LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 08/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 16,13-23.
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Europe must realize: Jihadism is an ideology, not a theology.by Walid Phares 08/08/08
The Indolent "Truce" in Lebanon.By: Zuheir Kseibati -Dar Al-Hayat 08/08/08
Flying high again with Hizbullah.By Michael Young 07/08/08
Israel Weighs New Threats From Lebanon.By Julie Stahl 07/08/08
Politicians are wasting time while Lebanon is literally burning.The Daily Star 07/08/08
Alawites face greatest challenge since Civil War-By IRIN News.org 07/08/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August 07/08
On Peter Rodman, Lebanon and Syria-Ha'aretz
European Parliament president in Lebanon for Mideast peace talks-Monsters and Critics.com
Civil Fights: Destroying Israel's deterrence-Jerusalem Post
Barak says 'price of inexperience' paid in Lebanon war-Ynetnews
sraeli Arab charged with spying for Hezbollah-Ha'aretz
Israel Determined on Ending Arms Smuggling to Hizbullah -Naharnet
Berri to EU Parliament: Resistance is Our Pride -Naharnet
MP Tueni Criticizes Hizbullah Weapons -Naharnet
Minister Takla: The Countdown to Reclaim Shebaa Farms has Started -Naharnet
Gemayel: State Taken Captive by Iran-Naharnet
Maronite Bishops Urge Cabinet to Unite the People-Naharnet
Al-Akhbar Escalates Attack on UNIFIL-Naharnet
Report: Lebanese to Help Pay for Helicopters Via Telethon-Naharnet
European Parliament President Scouts Lebanon On Middle East Peace-Naharnet
Hobeika: Forest Fires Premeditated-Naharnet
Fatah al-Islam Tunisian Recruiter Jailed-Naharnet
Syria Confirms Suleiman's Assassination-Naharnet
Jumblat: Would Assad Deliver on his Pledge to Sarkozy?-Naharnet
Judiciary Refuses to Free the Four Generals-Naharnet
Gen. Petraeus From Iraq to Central Command Via Lebanon-Naharnet
Gemayel for Indirect Talks with Israel Over Shebaa Farms-Naharnet
Hizbullah for Mechanism that Guarantees State-Resistance Relation-Naharnet
Israel Mulls Military Option for Iran Nukes-Naharnet
Israel fears Hizbullah has advanced anti-aircraft on alert-Daily Star
Berri aims for Tuesday vote on granting new government vote of confidence-Daily Star
Lebanon denies request to free generals held in connection with Hariri murder-AP
'Lack of policy' could spell March 14 Force's demise-Daily Star
Lebanon needs '$2 billion' to meet power demand-Daily Star
Lebanon's currency ratings get upgrade-Daily Star
Fire fighters tame most parts of major blaze in Kartaba-Daily Star
Fire fighters tame most parts of major blaze in Kartaba-Daily Star
European Parliament President Scouts Lebanon On Middle East Peace-Naharnet
Syria admits Assad adviser assassination-Al-Bawaba
'Syria talks will go on without Olmert'-Jerusalem Post
Lebanese Daily On Syria's Conditions For Establishing Relations ...MEMRI

Aoun fails to see Wilayet El Faqih
By: Tony Safa
(tony_safa@hotmail.com)
August 6, 2008
I wonder how a bright leader like the “ general” Aoun fails to see wilayet el faqih when his ally who considers the destruction of all Lebanon in 2006 war as a victory achieved by the help of the GOD of wilayat el Faqih!!! It is sure thing that General Aoun chooses not to recognize the obvious rising wilayet el faqih in Lebanon as he counts on wilayet-el-faqih believers in 2009 Lebanese Parliamentary Election.
General Aoun keeps wondering where is Wilayet el faqih that the majority of Lebanese is afraid of. Ironically Wilayet el faqih is found in Aoun’s own words when 2 days ago he called on Lebanese government to give constitutional protection (Hassani 7oukoumiyeh) to Hassan Nassralla. Given constitutional protection to Hassan Nassralla who legally represents Wali-el-faqih in Lebanon give him a similar status to khaminie in Iran.
Also, 2 days ago Aoun challenged those calling for no weapon but the Lebanese army weapon on Lebanese soil by asking them the most ridicules question. Aoun asked “who would defend Lebanon if you disarm Hezbollah because the Lebanese Army is not capable?” Aoun words mean that until the Lebanese army has equal military power to Israel (Nuclear power, F16, highest technology....) Hezbollah keeps their weapon!! Exactly as Aoun’s poor signed Understanding-Agreement with Hezbollah states that Hezbollah keep their weapon as long as Israel a threat!! While Hezbollah slowly working to cast a total control over Lebanon under the pretext of fighting Israel.
The ironic parts are:
1- How could a leader who fled Lebanon to Paris leaving his soldiers behind dare to criticize the Lebanese Army and call them incapable of defending Lebanon?
2- Hezbollah calls an Israeli withdrawal from Shebaa Farm a conspiracy against their weapon. Hezbollah officials publicly said that their weapon stay even after an Israeli Withdrawal.
3- After 1701 resolution Hezbollah must stay out of south Lebanon so on what front or border Hezbollah to fight Israel??
4- Our Lebanese Army just achieved a great victory in Naher el Bared against terrorists. A victory even army with high technology are having problem to achieve in Afghanistan and Iraq.
5- If Aoun believes Hezbollah weapon protecting Lebanon from Israel then He can simply asked them to be part of the army this way the army would be much stronger.
Hezbollah with Aoun’s help block streets, close downtown Beirut, threaten Lebanese to cut their body-parts if they only THINK about disarmament, invaded Beirut and Mount Lebanon killing Lebanese civilian and forcing down the Lebanese government, Hezbollah wants to make sure any appointed commander in the Lebanese army is pro Hezbollah, and … yet the brilliant General still can not see where is Wilayet el Faqih Lebanese are talking about…

Israel Weighs New Threats From Lebanon
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
By Julie Stahl
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman at a ceremony marking Lebanon's 63rd Army Day at a military barracks in the Beirut suburb of Fayadiyeh, on Aug. 1, 2008. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Tawil)Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – Israeli security officials were meeting on Wednesday to discuss growing concerns about Lebanon. Hezbollah is engaged in a massive arms buildup there; and earlier this week, the Lebanese cabinet approved a policy statement validating Hezbollah’s armed struggle against Israel and giving it freedom to attack the Jewish State. The new Lebanese policy is “not a good development,” said an Israeli diplomatic official on Wednesday. “Obviously Hezbollah has hijacked the government in Lebanon and now is in a position to veto [decisions],” he told CNSNews.com.
Lebanon’s new unity government was formed about three weeks ago, putting an end to a political stalemate between the pro-Democracy and pro-Syrian (Hezbollah) forces in the country. The new Lebanese policy statement implies that Hezbollah is allowed to keep its weapons and guarantees “the right of Lebanon’s people, army, and resistance to liberate” what it calls “Israeli-occupied” areas and “defend the country using all legal and possible means.”
“The resistance” refers to Hezbollah, a heavily armed, Iranian-backed militia that is on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. But Hezbollah also is a political party in Lebanon, and it has the power -- along with other pro-Syrian groups -- to veto any decision that the Lebanese government makes.
According to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, the Lebanese government was supposed to disarm Hezbollah. But instead, Israeli sources say Hezbollah, with Iranian and Syrian assistance, has tripled its pre-war armaments and now has some 40,000 short- and medium-range missiles.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said recently that Resolution 1701 had failed because it didn’t stop the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.
But Dr. Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University said the Lebanese cabinet decision doesn’t mean a lot because Hezbollah already is in charge.
“Lebanon is slowly coming under Hezbollah control,” Zisser told CNSNews.com.
The cabinet decision signals the end of the so-called “Cedar Revolution” of 2005, he said, referring to the Western-backed pro-Democracy movement led by anti-Syrian elements in the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The “revolution” sprang up spontaneously following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The pro-Democracy movement, which had international backing, forced Syrian troops to leave the country after decades of Syrian occupation. Many Lebanese blamed Syria for involvement in the murder of Hariri, who was a vocal opponent of Syria’s involvement in his country.
Since the end of the Israeli-Lebanon war, Hezbollah has worked to gain political and partial military control of Lebanon.
At least some in Israel are concerned about the shifting balance of power in the region, and they say the international community should be concerned, too.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned leaders around the world recently “of the consequences of destabilizing the very delicate balance that exists in Lebanon.”“Israel is sounding the alarm,” the Jerusalem Post wrote in an editorial on Tuesday. “The fragile balance of forces in Lebanon is unraveling. And the world is playing deaf.”Dr. Walid Phares, director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Iran is tipping the balance of power and it should worry the international community.
“The Bush administration policy in Lebanon has failed,” said Phares, who was a supporter of that policy. Syria and Iran controlled Lebanon until 2005, said Phares. When pro-democracy forces managed to push Syrian troops out of the country in 2005, the Iranians launched a counter-offensive to seize most of the control back, Phares told CNSNews.com by telephone. “The Iranians are on the offensive [in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza],” said Phares, and all of it during a U.S. election year when no one is willing to do anything about it, he said. Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said Israel and the U.S. decided to toughen sanctions against Iran to deliver a message that the free world would not allow Tehran to obtain nuclear capabilities.
Iran poses the biggest threat to Israel’s existence and world because it has its finger in a number of pies, including helping Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Mofaz said. The Lebanese government decision to validate Hezbollah strengthens the position of Israelis who argue that the next time Hezbollah strikes at Israel, Israel should be free to target the Lebanese government, since it has officially allied itself to Hezbollah, Zisser said.
During the 2006 war, Israel tried to limit itself to attacking Hezbollah targets. Because Hezbollah was firmly entrenched among the civilian population, however, it was impossible to avoid Lebanese civilians. The Lebanese policy decision comes at a time when Hezbollah reportedly is trying to acquire anti-aircraft missiles, which could hinder vital Israeli reconnaissance flights over Lebanon.
Yoram Schweitzer from the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv said he is not sure that the new policy gives Hezbollah a “green light” to act against Israel. Hezbollah definitely is trying to deter Israeli over-flights but it is not clear what will come out of it, Schweitzer said.
Bringing down an Israeli plane would be a “great accomplishment” for Hezbollah, Schweitzer told CNSNews.com.
Israel has been concerned about a Hezbollah attack since last February, when Imad Mugniyeh, a top Hezbollah official, was killed in a car bombing in Damascus. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened revenge, even though Israel denied any involvement in the attack. Israel recently took the unusual step of sending security officials to West Africa to personally warn Israelis living there about the possibility of a Hezbollah revenge attack.
Schweitzer said the Israeli warning appeared to be based on “serious information.”

Europe must realize:
Jihadism is an ideology, not a theology
by Walid Phares, Ph.D.
World Defense Review columnist
Jihadi terrorism is one of the largest threats Europe and the international community are facing in this era. Hence studying Jihadi terrorism beyond the formation and the dismantling of cells is highly relevant to Europeans because of the impact of its actions on security, politics, and economy.
Jihadism is putting significant pressure on European foreign policy regarding where and when Europe can intervene in an international crisis such as those in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Darfur. It is also putting pressure on the European economy through the choices made in foreign policies. But the inability to explain these pressures is a major reason behind the strategic failure in containing and reversing the threat which continues to expand and grow across the continent.
As one of the European Parliament (EPP) leaders, Jaime Major-Oreja said, the issue is about identification of that threat. We need to "ID" it so that we can address it properly. Western democracies have had a failure in perception of the threat; for the countries that have been fighting this movement are still debating it seven years after 9/11 and several years after Madrid and London attacks. World War II took five years to win, and, in this confrontation, the identification of the menace is still not completed properly after seven years. Hence, we will offer a few suggestions of strategic guidelines to address this issue.
First: The Identification Problem
1. Self Identification: The Jihadists talk about themselves, their agenda and their views. Let's not ignore this literature, but let's analyze it and learn from it. These movements certainly use theology in their discourse, but they have developed an ideology. They do define themselves as Jihadis, Islamists, Takfiris, and others, but the most accurate term to identify them is "Jihadists."
2. European Debate: Today's debate in Europe about the origin and nature of the Jihadist movement is still struggling with the so-called "root causes" of this terror phenomenon. In my discussions across the continent, including my sessions with many of the 27 counter-terrorism teams at the European Union level, one can summarize the Euro-debate on this matter as follow. Four points and counter-points are made:
a. Many in the EU claim that Jihadism is a response to European (and Western) foreign policy. The counter-arguments are that Jihadism as an ideology and as a movement has preceded all relevant European policies in modern times. The Salafists rose in the 1920s long before the UN and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Foreign policy impacts these movements but does not create them.
b. Others have stated that economic disenfranchisement is at the root of these movements. But there are many counter arguments: First, the Jihadi agenda does not talk about economic justice. Second, there are multiple layers of social classes among Jihadists from the lower social class, the middle class and the upper class as well. In addition, the Jihadi ideology creates takfeer which is a display of hatred between segments of societies. The Jihadists in Sudan, for example, have clearly displayed racism in Darfur.
c. New theories are claiming that the root causes are socio-psychological stresses such as racism. But the counter-argument is that racism is a phenomenon linked to immigration and exists for all immigrants not just the Arab Muslim communities.
d. From the other side of the debate, some intellectuals are charging that the roots of terrorism are found in Islamic religious texts. But the counter-argument is that texts alone cannot mobilize and organize movements. There need to be ideological forces that create the movement while using references to theological texts.
Thus in the final analysis Jihadism is an ideology not a theology.
Second: The Strategies of the Jihadists
If Europe and the West are facing an ideology, and thus a movement, one has to learn about their war room, their policies and strategies. We need to understand these so that governments and societies are able to confront them.
The Jihadists have had great debates about their strategies. Al Qaeda, the "hot headed," wants to target the United States and Europe with terror so that they can rise in the Arab and Muslim world. But you have the other "long-term" Jihadists who are creating the pools of indoctrination. With their large, funded mechanism they produce the young minds from among which al Qaeda recruits. I am not only concerned about those who have already became Jihadists between ages 15 and 25, but more so about those who are between ages 8 and 13. What we need today is strategic law enforcement in addition to the local one.
Why were we (governments and NGOs) not aware of this ideological warfare?
The answer is simply because the Jihadists are good in the war of ideas; good at deceiving their foes by raising other issues, using our system against us. Hence between 1945 and 1990, as the West was engaged in the cold war, they infiltrated the Arab Muslim. They have produced four generations with the support of oil production revenues. In a second war of ideas they put additional efforts inside the West and Europe. They have seized the microphone inside the Muslim communities and had an impact on a segment of these societies marginalizing the democracy seekers.
Since 2001, in a third war of ideas, the Jihadis have put pressure on our democracies in Europe to affect foreign policies that could help democracies in the Middle East and oppose the radicals. The various violences in Europe are aimed at changing foreign policies so that Europe (and the West), instead of helping the weak as in Darfur and Lebanon, and instead of supporting women and minorities, would abandon them.
Three: Strategic Advice
Some strategic advice to address the challenge:
1. A European priority should be to define the ideology. Advance work has been done over the past years. The largest party at the European Parliament has produced a document clearly identifying the Jihadi terrorists as being at the root of the crisis. More has to be done at the level of other groups and the European Union.
2. Another priority should be to educate the European public about the ideology, movement and strategies of the Jihadists. The advantages of such massive public information are numerous. One, it will give direction to national communities to get to the root of the problem. It would reduce racism as it would separate radical ideology from religious communities. It would also help Muslim communities make that separation between the radical militants and the mainstream in their societies.
3. Last, but not least, a European priority should be to support pro-democracy forces inside the Muslim communities so that these communities are better protected against racism and back-clashes on the one hand, and are freed from control by the Jihadists on the other hand.
— Dr. Walid Phares is Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington, D.C., and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of the recently released book, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad; and of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West (2006) and The War of Ideas: Terrorist Strategies against the West (2007), available at www.walidphares.com.
Dr. Phares holds degrees in law and political science from Saint Joseph University and the Lebanese University in Beirut, a Masters in international law from the Universite de Lyons in France and a Ph.D. in international relations and strategic studies from the University of Miami.
He has taught and lectured at numerous universities worldwide, practiced law in Beirut, and served as publisher of Sawt el-Mashreq and Mashrek International. He has taught Middle East political issues, ethnic and religious conflict, and comparative politics at Florida Atlantic University until 2006. He has been teaching Jihadi strategies at the National Defense University since 2007.
Dr. Phares has written eight books on the Middle East and published hundreds of articles in newspapers and scholarly publications such as Global Affairs, Middle East Quarterly, the Journal of South Asian and Middle East Studies and the Journal of International Security. He has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, BBC, al Jazeera, al Hurra, al Arabiya, as well as on many radio broadcasts.
Aside from serving on the boards of several national and international think tanks and human rights associations, Dr. Phares has testified before the US Senate Subcommittees on the Middle East and South East Asia, the House Committees on International Relations and Homeland Security and regularly conducts congressional and State Department as well as European Parliament and UN Security Council briefings.
Visit Dr. Phares on the web at walidphares.com and defenddemocracy.org.
© 2008 Walid Phares

Lebanon denies request to free generals held in connection with Hariri murder
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Thursday, August 07, 2008
BEIRUT: Lebanon on Wednesday turned down a request to free four army generals held without charge since August 2005 in connection with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Investigating Prosecutor Saqr Saq refused to free the four men, who have maintained their innocence and repeatedly requested release through their lawyers, a judicial official said.
But Saqr agreed to release two of the nine suspects detained following Hariri's murder in a massive Beirut car bomb blast in February 2005, the official added. The pair had been held for giving false information.
The officers - who are believed to be close to Syria - are former presidential guard chief General Mustafa Hamdan, the former head of the General Security department General Jamil Sayyed, the former head of the Internal Security Forces General Ali Hajj and the former chief of army intelligence General Raymond Azar.
In April the government defended as "perfectly legal" the holding of the officers after criticism by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which said their detention without charge was "arbitrary" and "unjust."
But the government insisted the men could not be released for fear they would flee with the help of "influential parties" - a reference to Syria.
Syria has been implicated in Hariri's murder but has denied any involvement.
After the murder Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon under mounting international pressure, ending a 29-year military presence.
In June the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to extend for another six months the mandate of the United Nations panel probing Hariri's murder.
An international tribunal is due to be set up after the investigation is completed to try the suspects involved in the assassination. - AFP

The Indolent "Truce" in Lebanon
Zuheir Kseibati
Al-Hayat - 07/08/08//
While an Arab diplomat classifies most political regimes in the region as "lost" states confused between "ignorant liberalism that cares for the wellbeing and freedom of capitals rather than the freedoms of citizens" and "radical fanatic fundamentalism," he describes Lebanon as a nation permanently bewildered in front of the unknown.
When some experts on the ins and outs of Lebanese politics are asked about the state of détente which followed the formation of the government of "unifying national will" and the end of the saga over the ministerial statement and its "linguistic" dilemmas, amidst a calm and promising summer, they do not hesitate to speak about the indolence of a Lebanese "truce" surrounded by regional turbulences whose fate also remains unknown.
The most prominent of these headlines may be the fate of the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations, the extended Western deadlines granted to Iran as part of the struggle over its nuclear program and regional ambitions, and the potential military option. However, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's insistence on undermining the effects of UNSC Resolution 1701, dubbing it a failure, raises questions about his intentions and the potential attempts to retie the battlefield in South Lebanon to Israeli military scenarios against Iran.
As in the case of such a military strike that no one can currently confirm simply because Israel is on the verge of internal change, it is equally difficult to assume whether Ehud Olmert's departure will return the Syrian-Israeli path to square one. In either case, Lebanon is always concerned with the price, even if the endings were happy.
For those who know, this price clearly means - at a time of indolent respite - that the major hallmarks of domestic processes, such as the dialogue table and the general 2009 elections, will inevitably be tied to regional issues. The other face of this "pessimistic" perspective does not hold the March 14 Movement accountable in as much as it considers that everything this movement has struggled for, namely bringing an end to Lebanon's role as a battlefield, has been futile.
Between the self-criticism and "bold" review conducted by the Future Movement following the shock in Beirut and the Mountain last May, pessimists "realistically" insist that the dialogue table that will bring the leading figures together will stand in limbo once the dialogue starts until the regional conflicts (Iran, the US, Syria, and Israel) are resolved. The same applies to parliamentary elections as nothing guarantees that they will be held.
Hence, there are no guarantees for holding the elections although the March 14 camp no longer considers Hezbollah's arms an obstacle to holding the elections; likewise, nothing guarantees the progress of national dialogue under the sponsorship of President Michel Suleiman over issues such as the defensive strategy intended to endorse the partnership between the people, the army and the resistance. Similarly, there are no guarantees that the security time bomb will not blow up again (Tripoli as an example) or that a calm settlement will be reached over the issue of filling senior positions in the state.
It is the same path to the unknown future under the ceiling of expending time and in wait for the critical hour of resolving regional issues. Hence, as part of their self-criticism and "bold" review of their strategy, the March 14 forces are demanded to consider their accomplishments as long as Lebanon continues to fulfill its role as a battlefield. Lebanon finds itself in front of two choices: either accept the decisions made overseas or wait, face its fate, and pay prices; facilitate regional bargains or pay the bills of confrontations.
Some pessimists believe that the players in March 14 were regenerated by the May shock. They do not take into consideration self-criticism by the head of the Democratic Gathering Bloc, Walid Jumblatt, to whom the rhetoric of the "Independence Uprising" has neglected Palestine and Arabism. Whether or not Jumblatt is blamed by some of his allies, pessimists insist that the shock in Beirut and the Mountain - described as an "attack" by the Future Movement and a clean act of "discipline" by some in the opposition - has restored the weight of Syria's role in Lebanon. Is this why President Nicolas Sarkozy is in such a rush to visit Damascus or is it because he is sure of his bet on splitting the Syrian-Iranian alliance?
This is a period of indolence par excellence in the summer of the Lebanese respite which hides too many whispers about those regretting the preludes of the "shock," those frustrated with the attempts to retie the confused nation to the belt of regional crises, those fearful of the fate of the elections, and those wondering about the fate of the regime if the March 8 forces win the elections

Flying high again with Hizbullah
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 07, 2008
There is growing concern in Israel and the United States that Hizbullah intends to alter the status quo in Lebanon by deploying anti-aircraft missiles to end Israeli overflights. That may well happen, but the question is what such a development tells us about Hizbullah's latitude to fiddle with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.
On Tuesday, an Israeli Air Force officer told the daily Haaretz that if Hizbullah ever used anti-aircraft missiles, this could force Israel to "alter its overflights of Lebanon significantly." Last week, Hizbullah released a statement denouncing the overflights and demanding that "all concerned parties" collaborate in putting a speedy end to them. In case the meaning wasn't well grasped, this was followed by an article in the daily Al-Akhbar in which the paper's editor, Ibrahim Amin, who is often employed as a conduit for messages from Hizbullah, reaffirmed the statement's seriousness. On Tuesday Al-Akhbar published another article on the matter, suggesting that UNIFIL had a contingency plan to save Israeli pilots in the event they were shot down over Lebanon. UNIFIL denied the story, which seemed another effort to discredit the international force and show that Hizbullah alone has the means and will to defend Lebanese sovereignty.
It is entirely possible that Hizbullah, in order to keep the idea of "resistance" alive and justify retaining its weaponry, is preparing for a new type of confrontation with Israel. The party has chafed under Resolution 1701, which has closed the southern border off to attacks against Israeli soldiers. Military organizations need war and Hizbullah is no exception. Preventing Israeli overflights would offer the additional advantage of being seen by party supporters, and even perhaps by some in the international community, as bolstering the UN resolution.
Hizbullah has never truly accepted Resolution 1701, but it also knows that the Shiite community is dead set against a new war against Israel in which it would pay a heavy human price. That makes the party's efforts to undermine the resolution complicated, and is why it would like to push that burden onto the Israelis, by maneuvering them into over-reacting to anti-aircraft fire. If Hizbullah can impose a situation of deterrence on Israel, this would substantially strengthen its hand domestically in negotiating a national "defense strategy" in a dialogue President Michel Sleiman is scheduled to sponsor in the coming weeks or months.
Let's not forget what happened in 2006. The abduction of Israeli soldiers that led to the summer war was far less an effort to free Samir Kontar than Hizbullah's way of imposing its writ in the national dialogue sessions then taking place. The party's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, calculated that a successful operation against Israel along the border would give Hizbullah the leeway to protect its weapons and negotiate a defense strategy to its advantage. In fact, Nasrallah grossly miscalculated, provoking a war whose end-result was over 1,200 dead and Resolution 1701. However, we should again view Hizbullah's use of anti-aircraft weapons in the same light, as having mainly a domestic purpose.
There are also potential complications. That Hizbullah has anti-aircraft weapons, ones it plainly did not have in 2006, would only disclose publicly that the party has also violated Resolution 1701. There is the risk that Hizbullah, if it were to justify its actions under the rubric of the UN resolution, might bring on a process that actually tightens the latter's implementation, which the party wants to avoid. It would also be difficult for Hizbullah, if a crisis with Israel quickly ensues, to turn the missiles into a running sore to be used as a bargaining chip over an extended period of time, thereby re-creating a situation similar to the April Understanding of 1996, which recognized new military "rules of the game" between Israel and Hizbullah. A devastating clash, followed by effective diplomacy, might only repeat what happened in 2006, with few gains for either side. Hizbullah could, of course, tell its electorate that Israel started it all, but if an escalation provokes death and destruction, with Shiites bearing the brunt, this would only narrow Hizbullah's actions in the future.
There is also another danger for Hizbullah. If attention is focused on Israeli air violations, won't this in many ways make the Shebaa Farms dispute more marginal? In defending the spirit of Resolution 1701 (or appearing to) by opposing Israeli violations of the UN decision, Nasrallah could find himself reinforcing the view that the calm in the Shebaa Farms area is how things really should be done under the resolution - an example of the partial success of Resolution 1701, where the Israeli overflights exemplify its shortcomings. That would irritate the Syrians to no end, as they continue to push for a reopening of the Shebaa Farms front before moving on to serious negotiations with Israel over the Golan Heights.
There may be an opportunity here for the Lebanese government, through the Lebanese Army, to use the overflights to take the lead in dealing with Israel. Hizbullah is wagering that nothing that anyone does will stop Israeli air violations. That's why the party might encourage the government to get involved, only for it to fail and show once more that Hizbullah's way is the only way. But if Sleiman is bold, he might ask the government to accept that the issue of overflights be dealt with in the context of the Armistice Commission, with UNIFIL sitting at the table too. The president might then ask that the UN and the international community stop the overflights, but also that they develop a system, with Lebanon, to apply Resolution 1701 along the border with Syria. In other words Suleiman can use Hizbullah's valid displeasure with Israeli overflights to propose ways to implement the resolution in its entirety.
Hizbullah will reject this outright, as will the Syrians, but the move would be a wedge to ensure that the Lebanese state becomes the sole legitimate interlocutor with Israel. (And to add to the state's credibility, the United States and the UN must impose Israel's withdrawal from the Lebanese half of Ghajar.) This would also take away from Hizbullah the authority it seeks as the lone valid "defender" of Resolution 1701. And it would place the onus on the UN and the international community to end Israeli air violations - or take responsibility for any new escalation in Lebanon.
But is Sleiman willing to push the envelope when it comes to Hizbullah and Syria, especially when he is preparing to discuss a wide range of issues in Damascus next week? Don't hold your breath.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR

Politicians are wasting time while Lebanon is literally burning
By The Daily Star
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Editorial
While ministers have kept the political process paralyzed with their pursuit of unattainable objectives, Lebanon has literally been burning up in flames. The forest fires that have ravaged the nation's dwindling woodlands in the regions of Chouf, Aley, Kserouan, Jbeil and Zgharta constitute a national emergency that demands immediate action on the part of politicians. But instead of giving this pressing matter the swift attention it deserves, the political class chose to waste valuable time by engaging in a three-week long debate on the wording of one clause in the ministerial statement.
The clause in question, paragraph 24, deals with the contentious issue of the resistance in Lebanon. Several ministers decided that they would take it upon themselves to resolve this prickly national debate by devoting three weeks to the phrasing of this part of the statement. Never mind that past policy statements have been routinely ignored, or that this particular document will only be in effect for 10 months before this Cabinet leaves office, or that it is inconceivable that anyone could force the resistance to disarm in such a brief period by simply adding a few words to a sentence. The ministers put all other national issues on hold to engage in this futile debate.
While they were doing that, nearly 600 hectares of this nation's woodlands were reduced to ashes. And the loss of these wooded areas was made doubly painful by the fact that it was so predictable: Seasonal fires have been slowly eating away the country's forests at a rate of 1,200 hectares per year. Last year alone, the country lost over 4,000 hectares of precious woodland in similar blazes, and this season already looks set to be another record-breaking one in terms of national losses to forest fires. But despite the fact that large-scale devastation occurs year after year, Lebanon still does not have a national strategy for responding to fires.
In fairness, politicians have in the past sought assistance from the European Union and international organizations in an effort to enhance the country's firefighting capabilities and develop a national response plan, but help has not been forthcoming. But the Lebanese need not wait for someone else to come with a ready-made solution to this problem. Small but significant steps can be taken using minimal financial resources.
The problem of forest fires is one that touches on the work of nearly every ministry in the country. There is a need for better law enforcement to punish those criminals who deliberately destroy protected woodlands so that they can later buy the property for development. Children and university students need to be educated about how to prevent forest fires and protect this valuable resource. Efforts to attract tourism need to be boosted by encouraging the preservation of our pine and cedar woods and promoting other types of environmental protection. This is an issue that all ministers of all political stripes can unite around. And all Lebanese would welcome a show of unity aimed at protecting one of Lebanon's most valuable natural resources.

Obama: 'Change' that many Lebanese simply cannot believe in
By Rozina Ali
Special to The Daily Star
Thursday, August 07, 2008
BEIRUT: He is young, charismatic, but no longer the symbol of change for millions around the world. Although Barack Obama's international tour culminated with a magnificent rally in Berlin last month, enthusiasm for the US presidential hopeful is dwindling in the Middle East.
Over the past year, American and international media have been acclaiming the young Democratic nominee as a symbol of hope. As a biracial, well-written and well-spoken politician, Obama has offered an unconventional candidacy that screamed change. Not only has his popularity spanned the United States, but the slogan "yes we can" was being heard in countries around the world as well.
However, recent media reports suggest that Obama's popularity has been waning in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, and that the international tour that won the hearts of millions in Europe only changed the minds of many in Beirut.
The Daily Star interviewed a number of Lebanese to hear their opinions about Obama, and while some admire the candidate and his accomplishments, others say they will not gauge his abilities blindly - at least not by the color of his skin or his middle name alone.
Symbol of hope
Despite the growing criticism of American foreign policy in the Middle East, Washington continues to wield considerable influence in the region, whether good or bad. As a country that has seen war through most of its political history and with conflicts at its doorstep that continually threaten to barge in, Lebanon is ready for an American leader who can help alleviate its vexing national problems.
A shy store owner in Hamra expresses her excitement about Obama and the possibilities his election offers: "He can end the war in Iraq, change the politics of the Arab world, Middle East, Lebanon and Palestine. We need this. We need peace ... He would make peace with Israel and Lebanon because we are tired of war every month, every year."
The store owner was not alone in her belief that Obama's nomination carries global political significance.
If the United States can change its internal politics, then perhaps it can change its foreign policies as well - at least, this is the hope of a bookstore owner in Hamra: "I have a great admiration for the American people, for their courage and willingness to elect a black young man to the presidency of America, which proves there is no discrimination," he said, discussing the candidate.
But just as important as Obama's identity is his platform, which Lebanese are certainly paying attention to carefully.
"There was a small mistake in his speech when he won [against] Hillary Clinton [and he] mentioned Israel," said the bookstore owner, who asked to remain anonymous. He was referring to a speech in which the Democratic nominee told the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC that an "undivided" Jerusalem would "remain" the capital of Israel. The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967, as the capital of their future state. Obama later corrected his statement after it drew a storm of criticism. "It's a small mistake and we forgive him because we know the situation of the Zionist lobby in America. We hope he will repair such a mistake. We hope to give Palestine and Arabs under Israel their freedom and their rights to live as human beings. If he can give Palestine a separate state then that will be a great gift to the Arab world."
Ayman Halawi, an IT administrative assistant who works in Beirut, concedes that he is surprised that so many Lebanese would support a black president given the African community's status in this country. "Lebanese people hate black men and other people," he said. "They have workers in their homes and they [treat them] badly ... But [Obama's] coming from the US is a good thing. If he was coming from Africa or Asia, we wouldn't like him. [Lebanese] like him because he has power and money." Yet despite Obama's racial background, many Lebanese say they are invested in the presidential candidate because he offers the hope that if the American people are able to overcome domestic racism, then they can change their internal politics as well, such as the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on any candidate.
Phenomenon, not a judgment
For some in Beirut, however, there is nothing unconventional about Obama. His increasing public support for Israel has convinced many Lebanese that even a "change" phenomenon must play by existing political rules - that is, cater to the forces that will get him elected.
Obama's June speech at AIPAC and his comment about an "undivided" Jerusalem will invariably haunt his politics and popularity in the region. While the Democratic candidate admitted that his international tour may have cost him votes at home, he may not have considered that the trip may hurt his popularity abroad as well. For Gilbert Doumit, a civil rights activist, a consultant and formerly a staunch supporter of Obama, recent events have made him less excited about the candidate and the elections. "At the presidential debates, it seemed he was progressive and he knew what was happening in the Middle East and that was important," Doumit said. "We can say he has to appeal to the Israeli and Jewish lobbies, but his discourse is becoming more conservative. What stops him from catering to them after election for other agendas? He may continue bargaining foreign policy for internal support and to continue domestic agendas."
Jean-Pierre Katrib, a political sociologist and a human-rights activist, has already decided that Obama will inevitably continue to cater to the same lobby because at the end of the day, US foreign policy will not change much, regardless of who is president. "Both candidates are faced with the same pressures at home. They do not differ on major issues such as Iraq or the Middle East at large. Maybe they differ on the means but the question of principle, and the issue at large, they are both in the same trap."Katrib and Doumit both argue that Obama is not a pro-Israel candidate ideologically, and that if perhaps a powerful Arab lobby existed in the United States, the Democrat's foreign policy would reflect more flexibility and progressive ideas. However, they concede that this is not likely anytime soon.
As Bachir Wardini, a student of the American Military University and a member of the Lebanese Forces, sums it up: "He certainly is a phenomenon, but [the phenomenon] is not a judgement of what he will do."
Looking for a future
Highly critical of Obama's foreign policy, Wardini says he favors a Republican approach toward the Middle East, expressing support for current President George W. Bush's policies, as well as the plans of Republican candidate John McCain. "McCain continues the same policy Bush and Republicans have used since 9/11," Wardini said. "Iraq is more stable now. I agree with more pressure on Syria and Iran. He knows the enemies and calls Islamists by their name. For Obama, they don't exist."Nor is Wardini willing to concede that dialogue with Syria or Iran would serve Lebanon's interests in the long run, a move that Obama has encouraged in the past and which the Bush administration is now showing signs of pursuing as well. "American policy is not going to change overnight. What differs is your approach to things. Obama would slow things. People like us have suffered a lot and new-born democracies will suffer a lot. If you give more time to Syria, there will be more assassinations in Lebanon. If you give more time to Iran, more American soldiers will die in Iraq."
Katrib says that Lebanese-Americans in the US may support McCain over Obama for similar reasons. According to him, Lebanese-Americans are worried about what engagement could mean for their home country. "Talk is better than no talk, but still, if it is not conditioned and serious, then it could be counterproductive and could send false signals," Katrib said. "That could come at the expense of Lebanon's sovereignty and freedom at the end of the day."
While some in Lebanon criticize Obama for being too soft others say his policies are too much like those of the neoconservatives. The divided views about the candidate reflect Lebanon's own fractured political landscape. As Halawi summarizes of the political demographics of the country, Lebanese are divided in their support for the Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, depending on which coalition or sect they themselves belong to. "Bush supported [parliamentary majority leader MP Saad] Hariri. He also supported Israel's war on Lebanon. And part of the Lebanese - the Shiites and half of the Christians - really hate him. Anyone who comes in is better than Bush. But people who supported Hariri want McCain because he will be like Bush and continue the [same policies]."
Arkan Saleh, an auditor working in Beirut, expressed a similar view. "The March 14 and March 8 [coalitions] have different views of support [for who will] lead the US. One party was supported by the American regime in the presidency of Bush so they would be happy with [McCain]."
While there is widespread resignation over the tenuousness of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Obama still inspires at least some hope for some Lebanese. Although many expressed a general disappointment in the Illinois senator's shifting rhetoric toward Israel, and in the unshakable political influence of pro-Israel lobbies over US foreign policy, many said that Obama was still the better candidate.
While Katrib admits that he has become increasingly disappointed with Obama, he also points out that his nomination is evidence of the United States' flourishing democracy. In the Middle East, according to Katrib, people cannot mix foreign policy with the region's internal dynamics.
"In the United States, the future erases the past, whereas in the Middle East, the past erases the future," Katrib says.

Berri aims for Tuesday vote on granting new government vote of confidence
Speaker urges mps to proceed quickly so they can resume normal work
By Hussein Abdallah -Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 07, 2008
BEIRUT: Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said on Wednesday that the Parliament sessions aimed at giving the government a vote of confidence were likely to end on Tuesday. Berri told reporters after meeting President Michel Sleiman at the Presidential Palace in Baabda that 40 MPs were scheduled to speak in the first session, scheduled for Friday evening. "Forty lawmakers have requested to speak on Friday ... this is a good sign as everybody is longing to see constitutional institutions functioning again," Berri said. The speaker noted that discussions over the new government's policy statement were drawn out and hoped Parliament would ratify the draft ministerial statement in due time.
The council of ministers approved the draft statement during a four-hour session on Monday as four ministers from the anti-Syrian March 14 bloc voiced their reservations on paragraph 24 of the statement. Paragraph 24 recognizes "the right of Lebanon's people, army, and resistance to liberate the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, Kafar Shuba Hills, and the Lebanese section of Ghajar village, and defend the country using all legal and possible means."
The four ministers voiced their reservations after they failed to add the phrase "under the guardianship of the state" to the debated paragraph.
Berri said MPs were eager to get back to work and pass laws, adding that drafting a new electoral law was not Parliament's only concern.
"Issues such as living conditions and salaries are urgent and need to be tackled as soon as possible," he said. "This government should be a foundational one as it is the first Cabinet of the new presidential term," he added. Asked to comment on the upcoming national dialogue, which will be chaired by Sleiman, Berri said it was up to the president to decide who would take part in the dialogue sessions. Regarding Sleiman's forthcoming visit to Syria, Berri said that such visit was important for both countries as well as to the region's stability. Asked whether Prime Minister Fouad Siniora should pay a similar visit to Syria, the speaker said that he had already advised Siniora to do so.
"I advised him to do so last year and he refused ... I will not advise him again."At a news conference in Damascus on Wednesday, Syrian President Bashar Assad's political adviser Bouthaina Shaaban said Sleiman was expected to visit Damascus on August 13.Shabaan added that the visit was likely to last for two days.
Meanwhile, former President Amine Gemayel said he expected Parliament to swiftly ratify the new ministerial statement.
"The government is expected to win a vote of confidence very soon since the ministerial statement was unanimously approved," he said after meeting Minister of State Youssef Taqla.Gemayel added that Sleiman's visit to Damascus was the most important of upcoming events. He urged Sleiman to address the issue of the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms with Syrian officials and try to secure a documented recognition by Syria of Lebanon's sovereignty over the Farms.
Gemayel said that such documented recognition would be followed by conducting indirect negotiations between Lebanon and Israel in order to ensure the Jewish state's withdrawal from the area.
"Such negotiations can be done through Jordan and France, which is very similar to what happened before the UN-mediated prisoner exchange between Hizbullah and Israel," he said, also citing the Turkish-mediated talks between Syria and Israel as another example.
Meanwhile, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said on Wednesday that the success of Sleiman's visit to Syria should be measured by his ability to achieve the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries.
"Sleiman's visit will succeed if Assad fulfills his promise of establishing diplomatic relations with Lebanon," Jumblatt told Future News television.
"Assad made this promise before French President Nicholas Sarkozy at the Mediterranean Union summit in Paris last month," he added.
Also on Wednesday, Hizbullah's Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc called for cooperation between the different parties in the government in a bid to overcome the repercussions of the country's recent political crisis.
After its weekly meeting, the bloc urged the government to address the social and economic conditions in the country and propose solutions to the problems of increasing prices, unemployment, electricity, and other issues.
The bloc also called for speeding up the payment of compensation for people whose property was damaged or destroyed during the 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel.The Hizbullah MPs also called on the government to move forward with drafting a new electoral law for next year's parliamentary elections in accordance with the Doha deal.
The rival parties agreed in Doha to adopt an amended version of the 1960 qada-based electoral law for the 2009 polls.
The Hizbullah bloc added that the resistance was a strategic asset and a national necessity for Lebanon.
"The relationship between the state and the resistance should be that of cooperation and harmony in order to protect Lebanon against Israeli threats."