Ya Libnan – 4 Week Roundup – 9/23/09

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2009/08/wednesday_news_61.php

Wednesday News Briefs & Editorial
Published: Wednesday, 26 August, 2009 @ 12:04 PM in Beirut

Beirut – The Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad is back in action in Lebanon and is doing all it can to disrupt the formation of the cabinet through its allies the Hezbollah -led opposition. According to Syrian observers Syria is trying to make up for the loss of its allies in the polls by forcing on Lebanon’s majority the so called “ national Unity government “ in which the opposition will have the lion’s share of ministries through which they can control the country.

An Nahar political sources have reported that careful reading of the Syrian political stance towards Lebanon indicates that never before has an Arab country through its official media demanded that another Arab country should amend its constitution during the formation of a government .

An Nahar sources have also reported that Syria is allocating specific roles to its allies aimed at obstructing the formation of the cabinet unless their demands are met . While General Michel Aoun is charged with attacking the Prime minister designate and making impossible demands, Lebanon’s top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah is charged with attacking Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir who has been the most outspoken Christian spiritual leader against the obstruction of the Lebanese democratic institutions .

Yesterday Fadlallah slammed Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir over calling for a cabinet based on the outcome of the parliamentary polls. In a remark aimed at changing the constitution Fadlallah said : “We call for a popular majority and popular referendum … so that people would have their say.”

Engaged – Chapter 3

The Elemental Struggle of our times is exposing Islamic Supremacy.  The following is a letter exchange between two Americans, struggling to make sense of the 9/12 era. 

 

September 6, 2009

Gary,

I too found the Allawi quote quite interesting.

From a standpoint of Western understanding, the tolerance that exists between differing Muslim sects could signify that the sects coexist while neither side prohibits the religious practices of the other. Accommodation seems to be more hospitable, perhaps even representing a reconciliation of differences. But the quote shows that there is a vast difference between Eastern and Western understanding.

One thing to bear in mind is that we are dealing with a religion which literally means “submission.” Attempting to comprehend Islam with a Western framework of understanding will prove very misleading, and I believe is what has lead to the crisis Western civilization is in. As Allawi implied: Tolerance assumes supremacy. We are dealing with supremacists, and as a country that founded itself on principles meant to eliminate supremacy, that too can be a roadblock to our understanding of the nature of the conflict.

Since the commandments found in the Qur’an contradict themselves so frequently, it is difficult for someone who hasn’t devoted years of study to make sense of what the final say is. If Sunni Muslims are to “acknowledge the legitimacy and rights of minority groups” as Allawi states, how can it be that the concept of the “invitation,” or Dawa, holds sway? I understand the concept of abrogation decides which of Muhammad’s contradicting commandments are lawful. Which then is the right one: The “invitation,” which commands that Non-Muslims are to convert to Islam, be subjugated, or killed – or the acknowledgment of legitimacy and rights of minority groups?

But in addressing the differing East/West mindsets: The “permanent arrangement which implies the creation of a recognized and legitimate space for other religious and doctrinal groups” that Allawi mentions gives me the impression of Muslims setting aside space for Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. with the religions coexisting peacefully. I don’t see many examples of such space in Africa, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia – where non-Muslim places of worship are burned accompanied by the persecution and brutal murders of their worshipers. In fact, dozens of countries are either completely Muslim, like Saudi Arabia, or are approaching complete Muslim occupation. It is also worth noting that Islam is neither accommodating nor tolerant of the nation of Israel.

The conclusion I have come to is that perhaps the accommodation Allawi mentions is actually the Da’wa itself.

The Karen DeYoung AfPak Reader

Below, you will find a year’s worth of articles by Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post centered on the AfPak conflict.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/27/AR2008082703628_pf.html
Only a Two-Page ‘Note’ Governs U.S. Military in Afghanistan

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 28, 2008; A07

For the past six years, military relations between the United States and Afghanistan have been governed by a two-page “diplomatic note” giving U.S. forces virtual carte blanche to conduct operations as they see fit.

Although President Bush pledged in a 2005 declaration signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to “develop appropriate arrangements and agreements” formally spelling out the terms of the U.S. troop presence and other bilateral ties, no such agreements were drawn up.

But after a U.S.-led airstrike last week that United Nations and Afghan officials have said killed up to 90 civilians — most of them children — Karzai has publicly called for a review of all foreign forces in Afghanistan and a formal “status of forces agreement,” along the lines of an accord being negotiated between the United States and Iraq.

The prospect of codifying the ad hoc rules under which U.S. forces have operated in Afghanistan since late 2001 sends shudders through the Bush administration, which has struggled to finalize its agreement with Baghdad. “It’s never been done because the issues have been too big to surmount,” said one U.S. official who was not authorized to discuss the subject on the record. “The most diplomatic way of saying it is that there are just a lot of moving parts,” the official said.

The Afghan government “is not the most streamlined and efficient system,” he said. “So you’d have a multiplicity of players on that side.” Less diplomatic U.S. officials frequently describe elements of Karzai’s government as deeply corrupt and incompetent. Although most civilian war deaths in Afghanistan are caused by Taliban forces, those resulting from the highly visible airstrikes are a particular cause of public outrage that neither Karzai nor the administration can afford to ignore.

The other side of the equation is even more complicated. Of the 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, 19,000 operate under U.S. Central Command, while 14,000 form the largest single component of a 40-nation force led by NATO under a U.N. resolution.

The disparate command structures have frustrated every government involved in the effort, but according to Afghan officials, they have also allowed diffused responsibility for civilian casualties, such as those of last week in the western part of the country. U.S. forces operate up to 90 percent of all strike aircraft in the country, and it is rarely clear whether an individual strike has been conducted as part of a NATO or U.S. operation.