LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 21/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 14,1-12. Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God; have faith also in me. In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be. Where (I) am going you know the way." Thomas said to him, "Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"  Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him." Philip said to him, "Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Hezbollah advocate challenged at Rice.By MICHAEL C. DUKE  20./04/08

It's Iran, stupid. The Arizona Republic 20/04/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 20/08
Abul Geith Rules Out Speedy End to Lebanon Crisis-Naharnet
Olmert: Israel not under Syrian nuclear threat-Ynetnews

LEBANON: Who abhors a vacuum?Los Angeles Times
Salloukh Wants Palestinians Back to Israel-Naharnet
Suleiman For the Rule of Law and Justice-Naharnet
Johnny Abdo: Hizbullah Controlling Public Institutions-Naharnet
Zawahiri wants to Prevent Iran from Linking Up with Lebanon Supporters
-Naharnet
Saad Hariri Vows to Confront Attempts to Release the Four Generals
-Naharnet
Rice, U.S. Embassy Mark 25th Anniversary of Beirut Mission Attack
-Naharnet
Lebanon Puts Off Trial of Suspect in Alleged U.S. Terror Plot
-Naharnet
Rizk Discussed with Welch Appointing Prosecutor General for International Tribunal
-Naharnet
Hizbullah: U.S. Courting Saniora, Majority
-Naharnet
Berri's Barter: Dismantling Tent City, Suleiman President for Power Sharing, Election Law-Naharnet
Victims of 1983 attack on US Embassy in Beirut recalled-Los Angeles Times
Lebanon puts off trial of suspect in alleged NY terror plot-The Associated Press
Al-Qaida's Legacy in Small Iraqi Town: 100 Widows-Naharnet
Pope Defends Human Rights, Multilateralism in U.N. Speech-Naharnet

Berri's Barter: Dismantling Tent City, Suleiman President for Power Sharing, Election Law
Naharnet/Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri offered to trade dismantling of the Hizbullah-controlled Tent City and facilitating presidential elections for a "declaration of principles" with the majority on power sharing and election law. Berri, who also is a prominent member of the Hizbullah-led opposition, made the offer in an interview with the daily as-Safir published Saturday.Such a declaration of principles should be reached in "speedy and productive dialogue" between majority and opposition leaders, according to Berri, who also heads the Shiite AMAL movement.  Berri, as-Safir wrote, "indicated" that a parliamentary session set for April 22 to elect a president could be postponed for a month, at the latest, in light of the prevailing conditions. The situation, according to Berri, has reached a "serious" level. "A settlement is Lebanese-Lebanese," he added. Dialogue that he is offering is a "priceless opportunity … missing it would be a sin," Berri stressed.
The offered dialogue "does not aim at blocking the Arab initiative, which has reached a dead end. On the contrary, it aims at meeting the initiative in the middle of a blocked road" Berri added. He said: "No one, in Lebanon or outside, should dream of being able to impose any settlement on us that contradicts the Taef accord and the principle of partnership. We reject any settlement that harms the Lebanese formula. A settlement can be reached through Lebanese-Lebanese dialogue,"
Berri cautioned that "we are running out of time." He reiterated that "Syria, especially President Bashar Assad, is in support of a settlement in Lebanon. I personally relayed from the Syrian capital the most important Syrian support for the election of Gen. Michel Suleiman, for dialogue among the Lebanese (factions) and for commitment to decisions adopted during the March 2006 dialogue.""Syria signaled out its readiness to facilitate the dialogue and settlement, we are required to receive these signals," Berri concluded. Beirut, 19 Apr 08, 08:45

Johnny Abdo: Hizbullah Controlling Public Institutions

Naharnet/Ex-ambassador Johnny Abdo warned Saturday against Hizbullah's control of Lebanon's public institutions, saying it aims at creating "a state within the state." Abdo, in a radio interview, pledged to expose the Hizbullah plan in two weeks, saying: "I would disclose very serious information about Hizbullah's incursion across Lebanese institutions." "Such an incursion started in the communications (sector) and in areas like the Metin and the north. Hizbullah has little presence in the Chouf, but lots of presence in the north," Abdo said.  The person who exposes such information "faces the death threat," added Abdo, an ex-director of Lebanon's military intelligence. Lebanon, he added, is "subject to security surprises." "If a major leader is assassinated it would be difficult to control the Lebanese arena.," Abdo noted.  He referred to a "change in Syria's foreign policy that is being managed by Speaker Berri." Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun is "ashamed of his present status, that is why he resorts to the past," Abdo said. Beirut, 19 Apr 08, 10:36

Suleiman For the Rule of Law and Justice
Naharnet/Army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman said Saturday the Lebanese People want the constitutional Institutions to resume their "effective national role."
Such a return to constitutional authorities opens the door to achieving economic growth and development, he added. Such a trend, Suleiman added, "leads to building the state of law, justice and equality." The general, addressing a conference on military medicine, said accomplishments by the military are "a ray of hope in darkness."The army, he said, is "determined on proceeding with its national missions … and would allow no one to target the nation's unity and its civic peace."
Beirut, 19 Apr 08, 12:25

Salloukh Wants Palestinians Back to Israel
Naharnet/Resigned Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh on Saturday criticized a U.S. call for the return of Palestinian refugees to a Palestinian state, rather than to Israel. Salloukh, in a statement distributed by the state-run National News Agency (NNA), said Palestinian refugees should return to the areas that they deserted in 1948, when the state of Israel was created. Salloukh said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch "wants the Palestinians to return to a promised state in areas occupied in 1967."Such a pledge by Welch "torpedoes the legal-political-humanitarian right of Palestinian refugees to return to their basic lands … the majority of Palestinian refugees belong to 1948 areas," Salloukh said. Beirut, 19 Apr 08, 11:58

Zawahiri wants to Prevent Iran from Linking Up with Lebanon Supporters
Naharnet/Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri urged Muslims to make Iraq a "fortress of Islam" and accused Iran of seeking to annex predominantly Shiite southern Iraq to link up with followers in Lebanon. In a nearly 16-minute audio message posted on the Internet, Zawahiri slammed the Egyptian government for "starving" its people as part of a "Zionist-American plan He called on extremists to fight to create a greater Muslim state after U.S. President George W. Bush had admitted the "failure of the Crusader invasion"."We will only get our rights back with our own hands and not through beggary or fraudulent elections," he said, according to a summary released by the U.S.-based SITE monitoring service.
The message posted on Islamist militant websites contained a reference to April 8 testimony to the U.S. Congress by the U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. "Bush declared that he will give Petraeus all the time he needs ... which allows Bush to escape the decision to withdraw forces. By passing the problem to the next president, Bush is declaring the failure of the Crusader invasion of Iraq," Zawahiri said. He mocked the U.S.-backed Sunni Arab local groups formed to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq. "So where are the Awakening Councils that Petraeus announced six months ago will achieve victory in Iraq? ... Are these Awakening Councils in need of someone to defend them and protect them?" Zawahiri asked. On Thursday, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd mourning two members of one of the councils, killing at least 51 people in one of the biggest insurgent attacks this year.
"Very soon Iraq will become the fortress of Islam, wherefrom will start missions and brigades for the liberation of Al-Aqsa Mosque" in Jerusalem, said Zawahiri, considered the leading ideologist of the Sunni organization. "Iran has clear goals, which is the annexation of southern Iraq and the east of the (Arabian) Peninsula, and to expand in order to be able to communicate with its followers in southern Lebanon," Zawahiri said. He said a plot against Iraq by the United States and Iran would lead to the Middle East region exploding.
"If an understanding with it (Iran) is reached on the basis of accomplishing all or some of its goals in return for keeping a blind eye on the American hegemony in the area, this understanding will add fuel to the fire ... The situation will explode an already enflamed region," Zawahiri said. While Zawahiri lambasted Iran, a senior hard line cleric there was trumpeting what he said should be the Shiite country's role in defending Islam. "In a not so distant future, we should reach a point of having the most powerful military equipment in the world so that no one even think about invading our borders," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said in a Friday prayer sermon.
"And not only that of the Islamic republic, but also the borders of Islam ... We must defend oppressed Muslims everywhere so that the enemies do not dare attack Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq." Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant referred to clashes between protesters and police in the Egyptian industrial city of Mahallah earlier this month, implicitly accusing the Egyptian government of conniving with Israel and the United States to keep the Hamas-run Gaza Strip under siege."Those who steal the livelihood of the people of Egypt are those who are denying food to the people of Gaza under the pretext of suspect international commitments with the Jews and the Americans," he said.
"In so doing, Israel achieves monopoly over supplies to Gaza to force its people to surrender to their conditions," Zawahiri said in the audio attributed to him.
"Starving the people of Egypt .... is part of a Zionist-American plan."It was Zawahiri's second audio message this month. On April 2, he launched a blistering attack on the United Nations. He also said that bin Laden, who like him has evaded capture, was still alive.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 19 Apr 08, 09:44

Saad Hariri Vows to Confront Attempts to Release the Four Generals
Naharnet/Future Movement leader Saad Hariri on Friday vowed to confront escalating calls by pro-Syrian factions for the release of four generals held in connecting with his father's assassination. Hariri fired back at the Hizbullah-led campaign in a statement on the third anniversary of MP Bassil Fuleihan's death from wounds he suffered in the Feb. 14, 2005 bomb attack that claimed Hariri's life. He described the attack as "the most obnoxious terrorist crime that tried to eliminate Lebanon, its independence and sovereignty." "This painful memory also is an occasion to remember all the martyrs who fell while defending our nation, starting with the martyrs of freedom and independence, the martyrs of the Lebanese Army and the Internal Security Forces, and the innocent citizens who were the victims of blind terrorism, which is still trying to harm Lebanon, its Arabism and democracy," the statement added.
The statement stressed: "We would not rest until the coward criminals are brought to justice to get the punishment they deserve in the International Tribunal which is now ready to receive them." It urged "all political forces that are executing the orders of the criminal regime in defending the four generals to go back to their conscience, and stop organizing this flagrant interference in the international investigation for the sake of the memory of the long list of martyrs."
It noted: "The gang of the four generals is at least responsible of reducing the security protection for Rafik Hariri before his assassination, tampering with the crime scene, and participating in creating the lie of Ahmad Abu Adas. "That's why we urge some political leaders who should have a minimum of national and ethical responsibility, and who are defending this gang, not to participate in this flagrant attempt to acquit the killers."
"The Lebanese, Arab and Islamic public opinions regard this attempt a blatant adoption of the assassination crime itself," the statement told the Hizbullah-led opposition that has been demanding release of the four generals.  "Those who prevent the Internal Security Forces and the Lebanese Army from protecting the citizens every day, kidnap their personnel, attack them, and hide wanted people, don't have the right to talk about the investigation in the crime of assassinating a remarkable man like Martyr Prime Minister Rafik Hariri," the statement said in obvious reference to Hizbullah.
"They surely are not the suitable reference to determine the fate of the detainees in an international investigation, where the highest executive reference of the United Nations stated that their detention is in the hands of the international prosecution," the Hariri statement said.
"Any call to free the gang of the four generals is …a despicable attempt to exert pressure on the investigation and terrorize the judges and those responsible about the international investigation which we trust its honesty and ability to bring the criminals to the justice of the international tribunal regardless of their position," it noted. "The Rafik Hariri supporters would not stand idly by as attempts are being made to assassinate him once again. Justice would eventually prevail," the statement pledged. Beirut, 18 Apr 08, 17:29

Rice, U.S. Embassy Mark 25th Anniversary of Beirut Mission Attack

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday joined fellow U.S. diplomats in marking the 25th anniversary of the bombing at the U.S. embassy in Beirut which killed more than 60 people on April 18, 1983. "We lost 17 of our own sons and daughters and 35 of our Lebanese colleagues. Many others also perished as they were visiting or just walking by the embassy…These were all innocent people, stolen from us in a moment of terror," Rice said during a ceremony at the State Department. "Even when the tragedy of April 18 was followed by further attacks on our Marine barracks later that year, on our embassy annex in 1984, and still others beyond that, the terrorists never broke our will," she said.
"It is in continuing to champion the cause of a democratic Lebanon that we pay greatest honor to those who died and those who suffered on that day," Rice added.
The attack by the Islamic Jihad Organization, which U.S. officials have said was a forerunner of Hizbullah was at the time the deadliest attack ever on a U.S. diplomatic mission. Rice used the commemoration to hint at Washington's accusations of interference by Syria into Lebanon's internal affairs, with politicians in Beirut "afraid for their very lives." "Lebanon has seen too many wars, too many assassinations, and too many innocent lives lost – tragedies that remain all too real today. Indeed, as we speak, several dozen Lebanese patriots, members of the democratic majority bloc in the parliament, have had to take refuge in a Beirut hotel," she said. With "fellow members of parliament, journalists and, of course, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri ... gunned down in the streets or claimed by terrorist bombs, who can blame them?" the top U.S. diplomat said. "This should be an unacceptable situation to all nations and it is certainly unacceptable to the United States."
She said the Lebanese deserve to live in peace, adding that the U.S. will continue to champion their peaceful aspirations.
The anniversary was also marked Friday at the embassy in Awkar, where U.S. officials welcomed survivors and family members of the victims.
The commemoration ceremony took place adjacent to the granite memorial erected on the embassy grounds to honor all those who have died while serving the U.S. in Lebanon. At U.S. Chargé d'Affaires Michele Sison's request, "participants observed a moment of silence in honor of those who died working for a secure, sovereign, democratic, united, and prosperous Lebanon," the embassy said in a statement.
"I am truly humbled by your dedication, and I know that all of the American staff here join me in feeling proud to be working with you," Sison told the bombing's survivors, former employees and family members of the victims. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, who was the Lebanon desk officer at the State Department when the bombing occurred, also attended the ceremony. "Together, American and Lebanese staff members did the work that needed to be done. They pulled their colleagues from the destruction. They tended to the wounded," he said. Welch, Sison and U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Valore also planted a cedar tree in the embassy compound in memory of the victims.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 19 Apr 08, 04:54

Lebanon Puts Off Trial of Suspect in Alleged U.S. Terror Plot
Naharnet/A military court has postponed the trial of an alleged al-Qaida loyalist accused of plotting to attack New York City train tunnels, Lebanon's state-run news agency, NNA, has said. The report said the trial of Assem Hammoud, initially scheduled to start Friday, has been put off until October because the U.S. investigation appears to be continuing. Hammoud was arrested in Lebanon in 2006 in a plot allegedly involving at least eight people. The FBI said the plotters planned to bomb and flood Hudson River train tunnels that carry more than 215,000 passengers each weekday between New York and New Jersey.
Lebanese authorities said they found maps and bombing plans on Hammoud's personal computer. They said he admitted to the plot and swore allegiance to al-Qaida.(AP) Beirut, 19 Apr 08, 03:58

Rizk Discussed with Welch Appointing Prosecutor General for International Tribunal
Naharnet/Justice Minister Charles Rizk reiterated Friday that the four generals had been arrested in line with a recommendation from the international investigation commission that remains valid. Rizk, talking to reporters after meeting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, said the ongoing crisis stems from blocking the nation's constitutional institutions and authorities. The judiciary, however, has survived such attempts "thanks to international backing," Rizk added. He said his discussion with Welch included the possibility of appointing head of the international investigation committee as prosecutor general of the international tribunal. Beirut, 18 Apr 08, 19:18

Geagea: Simple Majority Vote Remains an Option
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Friday said electing a president by simple majority "remains an option", but a final decision in this regard has not been taken. Other options to deal with the ongoing political crisis include reshuffling Premier Fouad Saniora's government, Geagea told reporters after talks with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch. Welch, Geagea explained, "did not relay any new ideas. He reiterated U.S. support to Lebanon." "We are not waiting for any side, be it American, French or Syrian, to tell us what we should do. We realize fully what we want to do," Geagea added.
The best-case scenario, according to Geagea, would be for MPs "to head to Parliament and elect a president." Beirut, 18 Apr 08, 18:47

It's Iran, stupid
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 18, 2008 -As foreign-policy nightmares for the next U.S. president are concerned, the headlines tell us it is Iraq.
But real-world events are beginning to say otherwise. Those high-paid consultants for the remaining three aspirants would do well to hang posters in their campaign HQs, advising the following: "It's Iran . . . stupid."
Iraq is unstable and fractured, and U.S. soldiers continue shedding their blood in its sands. But on three profoundly important fronts - nuclear proliferation, support for international terrorism and political and military involvement in the Iraq war - Iran is the great headache of the democratic world, the U.S. in particular.
In one of his not-infrequent moments of bravado, President Bush once declared that he would not leave the possibilities of a nuclear-armed Iran to the next administration. Well . . . big hat, no saddle, Mr. President.
Once Bush's own National Intelligence Estimate tragically (and incorrectly) characterized Iran's nuclear ambitions as suspended last November, all of Bush's fast-dwindling political capital for acting to halt a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East evaporated. Indeed, it evaporated for everyone, including European leaders who had been working diplomatic channels with Tehran.
Now, it is upon the shoulders of McCain. Or Obama. Or Clinton. What will one of them, as president, do to help defuse the intrigues of Tehran's mullahs and their unstable mouthpiece, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
The next president's great Iranian challenge, of course, is that nation's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
As intelligence analysts now report, Iran has suspended only its work on a nuclear warhead, the least-complicated of the processes leading to a missile-mounted nuclear arsenal. Both Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, and Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, have testified that all else in Iran has continued apace. Nuclear-enrichment processes, in fact, recently have been enhanced with the introduction of thousands of new centrifuges.
Particularly in respect to the mad belligerence directed at Israel by Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of radical Islamists may become a doomsday scenario of epic proportions. What has the next U.S. president to say about how they will deal with a nuclear Iran? How will they deal with Mideast nuclear-arms race that will trigger?
The conflict late last month in Basra, meanwhile, may have resulted in uncertainty about who controls Iraq, but it shined a spotlight on Iran's hand in stirring conflict there. Iran already may have replaced al-Qaida as the most destabilizing force in that conflict-wracked nation.
The forces of radical Iraqi Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr are being armed, trained, financed and, in some cases, directly led, by the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. Sadr is reported to have remained in Iran during the Basra conflict.
Some analysts believe Basra - in which the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki attacked fellow Shiite militias - may have helped reinforce Maliki's standing among other Iraqi factions, notably Kurds and Sunnis. Acting to disarm Shiite militias, after all, was one of the benchmarks of progress in Iraq stipulated by Congress.
But Basra illustrated, too, the disturbing reach of Iran into Iraq and elsewhere.
Iran has ties not only to Sadr's militias but also to Maliki's own governing coalition, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. It was the Iranian Quds Force that "brokered" a Basra cease-fire during a peace settlement in Iran.
Virtually all of the more sophisticated roadside bombs killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq now are of Iranian manufacture. And Iranian agents hardly limit themselves to Iraq: The Palestinian terrorist group Hezbollah is an owned and operated subsidiary of Iran. And let us not forget all the 9/11 Commission dots that lead to both Hezbollah and Iran.
Indeed, the critics of John McCain who contend the GOP candidate is "mistaken" in his comments linking the Sunnis of al-Qaida to the Shiites of Iran would do well to re-read that report. It includes, in Section 7.3 under the heading "Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al-Qaida," the following: "Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaida figures after (Osama) bin Laden's return to Afghanistan." The next president will have his or her hands full contending with the fundamentalists in Tehran. We need to know in better detail what their views are.

Hezbollah advocate challenged at Rice
By MICHAEL C. DUKE
17.APR.08
‘Arab World’ lecturer argued ‘distorted view’ with one-sided accusations; yet, high community turnout offered some balance
University of California-Irvine professor Lara Deeb missed few opportunities to cast Israel in the role of sole aggressor and regional pariah during a public lecture at Rice University on April 10. Of the 150 people who attended the evening lecture, 30 were members of Houston’s Jewish community, several of whom participated in the program’s question-and-answer session. Deeb’s presentation, titled, “Under­standing Hizbullah,” was the final installment of the 2007/08 multipart “Arab World: History, Politics & Culture” lecture series. The event was held at, and was co-sponsored by, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy on the Rice campus. The Boniuk Center for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance at Rice University was not listed as a co-sponsor for Deeb’s presentation, as it had been at previous “Arab World” events.
Rice’s lone modern Middle Eastern studies professor, Ussama Makdisi, organized the lecture series. Makdisi, who teaches students that Israel is an illegitimate colonial state that has “ethnically cleansed” Palestinians from the land, initiated this program three years ago “to provide a forum for perspectives on and from the Arab world.” In presenting his series to the Rice community and to the Houston public, Makdisi remarked that it “has brought to Rice leading scholars and journalists who write about the Arab world, not with malice or ignorance, but as part of a perpetual dynamic of inquiry and criticism.” Despite this packaging, however, the series has served to advance a clear partisan political agenda, which often centers upon one-sided criticism of, and bias against, Israel.
Lectures past
Two years ago, Ilan Pappé presented as part of Rice’s “Arab World” series. Pappé is a committed Marxist who openly advocates the destruction of Israel. A revisionist historian by trade, he repeatedly has been discredited as a fabricator of information. The first speaker in the 2007/08 program was Romi Khouri, who offers courses in anti-Israel propaganda for the east Jerusalem-based Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs. Khouri’s appearance at Rice was followed up by a presentation from controversial Columbia University professor, Joseph Massad.
At his Nov. 1, 2007, Rice lecture, Massad repeatedly equated Zionism with Nazism. Without citing credible sources, he argued that Israel and its supporters today are perpetrating worse crimes against the Palestinians than Hitler previously had against European Jewry. Makdisi, in his introduction of Massad, praised the Columbia professor as a hero for standing up against an alleged Zionist conspiracy that has attempted to keep him silent. During the lecture’s Q&A, challenges to Massad’s thesis were stifled, both by Massad and the lecture series’ creator, Makdisi, who was one of only a few Rice faculty members in attendance.
At the April 10 Deeb presentation – which had far greater attendance from Rice colleagues and staff members – Makdisi’s conspiratorial theorizing was significantly toned down. And, the presenter herself conducted business in a comparatively more professional manner. Pleasantries aside, however, Deeb’s lecture on the virtues of the southern Lebanon-based Shiite organization, Hezbollah, was no less one-sided than previous “Arab World” lectures, and no less riddled with half-truths, disputable accusations and partisan advocacy presented as objective observation.
Intellectual dishonesty
An intellectually honest presentation on “Understanding Hezbollah” would have included a balanced view on the spectrum of ways that the organization is viewed and understood – from a “resistance” militia-turned-political party and “social welfare” network, as defined by most local supporters and many Arab and Muslim world nations, to an Islamist “terrorist” and “anti-Semitic” organization and an Iranian “proxy,” as defined by Israel, the United States and several other Western countries and some Sunni Muslim and Arab Christian critics. Yet, Deeb’s presentation offered no such balance or objectivity. Rather, she depicted a Hezbollah that is legitimate in its entirety, despite some allegedly baseless internal non-Shiite Lebanese objections, and a Hezbollah religious and political leadership that is both commendable and admirable, especially in its commitment to violent “resistance” against Israel and Western “interference.”
In summary, Deeb described the origins and history of Hezbollah, as well as the evolution of its leadership and supporters. She characterized the organization’s beginnings in the 1970s as being part of a greater regional Shiite empowerment movement influenced by the “martyred” Imam Hussein, the third Imam, according to a majority of Shiite Muslims, who was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680, and epitomized by the bloody Iranian revolution, whose victor was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in 1979.
Deeb framed her explanation of Hezbollah’s origins in the context of greater Lebanese history. With a sectarian political system that she indicated “underrepresented” the country’s quickly growing Shiite communities in Beirut’s southern suburb and in southern Lebanon, the local Shiite population soon found a champion of “pious” Shiite “mobilization” in cleric Musa al-Sadr, who drew inspiration from Imam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini to found a political movement called the “Movement of the Deprived.” When civil war broke out in Lebanon in 1975, which Deeb characterized not as religious or sectarian in nature, but political, other Shiite “activists” soon gained popularity, such as Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, one of Hezbollah’s current top religious leaders, and Hassan Nasrallah, its current political leader.
Contradictions, omissions and accusations
According to Deeb, Hezbollah began as a confederation of fighters who were among the many in Lebanon who took up arms in the outbreak of civil war. When Israel then “invaded” Lebanon in 1978, and again in 1982, Deeb argued, the Hezbollah fighters, who would not publicly declare their official membership in known writing until 1985, found new purpose: “To fight the Israeli troops that were occupying their villages,” she said.
“The brutality of this [1982] Israeli invasion cannot be underestimated as a factor in the formation of Hezbollah,” Deeb argued. “Hezbollah simply would not exist in its current form had the invasion and the continued occupation of south Lebanon not taken place,” she added.
This statement, however, was one of many instances throughout the 45-mintue lecture in which Deeb omitted key contextual information; ignored well-documented public statements from Hezbollah leadership to the contrary; and went into great detail over the alleged death and destruction inflicted by Israel against the Lebanese/Hezbollah side, which she graphically illustrated with a PowerPoint® slideshow, while discounting the death and destruction on the Israeli side.
Deeb insisted that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel, from the 1970s to the present, have been purely self-defensive. Though she admitted that the organization’s 1985 manifesto, which never has been revised, pledges Hezbollah’s commitment to the elimination of Israel – “our struggle will only end when this entity [the State of Israel] is obliterated” – Deeb argued that, in fact, Hezbollah’s renewed attacks against Israel only seek to regain territory, the so-called Shebaa Farms, that it considers part of Lebanon, as well as the release of Hezbollah fighters currently held in Israeli jails.
However, Deeb’s narrow characterization of Hezbollah’s “self-defensive” posturing directly contradicts public statements made by the organization’s political leader and secretary general, Nasrallah. For example, in a 2000 Washington Post article, Nasrallah said: “I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called ‘Israel’. . . . That is why, if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament, our deputies will reject it. Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.” And, in a Feb. 2, 2005, appearance on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV satellite network, Nasrallah said: “Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: ‘Death to Israel.’ ”
Similarly, Hezbollah spokesman Hassan Ezzedin revealed the organization’s intentions to completely destroy Israel in a 2002 The New Yorker interview. He said: “If they [Israel] go from Sheba’a [Farms], we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine”; the Hezbollah spokesman then added that after this “war of liberation,” the remaining Israelis of European origin would be deported.
In Deeb’s generalizations that Israeli “aggression” and “occupation” were the sole reasons for Hezbollah’s “resistance,” she failed to mention during her prepared lecture why Israel “invaded” Lebanon in the first place, in 1978 and later in 1982. However, Deeb was asked about this omission during the program’s after-lecture Q&A session. A woman in the audience asked: “Why would Israel go into Lebanon?”
After chuckling at the phrasing of the question, Deeb succinctly answered: “Um, I don’t know how far back to go? . . . In 1982 . . . Israel invaded Lebanon because the Palestinian ‘resistance’ organizations, who were fighting to regain their homeland that Israel had occupied, were fighting from within the Lebanese borders.”
At no point in her answer, or previous lecture, did Deeb indicate that the “Palestinian ‘resistance’ organizations” had been engaging in a series of attacks and raids against civilians in Israel, initially from Jordan and later from Lebanon: These included the March 11, 1978, murder of an American tourist by Palestinian terrorists hailing from Lebanon; and, the March 11, 1978, hijacking of two Israeli buses en route from Haifa to Tel Aviv, which led to the killing of 37 Israelis, again by Palestinian terrorists who had staged their operations from southern Lebanon. Deeb made no mention of the “Coastal Road Massacre” bus-hijackings, which credible historians on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict cite as the cause of the Israeli invasion into southern Lebanon three days later.
Deeb’s rendering of the Israeli invasions of Lebanon was one of several instances where she omitted key contextual information in describing “crucial” events in Hezbollah’s and Lebanon’s history. In her introduction, Deeb argued that “U.S. officials and mainstream corporate media outlets” have wrongfully cast Hezbollah in the role of “sole instigator.” To counter this characterization, Deeb offered an inverted scenario – excusing Hezbollah’s actions as purely self-defensive and justifiable; casting Israel in the role of sole instigator and aggressor; and suggesting that Israel and the United States are the true perpetrators of terrorism.
David vs. Goliath
Through the selective history and interpretations offered, Deeb presented an analogy that has grown increasingly popular in the Arab world and, today, widely is employed in anti-Israel propaganda: This analogy describes the Jewish state as a monstrous “Goliath” and its Arab/Muslim neighbors, and especially organizations like Hezbollah that have committed to violent “resistance,” as an oppression-fighting underdog “Davids.”
Deeb’s discourse supported this analogy throughout the presentation. She gave careful details on how many Hezbollah supporters and Lebanese civilians Israel allegedly killed, wounded and/or displaced; offered several visual images of the destruction Israel inflicted on southern Lebanon, particularly after the July 2006 war; and alleged at length that Israel will continue its “aggression” into the future.
In discussing Hezbollah, Deeb glorified its “grass-roots resistance” to Israeli and U.S. “neo-imperial” “aggression,” “invasion” and “occupation.” And, she spoke volumes about its political participation in Lebanon; its extensive social welfare network, such as its building of schools and clinics, and assisting in the rebuilding of war-torn southern Lebanon; the funding it provides families of “martyrs”; and the important role “pious” Shiite women play in Hezbollah’s daily operations.
Unlike her detailed descriptions of Israeli attacks, Deeb, throughout the presentation, minimized the violence that has been perpetrated by Lebanese groups against local rivals, including during the Lebanese Civil War; violence against Lebanon by its Muslim world neighbors, such as assassinations by Syrian and Iranian subversives; violence against Israel by Hezbollah, such as suicide bombings, kidnappings and rocket attacks; and violence by Hezbollah against Western and Israeli civilian and Jewish targets outside of Israel, such as the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon, the bombing of the Jewish community center in Argentina and encouraging continued suicide attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world. Deeb also did not include in her presentation that independent observers have shown that Hezbollah has used Lebanese civilians as “human shields” and Lebanese civilian population centers as staging grounds for rocket attacks against Israel and weapons depots.
Challenges to one-sidedness
At previous “Arab World” lectures, the vast majority of attendees had expressed agreement with the series’ common anti-Israel messages, and were given platforms to propagate conspiracy theories, prejudices and intolerance of differing views during the Q&A. At Deeb’s lecture, however, these indulgences were kept to a minimum, which helped foster an atmosphere in which disagreement more freely was expressed.
Deeb took 15 questions from the audience, including one from the series’ organizer, Makdisi. Several of these questions challenged the lecture’s one-sidedness and its claims of academic objectivity, thereby helping to bring some balance to the presentation. Without scripted notes, Deeb’s arguments during the Q&A often resulted in less-polished obfuscations, inversions and inventions.
One of the first questions challenged Deeb’s “undistorted view” of Hezbollah, asking how the audience can “understand Hezbollah” with zero mention of its terrorist activities, including the killing of hundreds of Americans. As examples, the questioner offered a short list of Hezbollah terrorist attacks that included the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon, the 1985 torture and murder of William Francis Buckely, the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and a string of car bombings aimed at American and UN peacekeepers in Beirut over the past few years.
In response, Deeb confirmed that some of these attacks were committed by Hezbollah members, though she argued that others had no “confirmed” Hezbollah connections, particularly those more recent. She also argued that the Hezbollah of the 1970s and ’80s was different than the Hezbollah of today, and claimed that “since the 1980s, their [Hezbollah’s] military activity has been confined to liberating Lebanon from Israeli occupation.”
The next question challenged Deeb’s presentation of history offered in the previous question. The audience member pointed out that Hezbollah was behind bombings in Argentina after the 1980s, such as the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, and that Argentine officials, as well as Interpol, have issued arrest warrants for Hezbollah operatives involved in the attacks.
Deeb answered this question first, by claiming no official Hezbollah connection to these attacks, and second, by claiming that one of the senior Hezbollah members implicated in the attacks, Imad Moughnieh, formally had been a member of Hezbollah, then allegedly was not a member at the time of these attacks, and then was symbolically welcomed back into Hezbollah after he was killed in a car bomb in Damascus, Syria, in February 2008. She then added, “I do not actually know anything about Moughnieh, so I cannot speak to that.”
Halfway through the Q&A, a question was asked about the overtly anti-Semitic propaganda that Hezbollah regularly circulates, especially in public speeches and interviews by leaders and through various programming on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar satellite TV network, which has been banned in France for airing Holocaust denial and banned in the United States for advocating suicide bombing.
Specifically, the question asked about recent multipart miniseries, such as “Horseman Without a Horse” and “The Diaspora,” that Al-Manar TV has broadcast in millions of homes throughout the Arab world and parts of Europe, which feature classic anti-Semitic canards, such as blood libels and alleged Jewish “control” of the world. The question also called attention to public anti-Semitic statements given by Hezbollah’s leadership, such as Nasrallah claiming that Jews are the descendents of pigs and monkeys, and specifying that Jews, not just Israelis, are ideologically, religiously and physically inferior beings.
Deeb initially replied by saying: “I haven’t, in fact, seen any of those multipart miniseries. . . .”
Before she could go further, a man in the audience stood up and accused Deeb aloud of seeing “only what you want.”
He was asked to sit down, and Deeb continued by admitting that Nasrallah “has made anti-Semitic statements in the past,” although she argued that “most of the time in his statements, he uses the phrase ‘Zionist enemy’ or refers to ‘Israel’ and ‘Zionists.’ ”
Deeb then went further to argue that “in the Middle East, the statements of political leaders are often ‘tools of rhetoric’. . . that serve the purpose of consolidating power within communities. . . . And, unfortunately, there have been moments when anti-Semitic rhetoric is sometimes used in this way, and it worked to create situations where there’s a clear enemy, and is done to divert attention away from things like economic problems at home.” Though she said that fomenting anti-Semitism is wrong, she did not object to the preaching of hatred and the inciting of murder of Israelis, or denying Israel’s right to exist.
In a previous question about comparisons between Nasrallah and other leaders in the region, Deeb pointed out that “Nasrallah is very consistent. . . . His constituency trusts him . . . because he doesn’t make promises that he hasn’t been able to deliver.” When this point was restated in relation to Nasrallah’s statements that incite anti-Semitism and violence against Jews, Deeb was spared having to respond by Makdisi, who stood up and asked that questions be limited, due to time, and then asked Deeb a question of his own that called attention away from Hezbollah’s ideology.
After several more questions were posed – some that challenged Deeb’s characterizations, and others that served to reaffirm her position – a man stood up and launched into a speech about alleged “Jewish terrorists” who were responsible for “killing over 300 men, women and children” at Deir Yassin, and who later became prime ministers of Israel.
To her credit, Deeb asked the man if he, in fact, had a question. Ignoring this though, the man continued the speech and said: “You see that when an American Christian or a Jew talks about terrorism, look what they have done in Iraq. . . . When they talk about terrorism, it’s like a prostitute lecturing on chastity!”
After the man finished, Deeb indicated that she “already answered the terrorism question,” and reiterated her previous suggestion that certain states are the real perpetrators of terrorism. The program then concluded after a final question about Hezbollah’s future support in the midst of the current political standoff in Lebanon, following the Feb. 14, 2005, assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri – which Deeb asserted had no confirmed Hezbollah connection.
michaeld@jhvonline.com

Christian Politics in Lebanon
Ghassan Rubeiz
4/20/2008
Political Politician
Western media outlets have portrayed divisions within Lebanon's Christian community as threatening to tear Lebanon apart,[1] as if Sunnite-Shiite tension is negligible and the divide between Christians and Muslims has disappeared. The split that threatens Lebanon's national unity is less between Christians than between two political camps that cut across sectarian boundaries.
Most Christians are not blindly following their leaders to the brink. Above all, they are divided over one major conundrum - is it better to throw in their lot with Washington and alienate the unchallenged political leadership of Lebanese Shiites (the country's largest, though long disenfranchised, sect) or to reach an accommodation that preserves civil peace at the expense of softening state sovereignty? The fact that there are impassioned believers on both sides of this debate is a mark of political sophistication and diversity, even if the consequences are troublesome.

Background

The rugged terrain of Lebanon has been a sanctuary for Christian and minority Muslim sects fleeing persecution for well over a millennium. Maronite Christian monks arrived in the seventh century and established what is today by far the largest Christian sect in Lebanon. Other denominations that made Lebanon their home include Greek Orthodox, Melkites, and (most recently) Armenian Christians. Although all share what Habib Malik has called an "inherited feeling of existential insecurity,"[2] the largely Francophone Maronite community is less assimilated to the surrounding Arab world than the others and more prone to a fortress mentality in the face of real or perceived threats.

The modern state of Lebanon is run on a sectarian formula of power sharing dating back to the French mandate period. The 1943 National Pact allocated the presidency to Maronites and established a fixed 6:5 Christian-Muslim ratio of parliamentary seats. The office of prime minister was granted to the Sunni Muslim community, while the office of parliament speaker was granted to Shiite Muslims (originally the second and third largest sects, respectively). The pact also entailed a tradeoff - Christians agreed to forgo Western protection and accept Lebanon's "Arab face," while Muslims agreed to shelve calls for integration into Syria or a pan-Arab state.

Although Christians prospered due to their advantages in education and close business contacts with the West, the power sharing system that provided the underlying political stability faltered and then collapsed as Lebanese Muslims grew from a minority to a majority of the population and began demanding increased political power. This coincided with the political awakening of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and the emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as an armed movement operating from Lebanese territory.

Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war was sparked primarily by Christian-Muslim sectarian tensions and the alignment of Palestinian groups with the latter, but turned into a regional conflict involving a host of outside forces. Syrian troops entered in 1976, while the Israelis entered in 1982 to combat the PLO, followed by American and European peacekeepers the following year. All came at the invitation of leading Maronite political or militia leaders, and in all three cases the result was not what Christians expected. Amid this turmoil, the dominant Christian Lebanese Forces (LF) militia created a state-within-a-state, while advocating a "federal" system of government that would preserve Christian autonomy.

Christians lost militarily, politically, and demographically during the civil war. In the late 1980s, loyalties split between the LF and the Army, led by Gen. Michel Aoun. Both eventually succumbed to the Syrians, leaving the Christian community with little leverage in negotiating a place in the postwar order.

The 1989 Taif Accord reduced Christian parliamentary representation to half and weakened the presidency in favor of the (Sunni) prime minister. However, the Christian community's malaise during the occupation had less to do with Taif than with its own inability to forge a united front, at least on basic questions of sovereignty and democracy. Lebanese Christians have never been uniform in their politics. They are secular and multi-denominational, so there is no uniform religious perspective to bring solidarity. In contrast, the Shiites have today closed ranks behind Hezbollah, while the Sunnis have mostly gravitated behind the Hariri family.

The Christian Leadership

At the time of the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, four groupings were evident in the Christian leadership.

Pro-Syrian Christians

Syria's Assad regime has always had a strong minority following among Lebanese Christians. Some identify with Syria's Assad regime for sectarian reasons, believing that Alawites are a natural ally of Christians in the face of Islamification. Others are ideological proponents of Lebanese-Syrian unity. In the 1940s, Antoun Saadeh established the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), a movement dedicated to achieving Lebanon's absorption into Greater Syria (along with Palestine and Jordan). Although few Maronites joined the SSNP, the party developed a solid following among the Greek Orthodox, the second largest Christian community in Lebanon (and the largest in Syria). The Lebanese branch of Syria's Baath Party also has a sizable Christian membership. In the media, there are many leftist Christian commentators and journalists who are sympathetic to Syria and write to a fairly wide local and regional audience.

Christian allies of Syria also include traditional political elites bound by longstanding business links to Damascus, such as former Health Minister Suleiman Franjieh (the grandson of a former president) and his extended family and network of retainers. The outgoing president, Emile Lahoud, and others who rose to power purely on the basis of opportunism during the occupation constitute another (now relatively weak) segment of the pro-Syrian Christian leadership.

"Westocratic" Christians

This is a diverse category of traditional politicians, businessmen, and others who advocate a strong relationship with the West for cultural, economic, and political reasons. They tried to make the best of the Syrian occupation (which was what French and American officials counseled) and gained modest representation in parliament, but were largely marginalized during the 1990s. They formed an umbrella opposition group known as the Qornet Shehwan Gathering during the final years of the occupation. The Phalange Party, led by former President Amine Gemayel, and National Liberal Party (NLP), led by Dany Chamoun, are now closely aligned to this camp.

Christian nationalists/Lebanese Forces

The Christian nationalist trend is represented by the LF. Originally an outgrowth of the late Bashir Gemayel's Phalange militia, the LF became more narrowly sectarian in the 1980s under the leadership of Samir Geagea. LF ideologues believe (or, at any rate, once believed) that Christians ultimately cannot subsume their differences with Muslims under a common national identity, and that Lebanon should be a federal state with autonomous sectarian enclaves. They too believe that a strong relationship with the West - particularly Washington - is central to their political aspirations.

Secular nationalists/Free Patriotic Movement



The secular nationalist trend is represented by Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM). The FPM is ideologically opposed to political sectarianism, federalism, and other formulas that privilege narrow primordial ties. In his grand (some say grandiose) ambition of reforming Lebanon's corrupt and feeble government institutions, this popular and controversial leader departs from the narrow pursuit of Christian communal interests and thinks in non-sectarian terms (even if he adopts sectarian language at times for political reasons).

The FPM was by far the most popular Christian political force at the time of Syria's April 2005 withdrawal. Aoun's personal popularity stems largely from his ill-fated (but popular) 1989-1990 revolt against the Syrians and from the role of the FPM in leading opposition to the Syrian occupation after his exile. However, this made him perhaps the most reviled figure among other Christian politicians in Lebanon. This tension was palpable during the occupation. The Aounists led boycotts of elections, while Westocrats campaigned for the few seats Syria was willing to leave up for grabs. Neither side really got what they wanted, succeeding only in taking the wind out of each other's sails. Post-Taif presidents were formally elected by parliament, but in practice installed by Syria, as were leading Christian figures in the security sector.

Perhaps the most telling indication of Christian weakness during the occupation was the fact that only a fraction of over 150,000 Christians displaced during the war were returned to their homes. Aoun's critics charged that the Christians might have been able to reach an understanding with Syria that alleviated this malaise if he had not been so intent on obstructing the process with demonstrations (no credible Christian leader can be seen as negotiating with the Syrians when Lebanese students are being fire hosed in the streets and arrested).

Aoun returned from France to find the Westocrats and the Christian nationalists lined up with Saad Hariri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt in a coalition designed in part to thwart his ambitions in the May/June 2005 parliamentary elections. The alliance was quite formidable. Hariri's tragic death generated a strong momentum of compassion for his family among Sunnis and Christians, while Jumblatt could clearly deliver Druze votes. Moreover, March 14 leaders received the endorsement of Hezbollah (in return for unspecified assurances regarding its arms).

In perhaps an equally opportunistic move, Aoun teamed up with pro-Syrian Christians as junior allies and defeated March 14 in majority Christian districts. Notwithstanding the FPM's electoral triumph, it was left out of the coalition government that formed after the elections. In view of Aoun's provocative rhetoric about investigating abuses of power under the Syrians, none of the other power brokers wanted him in government at the time. Some Sunni and Druze leaders did not want to see any strong Christian leader serve in government.

Over the next two years, Hezbollah had a falling out with the coalition and eventually led a Shiite boycott of the government. The FPM formed a united opposition front with the Hezbollah-led Shiite bloc (and with pro-Syrian politicians), jointly calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his cabinet. Although the alignment (like the March 14 coalition's previous pact with Hezbollah) is politically opportunistic, the FPM and Hezbollah have always shared similar domestic reform principles. The former general insists that domestic reform must precede disarmament, and that he could act as an agent trusted by Shiites to bring about integration of Hezbollah's militia into the defense structure of the country.

The Christian Public

Although there is much talk of a Christian community "split in half" between March 14 and the opposition, a great many Christians have opinions that don't conform wholly to the rhetoric of either the ruling coalition or the opposition. While most Christians are critical of the Hariri-Jumblatt axis for its record of rampant corruption, most also have reservations about Hezbollah's militant Islamist ideology and refusal to respect the authority of the state.

However, it is important to bear in mind that many Christians see Sunni fundamentalism in Lebanon as a far more dangerous internal threat than Hezbollah, particularly after the bloody uprising of Fatah al-Islam in the summer of 2007. Indeed, despite their reservations about Hezbollah, 43% of Maronites believe that its weapons "are necessary to face Israel until the liberation of Sheba'a Farms and the detainees," according to an October 2007 poll by Information International.[3]

The main concern of Christians is not so that Hezbollah will directly harm them (there has been surprisingly little Shiite-Christian violence in Lebanon's history) or try to Islamicize Lebanon, but that it will jeopardize the country's prosperity. Peace and political stability are essential to the growth of Lebanon's service economy (particularly the tourism sector) and necessary for much-needed Western and Arab gulf investment in Lebanon. A government that formally accepts Hezbollah's "resistance" indefinitely runs the risk of setting back the country's economic recovery and alienating the outside world.

And yet gambling everything on foreign assurances rather than domestic concord is a road that Christians know can lead to catastrophe. Some Christians who loathe any form of Islamic fundamentalism also see no alternative to a political compromise and reform process that give Shiites (and, at least in the near term, Hezbollah) greater voice in government. Despite the immense economic toll of the July-August 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon, Hezbollah remains very popular among its constituents - there is no one else to talk to in the Shiite community.

At the same time, Hezbollah is under growing political and logistical pressures, possibly making it more amenable to historic compromise. In the wake of its devastating war with Israel in the summer of 2006, the movement must find a way to rebuild the south and the Shiite suburbs of Beirut. Worried about a new war with Israel in which Lebanese society may not give it the same warm shelter it received last year, Hezbollah is striving to convince the Lebanese society that it is not sectarian and takes up arms only to defend the country; that it is a Lebanese movement, not an Iranian (or Syrian) stooge.

It is worth mentioning that the uncertain future of Lebanon's nearly 400,000 Palestinian refugees greatly concerns both Christians and Shiites - conspiracy theories about Saudi/Sunni/Western naturalization plots abound among both. Of course, there are divergent economic interests. Most Christians support a free market economy, while most Shiites are left of center, though both share a disdain for government corruption.

The same complexity of thinking is evident in Christian views of their leadership. Some Christians who don't particularly care for Aoun are nevertheless convinced that only a leader with his popularity and stature can be an effective interlocutor with Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Some greatly admire Aoun and favor his election as president, but feel that the pursuit of this objective is a lost cause and question his confrontational strategy of obtaining it. There are "Arabist" Christians on both sides - some see the Saudis and conservative Arab regimes as kindred spirits, others see Syria and Hezbollah as Arab brethren.

The most reliable hard data on Christian public opinion comes from the 2005 parliamentary elections and the August 2007 by-election in Metn. The FPM won a large majority of Christian votes running against the March 14 coalition in the 2005 elections, though not a majority of Christian seats (most of which are in Muslim majority districts due to Syrian gerrymandering). Whether the vote tally signified solid support for the FPM or public disgust over the refusal of Hariri and Jumblatt to amend the anti-Christian electoral law has been much debated, but it is the main basis for Aoun's claim to represent majority opinion.



The by-election took place in a district that is predominantly Maronite, politically conservative, and home to Amine Gemayel, who was running to fill a seat previously occupied by his recently assassinated son. Support for the Gemayel family is so strong in Metn that the FPM did not contest one seat in the district in 2005 (allowing voters to vote for the FPM-led slate, while writing in the name of the late Pierre Gemayel). In the by-election, however, the FPM candidate, an obscure physician, narrowly defeated the ex-president. March 14 leaders pointed to the fact that a slight majority of Maronites had voted for Gemayel as evidence that Aoun's much vaunted majority public support had slipped. Some went further, complaining that Aoun had relied on the support of Armenian Christians (and pro-Syrian Greek Orthodox MP Michel Murr) to win the primarily Maronite district (drawing angry Armenian reactions).

However, the Aounists claim that many Christians, whatever their political orientations, would never dream of voting against a respected elder statesman running to fill his martyred son's seat under the current climate. By their reckoning, the fact that a slim majority was willing to "take back" the Gemayel family's seat and give it to a no-name candidate purely on the basis of FPM affiliation signifies impressive growth in public support.



Whatever the exact balance of Christian public opinion may be, the by-election affirmed a lack of consensus even if majority support for the FPM remains intact. Recognizing that the Christian public is divided, the Council of Maronite Bishops (itself said to be divided) has not taken a firm line in favor of either March 14 or the opposition, in spite of the fact that Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir is sympathetic to the former.

The Presidential Election

The focal point of contention between the government and opposition in recent months has been the choice of a successor to Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, whose term as president expired on November 24. The president is elected not by the people, but by parliament. However, the coalition's slim legislative majority was insufficient to unilaterally crown one of its own presidential candidates because of the traditional two-thirds quorum requirement, which enables an opposition controlling over a third of parliament to effectively veto the majority's choice by refusing to attend the vote.

The opposition, pointing to FPM electoral victories, has supported Aoun's bid to become president. Aoun would easily win a direct election for president, as he can count on the overwhelming majority of Shiites, at least half of Christians, and perhaps a fourth of Sunnis and Druze to vote for him over any prospective challenger. Although willing to forgo the election of Aoun, the opposition said that it would attend a parliamentary session to elect a president only if a compromise candidate is agreed upon beforehand.

Months of negotiations over the selection of a compromise candidate (and over side deals concerning cabinet representation and other matters) ensued, but without success. There is a debate about whether this quorum requirement can be legally circumvented, but the ruling coalition ultimately backed away from such an attempt. A "50 plus one" president would have been severely handicapped at a time when the strengthening of government institutions (particularly the presidency) is seen by most Christians as vital.



Gen. Michel Suleiman, the commander of the Lebanese Army, eventually won out over other "neutrals." While maintaining friendly relations with the Syrian regime that originally appointed him to his post, Gen. Suleiman has cultivated a reputation for efficiency and political neutrality since the Syrian withdrawal. He earned considerable respect in Washington and Paris for the army's successful war against Fatah al-Islam this past summer. Although both sides were in agreement that Suleiman was an acceptable compromise candidate as 2007 drew to a close, negotiations have since deadlocked over the formation of a national unity government and other matters.


Amid reports that both pro-March 14 and opposition Christian factions are arming themselves, many Christians are beginning to see the peaceful election of virtually any president as preferable to a prolonged vacancy in the office. An extended power vacuum (or, God forbid, renewed civil war) could open the way for the collapse of the Taif power-sharing system. In light of Christian demographic decline, the alternatives will be less attractive. An extended political crisis (and the resulting economic stagnation) will also cause more Christians to emigrate, further weakening the clout of those who stay behind.

How the crisis is resolved will likely impact the Christian leadership struggle. Aoun's success as self assigned "ambassador" of the state and the international community for negotiating change with Hezbollah would also (by design, perhaps) ensure the political ascendancy of the FPM, while his failure would be a boon to pro-March 14 Christian figures. Because short-term gains can so easily consecrate long-term political advantages to one side or the other, negotiations over a comprehensive political compromise are likely to be drawn out for quite some time as Christian disunity persists.

Notes
[1] "Christians Split in Lebanon Raises Specter of Civil War," The New York Times, 6 October 2007.
[2] Habib C. Malik, Between Damascus and Jerusalem: Lebanon and Middle East Peace (Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1997), p. 9.
[3]Opinion Poll, Information International, The Monthly, December 2007, No. 65.
* The article was also published in MideastMonitor.org
***Ghassan Rubeiz is an Arab-American social scientist and the former Middle East director of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. He has written frequently for the Beirut-based Daily Star, The Christian Science Monitor, and other publications.