dictate its demands and conditions on the defeated side?
This kind of fragmented view is what allows Hassan Nasrallah to claim that his arms have protected, and still protect the Lebanese people, and, provided it remains intact, will be their most important element of protection.
What kind of protection is Nasrallah talking about when it was the Lebanese who suffered the greatest losses and among them the Shiite sect, of which Hezbollah forcefully monopolizes its representation? I say 'forcefully' because the southerners and inhabitants of the southern suburb remember well how their children were assassinated and displaced when they refused to become exclusively loyal to the sect, and who remember how the national resistance were expelled from all the sects in the South and were denied the right to fight the enemy occupying their land, because it is necessary that the Syrian-Iranian endeavor to acquire a single, easily driven instrument to comply with its interests, goals and plans to exploit the Lebanese front in any way and at any time.
It is this same partial view that allowed a single party to take the decision to go to war on behalf of the entire nation, and to deal only with parts of the rest of Lebanon: the sects and institutions that comply with the same standards and interests served by Hezbollah and which in turn serve it.
Is not the current popular outcry to topple the majority government a flagrant prevalence of the fraction over the whole and of details over the complete scene? Is not the call for a coup that is being spread and promoted by those marching to the same drum of the Syrian regime and coinciding with its interest and aims a prevalence of the regional fraction over the rest of the Arabs and the world which is trying to restore some of the stability and the security that Lebanon once had? Is it right for a country to be taken hostage by a group of its own inhabitants?