LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 16/09

Bible Reading of the day.
Luke15/11-31: He said, “A certain man had two sons. 15:12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of your property.’ He divided his livelihood between them. Not many days after, the younger son gathered all of this together and traveled into a far country. There he wasted his property with riotous living. When he had spent all of it, there arose a severe famine in that country, and he began to be in need. He went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed pigs. He wanted to fill his belly with the husks that the pigs ate, but no one gave him any. But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough to spare, and I’m dying with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will tell him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants.”’ “He arose, and came to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; for this, my son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’ They began to celebrate. “Now his elder son was in the field. As he came near to the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the servants to him, and asked what was going on. He said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and healthy.’ But he was angry, and would not go in. Therefore his father came out, and begged him. But he answered his father, ‘Behold, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed a commandment of yours, but you never gave me a goat, that I might celebrate with my friends.  But when this, your son, came, who has devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ “He said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’”

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Interview with Lebanon's Ayatollah  Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah Shiites' (and Hezbollah's) Spiritual Leader/15.03.09
March 14” launches the “crossing to the state” electoral program/Future News 15/03/09
Fugitives to Israel worry Aoun/Future News 15/03/09
Riyadh: A Summit of Interests and Reconciliation. By Tariq Alhomayed 15/03/09
Contradictions in US Openness to Iran and Syria.By Huda al Husseini/15.03.09
Exiling Islamic Terrorists, Leaving Islam Behind: Two Solutions and Counting. Pajamas Media 15/03/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 15/09

Mixed signals for Israel as old foes take different tack-The Australian
Sfeir to Voters: Whoever Buys You Shall Sell You-Naharnet
Britain bars Hezbollah spokesman from entry-Future News
Hamade: Jumblatt will not ally with Berry-Future News
Souaid : March 14 program a guide towards stability-Future News
Najjar: reducing voting age requires constitutional amendment-Future News
Feltman: My Gift to Saniora is Israel's Pullout from Ghajar Ahead of Elections-Naharnet
British politicians meet Hamas leader in Syria-Ynetnews
Murtada in Damascus as Lebanese Embassy Prepares to Open its Doors-Naharnet
Lebanese Sovereignty, Military and Economic Assistance on Agenda as Suleiman Heads to Paris
-Naharnet
Aoun: Election Going to be Head-to-Head Battle between 2 Schemes, 2 Ideas
-Naharnet
March 14 Coalition Parliamentary Election Platform: UNSCR 1701, Taef Accord and The Arab Peace Initiative
-Naharnet
Hariri: Lebanon First to Benefit From Syria-Israel Peace
-Naharnet
Nasrallah Rejects U.S. Conditions For Openness, Won't Recognize Israel
-Naharnet
Diplomat: France Is Not Worried of a Hizbullah Victory
-Naharnet
Saudi Denies Shiites Targeted in Sunni Kingdom
-Naharnet

Sfeir to Voters: Whoever Buys You Shall Sell You
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir urged the Lebanese during his Sunday sermon to vote during the June 7 elections for candidates who will defend their basic rights. "Voters must know who they will be choosing to defend their basic rights," Sfeir said. "They must not forget the proverb 'whoever buys you shall sell you'." He said people are "not products." Sfeir stressed that the upcoming parliamentary elections will have a "big impact on the (people's) daily lives."
Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 11:44

Feltman: My Gift to Saniora is Israel's Pullout from Ghajar Ahead of Elections
Naharnet/Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman has said he would convince the Israeli government to withdraw from the northern part of the border village of Ghajar ahead of the June elections. Feltman "will present a gift to Premier Fouad Saniora by convincing the new Israeli government to withdraw from the Lebanese side of the village of Ghajar before the parliamentary elections," Al-Balad daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying Sunday.
U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams expressed hope on Tuesday that the formation of a new Israeli government following elections in February would lead to a withdrawal from Ghajar and progress on the issue of cluster bombs and munitions.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon also said in his ninth report on the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 that Israel has expressed "readiness to enter into technical discussions" about the village based on a UNIFIL proposal. "I renew my call on the parties to proceed on the basis of the UNIFIL proposal so as to facilitate the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces in accordance with Israel's obligations under resolution 1701" that ended the Jewish state's war with Hizbullah in 2006, Ban said. Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 08:50

3.1-Million-Square-Meter Land Discovered While Marking Blue Line
Naharnet/The Lebanese army command said on Saturday that "liberated and deserted land of 3.1 million square meters" was found in south Lebanon while marking the U.N.-delineated Blue Line. It said a military committee continues in cooperation with UNIFIL to mark the Blue Line in areas where it was distorted by the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in July 2006. "The committee has already marked 9 points and will make 12 other markings, including rugged terrain which was reached for the first time since 1949," the military said in its communiqué. "The (army) command will work hard in cooperation with the official authorities and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon to clear the lands from mines," the communiqué added. Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 09:33

Murtada in Damascus as Lebanese Embassy Prepares to Open its Doors
Naharnet/Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh's advisor heads to Damascus on Sunday to officially start his mission at the Lebanese embassy in the Syrian capital.
Rami Murtada begins his mission officially on Monday after the Lebanese flag is raised over the building in Damascus' Abu Rummaneh street.
Lebanon and Syria reached agreement last October on establishing ties. Lebanon has named career diplomat Michel el-Khoury as its first ambassador. Syria has yet to name its envoy. Three diplomats have been stationed at the Syrian embassy in Beirut's Hamra district since last December but the mission is not yet fully operational. Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 10:03

Aoun: Election Going to be Head-to-Head Battle between 2 Schemes, 2 Ideas
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun said Saturday that upcoming election is going to be a head-to-head battle between two schemes and two ideas. "Upcoming election is going to be a head-to-head battle between two schemes and two ideas – one that calls for reforms and another which is corrupt," Aoun said in a speech during a dinner for Tayyar at Habtour hotel in Beirut. "You have to exercise your rights and choose the reformist group," Aoun said. He said the "battle now is aimed at putting an end to theft, and, God willing, the ancestry which began in 1992 will end on June 7." "He who votes for a fine administration, is himself fine, and he who votes for a corrupt administration, is himself corrupt," Aoun believed. "You cannot have a corrupt administration and a good community at the same time." He acknowledged that Lebanon is "split" between two political lines. "This is why a reformist force will be formed." On the controversial issue of a parliamentary centrist bloc, Aoun said that when he criticizes the bloc "we are not attacking it as an idea of moderation." "We have to differentiate between white and black. There is no such thing as grey when it comes to values," he added. Beirut, 14 Mar 09, 23:21

March 14 Coalition Parliamentary Election Platform: UNSCR 1701, Taef Accord and The Arab Peace Initiative
Naharnet/The March 14 coalition announced its election platform on Saturday, under which it would launch its race to the legislature on June 7.
The platform emphasized the necessary need for the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, to commit to the Taef accord and to support settling the Palestinian cause based on the Arab peace initiative. March 14 Secretariat-General Coordinator Faris Soaid read the coalition's political electoral statement on Saturday at a large conference gathering at the BIEL in Beirut saying: "At the ballots, you decide for yourselves in 85 days to whom you will give the mandate."
He went on to detail 14 points constituting the political platform upon which March 14 Forces are united.
Lebanon's salvation and protection demand the accordance of the Lebanese people to not let it be used politically, militarily, and securely in regional conflicts that have nothing to do with national interests, with Lebanon holding all its political and diplomatic commitments towards the Arab solidarity and the rightful Arab issues, and especially the Palestinian cause. The path to achieving this vital target for Lebanon's independence, stability, and prosperity, is to implement the international resolution 1701, which provides the necessary framework and tools to do so. This decision is not one of a "party" or a "faction" imposed by March 14 forces. It is a decision that was agreed on unanimously by the Lebanese, including March 8 forces who signed on it twice: the first time in 2006 in order to stop the brutal Israeli aggression, and the second time in 2008 in the statement of the current government.
Soaid said that this issue is the path, or rather the basis to reflect the legitimate aspirations to:
1.Protect Lebanon from the Israeli aggressions and recovering Shebaa Farms through the implementation of resolution 1701 in all it clauses.
2.Impose the state authority over all its territory in accordance with the Taef agreement where " there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon except the weapons and authority of the state".
3. End of the conflict with Syria which adopted since 1947 the policy of military neutrality, and construct normal and amicable relations in accordance with the Taef agreement and on the basis of brotherhood, equality, and common interests. This calls for the end of Syrian interference in the Lebanese affairs, and the completion of the diplomatic exchange which is considered as an accomplishment for the independent Lebanon, as well as border control and demarcation starting with Shebaa farms in order to facilitate its retrieval, and an end to the issue of the Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons, the abolition of military bases that are present outside the camps that are technically under the authority of the Syrian authority, and the review of the unfair agreements that were signed during the period of Syrian tutelage on Lebanon.
4.Provide harmony between Lebanon and the international community on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and the international resolutions, and avoid pushing Lebanon to confront the international community with sectarian claims that contradict its actual interest, and with convulsive slogans that are far away from its nature of pluralism, as well as reactivate Lebanon's message of co-existence and cultural interaction through supporting the initiatives that make Lebanon "an international center for dialog among civilizations and cultures, and a global laboratory for this dialog", according to the suggestion of the President of the Lebanese Republic.
5.Restore Lebanon's Arab role and its active contribution in achieving Arab solidarity which is the basic requirement to obtain Arab rights, and its commitment to support the struggle of the Palestinian people and their unity led by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in order to establish an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital in the context of the "two-state solution" and a just and comprehensive peace in accordance with the "Arab Peace Initiative" in the face of the escalation of extremism, especially Israeli extremism and the policy of settlement and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
6.Strict adherence to prevent the settlement of our Palestinian brothers in Lebanon, and the adoption of the law of constitutional amendment proposal made by the Parliament members of March 14 regarding this subject more than six months ago which requires a Parliamentary consensus to amend the constitution clause that has to do with settlement.
7.Complete the construction of the state and its institutions on the basis of the Charter of co-existence through the implementation of the Taef agreement and the constitution in letter and spirit, leading to a civilized democratic state that ensures equality in rights and duties of individuals regardless of their religious affiliations, as well as ensuring free and active presence of communities, irrespective of any political or numerical consideration, adopting a new law for elections and reducing the voting age to 18 years, reforming the state institutions and departments, and liberating them from the sectarian conflicts and political clientele and corruption, all in the context of the expanded administrative decentralization, and the commitment of those in authority to their jurisdiction that is specified in the constitution in order to prevent the blocking actions from being done again.
8.Commit to achieve the requirements of the International Tribunal for Lebanon whose purpose is to uncover the truth and achieve justice, which will fortify Lebanon's sovereignty and will put an end to the trend of political assassinations and impunity, and will give credit back to the law as a regulator of life among the people, in parallel with strengthening the judiciary independence and effectiveness.
Provide the necessary funds to complete the return of all the displaced people and close the file once and for all.
9.Protect Lebanon and the Lebanese internally and abroad from the global financial crisis repercussions and maintain the monetary stability, and keep the inflation at low levels to protect the purchasing power for those who have limited income, and develop an effective program for debt management and debt reduction, and maximum benefit from the contributions of Paris-3.
10. Commit to economic and financial policies that have balanced development dimensions in all productive sectors along all Lebanese regions, and remove the obstacles away from the investments and reduce the cost of conducting business while giving priority to the sectors and the projects that provide suitable job opportunities for the Lebanese.
11. Develop the social contract that is binding for the state and the social partners, and expand the scope of health, educational, social, and relief services which commensurate with the needs and basic rights of the citizens, and activate the social safety nets for the poorest factions in collaboration with the civil society organizations.
12. Provide bigger and more effective participation for women in the political, economic, and social life, and in decision-making on the basis of equality in rights and in access to employment, education, health, and other community based opportunities and in owning and distributing resources, as well as empowering women legally through amending the unjust legislations and developing laws in this issue, especially the electoral law.
13. Commit to the cause of the Lebanese Diaspora in the world in order to provide a safety net in support of Lebanon's independence, stability, and prosperity, and achieving equality in duties and rights with the residents, especially the right to vote, which must be available to all expatriates in the place of residence, and work on facilitating the restoration the Lebanese nationality to all descendants of Lebanese origin, and facilitate the acquirement of the civil register to the Lebanese without administrative or legal complications, and granting incentives and facilities for the expatriates to work and invest in Lebanon.
14. Put an end to the environmental deterioration through a national strategy for sustainable development that includes the issuance of regulatory decrees for the application of the environmental law, and implementing the environmental impact assessment decree, as well as offer economic incentives for the institutions that introduces the environmental component in its production process, as well as promote the use of renewable sources of energy, biological agriculture, protect the water resources and water quality, and promote tourism that respects the ecological balance, preserve the wealth of forest, and treatment of solid, liquid, and gas waste.
On the basis of these options, March 14 pledges to enter into the coming electoral battle with interdependence and solidarity, in all electoral constituencies, and in collaboration with the forces and personalities that share these values and goals.
March 14 pledges to form a thorough parliamentary context inclusive of all the winners of March 14 forces in these elections.
The March 14 elected deputies in the coming parliament pledge to you the commitment to all the issues and pledge to work seriously and responsibly in achieving it.
March 14 forces pledge to return to the constitutional assets in the authority and in the opposition, with an openness to real representation in accordance with the rules of parliamentary democracy and away from the logic of disruption, whether from within or from outside the institutions.
We want to turn the page on the internal conflict, and re-connect what was lost between the Lebanese, and devote a peaceful and democratic approach in the political work and reject all internal violence.
On May 31, 2007, one day after the decision to create an international tribunal, we held our hand out to the other team and issued an invitation to revive the historical settlement, which was identified by the Taef agreement. The other party did not meet the call. Instead they confronted us with blocking and sometimes with weapons! In spite the violence that we were faced with, we did not change our choice. Today, we renew this invitation, which verbally stated the following:
"The division that emerged at the moment of the second independence in 2005 was dangerous to Lebanon. Surpassing this division requires the surpassing of three necessities:
1. The necessity to consolidate two key achievements in the history of modern Lebanon - liberation, and independence- instead of putting them, as the case is today, in confrontation with each other, which will lead to weakening these accomplishments and emptying them from contents (…)
2. Confessing the impossibility of building the state on the basis of sectarian dichotomies or troikas which Lebanon has paid the price for dearly in the previous stages. It is also impossible to build Lebanon by marginalizing or removing some of its sectarian components. Lebanon cannot be built on the image of one of its sects or on its conditions, and at the expense of its civilized quality that is formed on unity in diversity.
3. Confessing to the impossibility of building the state on the basis of giving priorities to the regional and external interests and ties instead of giving it to internal partnership and the national contract that are embodied by the constitution".
In ending Soaid reminded his audience of the future saying:
The seventh of June 2009 is a pivotal stage in the historical path that you started on March 14 2005, a winding hard path where you lost lives and shed blood, but a path filled with the breath of freedom and regained sovereignty, and the independent national decision.
Let us make from 7 June a date to cross to the state of Lebanon:
Lebanon the Taef agreement
Lebanon the implementation of resolution 1701
Lebanon the Arab peace initiative.
Beirut, 14 Mar 09, 17:51

Fugitives to Israel worry Aoun
Date: March 14th, 2009 Source: Future News
The “Aouni Movement” fears raising the issue of the Lebanese citizens who fled to the Hebrew state following the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, especially since MP Michel Aoun’s stands at then were comprehensively contradictory to his today’s movement.
Aoun’s volatility between approving the citizens’ right to flee the country and not convict them for being forced at that time to cooperate with the Israeli occupation and wishing “Hezbollah” would “grant” them a right to resort to the Lebanese judiciary and accuse the state of doing a bad job by not trying them.
At the first parliamentary session following the 2005 elections and the “tsunami wave”, Aoun said “the people of Jezzine and the border line paid a high price and are treated as spies. Why can’t we bring back the thousands of Lebanese who sought refuge in Israel and just end the issue with a judicial-parliamentary investigation?”
Aoun added “the Lebanese state wanted to reassume its right to unrightfully try those refugees after so many years knowing that it had done nothing to settle this issue earlier. Most of the Lebanese, especially the southerners know the story. Was there a solution given by the state to the citizens of Jezzine and residents on the borders line? It is inconceivable to try a people who attempted to stay in their homes because their state regressed.”
Aoun asked the Khumeini party (Hezbollah) in the February 6, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding to “grant” those who fled the right to resort to the Lebanese judiciary for trial. His wished was a clear admittance that bringing back the refugees is pertained to the “divine” authority, neglecting the state’s authority to try them.
What Aoun could have done but didn’t was to suggest –along with “Hezbollah” an accelerated bis draft law to the parliament.
But Aoun playing naive claimed the pardon must be issued by the state. During a meeting with Nasrallah on OTV in February 2006, he said “the Lebanese state is responsible for Lebanese state is responsible for the non-return of fugitives because it hadn’t responded to the memorandum of understanding and sentenced an 8-year-old to 15 years of jail.”
Of course Aoun couldn’t convince people of the notion. But Head of the Court Maher Safi al-Din said that this ruling was passed years ago before the MoU between Aoun and Hezbollah.
From February 6, 2006 till this day, there are more than 3 years, and from May 25, 2000 till today, there must have been enough time to find this issue a solution.
Sources of the Aouni Movement assert the fugitives to Israel are the victims of his volatility concerning their cause and the victims of acquiring the presidential post, which not only cost him his former slogans, but his credibility as well.

Riyadh: A Summit of Interests and Reconciliation

14/03/2009
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat,
Seeing the Saudi monarch, the Egyptian and Syrian presidents and the Kuwaiti Emir together in one shot was certainly an image that has long been absent. But this is what we saw in the Saudi capital of Riyadh recently. Today we are faced with many different analyses, with each party presenting its own view [of the Riyadh Summit].
An analysis from Lebanon, another from the Palestinians, a third from Doha and observation by the West; but what is more important than any of these is what comes out of Tehran.
Nevertheless, before anything else, one must state that the Riyadh summit was based on interests and this brings about a feeling of optimism as politics, essentially, is the language of interests, not slogans.
The Saudis are convinced that foreign interference is what caused Arab division and this threatens the security of our region; how can it not when our region has witnessed three wars in the past five years, the execution of an Arab president, a coup in Beirut and another in the Gaza Strip, charges being brought against an Arab president, not to mention that we now have an impending international court?
Egypt believes that one-upmanship and regional interference have begun to shift underneath a sensitive cover whereby what is claimed certainly does not reflect reality. The best example of this is the Palestinian Cause; whilst Cairo was assuming its role with regards to the Palestinians, there were those who were aiming to stab Egypt in the back.
Well what about Syria? Damascus wants to close most of its difficult files in a clever way. The Syrians believe that the key lies in the Golan Heights, the normalization of ties with Arabs and in opening up to the West, as Syria severed ties with the West, particularly America, for eight difficult years. So the détente Damascus achieved with France has not had the effect that Syria hoped for with respect to the Arab world and the international community. The Syrians have many interests and want to be reassured of the country’s safety.
These were the reasons behind the need for the four-way Riyadh summit. The reconciliatory meeting was purely a meeting of interests. This is where its real value and great importance lies and this is what also makes us look to the days ahead with caution.
It is wrong to expect a quick positive and dramatic change just as it is wrong to assume that there will be no change at all. This is the difficult equation and is also what explains the reactions to the Riyadh Summit that we witnessed from those obedient to Iran. The attacks on Saudi Arabia began to come from Iran’s supporters, just as we began to notice Iran’s irresolution in its political positions as a result of the isolation that Iran is experiencing after Morocco cut ties with it and after having experienced the Arab counter-attack to Iranian ambitions, in addition to the Riyadh summit.
The best example of such irresolution is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement in response to Turkey’s offer to mediate between Iran and the United States. He stated that his country did not require any mediation. The other important matter is discussions regarding the need for Iranian-Arab dialogue.
Therefore, today, more than ever before, it is evident that Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz’s initiative for Arab reconciliation was an important and necessary initiative culminated in the four-way Riyadh summit. Here we are today witnessing the numerous results [of the initiative] on the ground.

Contradictions in US Openness to Iran and Syria
14/03/2009
By Huda al Husseini/Asharq Al-Awsat,
The United States claims that resuming ties with Syria is an attempt to distance it from Iran. But at the same time, the US administration itself is opening up to Iran. How can it justify to itself its attempts in this regard whilst at the same time wanting to convince Damascus to cut its ties with Iran? The call for opening up to Iran encouraged Chairman of the Expediency Council and former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani to visit Iraq after Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s visited Iran
The Halabja massacre took place during the Iraq-Iran war and Talabani and Rafsanjani played significant roles in the war, in which one million lives were lost. An Iraqi friend, who is yet to recover from the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Baghdad, said: what would happen to the Obama administration if Osama Bin Laden visited New York and took a walk around Ground Zero where he carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks during the tenure of former US President George W. Bush? After Jeffrey Feltman from the US State Department and Dan Shapiro from the White House visited Syria, the Syrian President said that the upcoming elections in Lebanon would be “decisive” and warned against politicizing the International Tribunal because “Lebanon would pay the price.”
The Taliban in Afghanistan responded to President Obama’s calls for opening a dialogue with moderate elements within the Taliban by rejecting this proposal, and stating that there is no such thing as moderate or extremist Taliban. The American way of thinking at present about being more open is to facilitate its withdrawal from Iraq and to win the war in Afghanistan. The situation in the end will only become more difficult. Michael Scheuer, former CIA Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station stated that in two years, the Obama administration will look at the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, which is in possession of a nuclear weapon, and it will decide to leave Afghanistan to its fate so that it can focus on Pakistan which cannot be lost.
US strategy is fundamentally based upon preventing any regional powers from dominating [the region] so that they will not challenge the United States at a later stage. In the case of the Middle East, this means Washington resorting to complex bilateral or multilateral ties. To reach Afghanistan, the situation in Iraq must be settled first. [It is] in the interest of the United States to maintain Iraq’s independence, and to remain its ally and to make it [Iraq] a buffer zone vis-à-vis its neighbouring countries, especially Iran. However, because of its desire to reduce the number of its forces and expenditure, some believe that Washington might find itself sharing influence over Iraq with Iran.
Shia Iran hopes to revive Persian domination; however, it is surrounded by an ocean of Sunni states. Only the situation in Iraq is providing Iran the opportunity to exert influence over its political future through its ties with Shia groups in the hope of making Iraq an open field so that it will not pose a threat to Iran at a later stage.
After accepting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s invite to take part in the conference on Afghanistan (Clinton stated that what was important was combating the planting and smuggling of drugs), Iran hopes to secure a “deal” through which it can become a key player in Iraq, Afghanistan, and countries in the Middle East as a whole.
However, Iran’s ambitions, including its nuclear program, are facing obstacles. The recent elections in Iraq ruined the Shia alliance project and Egypt’s adherence to its position regarding its borders with Gaza was a defeat for Iran. Moreover, the way that US-Iranian ties will develop at a later stage [is also an obstacle].
Most importantly, there is the issue of Saudi Arabia. Despite the decrease in oil prices, Saudi oil wealth has a significant influence on Washington in light of the financial crisis and the global recession. Despite US openness towards Iran, US-Saudi relations remain stronger and Washington must discuss in advance the development of its ties with Iran with Gulf States so that this does not have a negative impact on Gulf interests, especially as Iran is occupying three UAE islands. Iran cannot demand Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories whilst it is occupying the land of others.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured GCC states that negotiations will be conducted between Washington and the GCC regarding America’s openness to Iran. The Gulf States had demonstrated their desire for this to happen during the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in New York last December. During that meeting, UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan called for an explicit and guaranteed commitment from the US that no agreement would be concluded between Washington and Tehran behind the GCC’s back, and that no concessions would be given to Iran behind closed doors that had the potential to threaten the national interests of the GCC states.
Many observers are waiting for the inevitable meeting between Clinton and her Iranian counterpart, Manuchehr Mottaki, during the Afghanistan conference which will be held later this month to see if she is stronger than the foreign ministers of the EU Troika; France, Britain and Germany, with whom Iran played a game of chess and won. Discussing Iran leads to the topics of Syria, Lebanon and Israel and this is where US and Israeli interests clash. When Washington stood by a significant part of the Lebanese nation to force out Syrian troops from Lebanon in the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Israel objected because of an implied agreement that it had reached with Damascus for its troops to remain in Lebanon in order to limit and control the movement of Hezbollah.
Yet Israel is strategically and tactically working to restrain the increasing influence of Iran and the connections that it uses to pursue this, [by] resuming ties with Syria, Iran’s strategic ally in the Arab world. Peace with Syria would allow Israel to contain the military threat posed by Hezbollah, which is Iran’s first line of defence in the region.
Syria continues to condemn the Sykes-Picot agreement and insists that Lebanon or at least part of it should be included within its borders. Even though Syria agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, it is yet to assign an ambassador to Lebanon and is waiting for the US to send its ambassador back to Damascus. Moreover, the way that Syrian officials speak about the details of Lebanese politics confirms their complete rejection of abandoning it. Syria is of the view that its geo-political interests are based in Lebanon, and without it, Syria would be economically weak and isolated. Controlling Lebanon would allow Syria to have access to the Mediterranean Basin (as the Lattakia seaport has failed to keep up with the Beirut seaport), making it a significant regional power.
There are a number of reasons behind Syria’s insistence that the US should sponsor Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Most importantly, with regards to the military, Syria could not confront the Turkish threat from the north and the Israeli threat from the south whilst Washington is an ally to both Ankara and Tel Aviv. Syria feels that it is on its way to restoring its control of Lebanon through its allies there, however it wants Washington’s acknowledgement of its influential and effective role in Lebanon, and wants it to help convince other Arab countries of the role that it aspires to have. Yet Syria’s negotiations with Israel to regain the Golan Heights require important commitments from Syria including neutralizing Hezbollah’s weapons and no longer supporting Hamas and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine.
Iran is prepared to give up Hamas and Islamic Jihad; however, it is a different case with regards to Hezbollah. This is where the Iran-Syria problem arises if we accept that Syria will consider that the US will grant it the long-awaited opportunity to come out of diplomatic isolation. Washington’s interest in engaging in dialogue with Syria goes back to its desire to break up its strategic and decisive alliance with Iran and its push for Syria to stop allowing weapons to pass through to Lebanon (to reach Hezbollah and Palestinian organizations in and outside of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon). But Washington is yet to reveal the concessions that it will offer Damascus. It gave Lebanon to Syria once before and then forced it to leave; it sponsored Syria’s negotiations with Israel; the former US Secretary of State Warren Christopher visited Damascus twenty one times; and US president Bill Clinton met with late Syrian President Hafez al Assad in Geneva. However, Israel, under Ehud Barak, agreed and then retracted clinging to a 300-meter-long line at Lake Tiberius [Sea of Galilee] and the Golan Heights remained under Israel’s control.
How will Israel abandon a foreign policy that it has adopted for thirty years, especially after the International Tribunal for the Hariri assassination has been established? There is another issue that is more serious; Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. After having surrendered Carlos [the Jackal, whose real name is Ilich Ramírez Sánchez] and expelling Osama Bin Laden, Sudan has no more cards to play and it allowed its forces to commit massacres in Darfur and the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for al Bashir’s arrest. Therefore, he is serving as an example to many, despite his defiance, that concessions can no longer provide guarantees for anybody!

Snuggling Up with Syria
By Claude Cartaginese

FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, March 13, 2009
Just as an international tribunal has convened to examine the level of Syrian involvement in the 2005 murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, as well as the deaths of several other anti-Syrian politicians and journalists, the Obama administration has decided that now would be the perfect time to send its top envoy over to Syria to have a cup of tea with its dictator, Bashir Assad.
Syria has done nothing to deserve this diplomatic treatment. It remains the same country that brutally occupied Lebanon over thirty years, and which has openly supported Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda in Iraq. According to current Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Syria even today is fomenting unrest in Lebanon in an effort to destabilize it enough to justify a re-subjugation.
Naturally, Syria’s neighbors, especially Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, are nervous about this visit. So much so that before going to Syria, envoys Jeffrey Feltman and Michele Sison made a special visit to Lebanon to reassure Siniora that Assad is now a changed man and worth talking to.
And yet, Syria is still Syria. It has done nothing to cooperate with the Hariri tribunal. In fact, according to Siniora, it has done everything possible to hinder the tribunal while continuing to bully its tiny neighbor: “They are threatening," says Siniora. "They are intimidating.... Continuously intimidating the country, intimidating the people.”
Still, the Obama administration’s overture towards Syria is not at all surprising when one considers that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even former President Bill Clinton have relied heavily on the counsel of the longtime pro-Arafat advisor Robert Malley, who calls for U.S. disengagement from Israel and is a strong advocate of outreach to Syria.
This is the same Robert Malley who became foreign policy advisor to presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2007 and who was sent last year to the Middle East by Obama to outline the latter’s policy in the region. Now, under Malley’s good counsel, ruthless, Syria’s political repression and regional misrule will be rewarded with engagement from the new American administration.
During the presidential campaign, even Obama’s Democratic rivals questioned his naïveté on foreign affairs. Their concerns now have a basis in American policy toward Syria.

Exiling Islamic Terrorists, Leaving Islam Behind: Two Solutions and Counting.
Pajamas Media; March 13th, 2009
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/03/13/exiling-islamic-terrorists-leaving-islam-behind-two-solutions-and-counting/
It might be the midnight hour but all is not yet lost, the British government has, amazingly, just done the right thing: They have denied a visa to radical terrorist, Ibrahim el-Moussawi, Hizbollah’s and Iran’s representative on earth, stationed in Lebanon. This is the man whom Douglas Murray, the Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, had vowed to have deported were he to have been allowed to speak at the London School of Economics and Appeasement, a venue from which Murray himself had once been banned.
According to today’s Daily Mail, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, finally concluded that el-Moussawi’s presence would not be “conducive to the public good.”
I’ll say.
Credit goes to Douglas Murray for having threatened the lawsuit which has, clearly, been successful. (Hat tip to Barry Rubin for asking me to confirm this). You may read Murray’s press release HERE
Of course, if the British also keep denying visas to or, more shamefully, deporting, men like Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, little will be gained by such false equality. Wilders is sounding the alarm, el-Moussawi is the problem. Murray states: “It is perverse that the government ever considered barring Wilders from entering Britain and even more perverse that they ever considered allowing Hezbollah in.”
My British informant says it best: “I did not think my country would have the courage to ban this bandit.”
Thus, exiling or banning terrorists from our midst is one solution. There are other, more radical solutions.
Just today, Amil Imani wrote and urged me to read his latest article which I have now done. Imani is appealing to “cultural Muslims” by which he means “moderate” or “good” Muslims who, by definition, are not jihadists. He writes:
“The real Muslims are the jihadists, a small minority who lives and dies by the dictates of the Quran and the Sunna, the life examples of Muhammad. The free world, rightfully alarmed by ever-varied and escalating assaults of the jihadists, myopically has directed its tentative and haphazard effort at countering them, believing that by so doing it can eliminate their threat and at the same time remain on good terms of live-and-let-live multiculturalism with the Cultural Muslims. This is a dangerous assumption that, if not abandoned, will likely culminate in an Armageddon-kind of conflagration.
There is virtually no chance of reasoning with the brain-dead jihadists whose eyes are fixed on the promised lush paradise of Allah. It isn’t that they love death, just for the sake of death itself as Muslim leaders such as Hasan Nasrullah, the head of Lebanon’s Hizbollah proclaimed. They love death and happily embrace it because of what they have been brainwashed to believe is awaiting them as a reward.”
Ah, yes, the same Hizbollah that Moussawi represents. Imani ultimately implores the moderate or cultural Muslims to stop enabling the jihadists—by leaving Islam. He writes:
“Dear Cultural Muslim, while you remain silent out of fear, lack of organization, or apathy, the Islamists work around the clock and around the world to further their agenda….On the one hand, the Islamists engage in acts of violence to disrupt the functioning of societies, while on the other they cleverly exploit the freedom they enjoy in non-Islamic lands to subvert them from within.”
Imani then counsels cultural Muslims to choose, because they cannot “have it both ways.”
“Dear Cultural Muslim… you can’t enjoy the fruits of liberty and at the same time hedge your bet that by being somewhat of a Muslim you are staying in the good graces of Allah. Allah is very non-forgiving of even the least disobedience, Muhammad preaches. You need to make a clean break with Islam… Don’t help the Islamists in their effort to make hell out of this world hoping to find admittance into Allah’s purported paradise.”I wonder who will heed Imani’s plea? I challenge my religious Muslim readers to explain how they can remain Muslims in an era in which jihadists are defining what Islam is.

Lebanon's Ayatollah
 Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah Shiites' (and Hezbollah's) Spiritual Leader
Looking Past Soundbytes and
By Pierre Tristam,
http://middleeast.about.com/od/lebanon/a/me090315.htm
Today it takes a seemingly different path, although not really: Lebanon's Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah (the Journal spells his name Fadlullah), spiritual leader of Lebanon's Shiites, and a conservative down to the threads of his black turban. If Fadlallah were to subscribe to an English-language daily, it'd probably be the Journal: The social platform of American conservatives and conservative Muslims, whether Shiite or Sunni, is indistinguishable.
So maybe the choice of Fadlallah for a Weekend Interview isn't that daring after all, though Journal Features Editor Robert Pollock does his best to distance himself, by means of winks and irony, from Fadlallah. He puts quote marks around the word "emulation" when describing the esteem that grand ayatollahs like Fadlallah are held in by their followers. He describes the aging cleric as sporting "the requisite black turban" (it is more a signifier of scholarship and claimed descendence from the Prophet Muhammad than a “requisite”). And he feels compelled to add the word "allegedly" immediatley before Fadlallah's claim that Saddam Hussein in the 1980s "serv[ed]... the American strategy," though there's nothing alleged about the Reagan administration's support of Saddam Hussein's regime in the Iran-Iraq war or the administration’s knowledge, suggesting complicity, that the Iraqi dictator was using chemical weapons.
At any rate, by the end of the interview Pollock conveys more of a sense of being impressed than revolted by the man. (I got the same sense from the Washington Post's Robin Wright's long interview with Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah, in Dreams and Shadows, her 2008 book; parts of the interview appeared in the Post).

Nuance Over Stereotype: What Fadlallah Believes
Fadlallah doesn't tell Pollock what he wants to hear. Everything Fadlallah says is consistent with Lebanese-Shiite orthodoxy. To Pollock's and the Journal's credit, the length of the interview allows nuance to be heard above the din of soundbytes and stereotype.
When Pollock points out that "many people associate political Shiism with Iran and a concept known as Welayat al-Faqih -- or Guardianship of the Jurist -- which has been used to justify the authoritarian regimes of the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khameini," Fadlallah is quick to correct Pollock and the Western habit of confusing Iran's Shiism with Lebanon's. They're two different stories.
"I don't believe that Welayat al-Faqih has any role in Lebanon," Mr. Fadhlullah says without hesitation. "Perhaps some Lebanese commit themselves to the policy of the Guardian Jurist, as some of them commit themselves to the policy of the Vatican [Lebanon's large Maronite community is Catholic]. My opinion is that I don't see the Guardianship of the Jurist as the definitive Islamic regime."
It's not clear whether Fadlallah explained why not, or if Pollock even asked him. Lebanese history makes it clear: the country's sectarian fracture plays in its favor in this case. No single denomination, whether Maronite, Sunni, Shiite or Druze, has ever been able entirely to dominate the country, let alone establish anything like those authoritarian regimes asphyxiating the rest of the Arab world. Hezbollah, which entered the political process earlier this decade, could no more impose a theocracy on Lebanon than, say, Lebanon's Maronites, Syria's or Israel's military could impose their will. It's also why Fadlallah could make the claim, generally unquestioned in Lebanon, that he doesn't think that "Hezbollah has a project beyond Lebanon. Because it does not have the capacity to do so."
Fadlallah and the West
Pollock asks Fadlallah about the West. Fadlallah's answer:
We do not reject the West. But we disagree with some Western administrations. We believe that America is not the administration ruling America. America is rather the universities, the research centers and the American people. That is why we want to be friends with the American people with all their variation. I was the first Islamic figure to denounce what happened on September 11. I issued a press release after four hours saying that this affair is not acceptable by any mind, divine law or religion. What these people did was directed to the American people not to the American administration.
Pollock asks him about President Obama and hears "again an interesting answer":
I think that some of his statements show that he believes in the method of dialogue. But here is an important point: America is not ruled by a person, it is ruled by institutions. The question is what is the influence of institutions like the Congress and others on the president. Can the president, if he has private opinions, can he carry them out facing institutions and conditions challenging the administration? We, in the Arab countries or in the East, we don't have institutions. The ruler is one person or one family. Therefore the people cannot object.
We wish that President Obama tries with all his mandate to confirm the slogans he launched while still a candidate, that he tries with all power to make the world a field of dialogue not a field of war.
It looks like Lebanon's Shiites are detecting the same contradictions between Obama the campaigner and Obama the president.
Next page: Fadlallah on Bush and Israel.
Fadlallah’s Bush and Israel
Asked about George Bush's project to democratize the Middle East, Fadlallah is unsparing, though politely so, in his ridicule, responding with lines as if cribbed from the 2008 American presidential campaign: "Could democracy be forced upon peoples? Does occupation represent a title of democracy for people? Democracy sets out from the free choices of peoples. Therefore President Bush managed to get America hated everywhere in the world. His policy was the mentality of war, not a humane mentality. He might have spoken about 'peace,' but he saved 'war' inside the word 'peace.' That is why he was even rejected by American public opinion."
And when the interview turns to Israel, Fadlallah's words sounds like an echo of the recent controversy over the failed nomination of Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council. "There is an impression in the Arab region that might be controversial," Fadlallah says, "that Israel is the one ruling the United States and not the other way around. America is one of the Jewish colonies." Pollock asks: "Does the Ayatollah believe that?" "I am close," he says, and continues:
Anyway, we believe that Obama lived in a poor and disadvantaged environment. He was poor. Therefore, we might listen to some of his statements trying to alleviate taxes on the poor and impose them on the rich. We say to him: Be with the disadvantaged, be with the poor, be with the people living and seeking their humanity, and you will be the best American president in history. Be humane.
At which point the interview ends, and Pollock ends his report with these lines: "We pose for pictures and the Ayatollah presents me with an English translation of one of his books: Islam: The Religion of Dialogue. He signs it for me in Arabic: 'With my affection and prayers.'"
All told, and with apologies to John McPhee, an encounter more with an archdruid than an archenemy.

Assassinations in Lebanon: A History (1970s to the Present)
Murder as Politics by Other Means
By Pierre Tristam,
In war and peace, assassinations punctuate Lebanese history. Here’s a list of assassinations of prominent Lebanese figures, including journalists, intellectuals, politicians, clerics and glamorized toughs going back to the 1970s, after the outbreak of civil war. The list is updated as warranted.
The 1970s
March 16, 1977: Kamal Jumblatt, 60, leader of Lebanon’s Druze community, a member of the Lebanese Parliament and a Socialist-nationalist supporter of Palestinians, is assassinated by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party — which Jumblatt had legalized as interior minister some years earlier. Jumblatt was also the founder of the Progressive Socialist Party. He is succeeded by his son, Walid.
June 13, 1978: Tony Frangieh, 36, the son of former Lebanese President Suleiman Frangieh, a Christian Maronite, is assassinated at his home in Ehden, in northern-Lebanon, along with his 2-year-old daughter, his wife, and 32 supporters, in the course of a long battle with the Christian Phalangist militia of Bashir Gemayel, a rival.
The 1980s
September 14, 1982: Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel, 34, is assassinated when a bomb demolishes the building housing his Phalangist Party headquarters, where he had been meeting with staff.
June 1, 1987: Lebanese Prime Minister Rashid Karami, 65, a Sunni Muslim who’d been prime minister 10 times in 32 years, is assassinated when a bomb rips through his military helicopter, a French-built Puma. He’d been traveling from his native city of Tripoli in North Lebanon to Beirut after a holiday marking the end of Ramadan. Karami had been backed by Syria, then occupying Lebanon.
May 16, 1989: Hasan Khaled, 68, for 23 years the Grand Mufti of Lebanon — that is, the supreme Justice of Lebanon’s Sunni Muslim community — is assassinated by a 300-pound car bomb as he drove through West Beirut’s in Aishe Bakkar neighborhood. His son-in-law and 20 other people are also killed. Khaled had been a moderate Muslim, advocating coexistence between Lebanon’s numerous factions.
November 22, 1989: Lebanese President René Moawad, 64, in office just 17 days, is assassinated as his car is blasted by a bomb on his return from Independence Day ceremonies in West Beirut. Twenty-three other people are killed. Moawad, a Maronite Christian, had sought to establish a unity government to end the Lebanese civil war, then in its 14th year.
The 1990s
October 21, 1990: Dany Chamoun, 56, a Maronite Christian and the son of former Lebanese President Camille Chamoun, is assassinated at his home in East Beirut by gunmen posing as Lebanese army soldiers. His wife and two sons are also murdered. Chamoun had been an ally of Gen. Michel Aoun, the renegade army general who’d opposed the Syrian-backed Government of President Elias Hrawi. Chamoun was also a rival to Samir Geagea, a ruthless Christian militia who, in a war ruinous to the Christian community, unsuccessfully fought Aoun for military leadership of Lebanon’s Christians.
The 2000s
February 14, 2005: Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, 60, is assassinated as a 1,000-pound truck bomb explodes while Hariri’s convoy travels near the St. George Hotel on Beirut’s seafront. Hariri, a Sunni Muslim formerly accommodating of Syria, had become a staunch critic of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon. His assassination triggers massive rallies in opposition to the occupation. The so-called Cedar Revolution leads to the withdrawal of Syrian troops that spring, after a 29-year occupation.
June 2, 2005: Samir Kassir, 45, influential Christian author, columnist and relentless critic of Syria at the leading Lebanese Arabic-language daily Al-Nahar, is assassinated when a bomb under the seat of his Alfa Romeo explodes as he stepped into his car in Christian East Beirut. His father was Lebanese-Palestinian, his mother was Syrian.
June 21, 2005: George Hawi, 67, former head of the Lebanese Communist Party and a Christian formerly allied with Palestinian causes, is killed by a one-pound bomb that explodes beneath the passenger seat of his Mercedes as he was driven in a Sunni neighborhood of Beirut. Hawi had become a staunch critic of Syria and its intelligence service. His driver is slightly injured.
December 12, 2005: Gebran Tueni, 48, a Christian member of Parliament and publisher of the Lebanese Arabic-language daily Al-Nahar, is killed by a remote-controlled car bomb. Al Nahar is a critic of Syria. Two security workers are also killed. Tueni had fled Lebanon the previous August in fear for his life but had recently returned.
June 21, 2006: Pierre Gemayel, 34, a Lebanese cabinet minister and opponent of Syrian influence in Lebanon, is gunned down in his car. Gemayel was the son of former Lebanese president Amin Gemayel (whose brother, Bashir, was assassinated in 1982, days before becoming president), and the grandson of Pierre Gemayel, founder of the right-wing Christian Phalangist — or Kataeb — Party.
June 13, 2007: Walid Eido, 65, a Sunni member of Parliament and a member of the Future Movement headed by Saad Hariri—the son of Rafik Hariri—is assassinated by a car biomb as Eido drives by near a crowded amusement park along the Mediterranean Sea. Nine other people are killed. Three days earlier, a United Nations Security Council resolution ordering the creation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of Rafik Hariri took effect. Eido had been a critic of Syria.
September 19, 2007: Antoine Ghanem, 64, a Christian member of Parliament and a member of the anti-Syrian March 14 coalition, is assassinated by a car bomb as he drove through Sin al-Fil, a Christian suburb of Beirut. His bodyguard is also killed. Ghanem was a member of the Christian Phalange Party. Ghanem had fled Lebanon in fear for his life, returning just two days before the assassination.
December 12, 2007: Brig. Gen. François al-Hajj, 54, is assassinated by a 77-pound car bomb that explodes as he drove by, on his way to work at the Defense Ministry. Al-Hajj had been one of the commander of the battle of Nahr el-Bared, when the Lebanese army defeated a militant Palestinian cell. Al-Hajj was to succeed Gen. Michel Suleiman, the army chief who in 2008.