Friday, December 29, 2006

U.S. Investigations Lead to Arrests in Gemayel Assassination Case, By Andrew Cochran

U.S. Investigations Lead to Arrests in Gemayel Assassination Case
By Andrew Cochran

The following article appeared in the "Alsyassa" newspaper in Lebanon last week and has been translated to English by a friend and highly reliable source. The article points to investigations in the U.S. which led to the arrests of Syrian-allied suspects in Lebanon:

"The investigation into the assassination of Pierre Gemayel led to the detection and seizure of weapons and explosives detonators and the arrest of seven of the Beirut-Syrian nationalists"

The Lebanese authorities confiscated weapons and explosives yesterday of several locations of the Syrian Social National Party, the pro-Syria in the Koura in northern Lebanon. A security source said that the raid and confiscation included locations and houses scattered in several villages in the Koura province, south-east Tripoli, most prominent Kosba, Shekka and Afessdeeq. As to the Directorate General of the Internal Security Forces assured in a statement that “the arrest of a number of people" during raids and the confiscation of weapons and explosives in Koura.

The source explained that one of its unit raided several houses in the Koura found inside "a large quantity of explosives with electric detonators used for the bombing and stopwatches to control the timing of the bombing in addition to large quantities of weapons." Authorized Lebanese security sources revealed to al-Seyassah that, during the raids on two stolen cars caches inside one of the Syrian Social National Party, working to identify their owners, have confiscated the equivalent of two truckloads of weapons.

Well aware those, the official of the SSNP Tony Mansour and his father were arrested during the raid and seized a gun inside the car of the first, and that security forces cordoned off the main party headquarters in Beirut. Meanwhile Party leader, Ali Qanso, admitted the arrest of seven official Syrian Social nationalists and the confiscation of explosives in northern Lebanon, claiming that they were kept since "the 1980s when he was involved in the resistance" against Israel.

Informed sources declared to al-Seyassah that, before 15 days, the National Security in the United States investigated Halim Hardan, student at the University of St. Louis, son of current MP Assaad Hardan, former minister and leading member of the Syrian Nationalist Party and the Canadian authorities as well, carried out investigation with one Khudor Awarka, the official Syrian National Party in Canada. Further to that, investigations took place in the United States and Canada with a number of the "Free National Current" followers which is led by MP Michel Aoun. In the outcome of these investigations, information and confessions related to the case of the assassination of MP and Minister Pierre Gemayel, has been extracted and that the American and Canadian authorities these information to the Lebanese government that used in the investigation of the assassination, and reached an important thread task brought to give the orders to raid a number of houses and warehouses belonging to the elements in the Syrian National Party in the area of Koura in North Lebanon, yesterday. (Emphasis mine.)

At a press conference held yesterday evening, Qanso said that the Internal Security Forces carried out a surprise raids on the National elements Koura, led to "the arrest of seven comrades." He assured that the confiscation of explosives and explosive devices and timing" are kept since the 1980s after ceasing the participation in the resistance against Israel ... And we kept them with us as reserve weapon for any later role in the resistance." Qanso described the confiscated weapons as "weapons of individual needed for party member due to the exposed security situation" in Lebanon. And confiscation of weapons and explosives coincides with the severe intense of political crisis in Lebanon between the parliamentary majority opposing Damascus and the opposition that includes Syrian loyalist parties, amongst them, the Syrian Social National Party.

Qanso condemned the raids and warned the security services of "excessive reckless," and threatened that "there are limits to the patience of the nationalists", without giving further details, and enrolled what has happened in the framework of the "incitement" of the opposition that, since the beginning of this month, has started an open stay-in strike to overdraw the government. Qanso denounced the "campaign of rumours trying to give the impression that there is a link between the raids and security events that took place in Lebanon."

Lebanon witnessed, in the last two years, a series of explosions and assassinations took six dignitary figures opposes Syria, notably former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri February 14, 2005, the latest Minister Pierre Gemayel on November 21.

The Lebanese militias handed over their weapons to the state after the end of the civil war (1975 - 1990) except for "Hezbollah" Shiite who retained under the title of resisting Israel."

December 29, 2006 09:55 AM

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Mufti Mount Lebanon Mohammed Ali Al JooZoo - Attacks Iranian Interference in Lebanon in an attempt to topple Democratically Elected Government


قال:لن أرد على ماسحي الأحذية في بلاط المخابرات السورية
مفتي جبل لبنان الشيخ الجوزو يفتح النار على حزب الله
[ ENGLISH TRANSLATION ]

صورة أرشيفية لمفتي جبل لبنان محمد على الجوزو

دبي - العربية.نت
تنشر صحيفة "روز اليوسف" المصرية "القومية" الجمعة 22 -12 -2006 حوارا لمفتي جبل لبنان محمد على الجوزو من المتوقع أن يثير ردود فعل كبيرة لما حمله من اتهامات مباشرة وخطيرة تتناول علاقة حزب الله بايران، ورواتب يقبضها شيوخ سنة لبنانيين من طهران مقابل تأييدهم للحزب، ومحاولة تغيير النظام اللبناني وهويته، وحجم النفوذ الايراني على الأراضي اللبنانية.
وفي الحوار الذي أجراه الزميل عبدالله كمال رئيس تحرير الصحيفة، وجه الجوزو انتقادات شديدة لحزب الله، معتبرا أنه يتحرك بسبب مذهبي محض، منذ اعتبر نفسه منتصرا عقب الانسحاب الاسرائيلي من جنوب لبنان عام 2000. وأن ذلك رافقه نوع من الغرور والتعالي والتحدي والاستفزاز العلني، "ووصل لمداه عام 2006".
وأضاف بأن "القرار في حزب الله له بعد مذهبي يصل إلي طهران، المرجعية لحزب الله خمينية مباشرة، وممثلها حسن نصر الله، وفي العراق عبد العزيز الحكيم، ومقتدى الصدر والسيستاني، وهو إيراني تابع للخمميني".
وقال " ليس هناك اختلاف في المرجعيات، كل الولاء للمرجعية في إيران، والصدر وحسن نصر الله، والسيستاني علي صلة بالقيادة الإيرانية، ومن هنا فإن سلطة خامئني ممتدة إلي العراق، ومن العراق إلي سوريا ثم حسن نصر الله في لبنان".
ووصف الجوزو مشايخ سنة الذين يؤيدون حزب الله، بأنهم "جميعهم يقبضون مرتباتهم من إيران من أجل أن يقفوا مع حزب الله، فإيران تدفع وبسخاء في الخارج رغم أن شعبها يعاني الفقر المدقع وهذا هو ما يطلقون عليه المال الحلال الذي يذهب إلي خارج إيران ليشتري شخصًا في مصر أو غيرها".



ننتقد تأليه حزب الله
واستطرد الجوزو "حزب الله في رأيهم ليس حزبًا بشريا وإنما حزب إلهي، وذلك يتردد في مظاهراتهم وخطبهم. أصبح هناك تقديس لدرجة التأليه، وهذه هي المدرسة التي ننتقدها".

وأضاف " نحن أمام حالة غريبة يعبر عنها مثل هذا الغرور الذي دفع حسن نصر الله إلي أنه يريد أن يسقط حكومة لبنان، مع أنه كان فيها، وله وزراء فيها فإذا كانت خائنة فأنت خائن، وإذا كانت عميلة لحكومة معينة، فأنت طوال السنين الماضية كنت تتعامل مع حكومة عميلة، وكنت صامتًا عنها لأنه كان لك وزراء فيها، وعندما جاءت المحكمة الدولية انسحبتم، كما أنكم دمرتم لبنان بسبب الخطف الذي قمت به ولبنان تأخر إلي الوراء عشرين سنة، فمن أجل أن نبني الجسور والمباني التي دمرت نحتاج إلي سنوات".
ومضى قائلا "نحن الآن نعيش علي مؤقتات، الدمار سهل، ولكن البناء صعب، والآن تأتي لتدمر لبنان اقتصاديًا نهائيًا في الاعتصام الذي تقوم به من أجل أخذ «الثلث المعطل» في الحكومة، الذي يعطل أي قرار يمكن أن يصدر في حالة عدم توقيعه، وذلك لكي تصبح لبنان دولة السلطات المعطلة، وحزب الله هو الذي يمسك ذلك كله، فهو متمسك برئيس الجمهورية لأن سوريا هي التي عينته، وهو يملك أيضًا الثلث المعطل".



فرض النفوذ الايراني
واتهم الجوزو حزب الله بأنه يطمح في أن يبسط سلطته علي لبنان، مشيرا إلى أنه سيكون هناك رفض من جهات أخرى "فإذا كان حزب الله مسلحًا فهناك جهات أخري مسيحية مسلحة من المسيحيين، ويقولون إننا نرفض ذلك".

وقال: "هناك بالفعل تغيير للنظام اللبناني وهويته، وفرض النفوذ الإيراني علي أرض لبنان، وهذا سيولد حربًا، خاصة أن المسيحيين كانوا ينتظرون خروج سوريا من لبنان، ولا يمكن أن يسمحوا لحزب الله أن يقوم بدور البديل".
وقال مفتي جبل لبنان محمد علي الجوزو في اجاباته على أسئلة "روز اليوسف" إن "التنافس فارسي عربي، والفارسي يركب موجة التشيع ولذلك هو يريد أن يشيع الناس في مناطق سنية مثل مصر والسودان.. ولبنان".
وأضاف "هم يشيعون الناس بالمال، فعندنا الآن في لبنان 15 إلى 20 شيخًا سنيا من الدرجة الثالثة، وهؤلاء يعطيهم الشيعة مرتبات بعضها تصل إلي 1500 دولار في الشهر، أما نحن فنعطي راتبًا لا يزيد علي 400 ألف ليرة لبناني وهو مرتب لا يساوي 200 دولار، والسبب أن لديهم إيران تدعمهم".
وأكد الجوزو أن "هناك 280 مؤسسة في الضاحية الجنوبية للبنان للشيعة، وإذا استعرضنا مؤسسات السنة في لبنان سنجدها تعد علي أصابع اليد، خمس أو سبع مؤسسات علي الأكثر، وأصبح الشيعة أكبر منا وأغني منا، وكل هذا من مال إيران".



السيطرة على أحياء سنية
وقال إن "الشيعة في الحرب وضعوا أيديهم علي منطقة الأوزاعي وهي منطقة سنية، فأخذوا كل أرض هذه المنطقة وبنوا عليها وأصبحت حيا شيعيا، كما وضعوا أيديهم علي حي اسمه «الجناح»، وجعلوه لهم، ووضعوا أيديهم علي طريق المطار، وعلي المؤسسات الموجودة فيه".
وأشار إلى أن "ايران تطمح إلى السيطرة علي المنطقة العربية، وهناك طموح بأن يضعوا أيديهم علي البترول في الخليج، وأن يتم تشييع المنطقة العربية، وهناك قري كاملة في سوريا تشيعت، وهذا كلام موثق" وأجاب على سؤال حول رد الفعل السوري بقوله " لا أعتقد أن أحدًا سيتصدى لذلك في سوريا".
وقال "عرفت أن القري التي حول حلب كالرقة مثلاً تشيعت بكاملها، وهذا ما قيل لي لأنني لا أذهب إلي سوريا ولا أقدر علي الذهاب هناك، وهذا كله يتم بالأموال، ولقد عرض علي شخصيًا أموال، وقيل لي سنعطيك كل ما تطلبه من أجل أن تتعاون معنا".
وأضاف "شتمني الشيعة علي قناة «المنار» لأنني أنتقدهم، ولكن لن أرد عليهم بالمستوي السوقي الذي يتبعونه، وأتي إلي أحد الزعماء المسيحيين، وكانت وسائل الإعلام موجودة فقلت لن أرد علي ماسحي الأحذية في بلاط المخابرات السورية".



لا أخاف تهديداتهم
وعن المعلومات التي تقول إنه مهدد في لبنان رد الجوزو "الأعمار بيد الله، ماذا سآخذ من الدنيا أكثر مما أخذت منها، ولن أحزن عليها إذا ماراحت.. بل سأكون قد أضأت شمعة للناس من أجل أن تفهم الواقع الذي نعيشه، فأنا مسئول بين المسلمين ومن واجبي أن أنبه الشعوب الإسلامية بالخطر المحدق بها".
وأضاف "هناك بعض الناس فتنوا وما يساعد على ذلك هو أن هناك عددا من العلماء في المناطق العربية المختلفة ليس لديهم وعي بالأبعاد السياسية، أو الأبعاد المذهبية للموضوع يتعاملون عاطفيًا مع مسألة الشيعة".



حزب الله لم يحرر شبرا
وقال إن حزب الله لم "يستطع أن يحرر ولا شبر واحد، بل ان الأرض التي كانت محتلة في الجنوب، وتحررت من قبل احتلت بعد مواجهة حزب الله الأخيرة مع إسرائيل. وجاءت الأمم المتحدة، وأصبح حزب الله بعيدًا تمامًا عن المواجهة، ولا يستطيع حتي أن يضرب صواريخ مثلما كان يفعل في الماضي، لأن القوى الدولية ستتدخل علي الفور، وعليه فنحن بما فعله حزب الله تراجعنا للخلف".
وتابع "إن الثلاثين يومًا التي يفخر حسن نصر الله أنه صمد خلالها حدثت جبريا من قرار أمريكي طلب من إسرائيل أن تطيل مدة الحرب وتضرب بالطيران من أجل أن تدمر أكبر منشآت ممكنة، هذا كله لا يعد نصرًا، النصر ليس مجرد أن أضرب صواريخ علي إسرائيل".
وقال محمد علي الجوزو إن "حزب الله ألقى بعدد من الصواريخ «5 آلاف صاروخ» علي إسرائيل، وكانت نتيجتها علي الأرض 80 قتيلاً، و120 جريحا، أما في لبنان 1200 قتيل، و4 آلاف جريح، ومليون نازح".
وتساءل: إننا في معركة سياسية، فما الداعي لأن تذكر شتائم سوقية، وحسن نصرالله نفسه أحيانًا يقول كلامًا ينسي فيه نفسه، وقد اتهمني بأني عميل أمريكي، مع أن ذلك أولى أن يقوله لإخوانه.
وأضاف أنه "قتل من حزب الله أشخاص كثيرون في معارك المواجهة، لكنه يخفي الحقائق التي تحدث علي الأرض، فلم يذكر عدد من قتل لديه، ويقول ما زال سلاحنا كما هو، وعندنا 20 ألف صاروخ، ودعنا نفترض أن هناك 20 ألف صاروخ، فبحسبة بسيطة نقول إن الخمسة آلاف صاروخ قتلت 80 يعني أن العشرين ألف صاروخ يمكن أن تقتل 400 وهو عدد لن يكون كعدد قتلانا، فلو ضرب حسن نصرالله الـ20 ألف صاروخ التي يمتلكها فلن يدمر إسرائيل، وكل ما سيفعله أن يخيف الإسرائيليين الموجودين في المستعمرات التي علي الحدود".
وقال "الخلاصة أن العامة مبهورون بأي شخص يطلق رصاصة علي إسرائيل، وحسن نصر الله ضرب لأن إسرائيل طولت الحرب فأراد أن يرمي دون دراسة عسكرية مضبوطة، لم نسمع أنه ضرب كباري أو أصاب مطارًا من المطارات أو أصاب ميناء حيفا، أو يصيب مركزًا رئيسيًا حيويا".
وتابع الجوزو "أريد أن أقول إن حسن نصرالله ضرب، ولكن ضرب في وقت سيئ، فضرب الاقتصاد اللبناني كله، دمره، وقام بعملية واختطف أسيرين ليقال إنه قام بعملية بطولية".
وردا على سؤال عن الذي سيضربه الآن حزب الله.. أجاب:" سيضرب نفسه لأنه كشف نفسه أمام العالم العربي بأن له طموحات مذهبية".



تيار شيعي ضد حزب الله
وأكد أنه ليس هناك إجماع علي حزب الله بين الشيعة "فهناك مجموعات كبيرة بين الشيعة في لبنان لا توافق علي حزب الله، وهناك الآن تيار شيعي حر، وهو تيار ظهر من مشايخ الشيعة يقولون إنهم ضد ما يفعله حزب الله، ولكن إيران لا تدفع لهم، وهناك العائلات العريقة مثل عائلة الأسعد يرفضون حزب الله، لأنهم يعتبرون أنفسهم زعماء الشيعة الحقيقيين في لبنان، وأن حزب الله ظهر في الحرب وفرض نفسه على الشيعة".
وقال "ما يحدث الآن غزو شيعي إيراني فارسي لم يستطع أن يفعله الخميني، ولكنه يتم حاليا بأيدي «حسن نصر الله ومقتدي الصدر، وعبدالعزيز الحكيم، ومحمد علي تسخيري".




تعليقات حول الموضوع

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1

Burning Cedars - interview with Ahlam Ghadry

Burning Cedars
Will the democratic revolution in Lebanon survive the latest crisis?

An NRO Q&A


For Ahlam Ghadry, a native of Lebanon, democracy in her birthplace is a family affair. Ahlam is married to Farid Ghadry, president of the Reform Party of Syria, “a US-based Syrian opposition party to the Assad regime that has emerged as a result of September 11.” National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez recently asked Ahlam for her thoughts on the current state of democracy in Lebanon.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What ever happened to the Cedar Revolution?

Ahlam Ghadry: The Cedar Revolution is still alive, and its leaders hold on to the dream of a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon. Their voices have been overcome by the crackle of weapons, during the July Israeli-Hezbollah war and the continuous assassinations of promising leaders of the movement, the last of whom was Minister Pierre Gemayel. As my husband said in an article in the Washington Times, Beirut is an Alamo and Fouad Siniora is the William Barrett Travis of Lebanon. Although the revolution is alive, we need Sam Houston to come to our rescue.


Lopez: What’s your affiliation with the March 14 Movement? How powerful is the movement?

Ghadry: All the Lebanese who want a free, democratic, and sovereign nation are affiliated with March 14. Personally, I believe and share their vision for the future of a free and prosperous Lebanon where all religious sects will live in peace and where Lebanese can live and work to benefit their country and stop the emigration of Lebanon’s young and promising next generation. As a Druze woman, I am particularly interested in the importance of minority women in Lebanon — an issue in which the present government is making progress, which Rafik Hariri successfully initiated.


Lopez: What will be the long-term effect of Pierre Gemayel’s assassination?

Ghadry: The assassination of Pierre Gemayel was a wake-up call to the Christian Maronites, some of whom have drifted away from the Cedar Revolution because of their leader Aoun’s affiliation with Hezbollah and his desertion of his principles. The majority of the Christian Maronites want Lebanon to be free from any Syrian or Iranian control.

The assassination was also a signal to March 14 leaders that they are not immune from assassination themselves: there is no place to hide and no one is exempt. The killers of Pierre Gemayel are one and the same (Syrian and Iranian agents) and their victims are one and the same (Lebanese who resist Syria and Iran). Pierre Gemayel represented the hope of the upcoming generation. His courage and enthusiasm were contagious, his love for Lebanon unconditional, his voice loud and clear: no compromise on the sovereignty of Lebanon. I believe Gemayel’s death has given more strength to the March 14 leaders to follow their plan for Lebanon.


Lopez: How entrenched is Hezbollah in Lebanon?

Ghadry: Hezbollah is deeply entrenched in Lebanon. It was a resistance movement that had a defined role throughout the “civil war” of the ’70s and ’80s, namely, that of controlling the south of Lebanon. And to do that it relied on Syria to be the conduit through which weapons were transported from Iran. As the last Hezbollah-Israeli war in August proved, one cannot underestimate the magnitude of the weapons arsenal that Hezbollah is still acquiring.

Besides the military role, Hezbollah has a critical political role now through its representatives in the Lebanese government. The resignation last month of their ministers in the legitimate Lebanese government, on the same day the government was to discuss and sign the Draft Resolution for the International Tribunal in the Assassination of Hariri, sent signals that they don’t want to partake in this mission; the havoc they created by calling for the downfall of Siniora’s government — claiming discrimination against the Shiia as an excuse — is still felt to this day. Hezbollah wants a Lebanese government that is controlled by a majority of pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian Lebanese politicians. And as the scene in downtown Beirut, where there are currently hundreds of Hezbollah tents, shows, Hezbollah is besieging the March 14 leaders and ministers; this is the real story, which is unfolding right in front of our eyes.


Lopez: What should Americans think of Fouad Siniora?

Ghadry: Siniora is very easy to read. Since the assassination of Hariri and as prime minister, Siniora’s message to all the Lebanese has never changed. He has been working on the revival of the economy through the Paris conferences (three meetings so far). He is always calling on all the parties to resolve issues that pertain to the national interest by means of dialogue. He is wise and patient, loyal, and patriotic, brave, and steady, willing to talk to friends and foes to find common solutions to national problems, fair and consistent, and most importantly, he is anti violence, a peaceful man who believes that we all need to talk and resolve peacefully our differences. He is irreplaceable and a target for those who still harbor grudges or are considering fomenting chaos. Americans should support Siniora in every venue they can.


Lopez: What does the current state of Lebanon mean for President George W. Bush’s “democracy project”?

Ghadry: The present state of Lebanon is a clear indication that achieving true democracy is easier said than done. President Bush’s call for democracy in the Middle East sent a clear signal to Arab reformists and to the Lebanese government that it can rely on the United States for support. We hope that we still can, because nothing will do more to suck the oxygen out of a reform movement, eager for and in need of support, than the knowledge that our greatest advocate no longer yields the power to support dissidents. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon encouraged those with yearnings for freedom and independence to go ahead and continue their steady efforts for change; they were confident because “America supports them,” as the president said in a speech.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of Syrian meddling in the internal affairs of Lebanon. During the 30-year span of Syrian control over Lebanon, the Syrian influence has become so entrenched in all aspects of life that though the Syrian army has left, there has been a strong continuing presence of allies of Syria in Lebanon — for example, Karami, Frenjieh, Nasrallah, and others who are willing to do anything to keep their Syrian friends happy, even if it means putting the national interest to the side and sacrificing the future of Lebanon as a free and independent country.

The new democracy that evolved in Lebanon as a result of the Hariri assassination needed support — not just words, but action. Syria is a threat to this new democracy, and its alliance with Hezbollah continues this threat. The world is watching the new democracy pay a heavy toll for the price of freedom, and the struggle is not over yet. We need to move from words to action, or the continuous threat of violence may cause the dream of Lebanese freedom to evaporate, and President Bush’s call for democracy will be rendered nothing but an echo.


Lopez: What does the current state of Lebanon mean for the region?

Ghadry: As we watch Lebanon suffer from the interference of Syria and Iran, the whole region has become a powder keg. Syria controls the northeast border, through which weapons are continuously smuggled to Hizballah. This border is so porous it’s impossible for the Lebanese to control it on their own. Syria has the upper hand in permitting weaponry to find its way to the most violent groups, and from the look of it, Syria will continue to interfere in Lebanon, in spite of the many calls by the international community to respect U.N. Resolution 1701. Assad views the application of U.N. Resolution 1559, which required Syria to evacuate its soldiers from Lebanese soil, as a defeat, and he is trying to correct it by meddling in internal Lebanese affairs — and most openly, I might add, by trying to bring down the democratically elected Siniora government.

The dream of democracy in Lebanon will always be threatened by the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad and the Iranian militant regime of Ahmadinejad by means of their proxy, Hezbollah. As other countries in the region watch, Hezbollah is calculating [wanting to spread out further still]. Democracy in Lebanon is threatened to be strangled in its cradle, and it’s only due to the courage and resilience of the Cedar Revolution, March 14 leaders, and true patriotic Lebanese, that this dream will not be abandoned. As for the region, pro-democratic activity is key, and pragmatic support of the Siniora government will carry it the extra mile.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGU0ZGQ0ZTQ1ZTM5Y2I0OGE1YThjYzBiZjZmNGZmMWI=

Monday, December 18, 2006

Syrian Miscalculations by Tariq Alhomayed, Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat


Syrian Miscalculations

14/12/2006

According to Syria's ambassador to Washington, up until a few months ago, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani used a Syrian passport, which he has now handed over. Such a statement is intended to demonstrate that Damascus has helped Iraq and the Iraqis; however, I do not understand what is new about an Iraqi official carrying a non-Iraqi passport since many carry American passports and even American mobile phones!

Syria's perpetual problem lies in miscalculations. When Syrian Vice-president Farouk al Shara recently discussed the tensions that exist in Saudi-Syrian relations, he attributed it to personal reasons, saying that "We, Arabs, become angry and calm down quickly!"

Is it really a simple case of Lebanon's stability depending on a personal opinion, and Syria shifting into a disruptive state and a means of access for Iran as a result of a moment of passing anger!?

Despite Al Shara's statement, everyone is aware of the efforts of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz to help the Syrian leadership save face during the investigation into the Hariri assassination, which resulted in the transfer of Syrian officials from Beirut to Vienna for questioning. Moreover, King Abdullah insisted that the Syrian regime and its stability should not be disturbed; controlling his anger over the murder of Hariri, whose personal relationship with the king is well documented.

Syria's miscalculations are not exclusive to this, and Farouk al Shara's words remind the entire Gulf region of Syria's stance concerning the liberation of Kuwait whilst it was under the occupation of Saddam's regime. However, at that time, Syria was under the leadership of the late President Hafez al Assad, a master politician who knew how to capitalize on circumstances. Back then, with the participation of a limited number of troops, Syria settled a number of issues, including an extensive feud with Saddam's regime that lasted for over 20 years, and resulted in such animosity that both parties plotted coups, tightened their grip on Beirut and, at that time, expelled General Michel Aoun, a Syrian ally at present.

But what cards does Syria hold today?

Nowadays, Syria has lost its playing cards in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine while completely burning its card in the Golan Heights. Syria could have held the key to many complexities, nevertheless it is now an obstacle to many, the solution to which does not begin nor end in Syria.

Present-day Damascus takes pride in James Baker’s report, nonetheless, it is apparent that it has not read the report thoroughly since Baker condemns the state more then he portrays it as a possible solution. The Iraqi President's Syrian passport is more of a condemnation of misinterpretations than proof of cooperation. Syria granted a passport with one hand and hampered Iraq with the other.

Farouk al Shara's latest statements are an embodiment of Syria's miscalculations. Syria excels the most out of all Arab states in creating hostility by use of distrustful language, whilst exerting all efforts to engage in talks with Washington. And yet Syria is pleased with The Baker Report, despite the fact that the US occupation of Iraq was merely a playing card in Syria's eyes, keeping in mind that Damascus was the only Arab representative to the Security Council when it unanimously voted to apply Chapter VII to Saddam Hussein's regime and Iraq, which meant the use of force. It is Syria now that seeks negotiation with Israel.

All statements that emerge from Damascus focus on nationalism, Arabism, heroism and overused phrases that we are fed up of hearing; regrettably however, Syria is the opposite!

by Tariq Alhomayed
Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, the youngest person to be appointed that position. Mr. Alhomayed has an acclaimed and distinguished career as a Journalist and has held many key positions in the field including; Assistant Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, Managing Editor of Asharq Al-Awsat in Saudi Arabia, Head of Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper's Bureau-Jeddah, Correspondent for Al - Madina Newspaper in Washington D.C. from 1998 to Aug 2000. Mr. Alhomyed has been a guest analyst and commentator on numerous news and current affair programs including: the BBC, German TV, Al Arabiya, Al- Hurra, LBC and the acclaimed Imad Live’s four-part series on terrorism and reformation in Saudi Arabia. He is also the first Journalist to conduct an interview with Osama Bin Ladin's Mother. Mr. Alhomayed holds a BA degree in Media studies from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, and has also completed his Introductory courses towards a Master’s degree from George Washington University in Washington D.C. He is based in London.

Interview with Syrian President Bashar Assad: 'Still they have not learned that Syria does not take instructions'


'Still they have not learned that Syria does not take instructions'

Monday, December 18, 2006

Interview

Editor's note: The following are excerpts of an interview with Syrian President Bashar Assad conducted by Alix Van Buren and published on Friday in the Italian daily La Repubblica.

DAMASCUS: Two years of diplomatic and economic isolation don't seem to have tarnished Syria President Bashar Assad's shine. The Baker plan, with its request that the White House revise its politics in the Middle East, has brought him back to the center of the international stage.

Van Buren: Mister President, two years ago you said America one day would come knocking on Syria's door. Was this a prophecy or a threat?

Assad: Listen, before the war in Iraq I told them: you are going to sink in the Iraqi swamp and you will need someone to extract you. Later, everything we said happened. But it was neither a prophecy nor a threat. Rather, this is what we have learned from our experience in the region. We live in this region, we know the course of the events, and it was proven that depending on military power alone will lead you nowhere. They need a vision. And many recommendations in the Baker report are in harmony with our vision.

Q: Some examples?

A: "Here is one: they need somebody to help them to formulate a vision ... Second, the report talks about the need for a comprehensive peace, linking the different issues in the region to the problem of occupation, in Palestine and the Golan Heights, as we always said before the war and now. Third, it recognizes the central role of Syria."

Q: Is Syria willing to cooperate?

A: Of course we are willing. Because we have an interest in solving the regional issues - Iraq, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Lebanon - because we, the neighboring countries, will be affected more than the others. But to cooperate it is not enough to have the will, nor are we the only players. To achieve a result you need all the regional and the international players around the table: the countries bordering Iraq and Israel, the United Nations, Europe and also China and Japan. And you need to get some agreement about the vision of the future from all these parties."

Q: Can Syria's interests coincide, at least temporarily, with those of the United States?

A: "Yes, if America is willing and honest: When they say we need a unified Iraq, when they say they need to stop the violence, we have common interests. When they mention the word 'peace,' if they are serious, we can work together on all these issues. But I doubt that Washington's perspective coincides with our own."

Q: Why, Mister President?

A: "Because the problem with this administration is that they mix dialogue with instructions. Judging by [President George W.] Bush's declarations a few days ago, they do not acknowledge reality, they do not want to admit they were wrong."

Q: So is it a matter of time? Are they going to make a gradual U-turn?

A: We don't know. Still they have not learned that Syria does not take instructions, it cannot be bossed around by others ... We do not work for others' interests. And these interests for Syria are recognizing our occupied land and the whole situation in the region. Will America recognize them? This is the main question."

Q: Bush said, "Syria knows what it must do." According to him, you must renounce your alliance with Iran, stop supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Iraqi terrorism?

A: "Regarding the infiltration of terrorists in Iraq, they do not believe their own accusations when they make them ... If you ask them in private meetings, they say that Syria did a good job of stopping the infiltration of foreign fighters."

Q: Do you consider you were on the winning side in supporting Hamas and Hizbullah?

A: "... One of our principles is that if this organization represents the majority of people then we have to deal with it. The landslide victory of Hamas at the elections proved that we were right, because we stood by the majority of the Palestinian people. The same applies to Hizbullah. But there is a second aspect: We share the same problems. We all have occupied lands, in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Syria. And we have the same occupier or, if we want to be honest, the same enemy."

Q: You mean Israel? Is it the eternal enemy?

A: "No, when there is peace. You can live in peace and harmony side by side, but first of all you must achieve peace."

Q: What are the main obstacles?

A: "There are no obstacles in Syria. We have the full support of the Syrian people to achieve peace because we are going to get back our land. The real question is, is Israel ready to accept peace?"

Q: [Israeli] Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert said the time is not yet ripe to open a dialogue with Syria, and that the Bush administration is against it too. How do you respond?

A: "This means they do not want peace. But the most important thing, as you said, is that Washington doesn't want that. This means this is a weak [Israeli] government, it allows Washington to take the decision instead ... Weak governments can make war but cannot achieve peace. Peace is much more difficult than war."

Q: Israeli military intelligence said Syria is massing ... missiles along its borders, has learned lessons from the war in Lebanon and is preparing for a military campaign. Is the intelligence correct?

A: "You know we are still in a state of war with Israel because they still occupy our land. Secondly, we have to anticipate that Israel could launch a war against Syria at any time. They say in their statements that they may think of war against Hizbullah and Syria next summer. Third, they attempted to violate our airspace several times in the past five years. They even attacked the Syrian Army. So it is not a fantasy to say that war is a possibility in our region. And it is normal to prepare yourself for such a war, and one of the ways to prepare yourself is to learn lessons from other wars, especially the neighboring wars. But that doesn't mean that 'massing missiles' is a correct description."

Q: And what about Syria rearming Hizbullah, as Israel maintains?

A: "Listen, they have satellites, they have all the UNIFIL soldiers, all their intelligence in Lebanon, of the army, of the government, while we have none in Lebanon. With all these people and means, why do they not stop the rearmament, if it is true?"

Q: Does Syria support UN Security Council Resolution 1710 on disarming Hizbullah?

A: "We have some reservations on it but we support it because we want to stop the war and we want stability in Lebanon because the Lebanese in the end are paying the price and we are going to pay the price with them. But we said it is a temporary solution. Like a cease-fire, if you do not follow it up with political action, like working for peace, it can not last long ..."

Q: On the sidelines of the G8 summit, Bush said that "all that is needed is to get Syria to get Hizbullah to quit all that s**t, and everything is over." Can you really stop Hizbullah with a wink of your eye, if we wish you to do so?

A: "No, this is an exaggeration. They want to depict Hizbullah as a Syrian or Iranian puppet. Hizbullah represents a large part of the Lebanese. They have their own interests and their own vision which we share with them. We have a dialogue with them and, of course, with many Lebanese parties. They trust Syria and because of that we can have influence. But it does not mean that if we go against their interests they will listen to Syria."

Q: Yet Bush and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused you attempting a "coup d'etat" against the government in Beirut through your support of Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. How do you respond?

A: "The more I hear the statements by the current US administration, the more I

am convinced that when they see something, they see it in the opposite way ... We have an interest in the stability of Lebanon, so we cannot be with one party against the other. Sharing the vision of Hizbullah does not mean supporting it against the others. We support every matter of consensus about the Lebanese. It will

take time before this

consensus emerges. Then we will support it. We want to be in the middle, always."

Q: So it is not true that you want to regain influence in Lebanon?

A: "We have influence in Lebanon, we never lost it. But that does not mean interference. Our influence does not come from a relation with a superpower. We get it from our history and our geography ... Geographically, Lebanon is surrounded by Syria, the depth of Lebanon is Syria. But it is a two-way relationship: Lebanon also has influence in Syria because of its position and its social ties."

Q: Why are you so much against the international tribunal that will try the criminals behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri?

A: "We are not against it. We have an interest in cooperating with the investigation commission to uncover the truth of the crime. But this is different from the international tribunal. First of all, they did not consult us. The tribunal is a treaty between the United Nations and the Lebanese government. We are a state, we have our Constitution and laws. And without a treaty, we cannot allow any tribunal to work in the place of our government. It is like giving up your sovereignty."

Q: Mister President, you talk about peace, about consensus. Yet one of your closest allies, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says he wants to wipe Israel off the world map. How does that fit with your quest for peace?

A: "Iranians are not against the peace process ... They

never tried to stop us from starting the peace talks, not in the past and not now. As to his words, you may read what they said in Haaretz a few days ago: 'No Palestinians. No Palestine. No Problems' ... They started this logic."

Q: So what is at the core of your alliance with Tehran?

A: "Tehran supported Syria. That's enough. The whole world wanted to isolate Syria and they stood beside us ... Iran is an important country, therefore Europe and America have to talk with it, and we have to have good relations with Iran for the stability of the region, including that of Iraq."

Q: Can Syria help stabilize Iraq?

A: "Again, we are not the only player. We can support a national Iraqi conference between the different factions with regional support ... We also resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq ... However when talking about Iraq, one must not lose sight of the larger picture. As I said, all the different issues in the region are linked to the problem of occupation. The Baker report is very clear on this point: It starts with Iraq but it ends up talking about peace ..."

Q: Is the Madrid Conference on your mind?

A: "This is the only appropriate base for the peace talks. The principle of Madrid was clear: 'land for peace.' Much was achieved during the Rabin government, and anyone who wants to start from point Zero does not want to achieve peace because it means they don't agree on things already agreed on. As to the centrality of the Palestinian issue in the Arab world, those who do not recognize it are not realistic: They will achieve nothing."

Q: Did you get positive reactions form the European envoys that came to Damascus?

A: "When we talk about Europe, it should be a bridge with the United States ... It should not limit itself, as sometimes happens, to come to our region with American ideas, to convince us. But the role of Europe is limited by the role of the United States ... and also by its own internal divisions, before the war on Iraq and now. We cannot talk about Europe as such, but rather about some players, such as the role by Italy and Spain."

Q: Do you expect positive results from the dialogue with Italy?

A: "Our relation with Italy has improved a lot with [Prime Minister Romano] Prodi ... He knows our region and understands the events very well. Sometimes Italy and Syria see things from different angles and this is normal. The other side is that he has credibility and this is very important for cooperation. But we are still at the beginning of the dialogue. It must mature, because we live in international circumstances where Italy and Syria alone are not enough, we have to move with the rest of the players, with a common vision."

Q: You are speaking again like a central actor of the international scene. Do you feel vindicated now?

A: "You must remember than a little more than one year ago America said we were irrelevant, weak, that we had no role. The latest developments have vindicated us. Actually, whoever talks about isolating Syria is isolating themselves from the region. If you look at many countries who participated in the attempts of isolating Syria, now they cannot play any constructive role."

Q: Who are you thinking about?

A: "Let's say France for example. If you talk about the peace initiative by France, Italy and Spain, we cooperate with Rome and Madrid. But not with Paris: because of their policies, because they no longer have the credibility to play such a role."

Q: Some would object that during this time there was in Syria a tightening of liberties. That civil right activists and political dissidents were imprisoned for their opinions, the most quoted case is that of Michel Kilo. How do you reply to such criticism?

A: "Firstly we don't allow anyone to interfere in our domestic issues. We know what to do, whether we do it right or wrong ... Second, Michel Kilo did not go to prison because he had a different opinion. He was tried in a normal court. He has a relation with a party in Lebanon which publicly invited the United States to attack Syria and occupy Damascus. This party is against Syria according to the law."

Q: Mister President, do you still want to open up the Syrian society to democracy?

A: "Political and economic reforms proceed in tandem. But there is an issue of priorities. Which means which one [do you] you have to focus on more? What is urgent in Syria? Poverty. This is the most important challenge. We don't say we're going to focus on the political side and not the economic but rather we look for what the people want. But in the end that is why I want to be a man of peace. When there is peace you will have prosperity in the broader sense. Economy, society, culture, all are related. So you can be a man of war or a man of peace. I have made my choice. Peace is central if you want to leave a fingerprint in the history of your country."

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Interview: Elias Bejjani interviews Ahmad Al Assad


Interview: Elias Bejjani interviews Ahmad Al Assad


Dear, it is my pleasure to share with you distinguishable audio 37 minutes interview that Elias Bejjani conducted Dec. 15th with Ahmad Al Assaed, Chairman for the Lebanese Kafaat Movement.


Ahmad's father - Kamal Al Assad was Speaker of the Parliament in Lebanon

It is posted on the LCCC web site http://www.10452lccc.com

Friday, December 15, 2006

Former Ambassador and Intelligence Chief interview on LBC TV


Former Ambassador and Intelligence Chief interview on Lebanese TV
Kalam Al Nass, Friday December 15th, 2006

In a revealing interview - Johnny Abdo, once considered for President Lahoud's replacement - before the Syrians reinstated Lahoud, Said in an Interview on LBC the following shocking statements:

- Hizbullah doesn't want 1/3 of the Government - they want it all, this is just the first step.

- Hizbullah / Iran / Syria they don't want a Presidential election - rather they want to stall the Presidential election when this Presidents term expires - to have a state without a head - further destabilizing the government for its ripe takeover.

- March 14 forces should not negotiate with Arab League Amr Moussa and Sudan envoy - this is just giving into their demands.

- If they keep saying that the March 14 are agents and spies of America and Israel and they say they want to make a unity government with us - then how can they make a unity government with spies? Thus they must not be telling us the truth.

- There should not be any more Dialogue Discussions - The Dialogue doesn't represent Lebanon - the Parliament represents Lebanon. Everything discussed in the dialogue has to get parliaments approval anyway. If you want to discuss issues such as the tribunal then they should tell the Speaker to Open a Session of Parliament, we meet, we discuss, and then we vote on it.

- Berri was selected by Hizbullah to be speaker and all other candidates were threatened - so this is proof that their arms are being used inside Lebanon - to intimidate the Lebanese.

- Nasrallah did a lot of favors to Syria and Iran with the July War, so if needed he can ask for a favor in return - so if Nasrallah wanted to help Lebanon then he could tell Syria to stop undermining Lebanon and give us our space to solve our own problems.

- They don't want to because they gave Hizbullah weapons for a reason - they (Iran/Syria) have a Master Plan.

- Abdo said that a politician told Nasrallah - do you know that the downtown is losing 70 - 80 Million $'s a month, and Nasrallah did not give a positive response.

- Abdo said that he doesn't think Hizbullah is going to attack the Grand Serial because if they did so it would spawn the Sunni's to respond, so they will use the Christian Aoun group so as to 1. separate the Christians and 2. not challenge the Sunni's.

- Abdo said that there will be more assassinations because Iran and Syria see this as the time. He said it is revealing that the killing is towards one side only.

- Abdo asked how can this government be unconstitutional? Constitution comes from experts; it's not up to Berri or Lahoud to interpret. But, if they think it is unconstitutional then why are they on the street? Means it is constitutional. Also, he asked how can it be unconstitutional when we had democratic elections, the UN supported, the world powers support?

- Abdo said you can't trust Aoun, because he agrees on one side and then on the other side he does what is good for his own personal goals. Even in France, he said that Aoun use to agree and then do otherwise. He said - remember Aoun's war in Souk El Gharb to liberate Lebanon from the Syrians and a lot of Lebanese died and look now he is defending Syria and Iran? When he was in France he accused Syria, now if someone is assassinated and they accuse Syria he comes out in defense of Syria.

- Abdo also said that when you ask Hizbullah about Hamas Government they say that they were elected by the people and thus are constitutional, but when you ask them about Siniora's elected government they say that they are not constitutional.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Hizbullah is facing even more Shi'ite Rejection


Hizbullah is facing even more Shi'ite Rejection


Sheikh Subhi Al-Tufayli - The first Secretary General of Hizbullah - In Revealing Statements on LBC


On LBC, Wednesday, December 13th, 2006 the former first secretary-general of Hezbollah, who was considered the highest religious authority in Baalbek as evident by his nomination as 'president of the envisioned Islamic Republic' in Baalbek in 1984, Sheikh Subhi al-Tufayli - in a very surprising revealation said that


"Hizbullah is taking their orders directly from Iran"


And to Iran he said


"If you want to break America in Lebanon - Don't You know that America is Closer to You in Iraq then they are here in Lebanon - Thus the Conclusion is that you have other Motives for Being here in Lebanon"!!!

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Senator Bill Nelson in Meeting with Assad - Assad Shows His True Colors!


Senator Bill Nelson in Meeting with Assad - Assad Shows His True Colors!

Senator Bill Nelson's Message to ALL LEBANESE AMERICANS - IN NO WAY WILL LEBANON'S INDEPENDENCE BE DISCUSSED. BOTH SIDES OF CAPITOL HILL SUPPORT A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC LEBANON.

Breaking News

Senator Bill Nelson's meeting with Assad

Nelson's Visit to Damascus – Revealing, Clashes, Disagreements Showing Clear Signals that Negotiations with Syria are One Way.

Syria's arrogance and non cooperation highlighted

Reports from the region and reports from the Senator calling AP network news -the meeting did not go as smooth as once thought.

Some in the Press are describing the meeting as an utter disaster and failure, in which Syria's arrogance and non-cooperation were clearly displayed.

When the Senator said the US, and both sides of Capitol Hill - Democrats and Republicans are UNDIVIDED on its support of the Siniora government, in a Surprise move the Syrian President abruptly said that Syria flatly does not support the democratically elected government of Siniora.

Assad after the meeting called for no foreign intervention in Lebanon. This statement is shocking and reveals the true nature of negotiations with Syria. On one side Syria orders nations not to interfere with Lebanon, but while on the other side is interfering in Lebanon more than any other nation or even the Lebanese itself.

Syria withdrew its military from Lebanon last year after a successful attempts by the United States, France and the UN. But, retains an extensive amount of intelligence agents operating in the Country that have infiltrated the highest levels. These agents are clearly undermining the Democratically elected government of Lebanon. Syria, according to John Bolton and Press reports, are violating UN Resolution 1559 and 1701 by supplying arms to sides in Lebanon, and not respected Lebanon's Independence and Sovereignty. Syria also has not made any headway on opening an embassy in Lebanon and demarcating the border with Lebanon.

In an Associated Press report October 31, 2006

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, expressed concern that Syria and Iran are trying to destabilize Lebanon's democratically elected government by violating a UN arms embargo.

Bolton stressed on Monday that Syria's obligations to respect a UN arms embargo authorized by the August Security Council resolution that ended the 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah "are particularly important as it is the one country other than Israel that borders Lebanon."
.
.
.
In a speech to the UN Security Council, Bolton welcomed the Lebanese government's extension of its authority throughout the south of the country for the first time in almost 40 years, as well as its army's deployment along the eastern part of the UN-drawn boundary with Israel and the border with Syria.

"Despite this advance, we continue to be concerned that Syria and Iran are actively trying to destabilize the democratically elected government of Lebanon ...," he said. "We call on Syria and Iran to abide by their bligations to respect Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence."
.
.
.
.
Bolton made the remarks to the closed-door council meeting on the implementation of Resolution 1559, which was adopted in September 2004 and called for the
extension of Lebanese authority throughout the south and the disarming of all militias in the country.

The Security Council said in a presidential statement at the end of the meeting that "important progress" has been made toward the implementation of Resolution 1559, particularly through the deployment of the Lebanese army in south Lebanon.

But the council also noted "with regret" that some provisions of the resolution have yet to be implemented, namely the disbanding of militias, strict respect for Lebanon's "sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence," and free and fair presidential elections "without any foreign interference and influence."

To further complicate matters - Hizbullah claims disputes with Israel over the Shebaa farms, but in reality the Lebanon's major border disputes are with Syria - in which no less then 36 areas of Lebanon are being occupied by Syria - this according to an official Lebanese Army Map.
In the Washington Post this morning the Clash of Different Minds and Approaches to Lebanon and the Region were highlighted:

"he (Senator Bill Nelson) acknowledged that he and Assad had "sharp differences" over U.S. support of the Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, which Assad told Nelson he does not back, the senator said. They also had serious differences over Syria's support for Hezbollah and Hamas, which the United States considers terrorist organizations.

The Orlando Sentinel said in its edition this morning that:

"The Florida Democrat said the two clashed, though, on other Middle East issues, such as Syrian opposition to the Lebanese government."

As Nelson debriefed reporters by phone Wednesday morning from the U.S. embassy in Jordan, the White House put out a tough statement by President Bush calling for political prisoners to be released and saying "Syrians deserve a government whose legitimacy is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force."

Nelson's office here in the United States clearly stated that the Senator wants to get this message across to All Lebanese Americans: In no way did he begin or entertain any negotiations on Lebanon’s Independence, In no way was this a meeting to negotiate away Lebanon’s future, and that the Senator clearly stated that both sides of Capital Hill supported a Free and Democratic Lebanon.

For its part the President of The United States came out in Support of Lebanon’s Freedom and Independence from foreign intervention yesterday. In a White House
Statement President Bush said the following:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary

December 13, 2006

President's Statement on the Government of Syria

The United States supports the Syrian people's desire for democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression. Syrians deserve a government whose legitimacy
is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force.

The Syrian regime should immediately free all political prisoners, including Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, Anwar al-Bunni, Mahmoud Issa, and Kamal Labwani. I am deeply troubled by reports that some ailing political prisoners are denied health care while others are held in cells with violent criminals.

Syria should disclose the fate and whereabouts of the many missing Lebanese citizens who "disappeared" following their arrest in Lebanon during the decades of Syrian military occupation. The Syrian regime should also cease its efforts to undermine Lebanese sovereignty by denying the Lebanese people their right to participate in the democratic process free of foreign intimidation and
interference.

The people of Syria hope for a prosperous future with greater opportunities for their children, and for a government that fights corruption, respects the rule of law, guarantees the rights of all Syrians, and works toward achieving peace in the region.

Clearly Syria does not get the message on Lebanon from the Lebanese or the International Community. And, Clearly Senator Bill Nelson is getting the Message that Negotiations with Syria is One Sided.

Editor, WCCR

Sunday, December 10, 2006

IRAN NEEDS A CHANGE OF DIRECTION by Walid Phares and Behrooz Bahbudi


The Washington Post
Sunday, December 10, 2006

IRAN NEEDS A CHANGE OF DIRECTION by Walid Phares and Behrooz Bahbudi

Iran’s President, M Mahmoud Ahmedinijad recently sent a letter to the American people explaining his views and the views of his regime regarding America, its values and US policy worldwide. We, the authors of this fourth letter to the American People, wish to respond to Tehran’s ruler and inform the public in both nations about the realities of Iran’s involvements in world crisis. We wish to create a better understanding between the American and Iranian peoples and between all Democracies and Democracy-loving societies for a better future.

On the disastrous Foreign Policy

Under President Ahmedinijad and since the so-called Khomeinist revolution, Iran’s foreign policy in the region and worldwide has been moving from one disaster to another. Instead of addressing the pressing socio-economic and cultural crisis in the country, a clan among the Mullahs grabbed power and dragged Iran into internal violence, Jihadi demagogy, destructive wars and Terrorism. The Oil revenues were diverted to buy weapons for new expansionist wars, creating HizbAllah in Lebanon and backing Terror groups worldwide. What did the regime’s foreign policy achieve for the Iranian people and for peace? Only disasters:

- The regime spent billions of dollars on acquiring weapons and equipping the Guardians of the Revolution (Pasdaran) and the Basij (regime’s militia) for the purpose of keeping the masses under oppression and intimidating neighboring countries.

- The regime sent hundreds million dollars to feed a Terrorist organization in Lebanon, endangering the country’s Shiia community and breaking its precarious community balance. Weapons were shipped to southern Lebanon to trigger bloody regional wars instead of
defending Iran’s national soil.

- The regime formed an axis with another oppressive regime in Syria, putting Iran at odds with the moderate Arab world and making Iran an associate in the brutalization of both Syrian and Lebanese Peoples.

- The regime funded Hamas and Islamic Jihad with the goal of taking over the Palestinian Authority and blocking any Peace Process between Arabs and Israel.

- The regime has since April of 2003, along with its axis partner, fueled insurrection and terror in neighboring Iraq, dragging its long oppressed Shiia community into sectarian tensions with the Sunnis and weakening the moderate and enlightened leadership of
Grand Ayatollah Sistani through the support for radical Muqtada al Sadr.

- The regime has been exporting its Terrorist foreign policy throughout the world. Argentina has indicted a number of officials in the bombings of 1993. Venezuela’s populist President, Hugo Chavez, is now the chief associate of Tehran’s rulers in his attempt to world instability.

- And worse of all, Iran’s regime and its head Ahmedinijad are challenging the world with irresponsible and dangerous nuclear projects that would bring disaster to the Iranian People and catastrophes to the region.

On the disastrous domestic policy

The regime in Tehran, and especially under Ahmedinijad, has been conducting disastrous policies towards the Iranian people, economy, cultures, and social well being. Since 1979, the overwhelming majority of Iranians, Persians and minorities alike, have been abandoned by their authorities to a miserable state of affairs. In addition to the suppression of freedoms and liberties, Iranians were deprived of the benefits of their nation’s rich resources, while a tiny ruling ideological faction lives in comfort and delusion.

The Iranian public continues to suffer from a fundamental suppression of basic rights, including political, social and cultural. The oppressive machine of the regime has physically eliminated any form of credible opposition. Political parties opposed to the Khomeinist rule are banned and their leaders executed. The country resembles Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia in the 20th century.

- Iranian women, the single largest social component of the Iranian nation, have been marginalized, suppressed and subjected to insulting status. As under the Taliban, but with cosmetics, half of the nation is obstructed from producing, expanding and creating its own talents.

- The youth of the country, generation after generation, are channeled into militarism and xenophobia instead of enabled to develop freely and constructively like their counter part around the world.

- The country’s economy is in ruin with the stretching of Iran’s oil industry into becoming a factory feeding wars and terror instead of prosperity and progress.Every sector in Iran is in decay and its socio-financial structure is in jeopardy, thanks to the Khamenei-Ahmedinijad agenda of state Jihadism, instead of social advancement.

We believe that Iran’s People deserve a better leadership and a better life, and that the region and the world deserve a better Iran. If there should be a change of direction in the Middle East it should start in Iran and with its regime.

- First, the Iranian regime should cease its intervention in Iraq and withdraw its operatives from the country.

- Second, the Iranian regime must stop its financial and military backing of HizbAllah in Lebanon, and withdraw its weapons deployed in that country. Tehran must spend the billions of dollars in aid to Mr Hassan Nasrallah on the poor people in Iran’s major cities and countryside.

- Third, the Iranian regime should eliminate all its support to international Terrorism and abrogate its military axis with the Syrian regime. It should stop its military adventures with North Korea and Venezuela, which are a threat to world peace.

- Fourth, the Iranian regime should comply with the international agreement on the nuclear industry and refrain from building a nuclear weapon.

- Fifth, the Iranian regime should reestablish democracy in Iran, accept the formation of free political parties, liberate women, and tolerate minorities’ cultures.

- Sixth, the Iranian regime should put the well being of all Iranians ahead of any state policy of aggression, expansion and intimidation.

We call on all Iranians, Middle Easterners, Americans and all democratic societies to join a global movement in support of Iran’s people in their quest to obtain the most important rights: self governance and freedom.


Dr Walid Phares Dr Behrooz Bahbudi
Senior Fellow President
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Global Unity Partnership

PS: The article is published in the paper edition only

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Iraqization is right, but surrendering to fascist regimes is wrong, Walid Phares

Iraqization is right, but surrendering to fascist regimes is wrong
By Walid Phares, Washington DC, December 6, 2006. Mideast Newswire

In his first analysis of the the Iraq Study Group recommendations, Mideast expert Walid Phares told three media outlets in the US, Europe, and the Middle East, that "the Iraq Study Group's recommendations resemble a salad bowl. The document contains some rational suggestions that should have been adopted by the Bush Administration years ago, and also some suicidal ideas that were tested decades ago and failed miserably." Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC and author of Foreign Affairs best seller Future Jihad, was interviewed by Al Muharer al Arabi, Radio Free Iraq, and the Jack Ricardi radio show in the US. "These are only the first reactions to a comprehensive document; there will be a thorough analysis of the report from both American and Middle Eastern perspectives."


Phares told Al Muharer al Arabi that the global recommendation "to engage Iran and Syria's regimes positively and constructively means that they were mistreated before. My first question to the authors of the report is this: how was the United States mistreating these regimes in the past? Was asking Ahmedinejad to stop making a nuclear bomb and asking Assad of Syria to withdraw from Lebanon following a UN resolution signs of bad treatment? Were these demands wrong in their essence? Do they give Iran and Syria the right to feel victimized? If one perceives US action in this way, then all what Washington has to do is to release pressure on the Mullah to build their weapons and ask Assad to send his Army back to Lebanon" Phares added, "the public in America and the people in the region are not as naive as they were before 9/11. They will ask the hard questions when the time comes. The so-called engagement recommendation is a relic from the past and sounds like a suicidal idea. For surrendering to fascist regimes - regimes that are rejected by their own people - is utterly wrong." However on the Iraq restructuring suggestions, Phares told Radio Iraq and other radio shows that "the idea of the Iraqization process is a right one and has always received a consensus among Iraqis and Americans. General Abizaid and many others have voiced these suggestions in the past in the US and in Iraq." But Phares concluded by asking "how can we press for empowering the Iraqis on the ground on the one hand while surrendering their fate to Iran and Syria through diplomatic means on the other? That sounds like a recipe for chaos to me."

In a previous interview with Radio Free Iraq few days before the release of the report, Dr Phares said: "many ideas and suggestions are on the table, but one matter should be clear: there shouldn't be a return of dictatorship to Iraq and a return of Syrian occupation in Lebanon. On the other hand, inserting US forces within Iraqi forces should have been the initial plan. Listen to the interview in Arabic here Radio Free Iraq

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

EDUCATION VERSUS JIHAD, Cover Story – HS Today November 2006 Vol. 3, No.11, By Walid Phares


Friends, please find a special study, titled "Education versus Jihad," published as this month's cover story of HS Today, the monthly Magazine, Homeland Security Today. It summarizes my thoughts on the real battle in America's War on Terror and the recommendations I make to the US Government, both Administration and Congress - Walid Phares.

EDUCATION VERSUS JIHAD

Knowledge provides strategic depth for America and the West against the jihadist onslaught, argues the author, and there are specific steps we must take to protect the homeland.

Cover Story – HS Today November 2006 Vol. 3, No.11

By Walid Phares

In the few hours following the terrorist attacks on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, media in the United States began looking for answers. The very first series of questions asked by all was indicative of the state of mind of most Americans: “Why do they hate us?” Five years later, as we analyze the conflict from a homeland security and war on terrorism perspective, and probably years from now, when historians have had enough time to contemplate it, the bigger question regarding the 9/11 attacks will be: “Why didn’t Americans know?” Indeed, as I argued in my book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America and the West, one of the most dramatic failures of US strategic defense against Al Qaeda on Sept. 11 and against the jihadist war against America during the 1990s was that neither the government nor the public knew they were at war and that a terrorist declaration of war had been in effect against America for years.

The central conclusion of the 9/11 Commission’s examination of the failure was that “Americans had a failure of imagination”—meaning that even if the US was better equipped technologically and more alert on intelligence levels, something was missing in the US resistance to terrorism. The commission was unable to comprehend why analysts, decision makers and leaders—even as information about fragments of threats poured in— didn’t conclude that there was an Al Qaeda offensive and, more dangerously, that a global jihadist war had been mobilizing forces around the world and within the West against democracies, in general, and America, in particular. One of the commissioners, during the summer 2004 hearings, asked repeatedly: “Why didn’t the US government acknowledge that a war was declared in 1996 and in 1998 against America?”

Many US leaders and commentators after him added: Why hadn’t we declared war back at them, before the attacks took place, if, indeed, the jihadists have been on the offensive for a decade?

These and other questions continue to haunt US counterterrorism strategists, legislators, security planners, academic researchers and, obviously, citizens at large. The weight of this inquiry is increasing, as the public knows that 9/11 wasn’t a single event in America’s history but, unfortunately and dramatically, a single benchmark in a series of past and future attacks and offensives against US interests worldwide and, more importantly, the national security of the homeland.

The eyes and ears of the American public and international public opinion have been absorbing the escalation of violence in acts and rhetoric by the various jihadist groups worldwide— from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Madrid to London—over the past five years since the Manhattan massacre. The speeches by Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and, lately, their American product, Adam Gadahn, as well as the fiery declarations by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, if anything have showed that radical Islamists, regimes and organizations are massing resources to further attack not only the US presence overseas but, more worrisomely, America’s homeland.

Thus, with all this pressure on the country’s national security and its economic and demographic future, answering the basic questions since 9/11 becomes crucial. More and more of these fundamental questions are still lingering over matters related to homeland security, foreign policy, counterterrorism and justice: After “why do they hate us?” another question has been raised in the debate: “Who are they?”

Indeed, as we watch Al Qaeda undergoing a metamorphosis from a regime-protected network in Afghanistan to a landless web of branches around the world, the US and Europe are increasingly encountering a second-generation Al Qaeda and, even beyond it, what governments are now identifying as “homegrown” jihadists.

This troubling development of the enemy of 2001 into a hybrid of new shades of terrorists in 2006 is not really due to the changing nature of the threat but to the initial misunderstanding of its nature by Americans and democracies in general. For it is clear to connoisseurs of jihadism that mutation is one of its essential characteristics. It should also be understood that, given its ideology and history, jihadism, far from being a mere emotional reaction to American or other foreign policies, “is” by itself a movement with goals, strategies and changing tactics.
Unfortunately, most Americans weren’t enabled to absorb the basics of their rising enemy so that they could prepare, mobilize and win. But beyond the 911 Commission’s conclusion of a “failure in imagination,” I have argued, and continue to argue that the initial and structural failure of understanding is in western and, specifically, American education.
Here is why:


CULTURAL INABILITY

If you look at all incidents that involved intercepting, interpreting and learning about terrorism directed against America— specifically, the jihadist type—throughout the decade that preceded 911, you’ll realize that, in most cases, both overseas and domestically a black hole dominated the decision making process regarding both preemption of jihadism and consequences of falling to do so.

In 1993, the US government treated the Twin Towers attacks as “a police operation” with criminal ramifications, not as an operation by a worldwide jihadist movement. This gave the enemy eight years to prepare future attacks. In 1996, the takeover of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the war fatwa issued by Bin Laden were treated as matters of foreign policy.
In 1998, Al Qaeda’s second declaration of war and the subsequent attacks against the embassies in Africa were treated as terror strikes, but not as a war of ideas followed by a war of terror. After the failed attempt to attack airliners over the Pacific (the “Bojinka” plot) and the millennium conspiracies, came the USS Cole attack. During these years of jihadist offensives, the government was advised by experts and academics who dismissed jihadism as a threat and recommended the opposite of a US War on Terror—i.e., a demobilization of the forces facing this specific ideology.

But more dismaying was the fact that the public was not informed of the threats against the homeland, precisely because the classrooms, the backbone of the nation’s future, were misinformed and the talents graduating year after year were deprived of the right to learn about the threat and, therefore, to serve their government and nation proportionally to the menace.

American graduates of Middle East studies, history and security studies weren’t equipped with the right knowledge. Hence, their final professional destinations suffered from this miseducation. If one reviews the curriculum in place between 1980 (when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran) and 2001 (when Bin Laden attacked America), one can see an inexplicable and immense hole in teaching students about the roots, development, rise, logic, strategies, tactics, methodologies and literature of the movements that targeted the US during those two decades. It was an educational breach of historical dimension. Why did it happen?

THE WAR ON US EDUCATION: 1980s-1 990s

One of the major results of the 1973 oil crisis was the rise of a determination by many oil producing regimes that the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, “understand” the greater Middle East, the Arab and the Muslim world and, accordingly, design its policies toward those regimes and ideologies on the basis of this “understanding.”

As a result, millions of dollars were invested in American and European educational institutions as a way to “foster” this understanding. But instead of fostering an objective understanding or spreading impartial knowledge, the growing influence of Wahabism, an extreme form of Islam, and other such ideologies on the nation’s campuses played a dangerous role: Because of the ideological nature of the donors, the financed programs followed the guidelines of the donor regimes and organizations, which obviously narrowed research and teaching to issues remote from the major historical crisis in the region, other than the modern Arab-Israeli conflict. It removed all serious attention to the rise of Islamism, jihadism and even Baathism, as well as the deep ethnic and religious conflicts and the mass abuse of human rights in that part of the world.

A careful review of curricula and research projects established within the US educational system, both public and private, since the 1980s stunningly reveals that American classrooms were deprived of knowledge on social, historical, ethnic and ideological movements rising to challenge the United States. Moreover, as I taught comparative studies for over a decade and lectured on many campuses in the 1990s, I came to realize that defense, strategic and security studies were heavily influenced by “regional” studies when it came to identifying the backgrounds of international terrorist movements emerging from the greater Middle East and penetrating western societies. History and Middle Eastern studies had been corrupted by Wahabi and other funding with an impact on political science, international relations and, ultimately, defense and security studies across the land.

A thorough review of the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, the Middle East Studies Association of America, the International Studies Association, the Middle East Institute and other professional education associations, of the hundreds of books, publications, articles, talks and research grants distributed by Ivy League universities and other colleges lead to only one conclusion: The gap is immense. There are no traces of the roots of jihadism and its long-term objectives against democracies and the United States. Instead, prominent scholars produced an enormous amount of literature precisely deflecting scholars and students away from the most serious issues related to American defense and security after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The “hole” was so vast and the “deflection” (not to use the term “deception”) so wide that a systemic problem strode the field producing waves of effects into the professional worlds of the media and policy. An academic lobotomy led to an incapacitation of the public learning process about the national security threat and created a cultural crisis in perception. In short, if one isn’t taught about the political thinking of the enemy and his ideological objectives in the classroom, where else would one catch up?

MOLLIFICATION OF NATIONAL PERCEPTION

With this systemic crisis inside America’s educational system expanding during the 199 Os, a “mollification” of the national perception of the threat began. Deprived of the basic data and information about the terrorist threat, citizens were at the mercy of the elites’ debates. The latter, during the years leading to 9/11, were increasingly apologetic toward America’s most lethal enemies: Salafist and Khomeinist jihadists.

Despite the series of attacks, speeches and visible moves of radical jihadists worldwide, US national perception was blurred by the academic and educational deflection. Jihadism, for example, was described by leading “specialists,” many of whom have advised media and government for years, as a “theological experiment and spiritual phenomenon.”

Those who spread the doctrine of jihadism in America during the 1 990s had no counter check from the public or government, while even a minimal manifestation of Nazism, anti- Semitism or domestic violent racism was quickly countered. Clearly, Americans never lacked for imagination, but they were deprived of the necessary information.


THE WAR OF IDEAS AND DERAILMENT
OF NATIONAL ANALYSIS

When historians analyze the War on Terror in the near future, they will most likely look back at the war of ideas preceding 9/11 and understand the role academia played as a central battlefield leading to the weakening and defeat of the country, before it rose back in resistance. For if the fields of foreign policy, regional studies and international relations teaching—the most sensitive feeders for security and defense decision-making—were obsolete in identifying the “enemy,” all that is left to national security is the last shield, which is the hope that intelligence and counterterrorism sensors can catch the raiders at the doors or beyond the gates. And that’s what didn’t occur in 1993, 1998 and 2001.The terror offensive against America was preceded by a War of Ideas, blurring the eyes of the nation.

"Derailing National Analysis"

If intellectual blurring starts in classrooms, it soon reaches the newsrooms and, eventually, the intelligence rooms and war rooms. If young Americans are mistaught the ideology, political culture and intentions of the enemy while at school and in college, once graduated, they will carry this misperception with them as they find jobs and are recruited in all the layers of national analysis. Students enter the media, legislative research, security, intelligence, foreign policy, justice, think tanks and other sectors crucial for national decision making at the bottom levels and rise up to the ultimate positions.

By failing students in the classrooms, the educational system caused a national analysis failure: Media failed to report terrorism as it should have, impacting government’s various levels of policymaking; intelligence analysis, deprived of cultural understanding, saw the data but couldn’t put the bigger picture together; courts couldn’t process the concepts of terrorism beyond criminality; and, ultimately, both the legislative and executive branches were denied sound advice on the war already in progress against the country.
In conclusion, the failure in education led to a derailment of national analysis.

REACTION TO 911: HOMELAND SECURITY

The public and the political leadership had to react to 9111 by sheer instinct, both overseas and domestically, rather than rely on knowledgeable analysis. The War on Terror’s first counteroffensive took down the Taliban regime from Afghanistan. The second counteroffensive brought down Saddarn Hussein, but not without generating a severe and continuing debate on the Iraq war at home and internationally.

Here again, the past systemic educational crisis of the 1980s and 1990s deprived the public and even politicians from solid ground on which to engage in an educated discussion on Iraq, Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and beyond. Even though Americans have deep instincts regarding the “intentions” of the enemy, they surely rely on the expert elite to provide the objective and raw education and information about the foe—in this case, the totalitarian forces and the jihadists, in particular. That is the first current problem.

The second problem has to do with internal national security. Also by sheer instinct, America rushed to establish its Department of Homeland Security, a vital organ in the defense of the nation: The 19 perpetrators of 9/11, but also the dirty bomb maker; the Virginia palnt ball gang; the American fighters with Al Qaeda and the various US-born jihadists have all penetrated American national defense or been raised and tralned inside the homeland.

As detailed in Future Jihad, in one of the most extreme scenarios—parts of which are now coming to fruition—future jihads will launch as a result of the growth of the jihadist ideology inside the United States and a subsequent recruitment to action. Clearly, more jihadist terror is to be expected—not less—if only because the doctrinal factory is still working, with greater technological resources at its command.

Hence, the essence of homeland security resides in its ability to mobilize the public and its talents and isolate the wouldbe terrorists before they become actual terrorists and strike.


EDUCATION AND US HOMELAND SECURITY

As a result of the situation I have described, it is crucial for US homeland security to operate with a full understanding of the ideology and strategies of the terrorists, particularly those publicly threatening this nation and other democracies-the jihadist terrorists. But in order to win the War on Terror within the national territory, homeland security must be able to count on the public and its resources and talents. To make the point again: The real field of resistance to terror is in the wider national and local communities.
Isolation of the menace of terrorism starts within society. A more enlightened classroom will provide a more equipped society. Also, a more readied public will better understand and assist the ethnic communities struggling against terrorism. Instead of leaving extremists to take leadership of vulnerable communities, a better-educated liberal and anti-terrorist youth can help mobilize against it. On a national scale, Americans should be educated to identify the ideology instead of relying on negative ethnic stereotypes.
As a result of that intellectual empowerment, society could be the first line of defense against infiltration, penetration and potential urban warfare by the terrorists.


COUNTERING JIHADISM IN COURTS

The legal system is perhaps the most sensitive segment of the national resistance to jihadism. From the top of the pyramid to its bottom, tribunals, judges, defense lawyers, prosecutors and, more importantly, juries are critical to establishing a fair but educated processing of the terror cases as they arise.

Experienced in bringing expertise to courts in terrorism cases, I was able to pin down the weaknesses during the processing of jihadist-related material. Regardless of the procedural mishaps of the prosecution or the out-of-court maneuvers of defense lawyers, the fact is that lack of education has tripped up at least four of the players: the prosecution, the defense, the judges and—especially—the juries.

How can the latter, formed out of ordinary citizens, understand the content of jihadist material if they weren’t exposed to it while in school? How can citizens fathom the jihadist tactics such as taqiya (simulation of identity and behavior) if they were not exposed to it before? In fact, how can the juries reflect on basic concepts such as jihad against the infidels and genocidal attitudes? And how can they distinguish between committed radicals and law-breaking individuals uninterested in ideologies? Last but not least, as to the debate on monitoring terrorists within the country and civil liberties, educated and specialized judges are the real answer to the problem. But that basic education, so crucial to the judge’s thinking process, must start years earlier.


A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR: COUNTERTERRORISM EDUCATION

I strongly recommend rapid-pace reform of a specific segment of national education in the United States, with comparable application in other democracies around the world, in order to prepare society and national governments for better intellectual resistance to terrorism. These recommendations constitute a strategic plan for a national counterterrorism education:

1. Embrace the right of people to have access to a comprehensive education about the threat that has been and is facing the nation. That right is inalienable and universal. All citizens, not only those volunteering for the front lines, have the right to receive this education by the appropriate means and the most qualified parties.

2. Prepare the younger segment of the population for the global threat of terrorism as early as the cognitive process allows, with the help of qualified psychologists. A carefully structured program in homeland security has to be established to gradually prepare the students for national shocks, dramatic development and identification of threats. On the identity of the threat, middle and high school social studies classrooms should be introduced to the history and evolution of the enemy’s ideas. The objective is to enable teachers to answer students’ questions arising from the media and social environment.

3. Initiate the most dramatic reform at the level of colleges and universities so that courses on the War on Terror and home-land security are made available and integrated into concentrations, certificate and degree programs in these two fields.

4. Explain the roots of terrorism through courses in disciplines and fields crucial to the learning process regarding the War on Terror and homeland security, particularly courses in history, political science, international relations, comparative studies and all relevant cross-disciplinary fields. The explanations must include different perspectives, so that students are better prepared for a global understanding of the threat.

5. Significantly reform the field of Middle East studies, starting with a program protected from militant and ideological funding and relying on a balanced teaching of the region, its various problems, crises, identities, trends and ideologies. A sub-research field in jihadism studies must be established to serve as a focus for the study and analysis of the various movements related to jihadist terror doctrines.

6. Equip public libraries and institutions with adequate learning material focusing on the history and evolution of the terrorist threat, but also on the collective emergency efforts expected from the public to prevent or respond to terror attacks.

7. Initiate another series of measures to address one of the most severe problems in the United States: the spread of “terror apologist culture” through the publicly owned or dedicated media. Congress must rapidly request a comprehensive reform of the public media as a prelude to reforming public education. The Public Broadcasting Service, C- Span and National Public Radio must undergo a significant change in content and focus to provide balanced material regarding the terror threat. This reform is owed to the public as part of its right to reliable information related to the crucial issues of security and survival.

8. Direct federal grants related to national security and foreign affairs toward providing support to educational projects, non-governmental organizations, private think tanks, publications and other efforts aimed at educating and informing the public on these issues.

9. Broadcast and publish for societies worldwide information about democracy and pluralism to combat terrorist ideologies. Congressionally funded Al Hurra TV and Radio Sawa should also be able to air special educational programs regarding these topics.

It is a fact that America’s homeland security is highly dependent on the US educational system. Terrorists use knowledge to harm this nation and other democracies in the name of their ideology. And knowledge is what Americans and other civil societies need to resist terrorism and reach a secure and peaceful end to this ongoing conflict.

***********
WALID PHARES is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the director of its Future Terrorism Project. He is also a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy and a professor of comparative politics. He is the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies aqainst America, published by Palgrave/McMillan, New York and London, November 2005. An international paperback version, Terrorist Strategies against the West, has just been released. Phares@walidphares.com

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Phares Op Ed: HizbAllah's Offensive in Lebanon: Day Three

Phares Op Ed: HizbAllah's Offensive in Lebanon: Day Three
By Phares Op Ed
Dec 3, 2006, 22:49

HizbAllah's offensive in Lebanon: Day Three
Walid Phares

On the third day of HizbAllah's campaign to takeover the Lebanese Government, more sectors from civil society began to rise. But they weren't rising with the pro-Iranian militia in as much as they were rising to oppose its move. However on the other hand, it was further noticed that a number of Western media increased their support to Nasrallah's organization.

From Saturday late night into the early hours of the morning, more incursions by HizbAllah's elements were signaled inside the traditional Sunni West Beirut. A battle with rocks took place in many streets leaving a number of wounded and one HizbAllah militiaman dead. The Iranian-backed militants staged their "thrusts" into Sunni areas from their launching pad in the "protest" areas in downtown, commonly described as the "coup d'Etat" basis. According to sources in the Lebanese Army, the gradual "coup" is taking place with a minute preparation coordinated by the Iranian embassy in Beirut. A "War room," including HizbAllah, Syrian intelligence, President Lahoud's secret services, Baath Party, Syrian National-Socialists and representatives from General Michel Aoun's group, is directing the campaign.

On the political level, the single most important development is the decision made by the March 14 movement and the Cedars Revolution leaders to "move the headquarters of the Government to Mount Lebanon if the Syro-Iranian militias would overrun the Prime Minister's office." Such a decision means that the Seniora cabinet and the leaders of the anti-Syrian majority in Lebanon will resist the onslaught of HizbAllah's forces and would eventually call on the people to oppose the coup d'Etat. In Washington and Paris, Governmental sources said that bringing down the Government outside the Parliament is a red line. In New York, the Security Council members, particularly the US and French delegations have clearly signified their rejection of a violent crumbling of a democratically elected cabinet. This view is widely shared by the majority of Arab moderate countries, including Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

A new development occurred overseas as the leaders of the Lebanese Diaspora declared their "rejection of HizbAllah's aggression against Lebanon's civil society," as they signed a joint declaration published by multiple web sites as well as as-Siyassa and al Muharer. Joe Baini, the Sydney-based President of the World Council of Cedars Revolution said "we're 12 million Lebanese in 32 countries and we are the numeric overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people." In a letter addressed to the Lebanese Diaspora, Baini said "we are warning Iran and Syria not to interfere in Lebanese affairs, and we are warning HizbAllah not to clash with the Lebanese people. We, the overseas majority of Lebanese, who maintain the economic lifeline to Lebanon, will not accept the Terror action by a minority of radicals who take their orders from Tehran and Damascus." It is to note that the "Lebanese lobby", as it is known worldwide played a critical role in the calling for and making of UNSCR 1559 in 2004, which ordered Syria to withdrawal from the country and asked HizbAllah to disarm.

In the battlefield of media, more indications are developing about the HizbAllah propaganda influence. Media watchers out of Lebanon and overseas have noticed the circulation of "stories" by a support network to the pro-Iranian organization, attempting to depict the developments in Lebanon as taking place between a militant group and a Government backed by militias. This war of ideas, launched by the "War room" in Beirut, is financed –according to leaders from the Cedars Revolution- by "huge amount of Iranian Petro-dollars." Roger Azzam, an NGO activist in Lebanon said "the treasury of the Islamic Republic in Tehran is fully open for this battle." Azzam said "millions of dollars have been allocated to feed all needs such as establishing a new TV station in Lebanon and taking care of media people both in Lebanon and worldwide. The Iranians we hear have hired PR companies around the world to win the public opinion battle." In Canada, the chairman of the Lebanese Human Rights committee said "we see some of the HizbAllah propaganda influence even here." Elias Bejjani indicated for example an article in the Globe and Mail daily in Toronto which title is revealing: "West help Lebanon build militia to fight HezbAllah." Mark McKinnon, the author of the article, wrote that the Internal Security Forces (ISF) is a "militia," backed by the United States, France and Arab countries. The journalist, according to Lebanese Bloggers, was trying to "sneak a new twist in the ongoing conflict in Lebanon: that is to portray the Lebanese regular police as a militia equivalent to the Terror group HizbAllah." In fact the article said: "Critics charge that the force is dominated by Sunnis, and that its real purpose is to defend the government of Mr. Siniora, a Sunni, against the growing power of the country's large Shia population." Toni Nissi, an NGO leader working on implementing UN resolutions, said "the article is a piece of propaganda aiming at creating a mindset worldwide that a civil war is in the making between Shiia and Sunnis in Lebanon, just to make the point that democracy can't work in this country." Nissi said the ISF existed for decades, this is Lebanon's internal security force; and indeed it is its duty to defend the people and the Government against the Terrorists of HizbAllah. "We're stunned that Canadian newspapers want to equate legal authorities with Terrorism."

On another front, next steps by HizbAllah may include the introduction of Syrian intelligence in the covert operations battle against the Government. Sources in the Lebanese army told Cedars Revolution leaders that "hundreds of armed elements have been crossing the international borders between Syria and Lebanon with sophisticated individual weapons." Lebanese and Arab newspapers said over the week end that dozens of trucks have crossed the borders and headed to HizbAllah's bases in southern Beirut and the Bekaa valley. "All indicate, said Walid Jumblat, the Socialist Druse leader, "that the Iranians and the Syrians are staging a coup."

Dr Walid Phares is a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of Future Jihad. Phares@walidphares.com