LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 15/09

Bible Reading of the day
John 14/8-21: " Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”  Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’  Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake. Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.  Whatever you will ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it. If you love me, keep my commandments. I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, that he may be with you forever,—  the Spirit of truth, whom the world can’t receive; for it doesn’t see him, neither knows him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.  I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you.  Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more; but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 14:21 One who has my commandments, and keeps them, that person is one who loves me. One who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will reveal myself to him.”
 

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Call for change in Lebanon/By: Lucy Fielder/Al-Ahram Weekly/November 14/09
Electricity solution can build consensus/The Daily Star/November 14/09
Found at sea/By: Bassel Oudat/Al-Ahram Weekly/November 14/09
The New Lebanese Government Presents an Opportunity for Washington/By: Joyce Karam/November 14/09
Iran’s Plans are Destructive and Could Turn Yemen into another Somalia/By: Raghida Dergham/November 14/09
Lebanon's new test/By: Omayma Abdel-Latif /Al-Ahram Weekly/November 14/09
The history of Lebanon between anti-Semitism and crimes against humanity/By:Mohammed Ali al-Atassi/Now Lebanon/November 14, 09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 14/09
Council of Catholic Patriarchs and Bishops Expresses Trust in Suleiman's Political Path/Naharnet
Franjieh: Political Dispute with Jumblat is Over/Naharnet
Jumblatt wants Damascus invite before he gets “personal” with Syria/Now Lebanon
Jumblat: We Should Take Lebanon Out of March 8, 14 Trenches/Naharnet
Samir Franjieh surprised by Kataeb’s post-cabinet formation behavior/Now Lebanon
Lebanon's new Cabinet leery of Hezbollah dispute/The Associated Press
Cabinet Policy Statement to be Concise/Naharnet
NLP: unity cabinet disturbs democratic system/NNA
Sleiman voices hope for finalizing Ministerial Statement by Independence Day/Now Lebanon
Suleiman Mulling New National Dialogue Standards/Naharnet
Wahhab “advises” Hariri to visit Damascus with help of Franjieh/Now Lebanon
Houri says “right time” for Sleiman’s visit to Syria/Now Lebanon
Kouchner Expresses Readiness to Help in Sadr's Disappearance Case/Naharnet
Nasrallah, Arslan Assess New Stage/Naharnet
Authorities Recover Stolen Vehicles from Southern Suburbs, Theft Linked to Drug Trade/Naharnet
Assad: Lebanon was Present in Talks with Sarkozy/Naharnet
Sejaan Qazzi: Phalange Bloc 'Independent from Parliamentary Majority, Minority/Naharnet
Executive at Central Bank Flees to Brazil with LL2 Billion/Naharnet
Hizbullah Disciplinary Members Step Back to Allow Police Take Charge/Naharnet
Hariri's Damascus Visit Not Before Cabinet Policy Statement/Naharnet
Adwan: May 7, not June 7, defined cabinet formation/Now Lebanon
Widespread cabinet support likely to hasten ministerial-draft formulation/Daily Star
Communists urge Cabinet to abolish sectarianism/Daily Star
Syria dismisses Israeli offer for peace talks as mere word games/Daily Star
Harb pays visit to Labor Ministry in opposition stronghold/Daily Star
Denmark adds voice to Cabinet congratulations/Daily Star
Hizbullah 'knows everything' about Israel's border force/Daily Star
Bassil likens electricity post to 'ball of fire'/Daily Star
IMF favors continued fall in interest rates in Lebanon/Daily Star
Scientists gather at president's conference/Daily Star
Inter-school education link set for best year yet/Daily Star
STL calls attorneys to join defense team/Daily Star
Along with latest, number of plans to solve Sidon dump crisis rival towering trash heap/Daily Star
Teachers learn to promote world heritage/Daily Star
Live Lebanon calls for Diaspora donations/Daily Star

Widespread cabinet support likely to hasten ministerial-draft formulation
Daily Star staff/Saturday, November 14, 2009
BEIRUT: Support demonstrated by international and regional powers to the newly formed national unity government of Prime Minister Saad Hariri is likely to have positive repercussions on the drafting of the ministerial platform. Various groups voiced hope Friday that the process of drafting the ministerial statement would be “swift and smooth.”
Sources close to the parliamentary majority expected that the platform will be finalized before celebrating Lebanon’s Independence Day, marked on November 22.
President Michel Sleiman’s talks with his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad Thursday were seen in a positive light on the local as well as regional scenes.
Various media outlets and analysts predicted on Friday that Sleiman’s visit to Damascus could herald a visit there by Hariri. The premier has had tense relations with Syria ever since his father’s killing in a car bomb in 2005.
The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri prompted the withdrawal of Syrian troops from its small neighbor following a 29-year presence.
A UN commission of inquiry has said there was converging evidence that Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services were involved in Hariri’s killing, but Damascus has consistently denied any involvement. According to media reports on Friday, Sleiman sought to soften the atmosphere between Syrian officials and Hariri and discussed an “appropriate” conclusion to the tensions. The reports added that Hariri’s trip to Damascus “would most likely take place two or three days” after his government gets a vote of confidence in Parliament.
Government sources, meanwhile, said a visit by Hariri to Damascus is “inevitable,” but that it was unlikely to happen before Cabinet gets a confidence vote.
Hariri, who left on a private visit to Saudi Arabia late Thursday, is expected to start – after winning a confidence vote – a tour of Arab countries aimed at gathering regional and international support to boost Lebanon’s economy.
Assad’s political and media adviser, Buthaina Shaaban told the media on Friday that it was “too early to talk about practical steps regarding Hariri’s visit to Syria.”
Meanwhile, Future Movement MP Ammar Houri told Al-Manar television on Friday that bilateral relations between Lebanon and Arab states, especially Syria, should be “excellent.”
He said that it was “only logical” that Hariri’s visit to Syria take place after the Cabinet wins a vote of confidence in Parliament, which marks the official beginning of all government actions, including state visits. Houri added that Lebanon never had any feud with Syria, but “we
have to admit that a very black cloud passed over the skies of the bilateral relations after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.”
On Friday, the White House issued a statement commending Sleiman for his efforts to form the Cabinet, saying that Washington looked forward to dealing with the Lebanese government.
The statement also stressed that the Lebanese ministerial statement should abide by UN Security Council resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701, adding that the US administration will support Lebanon in achieving peace, stability and economic development. There would be no Middle East peace resolution at Lebanon’s expense, the statement said.
In other news, Speaker Nabih Berri voiced “strong optimism” on Friday, adding that various political parties “wish and seek to work toward the best interests of the citizens.”
Berri said the opposition had “every intention of facilitating the tasks required of this government.” The Central News Agency (CNA) reported that Berri had plans to launch “a large-scale legislative workshop.” CNA said Berri has called for a meeting Wednesday with members of the Parliament’s executive bureau and heads of the parliamentary committees to discuss a series of pending draft laws. It added that draft laws related to the law for the municipal polls and trials will be among Parliament’s top priorities.
Meanwhile, Phalange Party politburo member Sejaan Qazzi stressed that his party’s MPs ought to be currently considered as “an independent parliamentary bloc,” which will vote according to its convictions and does not abide by the decisions of the parliamentary majority or minority. The Phalange are not pleased with the share and portfolio allotted to them in the Cabinet, and the party is unhappy with the results of Wednesday’s parliamentary-committee elections. Qazzi reiterated the Phalange’s decision to suspend its alliance with the parliamentary majority. – The Daily Star

Resistance by words!
Date: November 13th, 2009
Future News
Syrian President Bashar el Assad is seeking an Israeli partner for ‘peace’. He seems very ‘devastated’ for missing his ‘Israeli partner’ as he said after meeting French president Nicolas Sarkozy. More than that, he is exerting mush effort, using his entire lexicon, to say “a Syrian part wants peace and the Turkish mediator is ready to mediate between the two parts (Israel and Syria) along with a French, European, and international support.” Assad’s new declaration totally contradicts with his previous statements that Damascus seeks a direct US sponsorship for any negotiations with the Zionist enemy. As always, the cause of the Israeli occupation becomes a substance for bargaining in the international bazaars, or in other words another door to open up to the West. It does not matter whom or which country sponsors the peace process, but what matters is the question on what has become of the “resistance”, which the Arabs have been awaiting since 1967- when Israel occupied the Golan Heights. The paradox about Assad’s appeal is that the resistance can only be from Lebanon and through it. Regardless of the country’s reality and it’s human, economic, and political capabilities. Historically, the ‘resistance’ of the Syrian regime has only been displayed through statements and through the Lebanese and Palestinian people, and most probably, things will remain this way until fate decides about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but any way, we should all be attentive that Israel is currently working to liquidate the Palestinian cause, with a clear barbarity

NLP: unity cabinet disturbs democratic system
Date: November 14th, 2009
Source: NNA /National Liberal Party asserted that the establishment of a national unity cabinet is better than constitutional void, pointing that the unity cabinet disturbs Lebanon’s democratic system, following its weekly meeting headed by MP Dory Chamoun on Friday. “A national unity cabinet disturbs Lebanon’s democratic system and therefore must not be a tradition adopted later in the future,” indicated the statement, commending Premier Saad Hariri’s sense of parliamentary democracy. The statement noted that consensus at the cabinet means religious consensus and not a political one, “especially if the latter uses illegitimate means to impose itself.” It attributed the delay in achieving the Ministerial Statement to two opposing projects and obstructers “whose obstruction was immediately retracted when someone conveyed Syrian President’s opinion and the meeting held between Prince of Qatar and Iranian officials in Tehran.” Chamoun called for preserving the people, land and constitution of the national unity cabinet and stressed the need to give social and daily affairs greater importance, hoping that the displaced people’s file is concluded through providing them with financial capabilities to return to their hometowns.

Samir Franjieh surprised by Kataeb’s post-cabinet formation behavior
November 14, 2009 /Now Lebanon/Member of the March 14 General Secretariat Samir Franjieh said in an interview with Al-Mustaqbal newspaper published on Saturday that “the Kataeb party was expected to resign from the [Social Affairs] Ministry and to remain within the March 14, but the opposite happened,” implying the party has split with its ally.
He added that the “crisis” between the alliance and the Kataeb party started when the party was granted the Social Affairs Ministry, instead of the one they demanded: the Education portfolio. Franjieh said that the Kataeb never communicated any problems to the Secretariat, adding that the party needs to convey its issues before March 14 can address them.
-NOW Lebanon

Jumblatt wants Damascus invite before he gets “personal” with Syria
November 14, 2009
Now Lebanon/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt told Al-Manar television on Friday that he will not discuss the “personal” details of his relationship with Syria until the country “signals” it wants to host the MP.
Jumblatt added that he has gone through “tough times” with the Syrian regime and that “this test” – of reconciling with Syria - will be the hardest. He said that in the past he has been “very harsh” with the Syrian regime, adding that reaching an understanding about the importance of Lebanon’s relationship with Syria will come before he makes a visit to the country.
Jumblatt’s “personal” issues with Damascus stem from his father PSP leader Kamal Jumblatt’s assassination, which some have accused Syria of committing. But, Jumblatt said he overcame these problems when he visited the country in 1977. “It was not easy to shake hands with Syrian President Hafez al-Assad after Kamal Jumblatt’s funeral, but I did, and we developed an important political relationship,” the MP said.
“It is not easy to shake hands with someone [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] I offended, and he should understand that we were caught in the spur of the moment which is why the emotional rhetoric took over the rational one,” he added.
He said that his second clash with the Syrian regime came after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, stressing however that “politics is what counts.”
“The Lebanese ended the Syrian mandate over their country but forgot that there are political and geographic constants: the [Mediterranean] Sea, Syria and Israel,” Jumblatt said. He stressed that Lebanon’s destiny is to be “on Syria’s side,” calling for a return to the Taif Accord that entails a peace agreement with Israel and good relations with Syria.
Jumblatt touched on his relationship with the March 14 alliance, saying that it “was productive, but we cannot remain prisoners of productive titles.” He reiterated that he is still within the parliamentary majority.
The MP also said that he expects the newly formed government’s term to last until the next parliamentary elections, and called for consensus on “leaving the big issues up to the National Dialogue.” He added that Hariri’s mission is to get the cabinet “out of the trenches; give the Palestinian refugees their human rights; install a single, national history textbook in schools; and improve the economic situation.”
He said that his personal relationship with Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has improved and that there has been major progress in reconciling the two parties. He added that he agrees with Hezbollah that “no prospects of a settlement or peace with Israel are looming in the horizon, the resistance culture should be strengthened while respecting the particularities of the Lebanese, the Arabism of Lebanon, ending the injustice towards the Palestinian refugees, the importance of defending Lebanon, and the principle that a strong state does not contradict with the Resistance.”
Jumblatt also said that the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement helps Islamic unity and prevents sectarian divisions in the region, adding that the Iranian role compliments the Arab role in the Middle East peace process and that there is a “strategic misunderstanding” over Iran’s role in the region.
-NOW Lebanon

The history of Lebanon between anti-Semitism and crimes against humanity
By:Mohammed Ali al-Atassi
Now Lebanon/November 14, 2009
Generally speaking, many extremists who fanatically defend just causes are the worst enemies of those causes. This principle applies directly to the whole hubbub started by Al-Manar when it accused certain groups of being compliant in exposing “the educational sector in Lebanon to the Zionist cultural invasion.” This charge was due to the fact that an English-language textbook being used in several schools in Beirut contained passages from the memoirs of Anne Frank, the thirteen-year-old German girl who wrote her journal entries in hiding during the Nazi occupation of The Netherlands before she was captured, later dying along with most of the members of her family in Nazi concentration camps.
The television report, which caused this whole stir when it aired on the evening of October 30 on Al-Manar news, was no more than a three-minute segment put together by an overly zealous journalist and featuring a Hezbollah MP and lawyer. But it was enough to cause the book to be taken out of circulation after an unfortunate and unjust decision on the part of then-Minister of Education Bahia Hariri. It was also enough for some authorities at Al-Manar to think they scored an additional point in Lebanon’s continuing political disputes, when actually they handed over – on a silver platter – a priceless gift to extremist Zionist propaganda, which for years has sought to link currents of anti-Semitism in Europe to the resistance movements against the Zionist occupation in our region.
A short television report prepared by an impetuous journalist, after it had been transcribed on the front page of Al-Manar’s website, was enough to be picked up by AFP in Beirut and rereleased in a number of languages. From there it was seized upon by world media outlets and published by the international press on their front pages under the headline that Hezbollah censored Anne Frank in Lebanon. Indeed, it is enough for a report like this to create a firestorm over Lebanon, its Resistance, its media and even its educational institutions.
The most terrible and peculiar part is that Al-Manar’s website, in transcribing the content of the broadcast, neglected the egregious error committed by the journalist who prepared the report. When boasting about his discovery, the journalist held the book in his hands, displayed its pages to the viewing public and said: “This is the book which is studied in Beirut schools and talks about the memoirs of a young Israeli girl during the Second World War.” Perhaps this journalist was unaware that during the period when Anne Frank wrote her journal entries – between 1942 and 1944 – there was still no state in the world called Israel. Such a blunder is appalling. Or perhaps he indeed was aware but in his haste to prepare the report committed this gaffe. That would be an even greater mistake. What is important is that this report, and all other similar matters, is being used by all who want to erroneously and shamelessly make the link between anti-Semitism and the crimes in Europe with the Resistance in Lebanon. Otherwise, how could we justify this journalist’s protest against the Star of David appearing in the book – the star that Jews were forced to wear on their chests by the Nazis as a scarlet letter. This was the only manner in which it appeared in the textbook!
It was not lost upon this broadcast report to take on a semi-official stamp as it hosted Hezbollah MP Hussein al-Hajj Hassan. The MP would not acknowledge that Anne Frank’s story was really a tragedy when he said, “No one studies a book in Lebanese schools without examining the content. So instead, these long-endured and respected schools teach what the so-called, quote-unquote tragedy of this young girl, being ashamed to teach the tragedy of the Palestinian people, the tragedy of the Lebanese people, the history of the Resistance, the history of Lebanon’s resistance, and the suffering of the people of the South and the people of Lebanon by the Zionist occupation.”
The truth is MP Hussein al-Hajj Hassan would not have so begrudgingly described the story of Anne Frank as a “tragedy” if he had been afforded the opportunity during the various stages of his education to examine the truth of the misfortune that befell the young German Jew; if he had read her diary and come to know how she hid away with her family in a house attic in Amsterdam for 25 months during which she compiled her entries before her family was discovered by Nazi police; or if he had studied how she and her sister were separated from their father and all moved to Nazi concentration camps where no one in her family was spared, except the father.
Moreover, MP Hajj Hassan would not have stuck to this comparison which so negatively differentiated between the tragedy of Anne Frank and the tragedies of the Palestinians and Lebanese if he had understood that it is not only how the diary accounts became, for such a large portion of the world, the voice and conscience for all of those who perished in Nazi concentration camps; but rather, also how Zionist propaganda has attempted to monopolize her diary for its own interests and use them to justify the establishment of the state of Israel as a national homeland for the Jews as the victims of the Holocaust.
The truth is, had MP Hajj Hassan reviewed recent history even a little, he would have recalled that, amid all the protests of Zionist organizations from The Netherlands and around the world, former PLO head Yasser Arafat visited the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam in 1996, acknowledging the tragedy that befell the Jews in World War II. On the same token, he refuted any notion that anti-Semitism and the just battle of the Palestinians were interrelated.
Indeed, had MP Hajj Hassan looked even a little bit into the truth about the Nazi concentration camps and the place that this great crime against humanity occupies in the European collective conscience; had he looked even a little bit into the difficult task being undertaken by several progressive groups in Europe to prevent Israel from becoming the sole spokesman for the victims of the Holocaust; had he only stressed that the Palestinians, in the end, are the victims of the victims, he would have been able to make a comparison between the tragedy of Anne Frank and the victims of the Holocaust and the tragedies of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples in a way that is integrative, not differentiating.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if he, prior to making this unfortunate comparison, had heard of the controversy in the Netherlands last year when Boomerang Publishing produced postcards depicting Anne Frank, considered by many in Europe to be the symbol of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis, wearing the red Palestinian Kuffiyah, the symbol of the Palestinian struggle, which were distributed for free in universities, theaters and coffee shops. This postcard created a major stir in the Netherlands and it drew intense opposition from numerous Jewish organizations who demanded, in vain, that the publishing house take the cards out of circulation.
Even Harry Kney-Tal, the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, got involved in the issue. He displayed his deep anger over the subject, saying: “Anne Frank was an icon in [The Netherlands’] history and was killed because she was Jewish. The artist was wrong to use this icon to interpret a political crisis which is completely different from that of the Palestinians and the Israelis. This is a disgraceful matter and I cannot use any other words to describe the image.”
Such disgrace, as it were, was also undertaken by UNESCO, an organization deserving of great praise here, when this year it added UNRWA’s photo and film archives of Palestinian refugees alongside Anne Frank’s diaries in Paris to its Memory of the World Programme. Such disgrace, as viewed by the Israeli ambassador, should have been explored further by MP Hajj Hassan. Not only could he, after delving further, have made an integrative comparison between Anne Frank’s suffering and that of the children of Qana, Janin and Gaza, but he could also begin to encourage our children, via school curricula, to take after Anne Frank and record in their daily notebooks with candor and clarity the suffering that they have had to endure. At that point it would be difficult for the so-called Israeli Defense Forces to turn the children’s bodies into the nameless, voiceless, bloody corpses displayed on our satellite channels.
What makes matters worse is that this sort of back-and-forth bickering, which has taken on wide-reaching international dimensions, was not lost on the Lebanese interior. On LBC’s program “Your Day Is Happy”, MP Sami Gemayel did not let the Al-Manar report go by without not only coming out in defense of the freedom of expression and education and the right to teach the Anne Frank Diaries in Lebanese schools; but he also said, in the name of decentralization, that every region in Lebanon should be able to teach its own particular history alongside Lebanon’s common history. The logic of equality between Lebanon’s sects, according to Gemayel, should be as follows: “I’m coming from the logic of equality. If Hezbollah wants to control the curriculum of [the International College], we should also examine the curricula that it teaches in its schools.”
However, the young Gemayel was not satisfied with that. He went on to demand that his party receive the Ministry of Education because “the history book is among the priorities of the [Kataeb] party, [a party that] believes it necessary to submit this issue to a major workshop based on [the idea that] the writing of Lebanese history [should be] shared by everyone and with respect to all of their sacrifices made for the sake of Lebanon.” The upstart Gemayel went on to say that “we recognize [Hezbollah’s] martyrs and we demand that they recognize our martyrs as well. We only demand equality between us as afforded by the Lebanese constitution.” However, if the other side does not respect the Kataeb’s martyrs, then Gemayel threatened to review the entire configuration of the country, saying: “We have offered sacrifices for this country and we deserve respect from the other side, whoever that might be. And if the other side does not acknowledge us, then we should take a look at this country’s configuration.”
In light of this dispute we can only imagine how the history of this country would be written by both those who believe that the presence of the diary of Anne Frank in history textbooks will lead to the normalization and continuation of “the educational sector in Lebanon legitimizing the Zionist cultural invasion,” and those who want to obtain the Ministry of Education in order to rewrite Lebanese history.
Did not Sami Gemayel declare upon his election to parliament that “I shall enter [parliament] with all of our martyrs; with our martyrs from Tal al-Zaatar and the Hundred-Day War. I will not leave them outside parliament; rather I shall bring them in with us. And we will tell the truth, and we will not be quiet. I will be your conscience, your identity and your history inside parliament.” Today he is not only trying to do what he said he would in parliament, but also in the Ministry of Education!
Indeed, this is a matter of Lebanese history being rewritten by those who want to cram it full of anti-Semitism on the one hand and on the other those who have not learned a single thing from the past and still are proud of the massacre of Tel al-Zaatar - viewed under international law as a crime against humanity – and who consider it, as they have said, “a golden page” in the history of the Lebanese resistance.
This article is an abridged translation of the original Arabic, which was published in An-Nahar on Wednesday, November 11

Communists urge Cabinet to abolish sectarianism
Daily Star staff/Saturday, November 14, 2009
BEIRUT: The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) urged the new government on Friday to expedite creating the national committee for abolishing political sectarianism. The LCP issued a statement after its meeting on Friday, saying the process of forming the government uncovered dangerous weaknesses that could affect the core of the Lebanese system. The “laborious” birth of the government and the Lebanese people getting accustomed to living without a government were among the mentioned weaknesses. The statement added that the main solution to surpassing these problems would be in rushing the formation of the national committee for abolishing political sectarianism. It also asked the government to hurry up in adopting measures to end the economic and social crisis the country was going through. – The Daily Star

Syria dismisses Israeli offer for peace talks as mere word games
Assad and sarkozy discuss developments in Lebanon during Paris talks
Saturday, November 14, 2009/Tamora Vidaillet
Reuters
PARIS: Syrian President Bashar Assad said on Friday that an Israeli call to renew peace talks was mere “word play” and the US should be doing more to resolve conflict in the Middle East. Assad was in Paris for talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and said ties with France had greatly improved in recent months, after a long period of frosty relations.
Sarkozy met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this week, raising speculation that France was trying to re-kindle the peace process. Netanyahu told Sarkozy he was ready to start peace negotiations with Assad unconditionally, but the Syrian leader said the offer could not be taken at face value. “Syria does not have any conditions. Syria has rights and Syria will never give up these rights,” he said at the Elysee Palace following his meeting. “All this word play from the Israelis is meant to do away demands and rights,” he added. “This can only accentuate instability in the region.” Syria has demanded that Israel withdraw fully from the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau that it captured from Syria in a 1967 war. Peace talks between the two countries foundered in 2000 over the issue; recent Turkish mediation ended late last year when Israel launched a military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Assad said if Israel really wanted peace with Syria it should re-open discussions through Turkey. “If Netanyahu is serious, he can send his team of experts. We will send our team of experts to Turkey,” he said.
Blocked Syrian-Israeli relations are one of the major hurdles to a broad Middle East peace accord. In an interview with Le Figaro newspaper, Assad said US President Barack Obama had to get more involved if he wanted results. “But the weak point is the American sponsor [of peace talks],” Assad was quoted by the paper as saying.
“What Obama said about peace was a good thing. We agree with him on the principles, but as I said, what’s the action plan? The sponsor has to draw up an action plan,” added Assad.
Assad said that while relations with the United States had improved, issues such as continued American sanctions against Syria were hindering any joint work toward peace in the Middle East. Assad said that he had discussed the question of Lebanon with Sarkozy, expressing his government’s satisfaction over the formation of a national unity government in Lebanon and his hope that the Lebanese government would reinstate its former role.
Prior to his meeting with Sarkozy, Assad said that he publicly confirmed on numerous occasions his “support for any government of national unity in Lebanon” before the government was formed. “The formation of the government is a good thing for Lebanon, as it will ensure [the country’s] stability,” the Syrian premier said in his interview with Le Figaro newspaper.
“When there are no divisions in Lebanon, it will be easier for a country like Syria to establish normal relations with it,” he added. – With The Daily Star

Hizbullah 'knows everything' about Israel's border force
Document shows shiite group holds extremely detailed intelligence
By Dalila Mahdawi and Carol Rizk /Daily Star staff
Saturday, November 14, 2009
BEIRUT: One day after Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warned Israel it would be defeated if it launched another war, an Israeli newspaper on Thursday published excerpts from an alleged Hizbullah document suggesting the group knows everything about Israel’s military activity along the Lebanese border. An article in Yediot Ahronoth said the top-secret 150-page document suggests Hizbullah spies have successfully infiltrated the Israeli Army and Israel, spying on regular communication and coded communication networks. The report, which could not be independently verified by The Daily Star, reportedly runs on the paper’s front page with the headline: “[Nasrallah] knows everything about us.” It says the document “shows to what extent Hizbullah intelligence succeeded in penetrating the Israeli Army, and proves that Hizbullah has enough sources of information,” according to Hizbullah’s Al-Manar television.
Hizbullah is particularly informed about the activities of Brigade 91, stationed along the border, and describes the Israeli Army’s land, naval and aerial activities, surveillance equipment and binocular monitoring, As-Safir said Friday. “Israeli experts and retired servicemen who served in the north have said that the data gathered by Hizbullah by means of the document was highly sensitive and that part of it had been cloned by Hizbullah from secret documents belonging to the 91st brigade,” Al-Manar reported Yediot Ahronoth journalist Ronen Bergman as telling Israeli television Thursday. “They detail the nature of the Israeli Army’s deployment in the north. Those who see the documents know that they have been copied page by page from the original top secret documents. Hizbullah might have gathered the data by means of spies or by infiltrating into the Israeli side to take pictures,” he said. An Israeli Army official serving on the Lebanese border told the Israeli paper that after reading the document, “everything went black.”
“I was astonished by the accuracy of Hizbullah’s description,” he said. In an ongoing war of words between the hostile neighbors, the Israeli report appears to have ruffled feathers at home, with one commentator saying Nasrallah was the only Arab leader properly following Israeli affairs. “Nasrallah reads all our journals, reads all the details and memorizes them,” Al-Manar quoted Tseva Yehezkili, an expert in Arab affairs, as saying. “We can say that he is the sole Arab leader who is aware of what is taking place in Israel.”
In a speech to mark Martyr’s Day on Wednesday, Nasrallah said that while Hizbullah was not looking for another war, it would respond to an offensive.
Israel could “send whatever military brigades, five or seven, and if you want send the whole Israeli Army … we will destroy and crash it in our hills, valleys and mountains,” he warned.
Nasrallah’s speech prompted Giyora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security to tell reporters that Israel wouldn’t win a future war with Hizbullah because the group possessed too many missiles. “If we want to win, the war should instead be waged against the Lebanese government and its infrastructure of which Hizbullah has become a part,” he said, echoing similar remarks made by Israeli officials in the past. Also on Wednesday, the Israeli military released documents and photos it said proved Iran was responsible for an alleged weapons shipment intercepted by the Israeli Navy last week. Tel Aviv claims the cargo ship it seized off the coast of Cyprus was carrying 500 tons of Iranian-made weapons to Hizbullah. Both Iran and Hizbullah have denied the allegations. Israeli Army Chief of Staff Major General Gabi Ashkenazi meanwhile said Tuesday Hizbullah had rockets capable of hitting the cities of Tel Aviv and Occupied Jerusalem, as well as the country’s secretive nuclear reactor at Dimona. “Some of [the rockets] have a range of 300 kilometers and some of them have a range of up to 325 kilometers,” Ashkenazi was quoted as saying.

Call for change in Lebanon
By: Lucy Fielder
Al-Ahram Weekly
While Lebanon now has a government, the five-month power vacuum has highlighted cracks in its creaking confessional system. According to influential Lebanese pollster Abdu Saad, the system is in need of complete overhaul, reports Lucy Fielder from Beirut
Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun's popularity in his Mount Lebanon heartland has been the subject of much speculation in Lebanon in recent years. Did he win or lose support among Lebanon's Maronites through his alliance with the armed Shia party Hizbullah, which fought the war with Israel in 2006?
This question re-surfaced with the intransigence shown by "Le General", as the former army chief is known to his supporters, during the latest governmental crisis to hit the country. According to the leading election pollster and head of the Beirut Centre for Research and Information Abdu Saad, Aoun's support has remained strong, if it has also been dented at times.
"Aoun has scored a victory," Saad said in an interview in his office in Hamra in west Beirut. The "March 14 [movement] won the election, but the result has been nullified, and it had no effect." The movement to which Saad referred, which takes its name from an anti-Syrian demonstration after the killing of Lebanese politician Rafik Al-Hariri on that date in 2005, tried to weaken Aoun after the election, Saad maintains.
Yet, many in the parliamentary majority led by the new Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri have taken heart from the fact that Aoun did not gain as much as expected, even if his parliamentary share rose to 27 seats from 21 and his demands have now been met.
Aoun now has four ministries in the new government, including the key Telecommunications Ministry, as well as a minister of state.
According to Saad, Aoun's support is now likely to flood back, given that many Christians are looking for a strong leader that can preserve their political presence in the country. "He was the strongest single Christian leader, representing half their support. Now he'll grow even stronger," Saad said.
While Saad is seen as leaning towards the opposition, he shares with many Lebanese a general sense of disillusionment with the political class. After more than six months without a president, military escalation on Beirut's streets last year and this summer's political deadlock, the system appears to be creaking to a halt in the absence of Syrian control.
Major flaws in Lebanon's political institutions appeared following the July 2006 war, when Hizbullah was angered by a lack of support from the Western-backed government and accused it of tacitly supporting Israel's war. Following the war, Hizbullah withdrew its ministers from the cabinet and began its demands for a "blocking third" of cabinet seats.
It took a prolonged sit-in in downtown Beirut and then last year's takeover of western Beirut by the Shia guerrillas and their allies to induce the birth of a national-unity government last year at an emergency conference in Doha.
"It can't go on like this," Saad commented. "I have always felt that a majority system does not suit Lebanon. The country cannot be ruled by a majority, because then who will protect the minority? It's not as if we have built a state with functioning institutions."
Although Al-Hariri's parliamentary majority won June's elections, Aoun, Hizbullah and the Shia Amal group argued that their representation in the government should reflect their influence in the Christian and Shia communities.
Add to that Hizbullah's determination to maintain a veto on strategic issues pertaining to its arsenal of weapons, and Lebanon has a recipe for paralysis.
"What would suit us is a presidential system in which the president is elected by popular vote," Saad said. "Nobody would then ask for veto power."
Many powers were shifted from the Maronite Christian position of president to the cabinet under the Taif Agreement that ended the civil war of 1975-1990, in order to ensure better political representation for Sunni and Shia Muslims.
"Before this agreement, the president made sure that all sectarian leaders were represented in the government, but only as his aides. The Syrians made sure that this tradition was preserved. When they left, this big flaw was exposed," Saad said.
While the position is now more than simply that of a figurehead, the president has few powers to break the deadlocks that have plagued Lebanon in the post-Syrian era. "The president does not have the power to dissolve parliament and call a referendum. There is no democracy in the world where that's the case," Saad said.
According to Saad, another flaw then and now has been that the parliament appoints the president, leaving the position subject to deal-making and horse-trading.
With the right constitutional checks in place, the president, regardless of his or her own sect, would protect minorities and Lebanon's fragile sectarian balance, with the voters as arbitrators, Saad believes. "Under this system, the people would be the guarantee," he said.
Saad believes that despite its embrace of long-standing political rivals, the new cabinet will function, if only because it must. The political landscape is also likely to shift to the centre with the March 14 movement's power sapped by its inability to capitalise on the June election win and the breakaway of its most hawkish figurehead, Walid Jumblatt, in August.
Al-Hariri is also widely expected to visit Damascus soon, ending a rift between his Sunni Future Movement and Lebanon's larger neighbour caused by the 2005 assassination of his father Rafik Al-Hariri, which the emerging March 14 movement and its Western and regional backers blamed on Syria.
"The opposition wants Al-Hariri to succeed and to break with March 14, and once he has normal relations with Syria, they'll be weakened," Saad said. In time, Saad expects an easing of tensions between the Sunni and Shia communities, which exploded with the polarisation between the alliances led by the Future Movement and Hizbullah over the past few years.
As a result, mainstream Sunni antagonism towards Hizbullah's arms capacity may weaken, Saad said. "It will take a bit of time, but that's what I think will happen. I have always believed that the Sunnis are not really against the resistance," he said.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Found at sea
By: Bassel Oudat
Al-Ahram Weekly
The Israeli navy reported having discovered tons of rockets and other weapons onboard a ship bound for Syria. But Syrian officials dismiss all allegations, Bassel Oudat reports from Damascus 
Israel is holding a ship that it claims was carrying weapons from Iran to Syria. It released pictures of a large consignment of missiles and other weapons that were allegedly destined for Lebanon's Hizbullah.
Syria has denied any connection with the consignment, saying that the whole thing is fabricated. Syrian officials say that Israel is in the habit of capturing weapons and claiming they were destined for Syria. Israel, which has bombed Syrian facilities in the past, accuses Syria of harbouring terrorists.
The Israelis broke the news one day after having monitored what they said was a successful launch by Hamas of a missile with a 60-kilometre range. According to a statement by the Israeli navy, Israeli Special Forces intercepted the commercial ship Francop, which flies the Antiguan flag, near Cyprus on 5 November. Aboard, Israeli soldiers found tons of rockets hidden in containers marked as civilian goods. The Israelis claim that the weapons came from Iran and were meant for Syria and later Hizbullah, and perhaps even Hamas.
The Israeli coastguard took the ship to the port of Ashdod, south of Tel Aviv, for thorough inspection. According to Israeli sources, 40 containers loaded with anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets and other weapons were found on the ship. The Israelis said that the shipment was on its way from Iran to the Syrian port of Latakia. Such an amount of weapons, the Israelis pointed out, was sufficient to sustain Hizbullah in a month long war with Israel.
Israeli President Shimon Peres officially accused Syria and Iran of conspiring against his country. The incident, he added, illustrated the "big gap" between the words and the deeds of both Iran and Syria. Syria's foreign minister, who was visiting Iran on the same day the news came out, said the allegations were "totally untrue". The ship "was carrying goods from Syria to Iran and there were no weapons -- or equipment to produce weapons -- onboard," he stated.
Speaking at a joint news conference with his Iranian counterpart, the minister said that, "some pirates who act on the pretext of inspections keep blocking the passage of commercial ships." Hizbullah has denied any connection with the weapons while denouncing "Israeli piracy in international waters".
The interception of the Antiguan ship is the biggest commando operation of the type ever mounted by the Israelis in the Mediterranean. According to Haaretz, the ship sailed from Iran then made stops in Yemen and Sudan before going through the Suez Canal. According to Lloyds, the Francop operated regularly in the Mediterranean. Lloyds has not disclosed the ship's itinerary for the seven days prior to its capture.
Israel routinely accuses Syria and Iran of arming Hizbullah and Hamas. It has repeatedly intercepted ships in the Mediterranean on suspicion of carrying weapons to Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements.
On 3 January 2003, Israeli navy and air force units searched the ship Karine-A for weapons. Israeli officials then said that the ship was heading to Gaza with 50 tons of weapons aboard, including Katyushas, anti-tank rockets, and landmines. The Israelis said at the time that men close to the Palestinian Authority bought the consignment from Iran.
In 2008, Israel said that it monitored a cargo ship carrying two frigates onboard. The Israelis claimed that the ship was heading from Iran to Syria and that its navy refrained from intercepting it.Israel's latest operation was announced only hours before the UN General Assembly began a debate on the Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza in December 2008.
A source in the Syrian Foreign Ministry said that Israel's act of "piracy" was linked to the UN debate of the report. "The Israeli fabrications are aimed to distract attention from the UN debate and to justify Israel's war crimes against the Palestinians." Damascus, the source promised, would refer the matter to international courts.
International law experts say that Syria has no legal grounds for protesting Israel's action since the ship involved was not Syrian-owned.
For its part, the Syrian official newspaper Al-Thawrah said that Israel's action "reflects the panic of the Israeli government at a time when Iran's relations with the West are improving." The newspaper made a link between the ship's interception and the UN debate of the Goldstone Report.
Another Syrian official paper, Tishrin, said that Israel is trying to delude international public opinion through "a poorly-produced fiction film". Israel's attempts have not deceived the world or reversed the vote on the Goldstone Report. According to Tishrin, "Israel is adding political failure, intelligence failure, and media failure to its military failure."
The paper called on all governments of the world to arrest Israeli leaders on sight and prevent their planes and ships from landing at their ports.
European diplomatic circles in Damascus are worried that Syria may get involved in a risky game. Last month, Russian customs officials said they stopped the smuggling of a military consignment to Syria, which turned out to be spare parts for its MiG-29 planes. Syria didn't comment on the news.
Following the boarding of the Francop, the UN Security Council passed on an Israeli message about the ship to the Sanctions Committee. The US, French and UK envoys to the UN are said to be demanding action on the case. It may be that this incident is not going to be forgotten soon.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

The New Lebanese Government Presents an Opportunity for Washington
Fri, 13 November 2009/Al Hayat
Washington-Joyce Karam
Following a five-month deadlock, the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced on Monday the formation of a national unity government after a marathon of consultations with domestic and regional players. While Mr. Hariri gave major concessions to the opposition bloc including Hizballah, the new cabinet enjoys broad public support and a moderate base that could be a strong asset for Washington and its policy goals in Lebanon
Hariri, who rose to the national stage in 2005 after the assassination of his father late Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, achieved his biggest political breakthrough yet with the emergence of the new government this week. The seat distribution was agreed on a formula of 15-10-5, respectively for the Parliamentarian majority (Hariri coalition), the opposition, and the share of President Michel Suleiman-the new “kingmaker”-. While Mr. Hariri conceded the telecommunications, energy, and foreign affairs ministries to the opposition, his bloc and the President’s appointments retained the defense, justice, labor, interior and finance ministries.
Many in the majority camp were hoping for a more decisive seat distribution, one that reflects the outcome of the Parliamentary elections last June (56 percent for the majority), the regional dynamic (the Saudi-Syrian rapprochement) and the challenge posed by Hizballah after the events of May 7,2008 (the party tookover Beirut), however, narrowed the options for Mr. Hariri. Nevertheless, and looking at the half-full portion of the cup, the make up of the government should come as good news for Washington. Primarily because it represents a coalition of political moderates, whom if strengthened could help bolster the state institutions of Lebanon including the army and security forces. It is those institutions that offer the strongest alternative to the weapons of Hizballah, and are seen as a unifying force in a country deeply divided among sectarian lines.
Both Mr. Hairri and Mr. Suleiman have a strong national clout which can help them carry out a centrist and pragmatic agenda. Mr. Hariri, two days after assuming his new position echoed this national approach, stating that “Lebanon will not remain a playground for regional conflict” and pledging to work towards a secure and civil state. Mr. Suleiman for his part has proven, in less than two years since he assumed the job, to be an effective consensus builder who is committed to strengthening the army and the institutions of the state. His appointments, mainly Mr. Elias Murr (secretary of defense) and Mr. Ziad Baroud (secretary of interior), are also seen as moderates with good ties to the U.S. and a strong record.
The Obama administration has welcomed the announcement of the new cabinet, and expressed eagerness “to working with a new Lebanese government that is committed to extending its authority over all of Lebanon, and to advancing political and economic reforms that benefit the people of Lebanon expecting that resolutions.” For these hopes to translate, however, it is crucial that Washington stands behind the Hariri government. The US has given more than 1.2 billion dollars in total assistance to Lebanon since 2006, with over 437 million in military assistance.
Hizballah in separate incidents in North Lebanon in 2007 (warning the army not to enter the Palestinian refugee camps), in South Lebanon in 2008 (shooting down a helicopter), and in separate clashes linked to the party in Bekaa in 2009, has shown its distaste for strengthening the Lebanese army. The new government represents an opportunity for the Obama administration to sustain its support to Lebanon, and help move it closer towards the goals of state building and regional stability.

Iran’s Plans are Destructive and Could Turn Yemen into another Somalia
Fri, 13 November 2009/Al Hayat
Raghida Dergham,
New York: There is striking evidence of regional consensus over forming a Lebanese national unity government after deliberate obstruction that lasted for five months and an international agreement to implicitly accept a Lebanese government that includes Hezbollah with a seat at the UN Security Council. Regional and international messages exchanged through the Lebanese arena are reassuring for the Lebanese and for the region, at least for now. Also reassuring is what the Saad Hariri Government claims by defining itself as “the government of achievements”, signifying that it will focus on the economy, reform, job-creation and privatization, considering that consensus and rapprochement, especially between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Syria, provides a good window of opportunity for political stability that would be characterized by giving priority to the economy. All of this represents an opportunity for Hezbollah to position itself locally, regionally and internationally as a Lebanese political party that has its place and its standing, and to shake off its reputation as the third corner in what is referred to as the “Emirate Triangle”, the common denominator being the fact that they receive rockets from Iran, as well as its enmity towards the United States and the countries of Arab moderation. Its enmity towards Israel is natural as long as there is no peace between Lebanon and Israel, but rather a state of war, since officially the conflict between the two still stands. Nevertheless, it is not in Hezbollah’s interest to be part of a “triangle” or to form what is described as the “South Lebanon Emirate”, alongside the “Gaza Emirate” under Hamas’s supervision or the “Saada Emirate” under the Houthis in Yemen. The South’s inhabitants may want to lend moral and material support to help the Palestinians get rid of the Israeli occupation, but they most probably do not want to be party to the wars of the Houthis or of Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Such plans are truly destructive and are feared to turn Yemen into another Somalia. The responsibility of the Yemenis themselves is the prime consideration, this including the mistakes made by the Yemeni government and by President Ali Abdullah Saleh in particular. Nevertheless, there are external forces that are tampering with Yemen and there is interference, one which Iran in particular admitted to. The reactions of Saudi Arabia in warding off the spread of the fighting to its own soil are understandable, as are its fears that the internal conflict coupled with the dry nature of Yemen’s territory could lead to an unnatural flow of human migration across its borders. Indeed, the geological aspect represents a “time bomb”, according to one of the most prominent experts on Saudi-Yemeni relations, a matter which urgently requires a well-planned policy towards it, within Saudi Arabia, regionally and also in the United States, as does the possibility of Yemen turning into Somalia. Yet the aims of the Islamic Republic of Iran are difficult to understand in Yemen – beyond dangerous sectarian polarization – especially as such polarization involves the possibility of turning portions of Yemen’s territory into fertile soil for Al-Qaeda. The slogans of enmity towards America and hatred towards the “Great Satan” seem necessary for the relationship of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the United States, even at a time of increased rapprochement between the two and increasing talk of behind-the-scenes agreements, of which allowing Lebanon to finally have its government cabinet is perhaps an indication. This does not negate the reality of the shifts and surprises, as well as the incomplete and bad policies in the region, for which Lebanon has become the testing ground. Today, however, the strongest indicator points to the fact that the correct interpretation of the situation is an American, regional, European, Russian and local necessity to avoid the available opportunity slipping into corridors and nightmares for everyone.
In the issue of Lebanon, to begin with, the era of Fouad Siniora heading the Lebanese government in one of its most difficult phases should be bidden farewell to with appreciation, praise and congratulations for the pleasant surprise that was Fouad Siniora himself. Indeed, this capable man has set down an important cementing element for Lebanon, that of emphasizing the importance of state institutions for the future of the country, a legacy which it is necessary for the current Prime Minister Saad Hariri to uphold and build upon insistently.
Lebanon’s membership in the Security Council for the next two years strengthens the possibilities of it playing an exceptional role regionally and internationally, and such a role must strengthen its political and social internal fabric. Thus, instead of a reputation that turns it into an arena for proxy wars, and of sarcasm at its political structure and at its leaderships bound to external powers, the exceptional role played by the only Arab member of the Security Council can bestow on Lebanon a prestige it is in need of. This is if it correctly understands the qualities of such a position as well as its constraints, without exaggeration or excessiveness in giving the seat at the Security Council an importance that exceeds its bounds…
Lebanon’s Permanent Representative at the UN Ambassador Nawaf Salam is capable of representing Lebanon in the best way at the Security Council, and with him is an excellent team of diplomats, most of them having experience with the Security Council and two of them having represented Lebanon during one of its most difficult phases as Chargé d’Affaires of its mission, namely: current Deputy Ambassador Caroline Ziadeh and diplomat Ibrahim Assaf. During this period and before it, Majdi Ramadan had also been with them in the Lebanese mission for years, and he has returned to join the team. Thus the performance of Lebanese diplomacy has been characterized by wisdom, flexibility and composure, and that is part of the prestige Lebanon seeks after.
And because Nawaf Salam is an expert on international law, he has for example been able to play a fundamental and constructive role in bringing Arab stances closer together, and has participated in formulating an intelligent strategy in the Arabs addressing the report of Judge Richard Goldstone, which stated that Israel and Hamas had committed “war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity” in the Gaza war. This report will remain pivotal for Arab diplomacy at the United Nations and perhaps at the Security Council, especially if the Middle East peace process continues to deteriorate to rock bottom. Indeed, there is talk of the possibility of heading to the Security Council on the issue of the peace process, if the conclusion is reached that US sponsorship of such a process has reached a dead-end. In fact, the Security Council has adopted important resolutions over the peace process, including the resolution of establishing the state of Palestine alongside Israel on the basis of the road map.
If the issue of the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict was to return to the Security Council, Lebanon’s role would be of the utmost importance as its only Arab member. Similarly, in any non-Arab issues, Arab membership, represented by Lebanon, will have exceptional weight. In any case, there is the importance of proximity in forging resolutions concerned with world peace and security, which places countries elected to a seat at the Security Council at the same table of talks and negotiations that includes the five permanent members: the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France.
However, alongside rights and honor, tremendous responsibilities fall upon the shoulders of the Lebanese government as it takes its seat at the Security Council. Indeed, this seat is also one of testing the seriousness of the state and the standing it seeks after. Thus if the Lebanese delegation comes to reflect internal Lebanese disputes in the stances taken by Lebanon towards international issues, it will lose respect and also its ability to influence decision-making, as Lebanon is not a country that holds the right of veto and its vote is therefore not decisive. Hence, the importance of Lebanon at the Security Council lies in its influence much more than in its vote.
Security Council members, in their first meeting after the Lebanese government was formed this week, welcomed this achievement without any of them – including the United States – voicing reservations over the composition of the cabinet, which includes ministers who are members of Hezbollah. This is also a welcoming message to the membership of Lebanon in the council and a message of willingness to look the other way in order to help the country, however with an insistence on the resolve to implement all resolutions, including Resolution 1559, which the US representative made sure to mention. Indeed, the Security Council will not retract resolutions, and any attempt – or thought of one – towards the possibility of annulling or removing a certain resolution is only an unrealistic dream. Indeed, Resolution 1559, which demands the dismantling of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias is staying at the Security Council, as are the resolutions that established the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to try those implicated in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and his companions, in addition to the other assassinations which the investigation proves to be related to that of Hariri. Thus it would be wise to avoid any attempt to rally against Security Council resolutions, and it is necessary for Lebanon to cling to the firm stance it has taken, that of committing to implement all of the resolutions that concern it.
Iran could create a climate of confrontation at the Security Council, this to bring the nuclear issue out of it and to return it exclusively to Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is based. The message of the United States and Britain during the closed session this week to look into Resolution 1701, which is concerned with Lebanon and which has laid down the circumstances and the conditions of sustaining the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, was a clear one. Indeed, the representatives put forth the issue of the Iranian ship that was seized by Israel, which claimed that it was carrying weapons and headed to Syria on its way to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yet they did so by holding Iran responsible and did not make use of it to attack Hezbollah. Similarly, the Security Council decided to refer the matter to the sanctions commission concerned with Iran, which prohibits Iran by virtue of Resolution 1747 from smuggling weapons outside of its territory.
Yet such a message of goodwill will not last if Hezbollah insists on forcing its own agenda on the Lebanese government. Indeed, the issue of “resistance” which it seeks to introduce to the ministerial statement was resolved under the Siniora government and there is no need to provoke a crisis and an unnecessary problem on the eve of Lebanon entering the council.
As for Iran, it is well able to take care of itself in its relations with the great powers. And just as there is no need for the United States, Russia or France to corner Lebanon on the issue of Iran, there is no need for Iran to expect Lebanon to clamor on its behalf. Indeed, Lebanon’s identity at the Security Council is an Arab one.
Hence developments on the regional scene should be monitored, as some of them may reach the UN Security Council. Indeed, the council has previously addressed the Yemeni and Saudi-Yemeni issue, and developments may bring this issue back to the council on a completely different basis.
Iran has admitted this week through its Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki its direct role in Yemen, thus supporting reports which state that Iran has been providing the Houthis with funds and weapons. In fact, Mottaki threatened, saying: “we strongly advise regional and neighboring states not to interfere in Yemen’s internal affairs”. He added, promising, that “those who pour oil on the fire must know that they will not be spared from the smoke that billows”.
The United States, its government, congress, media and people, are in complete ignorance of what is happening in Yemen and why. There are even high-ranking directors in the US Administration in charge of the issue of Yemen and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) who are surprised to hear of basic evident facts, after having decided to dwarf the issue and to reject the reports of Iran’s role in Yemen. Today, the US Administration, the American media and American intellectual and research institutions must devote themselves to understanding what is happening in Yemen before it is too late and it becomes the most dangerous failed state for the region and the world.
Likewise, Saudi diplomacy must participate in the information campaign by clarifying what its current policy and strategy is towards Yemen, and how it intends to handle the issue with Iran. Indeed, there is dire need to make US officials and the American media aware of the dangers of the “time bomb” called Yemen, in terms of the geology as well as of the rebellion, the tribal structure, the Houthis and the government.
The mistakes of the past are many and there is a need today to stop engaging in proxy wars and to build regional relations on the basis of turning countries into “effective states” for regional forces. Iran seems enthusiastic about persisting in this pattern, nearly making it its “signature brand”, while Arab countries wish to put a stop to such a pattern – either out of necessity or purposely due to them being occupied with internal matters and with the challenges of creating jobs for millions of young people.
Lebanon has benefited from rapprochement, consensus and agreement, at least temporarily and as a first step. As for Yemen, it deserves international mobilization before it is too late.

With a new coalition government finally in place is Lebanon any closer to national reconciliation?
By: Omayma Abdel-Latif
Al-Ahram Weekly
Fri, 13 November 2009
After five months of painstaking negotiation Lebanon finally has a national unity government. Disputes over the distribution of ministerial portfolios among the Christian forces of March 14 almost threatened to delay the announcement of the new cabinet, with prime minister designate Saad Al-Hariri struggling until the last minute to reconcile his allies.
The withdrawal of the Kataaib (Phalanges) minister from first cabinet meeting reflects the extent of the still simmering tensions within the March 14 coalition. Al-Hariri has himself described the government as "an exception to the rule".
"In any parliamentary democracy," he argued, a national coalition government is always exceptional and should not be viewed as establishing any kind of constitutional precedent. "It is that the present situation necessitates that we have this government and that dialogue should govern our relationships."
Of 30 ministerial portfolios 15 went to the majority, 10 to the opposition and five were distributed at the discretion of the president. These last five cabinet seats were divided among the main sects producing a Shia (Adnan Al-Sayed Hussein), a Sunni (Adnan Al-Qasar), a Maronite -- Ziad Baroud who remains at the Interior Ministry --, an Orthodox -- Elias Al-Murr who retains his position as defence minister -- and a Catholic minister. The 15+10+5 formula should, it is hoped, restore the president's role as arbiter between the majority and minority.
The national coalition government follows five years of political polarisation and a rising tide of sectarian tensions as well as an economic crisis that has left 28 per cent of Lebanese families living on less than $1 a day, yet during all the wrangling over portfolios issues of substance barely got a look in beyond a few anti-corruption and pro- reform slogans raised by the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM). The fiercest battle was reserved for who would get a place at the cabinet table, not what they would do once they got there.
One of the greatest challenges facing the government is how to bridge the deepening communal rifts that have resulted from sectarian mobilisation, particularly among the country's Sunni and Shia population. In this it could be helped by changes in the regional political scene.
To depict Lebanese political rivalry today as one pitting a unified majority against a coherent minority is invalid. Splits within the majority ranks have been amplified by wrangling over the share of portfolios and, more dramatically, by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt's exit from March 14. Jumblatt, whose party received three cabinet seats, insisted in an interview with Al-Akhbar newspaper on Wednesday that he was "neither with this camp -- March 8 -- nor with the other -- March 14".
"I will not side with one camp against the other in the cabinet and my bloc will vote according to the issues on the table," he said.
Recently Jumblatt has been critical of his Christian allies in March 14, describing some of them as being on the "isolationist right".
Observers see Jumblatt's statement as possibly opening the door to a new alliance, a "Lebanese third way" as one commentator put it, bringing Jumblatt together with the president.
Major cabinet decisions requite a two-third majority (20) to pass. Others need just a simple majority of 16, ie half plus one.
Dependent as always on outside arbitration, this government could not have seen the light of day without the ongoing reconciliation efforts between Syria and Saudi Arabia.
"Such a strange country [Lebanon]," Jumblatt told Al-Akhbar. "For us to have a government we need a Syrian-Saudi agreement and Iranian-Turkish dialogue."
Al-Hariri is expected to pay a visit to Damascus soon though no date has been set yet.
But the role played by foreign actors in political rivalry in Lebanon is sometimes exaggerated. Internal rivalry, between Christian forces in particular, played a role in extending the negotiating process over cabinet seats. Michel Aoun, head of the Free Patriotic Movement bloc, struggled to gain cabinet representation commensurate with his party's 27 seats in parliament. Aoun eventually secured five portfolios while running what one member of the FPM called "a significant campaign that was not just about portfolios or names". Hizbullah managed two portfolios, with agriculture and administrative development assigned to Hussein Hajj Hassan and Mohamed Fneish respectively.
The cabinet's first task will be to formulate the ministerial statement which will set the mandate for the government for the next three and half years. According to the constitution the statement must be delivered within 30 days of the government being formed. A ministerial committee has been formed for this purpose.
The most difficult issue with which it must deal remains the right of the resistance to maintain their arms. Hizbullah officials have said repeatedly that they will accept no change to the status quo: since 2005 the formula adopted, by both the Najib Miqati and Fouad Al-Siniora governments, has been to express respect for international resolutions while insisting on the legitimate right to resist.
"The Lebanese resistance is the honest and true expression of the Lebanese people's right to liberate its land and defend its dignity": the line from previous statements is almost certain to be incorporated in Lebanon's new government mandate.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved