Gwen Ifill should step down as moderator of the vice presidential debate: A debate “moderator” in the tank for Obama.
Come on now. This is getting completely ridiculous.
18363 items (18363 unread) in 36 feeds
news_mainstream_english
(3441 unread)
news_alternative_english
(4400 unread)
news_alternative_hebrew
(267 unread)
blogs_israel_english
(2061 unread)
blogs_lebanon_english
(236 unread)
blogs_palestin_english
(160 unread)
blogs_usa
(2749 unread)
blogs_others
(3659 unread)
blogs_iran_english
(1390 unread)
(135 unread)
Gwen Ifill should step down as moderator of the vice presidential debate: A debate “moderator” in the tank for Obama.
Come on now. This is getting completely ridiculous.
Just as I’ve been writing for more than a month, she supports the teaching of evolution as “an accepted principle.”
Quote: “Science should be taught in science class.” (And that does not include “intelligent design.”)
[Video not shown]
UPDATE at 9/30/08 6:41:31 pm:
The video is way out of sync with the audio. Good work, CBS.
The crusty old atheist has another good rant, on the British government’s appalling decision to give sharia courts the power of law.
[Video]UPDATE at 10/1/08 12:47:00 pm:
YouTube has deleted this video. Here it is at Blip.tv:
[Video]
Earlier this month, a semi-official Iranian news agency lashed out at Dr. Yousuf al Qaradawi, widely considered one of the most eminent living Muslim religious scholars. The agency, called Muhr, castigated the great Alim, or religious scholar, for an interview he had given to an Egyptian newspaper in which he warned against organized efforts by some Shiite circles to convert Sunni Muslims to the Shiite branch of Islam. The Iranian news agency went as far as accusing al-Qaradawi of playing into the hands of Zionists and Jewish rabbis!!
I don’t usually write on religious matters, especially Sunni-Shia affairs. However, I do believe that a clear and unmistakable message should be sent to Shiite circles in Iran and elsewhere, namely that Sunnis are not about to become Shiites and that public support for Iran and Hezbullah in some Sunni countries doesn’t indicate that Sunni Muslims are infatuated with the Shiite faith.
The Sunni masses do support Hezbullah because this is the right thing to do. Hezbullah after all is fighting Israel, the evil brat of Zionism which is the ultimate enemy of Islam and Muslims.
The same thing applies to public support for Iran against the Zionist-controlled American administration which is trying so hard to deprive Iran of its right to develop nuclear technology.
People, regardless of their religious affiliations, support just causes irrespective of other considerations.
However, Sunni support for Iran against American hegemony doesn’t mean that the Sunni masses, which constitute more than 90% of Muslims worldwide, are coming to terms with the despicable habit of cursing the Companions of Prophet Muhammed, such as Abu Bakr, Omar Ibn al Khattab and Othman Ibn Affan.
Let us be very clear about this, cursing the Sahaba, as far as Sunni Muslims are concerned, is and will always remain the ultimate redline.
There can be no Muslim unity unless the Shiites brothers, especially in Iran, abandon this hateful and provocative ritual.
Luckily, some Shiite Ulema or scholars have realized this fact and adopted positive positions toward showing respect to the feelings of their Sunni brothers.
This writer has always supported Iran against Western, especially American predators.
While studying in the United States nearly three decades ago, I regularly took part in anti-Shah demonstrations on American campuses.
We shouted aloud “Tau Margi Shahi Kha’en, Nehzat Idameh dorat” (until the death of the treacherous Shah, the struggle will continue), and ” Istiklal, Azadee, Hokomati Islamee” (Independence , Freedom, Islamic Government.”
I have also written numerous articles in support of Iran and Hezbullah and will continue to do so for reasons having to do with the moral principle of siding with the weak and the oppressed against the unjust and the insolent.
Hence, the Iranian brothers, especially the people at Muhr, shouldn’t think that this defense of Sheikh Qaradawi is coming from a “Zionist agent” as they are almost innately tempted to dismiss criticisms of some of their objectionable practices and attitudes.
I had the honor to meet with Sheikh Qaradawi many years ago. And I have ever since been following up rather closely his pronouncements and positions which I have found to be quite rational and wise.
Sheikh Qaradawi has been a fierce critic of Israeli criminality and the Nazi-like oppression the Zionist regime is meting out to the helpless Palestinians. However, he has never voiced hatred or hostility toward Jews as Jews, as Zionist propaganda circles claim.
He has been a constantly loud voice urging Muslims and Arabs to show solidarity with the Palestinians.
Indeed, one would exaggerate little by saying that had it not been for Qaradawi’s efforts, the Palestinian ordeal would have been much worse.
As to his positions on Iran and Shiites, al- Qaradawi has always adopted decidedly moderate positions in this regard.
He had warmly welcomed the Iranian revolution back in 1978 as the vast bulk of Sunni Muslims did. He also stood against the Iran-Iraq war, calling it a catastrophe.
In recent years, al-Qaradawi stood against extremist Sunni groups such as al-Qaida which adopted a radical theological stance viewing Shiites, especially the Ithna Ashari Shiites (followers of the Twelve Imams) as heretical.
This position invited hostile reactions from some of the Salafi groups (fundamentalist puritanical Orthodox Sunni Muslims) especially in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region.
Indeed, Qaradawi’s uncompromising views on Israel, American imperialism, the Palestinian plight and the ongoing American war on Islam, dubbed deceptively as “the war on terror” have prompted many western governments such as the US and UK to declare him a persona non grata.
So how could a man as such be serving Zionist interests when the Zionists themselves have spared no efforts vilifying and inciting against him?
Shiites circles in Iran and elsewhere miss no opportunity urging Muslims to get united in the face of Israeli aggression and expansionism. This is certainly a commendable and admirable stance.
However, true Muslim unity can’t be achieved while some influential Shiite circles in Iran and probably elsewhere retain the old repulsive practice of cursing the Sahaba of Rasullullah, or companions of the Prophet.
Is Shiism a religion based on cursing?
A few months ago, the highest-ranking Shiite Marjie (religious scholar) in Lebanon, Rev. Sheikh Muhammed Hussein Fadulullah issued a fatwa or religious edict prohibiting the cursing of the Sahaba.
Sunni Muslims warmly welcomed the fatwa and many Sunni intellectuals and religious leaders hoped that it would lead to a genuine reconciliation between the two camps.
However, that fatwa was eventually met with widespread opposition by some influential Shiite ulema in Iraq and Iran who couldn’t abandon the malicious canard that Sunni Muslims were Nassibi or Nawaseb (enemies of Imam Ali), the First Shiite Imam who is also the Fourth Sunni Caliph.
In truth, Sunni Muslims don’t hate Ali and his family. On the contrary, they love them so much. Don’t Sunni Muslims, as do all Muslims, recite at the end of their daily prayers “O God, may thy Peace and blessings be upon Muhammd and the family of Muhammed as Thou had bestowed they peace and blessing on Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim.”?
Besides, history shows that Imam Ali had an active working relationship with the very people many Shiites claim they hated him and dispossessed him of his divine right to become the leader of Muslims after the death of the Prophet.
Not only that, Ali actually had his own daughter married to Omar Ibn al Khattab, the man many Shiites hate most.
Well, does a man have his own daughter married to the man he hates most?
In addition, Imam Ali had three of his sons named after Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman, the first three Caliphs. Hence, one is prompted to seriously question the Shiite claims that Ali hated these caliphs. Well, a man doesn’t name his own children after his worst enemies.
Ali was known of his exemplary bravery and courage. This is why it is highly unlikely that his collaboration with the caliphs occurred under duress. Ali was not the type of man who would cower under duress. He was not the type of man who would play the role of a hypocrite. His heart and his tongue were the same.
In a nutshell, the Shiite brothers should realize that Muslim unity can’t be achieved while certain Shiites keep up reviving ancient hatred by cursing and vilifying historical figures Sunni Muslims glorify and love.
Such behavior would only perpetuate Muslim disunity. It would also prove that some Shiite religious circles are not really serious about Muslim unity.
(end)
Bruce Bawer on the see-no-evil political correctness that prevents many Westerners from talking honestly about Islam: Who’s Sleeping More Deeply — Europe or America?
A big part of the reason for this dismaying American response to the cartoon affair is, of course, that Islamization hasn’t progressed as far in America as in Europe, and there’s consequently an incredible level of ignorance in America both about what’s really going on in Europe and about the very nature of Islam. In the current presidential campaign, only a small portion of the electorate seems to think that the war with jihadist Islam is a major issue. The one candidate who understood best what we’re up against, and who took it most seriously, Rudy Giuliani, was ridiculed across the political spectrum for being obsessed with 9/11 — as if the events of that day had been some kind of fluke or accident that has virtually no meaning for us today.
In depressing numbers, in short, Americans seem not to grasp the lessons of 9/11 — which should hardly be a surprise, considering how many journalists and politicians keep repeating that the terrorists are betraying a great and peaceful religion, that jihad means doing good works, and so on. A while back, in response to rumors that Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof argued that it would be a matter of utter indifference if the president of the United States were a Muslim. Of the hundreds of people who commented on this article on the Times website, the overwhelming majority applauded Kristof for his extraordinary courage in standing up to Islamophobia. Only a tiny handful of readers noted that there are, in fact, good reasons for free people to be concerned about the possibility of a U.S. president with a devout commitment to Islamic theology and law. The American media that do report honestly on the less attractive truths about Islam, moreover, tend to be media that people are encouraged to look down upon.
The Attack on Zeev Sternhell
By Jonathan Cook
The words “Jewish” and “terrorist” are not easily uttered together by Israelis. But just occasionally, such as last week when one of the country’s leading intellectuals was injured by a pipe bomb placed at the front door of his home, they find themselves with little choice.
The target of the attack was 73-year-old Zeev Sternhell, a politics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem specialising in European fascism and a prominent supporter of the left-wing group Peace Now.
Shortly after the explosion, police found pamphlets nearby offering 1.1 million shekels ($300,000) to anyone assassinating a Peace Now leader. The movement’s most visible activity has been tracking and criticising the growth of the settlements in the West Bank.
Mr Sternhell, whose leg was injured in the blast, warned that this attack might mark the “collapse of democracy” in Israel. He has earned the enmity of the religious far-right by justifying the targeting of settlers by Palestinians in their resistance to occupation.
Earlier in the year the professor was awarded the Israel Prize for political science. The settlers’ own news agency, Arutz Sheva, ran a story at the time headlined “Israel Prize to go to Pro-Terror, Pro-Civil War Prof”.
The shock provoked in Israel by the bombing partly reflected the rarity of such attacks. Most Israelis regard the use of violence by Jews against other Jews as entirely illegitimate, which partly explains the kid-glove approach generally adopted by the security forces when dealing with the settlers.
There are a handful of precedents, however, for these kind of attacks. In 1983, Emil Grunzweig was killed when a right-winger hurled a hand grenade into a crowd of Peace Now activists marching against Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. And 12 years later Israelis were left reeling when a religious settler, Yigal Amir, shot dead their prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin.
Violence directed at the Jewish Left typically peaks during periods when the religious far-right believes a deal with the Palestinians may be close at hand. Rabin paid the price for his signing of the Oslo accords. Equally, Mr Sternhell appears to be the address for settler grievances over the government’s ongoing talks with the Palestinians over a partial Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.
Certainly, the mood among the religious settlers has grown darker since the disengagement from Gaza three years ago. A significant number subscribe to the belief that, in betraying what they perceive to be the Jewish people’s Biblical birthright to Palestinian territory, the government proved itself unworthy of their loyalty. Others believe that the settlers themselves failed a divine test in not facing down the government and army.
Either way, many far-right settlers are turning their backs on those secular laws that clash with their own convictions. One Israeli observer has noted that these settlers no longer see their chief loyalty to the state of Israel but to the Land of Israel, a land promised by God not politicians.
The pamphlet found near Mr Sternhell’s home, signed by a group called the “Army of Liberators”, read: “The State of Israel has become our enemy.”
The Shin Bet, Israel’s secret police, have a Jewish department dedicated to tracking the activities of Jewish terrorists. Unlike the Shin Bet’s Arab department, however, it is small and underfunded. It has also proved largely ineffectual in dealing with the threat posed by the far-right.
Jewish extremists who attack Israeli soldiers or Palestinians in the occupied territories, openly incite against Palestinians or express unlawful views rarely face charges, even when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.
The general lawlessness among the West Bank settlers has reached new peaks, underscored this month when settlers from Yitzhar went on what was widely described as a “pogrom” against Palestinians in the neighbouring village of Asira al Qabaliya. The settlers were caught on film firing live ammunition at the villagers, but the police have so far failed to issue indictments.
Also, often forgotten, the so-called Jewish underground has a history of targeting Palestinians inside Israel, including those with citizenship. A car bomb narrowly avoided seriously injuring the wife of Arab Knesset member Issam Makhoul in 2003. Two years later, in the run-up to the Gaza disengagement, a settler-soldier, Natan Zada, shot dead four passengers on a bus to the Israeli Arab city of Shafa’amr.
Groups such as the Temple Mount Faithful, which seek to blow up the mosques of Al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock in the Haram al-Sharif of Jerusalem’s Old City so that a third Jewish temple can be built in their place, also face little recourse from the Shin Bet.
By contrast, the Shin Bet’s Arab department runs an extensive network of Palestinian informers in the occupied territories and is reported by human rights groups to use torture to extract information from Palestinian detainees.
Inside Israel, the Arab department regularly investigates Israel’s own Palestinian citizens, especially the Islamic movements over their donations to charities in the occupied territories. It has also been hounding parties like the National Democratic Assembly of Azmi Bishara that demand equal rights.
Like Palestinians in the occupied territories, Palestinian citizens risk being locked up on secret evidence.
Israel’s leading columnist Nahum Barnea noted last week that the Shin Bet’s inability to find and arrest Jewish terrorists stemmed from “deliberate policy” and “emotional obstacles” - his coy way of suggesting that many in the Shin Bet share at least some of the settlers’ values, even if they reject their methods.
Prof Sternhell made much the same point in a radio interview from his hospital bed when he noted that Yitzhak Shamir, when he was prime minister, had defined the Jewish underground as “excellent young men, real patriots”.
In this vacuum of law enforcement, the far-right regularly and openly engages in unlawful activities, often without serious threat of punishment. Many of its leaders, such as Noam Federman, Itamar Ben Gvir and Baruch Marzel, all based in Hebron, are believed to have close links to the outlawed Kach movement, which demands the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the region.
Mr Ben Gvir, who leads a group known as the Jewish National Front, denied that his faction was involved in the attack on Mr Sternhell but refused to condemn it.
Although the head of the Shin Bet, Avi Dichter, immediately branded the attack on Mr Sternhell as “a nationalist terror attack apparently perpetrated by Jews”, it is noticeable that no Israelis are demanding the demolition of the perpetrators’ homes.
That contrasts strongly with the response last week after a Palestinian youth drove a car at a group of Israeli soldiers near the Old City of Jerusalem. Israeli politicians called for the youth’s home to be destroyed and his family to be made homeless.
In the general outcry against the bomb attack last week, it was left to Prof Sternhell to remind Israelis that most Jewish terrorism was in fact directed not at people like himself but at Palestinians.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae) published in Abu Dhabi.
by Chris Rodda
On Friday, September 26, the end of a week in which thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West — the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail — were distributed by mail in Ohio, a “chemical irritant” was sprayed through a window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, where 300 people were gathered for a Ramadan prayer service. The room that the chemical was sprayed into was the room where babies and children were being kept while their mothers were engaged in prayers. This, apparently, is what the scare tactic political campaigning of John McCain’s supporters has led to — Americans perpetrating a terrorist attack against innocent children on American soil.
I read the story as reported by the Dayton Daily News, but this was after I had received an email written by a friend of some of the victims of these American terrorists. The matter of fact news report in the Dayton paper didn’t come close to conveying the horrific impact of this unthinkable act like the email I had just read, so I asked the email’s author for permission to share what they had written. The author was with one of the families from the mosque — a mother and two of the small children who were in the room that was gassed — the day after the attack occurred.
“She told me that the gas was sprayed into the room where the babies and children were being kept while their mothers prayed together their Ramadan prayers. Panicked mothers ran for their babies, crying for their children so they could flee from the gas that was burning their eyes and throats and lungs. She grabbed her youngest in her arms and grabbed the hand of her other daughter, moving with the others to exit the building and the irritating substance there.
“The paramedic said the young one was in shock, and gave her oxygen to help her breathe. The child couldn’t stop sobbing.
“This didn’t happen in some far away place — but right here in Dayton, and to my friends. Many of the Iraqi refugees were praying together at the Mosque Friday evening. People that I know and love.
“I am hurt and angry. I tell her this is NOT America. She tells me this is not Heaven or Hell — there are good and bad people everywhere.
“She tells me that her daughters slept with her last night, the little one in her arms and sobbing throughout the night. She tells me she is afraid, and will never return to the mosque, and I wonder what kind of country is this where people have to fear attending their place of worship?
“The children come into the room, and tell me they want to leave America and return to Syria, where they had fled to from Iraq. They say they like me, … , and other American friends — but they are too afraid and want to leave. Should a 6 and 7 year old even have to contemplate the safety of their living situation?
“Did the anti-Muslim video circulating in the area have something to do with this incident, or is that just a bizarre coincidence? Who attacks women and children?
“What am I supposed to say to them? My words can’t keep them safe from what is nothing less than terrorism, American style. Isn’t losing loved ones, their homes, jobs, possessions and homeland enough? Is there no place where they can be safe?
“She didn’t want me to leave her tonight, but it was after midnight, and I needed to get home and write this to my friends. Tell me — tell me — what am I supposed to say to them?”
When acting as a representative of Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the 501(c)3 non-profit organization that I work for, I cannot engage in political activities. The distribution of Obsession, however, although a political campaign scheme, clearly crosses over into the mission of MRFF. So, I’m going to make two statements here — one in my capacity as MRFF’s Research Director, and another as an individual whose disgust at the vile campaign tactics of John McCain’s supporters completely boiled over when I opened up the email about children being gassed.
My statement as MRFF’s Research Director:
The presidential campaign edition of the Obsession DVD, currently being distributed by the Clarion Fund, carries the endorsement of the chair of the counter-terrorism department of the U.S. Naval War College, using the name and authority of an official U.S. military institution not only to validate an attack the religion of Islam, but to influence a political campaign. For these reasons, this endorsement has been included in MRFF’s second lawsuit against the Department of Defense, which was filed on September 25 in the Federal District Court in Kansas.
My opinion as an individual and thoroughly appalled human being:
John McCain has a moral obligation to publicly censure the Clarion Fund, the organization that produced Obsession and is distributing the DVDs; to denounce the inflammatory, anti-Muslim message of Obsession; and to do everything in his power to stop any further campaign activities by his supporters that have the potential to incite violence.
Today FDD's Center for Terrorism Research brings you the fifth installment of our Voices of the Awakening series, authored by Sterling Jensen. The series is designed to provide Westerners a better understanding of ongoing developments in the Iraqi Awakening movement. This regular feature includes critical translations of Awakening news and documents, Jensen's observations and analysis, and occasional interviews with the movement's leaders.
This week the Awakening's web site reported on a number of local, national, and international issues -- including promoting local sports, encouraging women's education, and reporting on religious matters. An excerpt from our update:For the entire Voices of the Awakening, update, click here.Response to the Fabricated Lies of Omar Al-Baghdadi: The Awakening is the Conscience of Society. Responding to allegations made by Omar al-Baghdadi, the supposed leader of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), that the ISI is supported by the people, the Iraqi Awakening attacks al-Baghdadi's claims. The Awakening says that his imaginary State relies on terrorizing and destroying the people. The Iraqi Awakening is the conscience of the people because it was the people rising with the Awakening against terror that made Iraq more united and secure....
The Mufti of Saudi Arabia Deems Those Who Follow al-Qaeda as Being the Reason of Chaos: In an interview with Asharq al-Awsat the head mufti of Saudi Arabia blames al-Qaeda for chaos and destruction to Muslims. The Mufti asks Muslims to look at the deeds of al-Qaeda to see how they have brought this misfortune to Muslims. He says he completely supports and is satisfied with those who counter al-Qaeda’s ideology....
INSIDER'S PERSPECTIVE: Much of the Awakening’s credibility came from the fact that religious scholars and imams in Anbar supported the tribal movement against al-Qaeda and insurgent activity. Reporting al-Baghdadi’s religious claims and countering them, then reporting the Saudi mufti’s statements against al-Qaeda and his support for those who flight it, is a calculated move by the Awakening to increase their religious credibility. The Awakening wants to fight Al-Qaeda’s message, and will need fellow Arab support to do it. The late Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha would often respond to criticism about allying with the Coalition Forces by saying “al-Qaeda came to our land and has destroyed it more than the Americans. They have used terror to spread their message. That isn’t Islam, that is anti-Islam. We do not only fight with the Americans against these perpetrators, but with anyone who is against their message.” He would say that since it’s not a shame for Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Qataris and Emiratis to work closely with the Americans for their security, why must Iraqis be blamed and punished for working with the Americans for Iraqi safety?
"I find it fascinating how differently people choose to report the bombing: which religious sites are near, how quickly it was reported, the rarity of the bombing, the connections to the last bombing in Syria years ago, a prisoner riot, or a meeting with US officials in New York. Reading those quotes, one would have thought that several different events were being reported, based on how differently the material was presented. Trying to imagine some sort of global understanding is difficult when even the most concrete events, such as this bombing which resulted in 17 deaths, can be turned into just about anything."
كل عام و أنتم بخير بمناسبة عيد الفطر السعيد
و عساكم من عواده
و تقبل الله منا و منكم طاعتنا و صيامنا في شهر رمضان .
ملاحظة : الخلفية من تصميم الأخ المعُاصر , أضغط على الصورة ليتم نقلك لصفحة الخلفية
تحياتي
فراس
Ou plutôt celle de Beyrouth.
Ici, à Hamra, un bijoutier haut de gamme
Beyrouth est divisé en quartiers et l’impression c’est que chacun est chez soi et ne se mélange pas beaucoup. Si à Damas, je n’hésitais pas à aller partout, ici, je ne m’aventurerais pas non accompagnée dans le quartier chiite par exemple. Les gens se demanderaient sans doute ce que je viens y faire, ou c’est ce que je m’imagine.
Aley, c’était le nec autrefois, mais la ville est beaucoup moins verte qu’avant ; les immeubles poussent partout et un peu n’importe comment. Il y a les dégâts laissés par différents cycles d’hostilités. Le tourisme en provenance du Golfe a gâté les gens qui arnaquent l’étranger sans états d’âme. Je rencontre pourtant un épicier qui me demande si je me suis fait entuber ; je lui dis que sans doute oui, mais que c’est normal que l’on profite de l’étranger puisque on le voit plus riche que soi. Il n’est pas d’accord, me dit que c’est une affaire d’honnêteté et de cœur.
Toutefois, après Beyrouth, son vacarme, sa circulation et sa pollution, Aley c’est le bon air et le calme car les fêtes se sont éteintes avec la saison.
Néanmoins, vers la fin de mon séjour, après avoir raté deux épisodes du feuilleton Asmahan faute de courant, je décide d’aller m’installer en ville où la situation est plus facile. Je choisis un hôtel implanté à Achrafieh.
Mon premier contact est un choc. J’entre chez un coiffeur et je lui demande en arabe s’il peut me faire un henné que j’apporterai tout prêt, tout mélangé, et il me répond en français, avec un dédain évident, qu’il n’utilise que L’Oréal. Je lui aurais demandé de me tartiner la tête avec de la bouse de vache qu’il n’aurait pas été plus indigné. Je trouve toutefois pas loin une coiffeuse qui ne fait pas d’histoires.
Achrafieh est un mélange intéressant de vieilles maisons et d’immeubles hyper modernes; le quartier a du charme par endroits. Il y a aussi l’ABC, un centre commercial qui regroupe des boutiques plus luxueuses les unes que les autres. Je n’ai rien vu de comparable en Europe.
Une ville ce sont des coins où on se sent bien et je découvre avec ravissement le Raouda au bord de l’eau où je passe des heures à lire en sirotant mon narguilé quotidien. (La presse libanaise est tout à fait libre et L’Orient le Jour ainsi que le Daily Star sont bien écrits.)
Ci-dessous, le jardin du café
Tout à côté il y a le Rocher (on écrit Raouché ici) qui était le coin favori des candidats au suicide, me dit-on.
et la promenade de la Corniche. A Hamra, au Lina’s, je peux me connecter sur le système wi-fi.
Beyrouth, ce sont aussi les nombreuses librairies, la jolie mode, les femmes élégantes et les délicieux plats libanais.
Je commence à perdre mon identité syrienne et à aimer cette ville et ce pays.
(à suivre)(In cha’Allah demain : le Sud et les albums de photos)
Syria’s Foreign Minister and David Welsh, the State Department’s point man on Syria, met today in New York to talk about regional security needs. This is important. In late July, the Syrians tried to arrange for a meeting between Welsh and Riad Daoudi, Syria’s lead negotiator with Israel. Washington would not meet with him. This counter-productive policy of isolation is beginning to thaw. Secretary of State Rice spoke with Muallem on Friday for 10 minutes. Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal writes that the meetings are “a sign of a potential thaw between the U.S. and a country that President George W. Bush has alleged is a principal sponsor of international terrorism.” He adds:
A State Department official said the U.S. used the talks as an opportunity to list its grievances with Syria. But the diplomats also discussed Washington’s support for peace talks between Syria and Israel over the future of the disputed Golan Heights region, participants in the talks said. The two sides also talked about Damascus’s role in the security situations in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
“I consider this a good progress in the American position,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in New York Monday. …. Mr. Moallem put a positive spin on the talks, saying Syria’s increased engagement with the U.S. underscores Washington’s recognition of Damascus’s role in promoting stability in Iraq and Lebanon. “The situation in the Middle East is improving,” he said.
The Syrian diplomat said Damascus is in the process of sending ambassadors to Iraq and Lebanon and is seeking to step up economic ties with both nations. He said Damascus would seek to improve counterterrorism cooperation with the West, particularly after Saturday’s bombing of a Syrian military installation in Damascus, which killed 17 people.
“There are Islamic extremists coming over our borders,” Mr. Moallem said. Terrorism has “spread and increased because of a lack of cooperation and a failure to tackle its roots.”
Serious obstacles remain to normalizing U.S.-Syrian ties. President Bush told the U.N. General Assembly last week that “a few nations — regimes like Syria and Iran — continue to sponsor terrorism.”
Syria’s foreign minister said his country is looking forward to closer ties with the next U.S. administration, whether it is headed by Barack Obama or John McCain.
“Unfortunately, [the Bush administration's position toward Syria] shifted too late,” Mr. Moallem said. “But I hope this shift will have its implications for the future administration.”
“We agreed to continue this dialogue.”
The Bush administration has not agreed to an official thaw with Syria, however. U.S. officials stressed the talks with Muallem were used to raise concerns about Syrian human-rights abuses and support for terrorism, as well as its strategic ties with Iran and other issues. “The international community still awaits a credible demonstration of Syria’s willingness to renounce their sponsorship of terrorism,” a State Department official said. “The Syrians had approached us and said that they wished to
talk,” Rice said.
Viola Giengerof Bloomberg writes:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. may engage Syria more since the Arab nation slowed the flow of fighters into Iraq, began indirect talks with Israel and helped and a political stalemate in neighboring Lebanon. “Nothing is a breakthrough, and I’m not sure that there will be,” Rice said today in an interview on Bloomberg TV’s “Night Talk with Mike Schneider” to be broadcast tomorrow night. “But it’s time to talk about some of the changes that are taking place in the Middle East.”
U.S. relations with Syria still have “a long way to go,” Rice said. She cited Syria’s human rights record, its involvement in spreading nuclear weapons and its support for groups the U.S. considers terrorist organizations such as Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. “I don’t think it’s going to happen certainly in any short order,” Rice said. “But there are some trends to follow up.”….
She rejected rumors of indirect talks with Iran.
Bob Woodward
Ehsani, who has finished reading Bob Woodward’s new book on the Bush administration, has copied for us (below) the parts of the book that cover Rice’s policy toward Syria as she responded to the Iraq Study Group report put out by Baker and Hamilton just prior to the 2006 congressional elections. Ehsani writes:
Note how Rice totally flips in today’s WSJ article by Jay Solomon. In 2006, according to Woodward, She defied Baker, Clinton, and Blair who were urging her to begin a dialogue with Syria. Today, it is Rice who has flipped and not Syria.
Bob Woodward, The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. Excerpts about Syria
Rice sat down with the Iraq study group. Overall, Rice said, there was a realignment taking place in the Middle East. “There are extremists within the Arab world, and then there are moderate Arabs. Many of the Arabs see Iran now as a more dangerous problem than Israel.” Syria is widely viewed as destabilizing, she said.
“Can we flip Syria?” asked Perry (of ISG), meaning get it to help with Iraq.
“The Saudis don’t talk to them,” Rice replied. “So why would we go around our allies, the Saudis, who after all are much more important to the peace process?”
That response agitated James Baker. “These Arab governments fight each other all the time” he said. “The real question is who is going to lead?”
The former secretary of state and the current one quarreled for a moment, with Rice acknowledging that diplomatic outreach to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem might be worthwhile. But she had reservations about establishing relations with Syria and Iran.
“I am concerned that Syria is too high a price” she said. For the Arabs, the rise of Iran is the threat. The Iran factor today is different than it was 15 years ago”-a pointed reference to Baker’s tenure as secretary of state-“so I have to challenge the notion that Iran could be an ally in the process.”
Her position did not sit well with Baker and several others. Nearly everyone else had told the study group that active diplomacy with Syria and Iran was vital to stabilizing Iraq and the Middle East.
The next day the study group held a secure videoconference with Tony Blair. The British minister had recently sent his top foreign policy advisor to Syria to see if there was a way to pry opens the diplomatic doors. Through Sir Nigel Sheinwald had not succeeded, Blair remained a strong advocate of talking with the Syrians.
At 2:30 that afternoon the members of the study group gathered for a much anticipated session with former President Bill Clinton.
Clinton suggested initiating talks with Iran without any preconditions. “We have to have some trusted advisor and start to talk to Iran” he said. “If you might fight somebody someday, you sure ought to talk to them”.
The former president made a strong pitch for engaging the Syrians in the peace process:”Go to the Syrians and ask them. Do you really think this relationship with Iraq works for you?” The war in Iraq was weakening America in the eyes of the world. “Iranian and North Korean foreign policy is to stick it up America’s ass because we’re tied down in Iraq,” he said.
“Mr. President”, Baker said, “you came closer than anyone to a deal with Syria.”
In the meantime Rice repeated her frequent warning to the Iraqis that they needed to hang together or they would hang separately from lampposts.
“We need something to deter Iran and Syria,” said Cheney, “and that’s important not just for Iraq but for the region and for Lebanon, too.”
Several hours before the president was to present his new strategy on national television, Hadley held a conference call with members of the Iraq study group.
The President decisions were pretty much “Baker-Hamilton plus a surge,” Hadley said. adding that they should all be pleased because the President had embraced many of the 79 recommendations.
“Steve,” Leon Panetta said, “There are three principal recommendations we made.” The first had been an international push for more diplomacy, including Iran and Syria.
Hadley said they were doing a lot of international diplomacy but they just couldn’t do Iran and Syria.
Rice rejected the notion that the Middle East had been stable and that the Bush administration had come along and disturbed it by invading Iraq. “What stability? Saddam shooting at our aircrafts and attacking his neighbors and seeking WMD and starting a war every few years? Syrian forces, 30 years in Lebanon?
Rice considered the war nothing less than “the realignment of the Middle East. On the one side you’ve got Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states” supporting non extremists. “At the other side, you’ve got the Iranians, Hezbollah, and Hamas.” with Syria shifting sides, she said.
Just as the State Department begins to thaw relations with Syria, A federal district court in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion awarding $412,909,587 in a judgement against Syria. It found Bashar al-Asad and Asef Shawqat liable. None of the Defendants filed an answer or otherwise appeared.
The suit was brought by relatives of Jack Armstrong and Jack Hensley, who were two U.S. civilian engineers who were kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq in 2004 by al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (“al-Qaeda in Iraq”). This incident gained worldwide notoriety after the terrorists released a gruesome video of the beheadings on the Internet.
The judgement reads:
“Plaintiffs presented evidence in the form of live testimony, videotaped testimony, affidavit, and original documentary and videographic evidence. Plaintiffs presented credible expert testimony from four experts and from an Iraqi countryman concerning Syria’s assistance to Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq. From this evidence, certain conclusions are clear. Syria was the critical geographic entry point for Zarqawi’s fighters into Iraq, Levitt T-1-127, and served as a “logistical hub” for Zarqawi. Id. at 119, 127. Syria supported Zarqawi and his organization by: (1) facilitating the recruitment and training of Zarqawi’s followers and their transportation into Iraq; (2) harboring and providing sanctuary to terrorists and their operational and logistical supply network; and (3) financing Zarqawi and his terrorist network in Iraq. Once Zarqawi beheaded civilian Nicholas Berg, the depth of his inhumanity was obvious but Syria did not withdraw its support.
Four experts testified regarding Syria’s support of Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq:
(1) Evan Kohlmann is a private consultant who gave expert testimony on the history, infrastructure, and the use of the Internet as a medium for the distribution and dissemination of propaganda by Zarqawi and his terrorist network. Kohlmann T-114. His testimony was based on evidence that he collected and archived from 2004 through 2006 from Internet sites that are direct sources of information from Zarqawi and his network. Id. at 25.
(2) Dr. Matthew Levitt is a director of Counter Terrorism Intelligence Studies and a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy. Levitt at 105. He was previously employed in counter-terrorism positions in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Treasury. Id. at 107, 111. He is the author of a book that includes chapters on Syria’s sponsorship of terrorism. Id. at 115.
(3) Dr. Marius Deeb is a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and for more than thirty years has studied, written, and taught about Islamic politics, Syria, and Syria’s support for terrorism. Deeb T-1-61-64.
(4) David Schenker is the director of Arab politics at the Washington Institute and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Schenker T-1-81-84. Mr. Schenker previously was the senior policy advisor to the Secretary of Defense on matters relating to Syria from 2002-2006. Id. at T-1-79.
1. Facilitating the Recruitment and Training of Zarqawi’s Followers and Facilitating Their Transportation into Iraq
18. Syria and the Syrian Military Intelligence provided active a