LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 01/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 1,39-56. During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."And Mary said: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.  For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever." Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Nasrallah's speech: The Explosive Bottom Line.By Walid Phares 31/05/08
A proper civil state is all that can cure what ails the Lebanese- The Daily Star 31/05/08
US diplomatic sway in the Arab world is on the wane-By David Ignatius 31/05/08
Hizbullah is less credible. So now what? By Rami G. Khouri 31/05/08
Reporters Without Borders: After three years, still no significant progress in Samir Kassir murder investigation 31/05/08
Lebanon: Crisis Not Over: Interview with Gilbert Achcar. 31/05/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 31/08

Mottaki: U.S. Should 'Review' its Policy in Mideast, Including Lebanon-Naharnet

Debate over Government Portfolios Dominates Saniora's Consultations-Naharnet

Sfeir for a Cabinet that Meets the People's Aspirations-Naharnet

Lebanese Soldier Killed in Abdeh Blast-Naharnet

German Mediator Assumes Israeli Soldiers Held by Hizbullah Are Dead-Naharnet

Suleiman Vows Not to Interfere with the Military-Naharnet
Syrian-Lebanese Relations at Crossroads-Institute for War and Peace Reporting
Suleiman touts Lebanese Army as model of national unity-Daily Star

Siniora meets MPs to discuss allocation of cabinet posts-Daily Star
American congressmen visit Red Cross headquarters-Daily Star

US supplies Lebanese Army with ammunition-Daily Star

Religious leaders urge full exploitation of Doha accord-Daily Star

Campaigners hail official adoption of cluster-bomb ban-By Inter Press Service

Nasrallah earns rebuke from Iraqi president - but praise from Iranian speaker-Daily Star
As factions stake out Cabinet posts, an even bigger battle for power looms-Daily Star
EDL losses add to Beirut's budget woes-Daily Star
'Lebanese Cabinet can act despite small window-Daily Star
Repairing Nahr al-Bared to cost $400 million-Daily Star
Lebanese students lack critical thinking skills - UNDP-Daily Star
UNIFIL denies disrupting cell-phone activity in South-Daily Star
Doha deal replaces tension with tourism-AFP
Rivals circle as Olmert bleeds support in face of scandal-AFP

Assad heads to Gulf for talks in UAE, Kuwait-AFP
Seir for a Cabinet that Meets the People's Aspirations-Naharnet

Hariri: Force in Faith-Naharnet

Suleiman Vows Not to Interfere with the Military-Naharnet

More Ammunition from the U.S. to the Lebanese Army-Naharnet

Geagea: Suleiman is Democrat by Practice-Naharnet

Assad Set for Gulf Talks Following Lebanon Deal-Naharnet

Lebanese soldier killed in blast: security official
TRIPOLI, Lebanon (AFP) — A Lebanese soldier was killed early on Saturday in a blast at an army intelligence post near the northern city of Tripoli and another explosive device was defused, a security official told AFP.
He said it was unclear what caused the 5 am (0200 GMT) explosion in the Abdeh area near the northern outskirts of the city. The army named the victim as Ussama Hassan and said it had launched an investigation into the blast. Hassan was charged with keeping the peace in the Abdeh area, a terse statement said.
The security official said that the army found another device inside the post primed and ready to detonate but that explosives experts defused it before it went off.
Investigators are trying to determine when the explosives were planted, the official said. The deadly blast came as Lebanon seeks to form a new government of national unity following a deal to end an 18-month political crisis that brought the country to the brink of civil war. The deal struck in Qatar between the Western-backed ruling bloc and the Hezbollah-led opposition called for the election of army chief Michel Sleiman as president, the formation of a cabinet of national unity in which the opposition has veto power over key decisions and a new electoral law. Sleiman was elected last Sunday and he appointed incumbent Fuad Siniora to head the new government. Saturday's blast also comes a year after the Lebanese army was involved in deadly battles with Islamist militants in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp just north of Tripoli. More than 400 people were killed, including 168 soldiers, in more than three months of fighting which ended in September 2007.

Sfeir for a Cabinet that Meets the People's Aspirations
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has expressed satisfaction with the election of President Michel Suleiman and hoped that the new government would meet the people's aspirations. Sfeir, talking to visitors at his seat in suburban Bkirki on Friday, also expressed hope that the new cabinet would represent the various factions and that forces, which he did not identify, would not interfere to block its formation. The senior most Maronite clergyman warned against persisting immigration of Lebanese youths, urging them to "stay in Lebanon."Sfeir also said he hopes that Lebanon would remain a nation of coexistence.

Beirut, 30 May 08, 20:46

Mottaki: U.S. Should 'Review' its Policy in Mideast, Including Lebanon
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said the United States should conduct a "serious review" of its foreign policy in the Middle East, including Lebanon, after the presidential election. "The United States of America needs a serious review of its foreign policy toward the Middle East," he told The Associated Press in an interview Friday, a day after a U.N. conference on Iraqi reconstruction held outside Stockholm. "These policies in ... Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and generally speaking the Middle East are mistaken policies," Mottaki said. He said the next resident of the White House must break with "the mistaken and failed policies" of the Bush administration or risk a further decline of the United States' standing in the Middle East. American politicians, he said, are spending taxpayer money to "buy the hatred of other people in other parts of the world." In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey was dismissive after a reporter described Mottaki's comments. "Gee, an Iranian foreign minister criticizing U.S. policy. There's a real man bites dog story for you, huh?" he said. Casey added that the "Iranian government is pursuing policies that are inimical to the interests of the Iranian people" and isolating the country from the international community by the standoff over its nuclear program. "I would also hope that those in the Iranian government who might wish to have a more responsible leadership might also turn that mirror back up to him to take a very hard look at the unproductive, unhelpful and destabilizing policies that Iran is pursuing," he said.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 31 May 08, 05:19
 

Nasrallah's speech: The Explosive Bottom Line
By Walid Phares
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/nasrallahs_speech_the_explosiv.php

Here is a summary of the main points made by Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah this week in Beirut, after the invasion of (mostly Sunni) West Beirut, the attack against (mostly Druze) southern Mount Lebanon and after the declaration of Doha and the election of a new President for Lebanon. Nasrallah delivered his "victory speech" last Monday, outlining the new agenda of the Iranian funded organization in Lebanon. My full analysis will be published Monday. Following are twelve major assertions Nasrallah made.
As carried live by Hezbollah-owned al Manar TV, and posted on its web site later, the speech by Sayyed Nasrallah says it clearly:
1. We have won this war in Lebanon
2. We have defeated the Democracy movement in this country and the Government it has produced
3. The United States and its allies knows that they cannot defeat us in Lebanon or in Iran by military means.
4. We showed Washington that it cannot move forward with its freedom and Democracy strategy, particularly from Lebanon.
5. We have now seized real power in this country (Lebanon) but we don't have to make it formal.
6. The Lebanese Army will never be used to disarm us. Its commander, our ally, is now the President of the Republic.
7. We will fight any international move or intervention to disarm us.
8. We will grow militarily in Lebanon with the backing of Iran, in parallel to our presence within the Lebanese Army.
9. We have offered a successful model of combat-confrontation against our enemies, thus we won't accept diplomatic solutions.
10. Hamas and Islamic Jihad -using our model- will continue their Terror operations against Israel and the Palestinian Authority
11. We support the armed insurrection against the political process in Iraq.
12. We are proud of being under the Vilayet e-Faqih of Iran, in other words, Jihadi-Khomeinist.
Obviously, these assertions have not been well reported by the international media. Nasrallah said in his speech that "his wars are insuring real Peace." Probably many ears wants to hear the second part of his statement -Peace and stability- and certainly, the Oil-funded media-consulting reflecting the interests of the "axis," wants the West to hear that particular portion as well. We've seen this in Munich before.
*******
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of the newly published The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad
 

Assad Set for Gulf Talks Following Lebanon Deal
Naharnet/Syrian President Bashar al-Assad held talks in Damascus Friday with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, whose country earlier this month hosted reconciliation talks between Lebanon's feuding politicians. The Arab League-brokered Doha talks ended an 18-month standoff in Lebanon, whose rival factions agreed to elect a president, form a national unity government and adopt a new electoral law for legislative polls next year. Former Army Chief Michel Suleiman was elected Lebanon's president on May 21 and consultations are under way in Beirut to form a new government headed by Fouad Saniora, in which the opposition will have veto power. Assad would travel following the talks with Qatar Emir to the Gulf this weekend to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait for talks focused on regional developments. He begins his two-nation tour on Sunday in Abu Dhabi for talks with UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, the WAM news agency reported. He will be in Kuwait on Tuesday, Kuwait's state-run KUNA news agency said. Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE belong to the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which also includes Oman, Bahrain and oil powerhouse Saudi Arabia with which Syria has strained ties. Syria and Iran were the leading foreign supporters of the Lebanese opposition in its protracted standoff with the government which drove the country to brink of renewed civil war.(AFP) Beirut, 30 May 08, 19:21

Hariri: Force in Faith
Naharnet/Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri said "faith is the real force, not weapons."
Hariri made the remark at Imam Ali Mosque in Beirut's district of Tarik jedideh after the Friday prayers.
"We would not be lured into what they want. We believe in Rafik Hariri's school of thought that reconstructed Lebanon and educated the people," Hariri told believers at the packed mosque. "We should be patient and we should stay put … No one would manage to humiliate us," he added. He recalled that "we've gone through a difficult era, but we always walked tall." Beirut, 30 May 08, 19:22

Sfeir for a Cabinet that Meets the People's Aspirations
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir expressed satisfaction with the election of President Michel Suleiman and expressed hope that the new government would meet the people's aspirations. Sfeir, talking to visitors at his seat in suburban Bkirki, also expressed hope that the new cabinet would represent the various factions and that forces, which he did not identify, would not interfere to block its formation. The senior most Maronite clergyman warned against persisting immigration of Lebanese youths, urging them to "stay in Lebanon."Sfeir also said he hopes that Lebanon would remain a nation of coexistence. Beirut, 30 May 08, 20:46

Suleiman Vows Not to Interfere with the Military
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman pledged that he would not interfere in the affairs of the military establishment unless warranted by the nation's supreme interests.
Suleiman made the address in remarks to a delegation from the Army Command who visited him at the Republican palace in suburban Baabda.
The core of the Army's mission, Suleiman said, is to "safeguard national unity, without which Lebanon cannot survive"The Army "managed to maintain its unity during the difficult era" which the nation witnessed in recent months, Suleiman stressed. He urged the Army Command to "cooperate closely with other security institutions, mainly the Internal Security Forces." Beirut, 30 May 08, 21:05

Geagea: Suleiman is Democrat by Practice
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said President Michel Suleiman is "a real democrat by practice." Geagea made the remark to reporters after a visit to the Republican Palace in suburban Baabda for a meeting with Suleiman.  Geagea said he was pleased to see the republican Palace practicing its role in the nation's politics after it remained vacant for over six months. Geagea said the Lebanese Forces Party would facilitate formation of the forthcoming cabinet "and I do not expect other factions to hamper the march." Beirut, 30 May 08, 17:23
 

Reporters Without Borders
Press release
30 May 2008
LEBANON
After three years, still no significant progress in Samir Kassir murder investigation
On the eve of the third anniversary of Franco-Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir’s murder on 2 June 2005 in Beirut, Reporters Without Borders and the Kassir family continue to be concerned about the slowness of both the French and Lebanese judicial authorities in this case, in which no suspect has been detained or charged.
Kassir’s widow, Giselle Khoury, has shared her concern about the lack of progress with Reporters Without Borders. “Resolution seems to me to be very far away, too far,” she said. “The many political changes, not only in Lebanon but also throughout the region, are able to destabilise the investigation. That is why I count above all on the parallel judicial proceedings being conducted in France.”
The day after Kassir’s murder, the Kassir family asked the French authorities to carry out their own investigation.
Reporters Without Borders said: “We understand that justice must take its course and that the case is being affected by political developments in Lebanon, but it is nonetheless disturbing that Kassir’s murderers are still free three years later. Lebanese journalists will not be able to feel really safe in their country as long as this unacceptable impunity lasts.”
Khoury’s lawyer, William Bourdon, said the French judge in charge of the case was doing “everything possible for his investigation to move ahead quickly.”
The mandate of the United Nations commission of enquiry into former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri’s assassination has meanwhile been extended until 15 December. The commission is supposed to assist the investigations into the score of other political murders in Lebanon since 2004, including Kassir’s, and could facilitate the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, created in 2007, when hearings start in the Hague.
Daniel Bellemare, the head of the commission and the tribunal’s future prosecutor, said in his latest report that the Hariri assassination could have been carried out by a “criminal network” of individuals involved in other bombings in Lebanon. Various similarities have been noted, including in the modus operandi and the kind of victim.
Kassir was killed when a bomb planted in his car exploded on the morning of 2 June 2005 outside his home in the neighbourhood of Achrafieh in East Beirut. A writer and historian, he was a columnist for the daily An-Nahar and a professor of political sciences at Beirut’s St. Joseph university.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporters sans frontières
Communiqué de presse
30 mai 2008
LIBAN
Troisième anniversaire de la mort de Samir Kassir : La justice suit son cours sans avancées notables
Trois ans après l’assassinat du journaliste franco-libanais Samir Kassir, le 2 juin 2005, les justices libanaise et française n’ont procédé à aucune inculpation et interpellé aucun suspect. Reporters sans frontières et la famille du journaliste restent préoccupées par la lenteur de la procédure.
Giselle Khoury, veuve de Samir Kassir, a fait part à Reporters sans frontières de son inquiétude quant à l’avancée des enquêtes. “L’issue me semble très loin, trop loin. Les nombreux changements politiques, pas seulement au Liban, mais dans toute la région, peuvent déstabiliser l’enquête. C’est pour cela que je compte particulièrement sur la procédure judiciaire menée en parallèle en France”, a-t-elle indiqué. Au lendemain de l’assassinat de Samir Kassir, la famille du journaliste a demandé à la France d’ouvrir une enquête.
“Si l’on peut comprendre que la justice doive suivre son cours et que le contexte politique libanais pèse sur la procédure, il n’en reste pas moins inquiétant que, trois ans après les faits, les assassins de ce journaliste jouissent toujours de leur liberté. Les journalistes libanais ne pourront se sentir réellement à l’abri dans leur pays tant que cette impunité inacceptable perdurera”, a déclaré l’organisation.
Me William Bourdon, avocat de Giselle Khoury, a pour sa part affirmé que le juge français en charge du dossier faisait “tout pour que son enquête progresse rapidement”.
Par ailleurs, le mandat de la Commission d’enquête des Nations unies sur l’assassinat de l’ancien Premier ministre libanais Rafic Hariri a été prolongé jusqu’au 15 décembre 2008. Chargée de porter assistance aux enquêtes sur vingt autres attentats perpétrés au Liban depuis 2004, dont celui qui a coûté la vie à Samir Kassir, cette commission pourrait jouer un rôle de facilitateur et d’accélérateur lorsque le Tribunal spécial pour le Liban, créé en juin 2007, commencera à siéger à La Haye. Dans son dernier rapport d’étape, Daniel Bellemare, chef de la commission et futur procureur de ce tribunal, a affirmé que l’assassinat de Rafic Hariri avait été commis par un “réseau criminel” d’individus impliqués dans d’autres attentats commis au Liban. Plusieurs rapprochements ont été établis, notamment le mode opératoire et le choix des victimes de ces attentats.
Samir Kassir, éditorialiste du quotidien An-Nahar mais aussi historien et professeur à l’université Saint-Joseph, a été tué, le 2 juin 2005, dans l’explosion de son véhicule piégé, garé devant son domicile dans le quartier d’Achrafieh, dans l’est de Beyrouth.
--
Hajar Smouni
Bureau Afrique du Nord & Moyen-Orient / North Africa & Middle-East Desk
Reporters sans frontières / Reporters Without Borders
47 rue Vivienne
F - 75002 Paris
Tél : + 33 1 44 83 84 78
Fax : +33 1 45 23 11 51
E-mail : moyen-orient@rsf.org / middle-east@rsf.org
http://www.rsf.org
Skype: hajar_mmo

Lebanon: Crisis Not Over
By Gilbert Achcar
The following interview was published on May 29 in the Italian daily Il Manifesto. This translation from the Italian, by Michele Lipori and Benedetto Palombo, is based on the original transcript of the interview, which was conducted on May 13. The interview was published merged with a postscript written on May 22, which is included below.
1) After the recent events, the situation today seems to confirm the victory of Hezbollah and its allies in the “first round.” What do you think?
What happened is very clearly that a change in the balance of forces that until now had remained hidden has now become explicit. Hezbollah and its allies have resorted to military means in order to take control of West Beirut. This included control of predominantly Sunni areas of the capital, Christians being in a majority only in East Beirut, which remained unaffected. Fighting expanded to other regions of Lebanon, but without the dramatic implications it had in Beirut.
It is above all what happened in Beirut that revealed a situation in which Hezbollah and its allies confirmed in the face of the governmental majority that they are vastly superior militarily.
From this angle, it is a further blatant defeat for Washington, since the governmental majority is an ally of the United States, supported by Arab allies of the United States, like the Saudi kingdom and Egypt.
The Bush administration is accumulating defeat after defeat in the Middle East. It resembles a football team that has already clearly lost while its opponents continue to score new goals against it until the very last minutes of the game.
This last goal scored by Hezbollah and its allies, including Syria and Iran, confirms what has been clear since the 2006 war against Lebanon: namely, that the Bush administration is as much a disaster in foreign policy as it is in domestic policy.
2) In this situation, what is the role of the Lebanese army?
The attitude of the Lebanese army is determined by two major parameters.
The first one is that this army cannot play in any case an “interventionist” role in the conflict. It can only act as an “interposition” force—one could say that it is similar to UN Blue Helmets. This is because it is an army that reflects the composition of the population of the country and if it were to take an active part in the clashes, on behalf of one side or the other, it would rapidly split. It would produce anew a phenomenon well known in Lebanon: the explosion of the army.
The second parameter is that the head of the army is accepted by Washington and the other camp including Hezbollah as the future President of the Republic, and he is keen on cultivating this image of neutrality in the domestic conflict to safeguard the possibility of being elected.
These two parameters—the composition of the army and the ambitions of its commander—result in the army being confined to a role of interposition.
3) In your opinion, is there a link between the general strike and the clashes that erupted on the same day?
No, honestly, I think that the general strike was a mere pretext. Moreover the social and economic demands for which it was called were very soon forgotten.
The strike had been supported as a move against the government, but the opposition in which Hezbollah is hegemonic does not refer to its demands.
Everything is focused, on the one hand, on the decisions by the government that ignited the explosion and, on the other hand, on political negotiations about the future of the institutions between the opposition and the parliamentary majority. I specify “parliamentary” because it is the majority in parliament, but probably not in the country.
4) In the West many describe the action of Hezbollah as a coup d’état, comparing it with the action of Hamas in Gaza in June 2007. Many Western observers argue that the goal of Hezbollah is to establish an Islamic republic in Lebanon: What is your comment?
Let me begin from the end: No, I do not believe that the ultimate goal of Hezbollah is to establish an Islamic republic in Lebanon. That is absurd.
It is more serious to ask if this is a “coup d’état” and if there are similarities with what Hamas did in Gaza. In this respect, I would say that there are points in common, as well as important differences between the two situations.
Let’s start with the differences. Gaza, first of all, is geographically isolated from the rest of the Palestinian territories, while Beirut is the capital of Lebanon, well-connected to the rest of the country. Secondly the population of Gaza is homogeneous with regard to its religious sectarian composition, and therefore seizure of power in Gaza was possible and Hamas did it.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah knows perfectly well that it cannot take power. It has explicitly stated this since its official foundation. It indicated that there are no conditions for establishing an Islamic republic in Lebanon, because it is a multi-religious and multi-sectarian country. Hezbollah is mainly concerned with controlling its own sectarian community.
What happened recently in Beirut was not a “seizure of power” by Hezbollah. It was, very obviously, a military action against the opposite camp, a “seizure of territory” by Hezbollah and its allies, for the most part forces closely linked to Syria. Even Hezbollah is linked to Syria, of course, but it is primarily linked to Iran, as is well known.
Hezbollah itself asked the army to deploy in the areas it conquered militarily, while repeating that it had no intention of taking power. However, it stated repeatedly that it wanted to reveal the balance of forces and show who is stronger.
At first, Hezbollah presented its action as a defensive move. It said: The government declared war against us in deciding to dismantle our telecommunication network and displace the military officer in charge of the airport’s security, a man close to the opposition. Hezbollah interpreted these decisions as a further signal of the intention to attack it not only politically, but also militarily. It reacted then as we have seen.
But, looking at what it did and the scope of the action, no one can pretend that it was a defensive action, unless one means “preventive defense.” Hezbollah launched a military offensive that went far beyond what was necessary to revoke the decisions taken by the government against it.
From this point of view, there is one point in common with Gaza, namely that in Gaza too the action of Hamas was a preventive move against what was being prepared by [Muhammad] Dahlan, the faction of the Palestinian Authority most closely linked to Washington. This faction, helped by Washington, was indeed preparing an action against Hamas, which then opted for a preventive move.
The difference is that in Gaza Hamas went far beyond the dismantling of Dahlan’s forces. It simply suppressed the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the Gaza strip. But Hamas could also rightly claim to be the elected government in the Palestinian territories. In Lebanon, even though Hezbollah did not seize power, as I said and repeat, I think that it went in its military action far beyond what was necessary.
Today, after this action, Hezbollah’s image as a military force that has always defined itself as a resistance movement and was therefore different from the militias that existed and still exist in Lebanon, this image on which Hezbollah based its legitimacy has been heavily damaged. This is because Hezbollah did use its military force, in alliance with groups most of which are agents of Damascus and real gangs with no political legitimacy whatsoever, unlike Hezbollah. Starting with Amal, Hezbollah’s closest ally, an organization that is much closer to a sectarian militia than to a resistance force.
Hezbollah joined its military force with these allies, in an action aimed at seizing control of West Beirut, including predominantly Sunni areas. From that moment on, Hezbollah appeared as a force that uses its weapons in the Lebanese sectarian conflict. This has already aggravated the sectarian polarization and one must strongly fear that what some media predict will become true, namely: the “Iraqization” of Lebanon. This expression refers to the situation in which Shiite forces that became dominant in Iraq after the U.S. invasion had to cope with a sectarian war launched by Sunni forces, a very bloody war that has included suicide attacks, car bombs, etc.
I fear that this could also happen in Lebanon in the near future and that Wahhabi and Salafi factions, such as those acting in Iraq, might enter the fray in Lebanon against the Shiites, reinforcing the religious and sectarian war dynamics that were unleashed anew by the recent clashes. Until now this was avoided in Lebanon precisely thanks to Hezbollah’s image and the sort of “peace agreement” between communities that has existed since the end of the civil war in 1990. Indeed, the fact that Hezbollah appears as a defense force oriented against Israel led to a situation where even extremist Salafis of bin Laden’s type could not attack the Lebanese Shiites because that would have been extremely unpopular in the Arab world.
After what happened, Hezbollah’s image has been changing, although not completely yet. But it must be said that the recent events have strengthened the propaganda through which Washington’s allies—the Saudi kingdom, Egypt and Jordan—have been trying, in particular since the summer of 2006, to discredit Iran and Hezbollah using the sectarian argument, until now with little impact.
And this is the most dangerous aspect.
5) In this situation, can Israel seize the opportunity to intervene?
I believe that Israel is unable, in part because of its internal crisis, to embark again on a military action as large as that of 2006 in Lebanon. Not because of the presence of UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). This is definitely not what could prevent Israel from invading Lebanon if it wanted to do so. An Israeli intervention would not be stopped by NATO troops. The true obstacle is represented by the strength of the resistance that Israeli troops have already met in Lebanon. Already in 2000 they had to withdraw from the last part of southern Lebanon that they occupied since 1982. This is what deters Israel from considering a new land invasion. So I believe that the Israelis, in order to take revenge for the humiliation they suffered in 2006, are considering more narrowly targeted attacks. The assassination of Mughniyeh, Hezbollah’s military leader, some time ago was perceived by Hezbollah as a signal.
This, I believe, also played a role in the recent events. Namely, the fear of an Israeli targeted operation, including a commando operation, whose goal would be to decapitate Hezbollah. This is indeed why Nasrallah no longer appears in public. He did it on few occasions immediately after the summer of 2006, but he knew then that Israel was still in a state of shock from the defeat it suffered. Nasrallah knows that he is threatened and that Israel, at the earliest opportunity, will try to assassinate him.
On the other hand, nobody calls for an Israeli intervention in the Lebanese conflict. Even Washington does not want one, because it would seriously embarrass its allies.
The Lebanese government majority also does not want Israel to intervene.
Moreover, the United States itself cannot go beyond bombing from its naval and air forces. It is in such a tight spot in Afghanistan and Iraq that it is hardly imaginable that it would open a new front, with a new land intervention. Especially such a difficult front, as shown by the resistance capacity of Hezbollah in 2006.
Hezbollah feels under threat nevertheless and sees an accumulation of worrying signs; including the declarations by Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi and his minister of Foreign Affairs about changing the UNIFIL’s mandate.
These statements were interpreted by Hezbollah as revealing an intention to implement what appears to be Washington’s initial plan—namely, a combination of Lebanese troops, the army and its allies, and NATO forces present in Lebanon that would clash with Hezbollah. As Hezbollah knows very well, this is the scenario designed by Washington.
But even though Hezbollah’s action was an act of preventive defense in this context, it has exceeded the limits, in my opinion, and created a situation that, in the medium term, could prove dangerous and harmful. It is quite possible that what just happened will be seen by history not as an isolated episode, but as the first round of a new war in Lebanon, although there could be more or less long periods of truce between successive rounds. This is because accumulated grievances and tensions are strong, while on the other hand it has been demonstrated that the coexistence between Hezbollah’s military force and a Lebanese state sovereign on its territory is almost impossible.
Hezbollah is a state within the state, which has confirmed on top of that its ability to impose its conditions on the state, whereas in the past it could appear as a “state of resistance” against Israeli invasions, invasions that the state, precisely, is unable to counter, as it is also unable to defend the people of southern Lebanon.
6) How do you interpret the fact that Michel Aoun has not taken part in the conflict?
Yes, he stayed out of the clashes. I think that he has no interest in joining them. If Aoun intervened there would be a clash between Christians. He knows that he could easily be defeated militarily by Samir Geagea, the leader of the hawkish rightwing Lebanese Forces. Besides, Geagea today is probably more popular in the Christian areas and Aoun has no interest in moving the conflict into these areas.
The interesting thing, however, is that Geagea himself did not enter the fray. I think this is because public opinion in the Christian regions is very much hostile to any kind of clashes within its areas. They want to stay away from clashes, as happened this time. People see the advantages of preserving peace. Extending the conflict into Christian areas would have dealt a blow to Geagea’s popularity. I think that he has waited also because he knows that if clashes were to break out in the Christian areas, they would not remain limited to these areas. In such a case, Hezbollah would give support to Aoun and this would have put the whole country to fire and plunged it deep into civil war.
If the present dynamic continues to worsen, and there is a strong possibility that this might happen in the long term, it would become hard to imagine the conditions for a political settlement. If conditions deteriorate, we could witness another civil war in Lebanon, the explosion of the army, aid and intervention from regional and international powers in support of each camp.
7) What role does Syria play?
Syria fears the spread of the Lebanese sectarian war inside its territory: in northern Lebanon there are already conflicts between Lebanese Alawites and Sunnis. This represents a risk for the Syrian regime, because it is ruled by Alawites, a minority group in Syria, a country whose population is overwhelmingly Sunni. If a sectarian conflict were to break out in Syria, it would lead to the end of the present regime. But for now, the regime has things firmly under control.
On the other hand, it is sufficient to read the many comments in the Israeli press saying that neither Israel nor Washington can resolve the problem of Hezbollah. No need to mention Europe. As for Arab troops, I think that they would find it difficult to deal with the situation without an agreement with Damascus. Therefore, the only solution is to talk with Damascus. In Haaretz and other Israeli newspapers one can read reproaches made to Washington for preventing the Israeli government from talking with Damascus. Consider also the recommendations of the “Iraq Study Group” of Baker-Hamilton, in which negotiations with Damascus are an important element. Syria can interpret all this as indications in its favor.
Therefore, it is clear that Syria will put everything on the negotiating table, requiring: 1) the revocation of all threats against it, especially the international Special Tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri’s assassination, and 2) a change of stance toward it and the acknowledgment of its tutelage over Lebanon. One should not forget that Damascus intervened two times already in Beirut, in 1976 and 1987, the first time in order to rescue Washington’s allies after Syria had supported the enemies of the United States from outside. The second time was followed by clashes between Syrian troops and Hezbollah. There may be a third time.
One cannot rule out that the Syrian regime may be “implored” to intervene again militarily, whether directly or indirectly, i.e. by sealing off the ways through which Iranian help for Hezbollah passes through Syria, since for both Israel and Washington, the Syrian regime is less worrying than the Iranian one. Israel does not have a problem with the Syrian regime: Israel’s border with Syria is the quietest.
These are, of course, elements of the complicated Middle Eastern equation, of which Lebanon is an integral part.
Postscript
[The above interview was conducted on May 13. Since its publication in Il Manifesto was postponed for many days, the following comment was added on the agreement reached by the various Lebanese factions and signed in Doha (Qatar) on May 21.]
1. As was emphasized in most serious comments, the Doha agreement is no miracle solution to the new Lebanese conflict, but at best an agreement opening an interim period during which the two opposed camps will continue their confrontation by other means, while new armed rounds will remain possible in the more or less distant future. The intermittent 15-year Lebanon war (1975-1990) was studded with agreements of this kind. It is to be feared that it is the case again, unless regional/international dealings kill in the bud the new civil war dynamics that have been set in motion. The possibility of a change in Washington’s Middle East policy, as a result of the forthcoming American election, is, incidentally, one of the key factors underlying the Doha truce.
2. The Doha agreement is nothing more than a new compromise on the distribution of institutional positions between socially conservative political-sectarian forces—essentially between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, with Lebanese Christians being split between the two camps. The new-old electoral law agreed upon, which goes back to a smaller division of constituencies, is such that it will reinforce the sectarian dynamics that have rebounded in Lebanon during the last few years. It stands at the exact opposite of the demand by the Lebanese left of elections on a proportional basis with Lebanon as a single constituency, in order to favor political cleavages and multi-sectarian forces.
3. The parliamentary majority, allied with Riyadh and Washington, accepted the opposition’s main demand—veto power within the government—when the opposition finally imposed on the ground, with arms, this veto power that it could not obtain through the peaceful mobilization that it launched since December 2006. Given that there is less than one year left before the next parliamentary election, the current parliamentary majority estimated that an interim government ruling by consensus is acceptable in exchange for guaranteeing that the current parliament will elect, for six years, a president of the republic whom it approves, the commander of the Lebanese army, Michel Suleiman. This is all the more important given that the current majority is definitely not sure that it will remain so after the parliamentary election scheduled for 2009. In that sense, a major loser of this agreement is General Michel Aoun, whose foremost ambition was to become president, the reason for which he played a key role in blocking the election of Suleiman in the wake of the agreement on the latter’s name between Washington and Damascus at the end of November 2007.
4. The Doha agreement was the result of intensive bargaining between Washington and Riyadh, on one side, and Damascus and Tehran, on the other. The emirate of Qatar—on the territory of which is located the principal command center of U.S. forces in the region (previously located in the Saudi kingdom) and which maintains cordial relations with the Israeli state, while maintaining equally cordial relations with Damascus, Tehran and Lebanese Hezbollah—was the perfect broker for this mediation. The revelation on the very same day when the Doha agreement was signed of ongoing negotiations between the Olmert government and the Syrian government seems to me to confirm what the May 13 interview ended with.
Gilbert Achcar—London, May 22, 2008
Gilbert Achcar is Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. His books include Perilous Power with Noam Chomsky (2007), The 33-Day War (2007), The Clash of Barbarisms (2nd edn, 2006), The Israeli Dilemma (2006), and Eastern Cauldron (2004).**This article is reproduced from ZNet

War between Tayyar & newly Elected President
From: Tony Safa (tony_safa@hotmail.com)
May 30, 2008 6:26:46 PM
Yesterday MP kenaan accused new president of not implementing the Lebanese constitution correctly. Kenaam said that the president should have refused the majority decision to appoint Saniora a Prime Minster again. MP Kenaan was the 1st Lebanese MP and the 1st Christian MP to criticize the newly elected president.
Today Newly elected president ask all Lebanese to cooperate with Lebanese security personal. However General Aoun and all Syrian groups consider the Lebanese security personal as a gang working for Prime Minster Saniora. General Aoun literally accused Lebanese security personal on TV as “ Zo3ran w Khezmatshiya”.  Also in his presidential speech president Suleiman talked about government strategy where Hezbollah can be used as a part of the government strategy. This completely contradicts the Understanding between Hezbollah and Tayyar that gave political cover for Hezbollah to operate outside government control, have their own state, declare war anytime they want, defy Lebanese government and even attack Civilian Lebanese as what they did few weeks ago.
Looks like General Aoun who is stuck in pro Syrian and Iranian allies will not be able to find a common ground with the new president. Especially, since Sulieman crashed the presidency hope of General Aoun who sold his Free-Patriotic-movement to the devil for the price of becoming a president.

Hizbullah is less credible. So now what?
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Doha agreement that ended the latest round of political tension and armed clashes in Lebanon has, at best, bought 18-24 months of calm for the country, and an opportunity for the largely discredited political elite to start acting responsibly. Hizbullah remains the focus of discussion about the challenges ahead, given its military strength relative to the other Lebanese factions, including the central government and its armed forces.
The dilemma for Hizbullah is that its strength since its inception a quarter of a century ago in the early 1980s is now its weakness when it comes to its political engagement inside Lebanon. Its combination of military prowess, links with Syria and Iran, and domestic strategic political ambiguity about its ultimate aims for Lebanon are all issues that have rallied significant opposition to it among a growing circle of Lebanese.
This is not purely a question of "What does Hizbullah want?" or "Will Hizbullah give up its arms?" Hizbullah's power and aims cannot be analyzed in a vacuum, because the party did not emerge as the most powerful military force in the country in isolation of the behavior of other national actors. Two issues are at play here: Hizbullah's status, and the quality of Lebanese statehood. The strength and status of Hizbullah and the weakness of the Lebanese state are symbiotic developments that feed off each other, and can only be resolved together. The coming era of calm political adjustment in Lebanon, including the national unity government and the summer 2009 parliamentary elections, must address very difficult core disputed issues. The central one is the Hizbullah-state relationship, which is directly or indirectly linked to other tough issues such as Syrian-Lebanese ties, and the role of external powers such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
If Lebanon does not make progress on these issues in the coming years and instead falls back into a pattern of stalemate and street fighting, a civil war is likely, and no country I know of has survived two civil wars intact. A resumption of fighting on a large scale will see the country slip into a slow and steady pattern of dysfunctional statehood and patchwork sovereignty, somewhere between the Yemen and Somalia examples.
The challenge remains to construct a state built on equal citizenship rights in which all Lebanese have the opportunity to improve their quality of life in the context of the rule of law, rather than tribal or communal self-defense. The manner in which the parties at Doha haggled over electoral districts in Beirut and other parts of the country suggests that concepts of Lebanese statehood and citizenship rights remain subsidiary to powerful forces of sectarianism and tribalism that define both the affirmation of identity and the exercise of power. This is not unique to Lebanon. Most of the Middle East suffers the same problem, but elsewhere it is camouflaged beneath the stultifying calm of the modern Arab security state.
Hizbullah has proven to be very good at most of the things it does, including social service delivery, communal mobilization, military resistance and appealing to wider public opinion around the region. It is the culmination of one of the most impressive and compelling political sagas of the modern Arab world - the journey of the Lebanese Shiite community from marginalization, abuse and subjugation to dominant power, in a span of just over a generation, starting in the early 1970s.
Yet Hizbullah has proved to be very weak in domestic political engagement, mainly because it is inexperienced; some of its strongest critics say it is insincere, and does not care to engage politically or share power, because it reflects Iranian-Syrian rather than Lebanese priorities. The arguments here are fierce. We shall soon find out. Politics, however, remains new territory for Hizbullah.
Its 18-month-long political challenge to the government was a stalemated failure, and, such as its downtown tent encampment, occasionally an embarrassment. It seemed to gain the upper hand only when it responded to the government's challenge to two aspects of its security system by sending armed men into western Beirut. But to fight instead of bargaining is not a sign of political prowess or sophistication.
Hizbullah and the Lebanese state both must now grapple with basic issues of their own legitimacy, efficacy and reach. It is clear that the existing balance of power is not sustainable. More and more Lebanese are openly challenging Hizbullah, which responds with familiar arguments about the centrality of its resistance role - arguments that sound increasingly less credible to many compatriots. There is no easy answer to this dilemma of how to reconcile a weak state with a strong parallel state structure. But an answer must be found, or both will pay the price in the years ahead.
**Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

US diplomatic sway in the Arab world is on the wane
By David Ignatius
Daily Star staff-Saturday, May 31, 2008
What happens when a superpower becomes preoccupied by a costly war and loses some of its ability to coerce friends and enemies toward the outcomes it favors? We're seeing a demonstration of that change now in the Middle East, as Arabs and even Israel reckon with the limits of American power - and begin to cut their own deals.
The new power dynamic is clear in two developments over the past several weeks - the Lebanon peace deal brokered by Qatar on May 21, and the Israel-Syria peace talks, with Turkish mediation, that were announced the same day. Both negotiations could help stabilize the region, albeit not on the terms the US would have preferred.
This independence from American tutelage is arguably one advantage of the new diplomacy: It is grounded in realism among the Middle Eastern nations about their own interests, rather than in wishful thinking about what the United States can accomplish. It reflects, as well, the growing strength of Iran and its radical allies, and the diminished clout of the United States - and in that sense, it accords with the altered balance of power in the area.
The best explanation I've seen of this rebalancing came from veteran Arab journalist Rami Khouri in Lebanon's The Daily Star. "We are witnessing the clear limits of the projection of American global power, combined with the assertion and coexistence of multiple regional powers (Turkey, Israel, Iran, Hizbullah, Syria, Hamas, Saudi Arabia, etc.)," he wrote. This new alignment, he added, "is not a full defeat for the United States - it's more like a draw."
The Lebanon peace deal negotiated in Doha is a classic piece of Arab diplomacy - a compromise that straddles disparate factions and deep hostilities for the sake of expediency. The Qataris who brokered the deal are themselves a walking embodiment of all the region's contradictions. As Nicholas Blanford noted in The Christian Science Monitor, Qatar is chummy with Iran and at the same time hosts the biggest US air base in the Persian Gulf; it has open links with Israel and also sponsors the anti-Israel polemics of Al-Jazeera.
Qatar stepped in to mediate after Hizbullah had defied America and its allies and taken control of west Beirut in a naked display of power. Recognizing that US efforts to check the radical militia had failed, the Lebanese did the pragmatic thing - they sued for peace under the formula the Bush administration has been resisting for more than a year. The Qatari compromise broke the logjam at last: Lebanon has a new president and an agreement for elections next year. Even some senior administration officials aren't all that unhappy with this outcome.
The Syria-Israel dialogue through Turkey is another example of Middle East realpolitik. It illustrates that when it comes to protecting its own interests, even America's closest ally in the region is going its own way.
The American-Israeli split on Syria has been widening for the past several years. One point of difference was what to do about the nuclear reactor the Syrians were secretly building at Al-Kibar, in the northeastern desert, with help from North Korea. The Bush administration wanted to confront the Syrians last year with the intelligence and use the issue to pressure them to dismantle the facility. The Israelis decided they couldn't wait - and bombed the suspected reactor site on September 6, 2007.
The United States feared the Israeli attack might trigger a wider war, and insisted on American-Israeli silence to avoid humiliating Syrian President Bashar Assad. In the end, the Israelis were right in their prediction that Syria wouldn't retaliate. Instead, according to US intelligence, the Syrians scrambled to hide traces of the reactor they had secretly been building.
The Bush administration was dubious about the Turkish negotiating channel, just as it had balked at the bombing. But here again, the Israelis ignored their superpower patron. They want to exploit tensions between Syria and Hizbullah, open at least a small gap between Syria and Iran - and in the process enhance the clout of Turkey as an alternative to a rising Iran. In this intricate dance, Washington has been essentially irrelevant.
America isn't withdrawing from the Middle East, despite its recent difficulties - that's an Iranian fantasy. And in the long run, it's surely to America's advantage if regional powers can create a stable security architecture - even if it isn't precisely the one we would have designed for them. We've tried imposing our own solutions, and frankly that hasn't worked very well.
**Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

Siniora meets MPs to discuss allocation of cabinet posts
Raad confirms opposition wants to appoint sunni, druze
By Hussein Abdallah -Daily Star staff
Saturday, May 31, 2008
BEIRUT: Prime Minister Fouad Siniora began on Friday consultations with the various parliamentary blocs in a bid to form a new national unity government. Sources close to Speaker Nabih Berri told The Daily Star on Friday that a late afternoon meeting between Berri and parliamentary majority leader MP Saad Hariri was "very positive." The sources added that Berri sees no obstacles facing the formation of the new government.
Siniora kicked off the consultations by meeting Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, deputy Speaker Farid Makkari, Independent MPs Michel Murr and Hussein al-Husseini. After talks with Siniora, Makkari said that he told the prime minister that the new government must take Lebanon from political confrontation to political dialogue. Makari added that the cabinet must adopt the inaugural speech of President Michel Suleiman and start preparing for next year's parliamentary elections.
Meanwhile, Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad told reporters after meeting Siniora that the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc has forwarded its requests regarding the number of ministers and the portfolios it wants in the next government. Raad said the bloc has requested that the opposition get a Sunni minister and a Druze minister at the expense of Hizbullah's Shiite representation in the government.
The Hizbullah bloc also discussed with Siniora the prospects of the next ministerial platform. "There were no differences between our vision and Siniora's vision on the issue of the resistance," Raad said. Media reports on Friday said that the opposition wanted to trade two Shiite ministers for a Sunni and a Druze minister.
Under such formula, Hizbullah, the Amal Movement, and the Free Patriotic Movement would give their Sunni and Druze allies the chance to take part in the government. Meanwhile, Berri's Liberation and Development bloc insisted after talks with Siniora that the Interior Ministry portfolio in the new government should go to a neutral figure. The next interior minister is likely to be appointed by the president as he is required to remain neutral while conducting next year's legislative elections. Meanwhile, Murr lashed out at the opponents of his son, Defense Minister Elias Murr, saying that "Elias Murr is our candidate for the government and this is the case for a big portion of the people of Metn."
"I want to tell some lawmakers who are against appointing Elias Murr in the new government that they would not have made it to Parliament had it not been for the votes of the supporters of Elias Murr's father," he said, in an indirect criticism of members of MP Michel Aoun's Reform and Change bloc.
"It is up to Siniora and to the president to appoint Elias Murr in the ministry that best suits him," Murr added.
Aoun told reporters after meeting Siniora on Friday that his bloc wanted five ministers in the next cabinet, adding that the posts would be distributed among different Christian sects.Meanwhile, MP Hagop Parkradounian of the Armenian bloc, which is allied with Aoun, told reporters after talks with Siniora that it wants two ministers in the next government. Pakradounian said that former minister Alain Tabourian was one of the bloc's nominees for the next government.
Meanwhile, the different blocs representing the March 14 Forces maintained a low profile regarding their demands in the next government.
Hariri only told reporters that the general atmosphere was positive, while Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt said he preferred not to make any comment. MP George Adwan, representing the Lebanese Forces bloc, also declined to reveal the number of ministers requested by his bloc.
However, the Tripoli bloc, headed by MP Mohammad Safadi, requested that Safadi remain in his post as public works and transportation minister.

Siniora meets MPs to discuss allocation of cabinet posts
Raad confirms opposition wants to appoint sunni, druze
By Hussein Abdallah -Daily Star staff
Saturday, May 31, 2008
BEIRUT: Prime Minister Fouad Siniora began on Friday consultations with the various parliamentary blocs in a bid to form a new national unity government. Sources close to Speaker Nabih Berri told The Daily Star on Friday that a late afternoon meeting between Berri and parliamentary majority leader MP Saad Hariri was "very positive." The sources added that Berri sees no obstacles facing the formation of the new government.
Siniora kicked off the consultations by meeting Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, deputy Speaker Farid Makkari, Independent MPs Michel Murr and Hussein al-Husseini. After talks with Siniora, Makkari said that he told the prime minister that the new government must take Lebanon from political confrontation to political dialogue. Makari added that the cabinet must adopt the inaugural speech of President Michel Suleiman and start preparing for next year's parliamentary elections.
Meanwhile, Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad told reporters after meeting Siniora that the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc has forwarded its requests regarding the number of ministers and the portfolios it wants in the next government.
Raad said the bloc has requested that the opposition get a Sunni minister and a Druze minister at the expense of Hizbullah's Shiite representation in the government.
The Hizbullah bloc also discussed with Siniora the prospects of the next ministerial platform. "There were no differences between our vision and Siniora's vision on the issue of the resistance," Raad said. Media reports on Friday said that the opposition wanted to trade two Shiite ministers for a Sunni and a Druze minister.
Under such formula, Hizbullah, the Amal Movement, and the Free Patriotic Movement would give their Sunni and Druze allies the chance to take part in the government. Meanwhile, Berri's Liberation and Development bloc insisted after talks with Siniora that the Interior Ministry portfolio in the new government should go to a neutral figure. The next interior minister is likely to be appointed by the president as he is required to remain neutral while conducting next year's legislative elections. Meanwhile, Murr lashed out at the opponents of his son, Defense Minister Elias Murr, saying that "Elias Murr is our candidate for the government and this is the case for a big portion of the people of Metn."
"I want to tell some lawmakers who are against appointing Elias Murr in the new government that they would not have made it to Parliament had it not been for the votes of the supporters of Elias Murr's father," he said, in an indirect criticism of members of MP Michel Aoun's Reform and Change bloc.
"It is up to Siniora and to the president to appoint Elias Murr in the ministry that best suits him," Murr added.
Aoun told reporters after meeting Siniora on Friday that his bloc wanted five ministers in the next cabinet, adding that the posts would be distributed among different Christian sects. Meanwhile, MP Hagop Parkradounian of the Armenian bloc, which is allied with Aoun, told reporters after talks with Siniora that it wants two ministers in the next government. Pakradounian said that former minister Alain Tabourian was one of the bloc's nominees for the next government.
Meanwhile, the different blocs representing the March 14 Forces maintained a low profile regarding their demands in the next government.
Hariri only told reporters that the general atmosphere was positive, while Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt said he preferred not to make any comment. MP George Adwan, representing the Lebanese Forces bloc, also declined to reveal the number of ministers requested by his bloc.
However, the Tripoli bloc, headed by MP Mohammad Safadi, requested that Safadi remain in his post as public works and transportation minister.

Assad heads to Gulf for talks in UAE, Kuwait
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Saturday, May 31, 2008
ABU DHABI: Syrian President Bashar Assad travels to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait this weekend for talks on regional developments. He begins his two-nation tour Sunday in Abu Dhabi for talks with UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, the WAM news agency reported. He will be in Kuwait on Tuesday, Kuwait's state-run KUNA news agency said. Assad's trip follows talks in Damascus Friday with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, whose country earlier this month hosted reconciliation talks between Lebanon's feuding politicians. Syria has backed the opposition in Lebanon, while most of the Gulf states have sided with the government. The Arab-League-brokered Doha talks ended an 18-month standoff in Lebanon, whose rival factions agreed to elect a president, form a national unity government and adopt a new electoral law for legislative polls next year. Consultations are under way in Beirut to form a new cabinet, in which the opposition will have veto power. Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE belong to the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which also includes Oman, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia with which Syria has strained ties. Syria and Iran were the leading foreign supporters of the Lebanese opposition in its standoff with the Western- and Saudi-backed government. - AFP

Suleiman touts Lebanese Army as model of national unity
By Hussein Abdallah and Nafez Qawas
Daily Star staff
Saturday, May 31, 2008
BEIRUT: President Michel Suleiman said on Friday that the unity of the Lebanese Armed Forces has proven to be a model for the unity of the Lebanese people. Addressing a visiting delegation from the army command at the Presidential Palace in Baabda, Suleiman called on the army to "continue the path."
Suleiman, the former army commander, vowed not to interfere in the work of the military institution if unnecessary. He also called for cooperation between the armed forces and the internal security forces. Suleiman stressed that Lebanon could not survive unless its people remained united.
"Lebanon is valued for being the country where different confessions coexist," he said. Also on Friday, Suleiman reportedly signed the letters of credentials for 35 Lebanese charges d'affaires. Among Suleiman's visitors were Qatari Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Industry Abdallah Attiyah, a delegation from the Armenian Tashnak Party, and a delegation from the Lebanese Forces headed by LF leader Samir Geagea.
Geagea told reporters after meeting Suleiman that Lebanon has finally managed to have a democratic president after a long period of time.
"Suleiman is a democratic president in practice not in theory," he said, adding that he was happy that life had returned to Baabda after six months of presidential vacuum. "In fact, the vacuum has lasted for several years and not six months because the presidency has not played its role for years," Geagea said.
Asked about the purpose of his visit to Baabda, Geagea said the visit was aimed at briefing the president on the LF's vision for the next government.
Geagea added that no party was interested in obstructing the formation of the new Cabinet. "As usual there will be a debate on the distribution of portfolios ... this is only normal and such process should not take much time," he said. Geagea's visit to the Presidential Palace was his first in the past 20 years.
Meanwhile, Atiyyah said after meeting Suleiman that Qatar would stand by Lebanon and foresee the implementation of the Doha agreement, which was recently signed by the rival Lebanese parties, ending an 18-month old political crisis. Atiyyah said that the Doha agreement should not be viewed as a truce deal.
"It is more than that ... we should be optimistic because the agreement has put the Lebanese on the right track," the deputy premier said.
Atiyyah said he hoped that Lebanon's summer would be a promising one. "I have already learned that many Qataris who were planning a vacation have changed their destinations and will be visiting Lebanon this summer

Nasrallah earns rebuke from Iraqi president - but praise from Iranian speaker
Daily Star staff-Saturday, May 31, 2008
BEIRUT: Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called on Hizbullah's secretary general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Friday not to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs. "Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah does not have the right to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs, as we have not interfered in Lebanon's affairs," Talabani said after a large-scale meeting with heads of Iraqi dailies and newspapers. "Iraq is an independent country and is the cradle of civilization. All those preaching Jihad and patriotism have learned from us," he added. "[The Shiite holy city of] Najaf has graduated militants and Shiite clerics, and it is not acceptable that students impose their opinions on their teachers," Talabani said, referring to the Hizbullah leader's speech on May 25 in which he tackled the issue of the resistance in Iraq.
Nasrallah said in a speech to mark Liberation Day on Monday that the resistance in Lebanon has served as an example to other resistance movements in the Arab world. "There is a strategy for liberation and removing the occupation, and a strategy of defending the homeland and people in the face of aggression, threats and invasion ... This is our message today to Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic worlds; it's a joint message by the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq to the whole nation," he added. Going into more detail, Nasrallah said that in "occupied Iraq, there are those who believe in resistance and others in politics ..." The Hizbullah leader urged them to take "a decisive position." "The resistance has been dealing severe blows to the US occupation army," Nasrallah said, adding that Iraq was "called on to follow the strategy of the resistance."In separate comments, Iran's new Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani praised Hizbullah's Nasrallah as "a strong fortress" against the US and Israel. The Iranian speaker was also commenting on remarks made by Nasrallah during his speech on Monday.
"The great man [Nasrallah] has made no claim about assuming power in Lebanon after the recent breakthrough in that country which was a result of Hizbullah's resistance and initiative," Larijani said in his address to Parliament just minutes after his election on Wednesday.
He was referring to the agreement reached in Doha, Qatar earlier this month by the various Lebanese political parties to end the country's 18-month-old political deadlock. Larijani referred to the Hizbullah leader as the "true son of the founder of the Islamic revolution, the late Imam [Ayatollah] Khomeini."
In his speech Monday, Nasrallah also reiterated Hizbullah's commitment to preserving Lebanese diversity. "I renew my position today. We do not want to monopolize power in Lebanon and we don't want to rule the country or impose our thoughts on the people," Nasrallah stressed. Hizbullah's secretary general also vowed his group would not use its weapons to achieve political gains. "The resistance's arms are to fight the enemy, liberate lands and prisoners, and defend Lebanon and nothing else," Nasrallah pledged, referring to his group's enmity with Israel, which pulled out of South Lebanon in 2000.Nasrallah, however, also warned against the state's arsenal being used to settle domestic accounts. "All arms must remain in the service of the goal they were created for," Nasrallah said. - The Daily Star

As factions stake out Cabinet posts, an even bigger battle for power looms
2009 parliamentary elections likely to alter future political landscape
By Anthony Elghossain -Daily Star staff
Saturday, May 31, 2008
BEIRUT: The election of President Michel Suleiman and the initiation of consultations to determine the composition of a national unity government are signs that the Doha process is well under way. However, the electoral law be used during 2009 parliamentary elections will likely have a deeper impact on Lebanese political life during the coming years. The law has yet to be determined fully, and awaits parliamentary deliberations regarding a broader electoral framework that will account for more than districting.
In an interview with The Daily Star, legal analyst Ziyad Baroud, who served on the National Commission for Electoral Law Reform, said the framework adopted at the Doha talks remains incomplete, stressing that "[the framework] is not a new law, but has thus far been limited to electoral districting."
The third point of the Doha agreement states that reform clauses drafted by the National Commission for Electoral Law Reform in the "Butros Draft Electoral Law," which was named after commission head and former Minister Fouad Butros, must be referred to Parliament for consideration.
At stake are reforms such as the creation of an independent electoral oversight committee, campaign finance regulation, advertising limits, women candidacy quotas, lowering the voting age to 18 and instituting expatriate voting.
Steps toward reform were taken in May when March 14 MP Ghassan Tueni and Change and Reform bloc MP Ghassan Mokheiber jointly submitted the Butros draft for ratification and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri assigned the draft to the Parliamentary Committee for Administration and Justice for initial review.
Asked why the Butros draft did not receive as much attention as the 1960 or 2000 electoral frameworks during the 18-month political crisis that preceded the Doha agreement, Baroud said "the situation of deadlock overshadowed legislative issues in the country - the debate was elsewhere. Political matters left little room for issues of reform." "Another reason for the lack of attention toward the Butros proposal may be that the 'political class' in Lebanon might lose out with certain reforms," Baroud added, before stressing that "this is somewhat speculative, as no one will admit a position against reform."Baroud added that he views the "consensus behind the law as a positive development that has allowed Lebanon to avoid immediate danger," but emphasized that "Parliament needs to discuss a reform package beneficial to candidates, voters and everyone involved in the process."
Echoing Baroud's remarks, Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, told The Daily Star that the modified 1960 "electoral districting is positive in its simplicity - people in Lebanon are familiar with it. It is also fair in the sense that no groups can dominate districts, making for better political and communal representation." Salem, however, noted that the "need to appeal to other communities is reduced, and thus tendencies toward moderation and multi-communal alliances are lessened" in smaller districts, potentially leading to "a more sectarian approach."
Baroud and Salem both mentioned the Butros draft's proposal to institute proportional voting at the muhafaza (governorate) level of the election process, noting "the difficulty of adopting proportionality with the [1960] electoral district map." Since the 1960 electoral framework relies on majoritarian voting - under which the entirety of district seat allocations go to candidates with a simple majority or plurality of votes - contested districts will prove disproportionately important to the end result. While the opposition had consistently proposed 1960 electioneering after the Arab League Initiative for Lebanon began the push for a comprehensive solution to the Lebanese political crisis, it remains unclear whether the framework favors one faction over another.
"The real winner here, reservations aside, is Lebanon - the other scenario would have seen the use of an old law, which would have presented many groups with problems. This provides a minimum level of stability," Baroud said. Baroud said that politically speaking, a clear "win-lose situation does not exist. Although polarization is evident, the presence of [Suleiman] may lead to a new [alliance set-up]." If a new electoral alignment fails to develop, the former commission member believes that "a rough split down the middle will result, give or take five to seven seats." "The opposition is in a relatively better position, as is the Christian community, after being marginalized by the 2000 electoral law [used for the 2005 balloting]," Baroud added.
Salem said that although "any departure from the 2000/2005 law is a risk for the current majority, March 14 is feeling less insecure about the 1960 law than it did around one year ago. The opposition had been pushing for this law for quite some time, but is not as confident as it was before. What we have is a very fluid electoral situation.""Christian districts will decide the next majority in Parliament," added Salem. "Only here will there be a close race, with most other districts being relatively easy to predict. The Christian mood and alliance structures will shape the Christian race - in 2005, [Free Patriotic Movement leader] MP Michel Aoun was dominant and his position today is key."The result of the 2009 parliamentary elections will determine, or largely shape, the political landscape in Lebanon. With the electoral and communal map granting respective factions various strongholds and weak points, it appears the contested Christian street will propel a political front into a position of legislative authority, but it remains to be seen who will triumph.

A proper civil state is all that can cure what ails the Lebanese
By The Daily Star -Saturday, May 31, 2008
Editorial
Lebanon's feuding politicians managed a last-minute escape act by agreeing to a temporary fix in Doha earlier this month, but they have yet to address the primary cause of this country's troubles: The great majority of the Lebanese have outgrown the tribal mishmash that passes for their political system. The general population cannot be "re-educated" in such a way that it again embraces (or ignores) the essentially apartheid principles upon which the current order was based - and which continue to defy all the tinkering that has taken place. The solution, therefore, lies in updating the machinery of governance so that all Lebanese can feel safe and secure in their own country: Lebanon must start developing a civil state to replace the sectarian monstrosity that inexorably turns its citizens against one another.
True, there is an obvious contradiction here because while most individual Lebanese are consistently damaged by the sectarian system, most of the politicians would be lost without it. They cannot be enthusiastic about scrapping a set-up that has endowed them (as it did their fathers and grandfathers) with unearned powers and undeserved riches, but even they are running out of choices. The broadly Christian-Muslim split that typified the 1975-1990 Civil War has been succeeded (at least for now) by an intra-Islamic one between Sunnis and Shiites, but the focus of intolerance can only shift so many times - especially in the face of an increasingly sophisticated population. Eventually, a critical mass of Lebanese will not be so easily fooled, and they will demand real change. The only question is whether the neanderthals will remain in the ascendant long enough to have another war.
Doha was better than nothing, and all Lebanese should be grateful for the time its has bought them. But the causes of the crisis remain untouched, even unacknowledged, and the electoral component of the agreement demonstrates that the politicians have not been cured of their instinctive reliance on sectarian formulas and back-room plotting.
President Michel Suleiman is very new to the job, but he enjoys the rare distinction of being trusted by large numbers of all Lebanese. He is a natural candidate, therefore, to champion the dismantling of the sectarian fetters that have bound this country from its birth. Circumstances have made Prime Minister Fouad Siniora a more polarizing figure, but he can start to fix that by joining the president. Speaker Nabih Berri's reasons for taking part should be obvious: It his community that suffers most - and so is most in danger of being radicalized - under the current system.
There is, of course, an alternative: more dead people.
 

The shooting over, it's time to dance
The Tribune's Liz Sly reports that revelry fills the capital as a deal ends Lebanon's factional conflict, but a shadow looms over the party
By Liz Sly Tribune correspondent
May 31, 2008
BEIRUT — One day they were shooting at each other. And almost as quickly as the fighting had erupted, they were back out partying together.
With the resilience for which they are renowned, Lebanese have taken to the streets of their downtown area with a vengeance, ever since a deal was signed on May 21 between their country's squabbling factions. And this time around, they have come to celebrate, not protest or fight.
Downtown Beirut, scene of so many of the huge political demonstrations that had kept life in Lebanon on a knife-edge for much of the past three years, has been transformed almost overnight from the ghost town it had become into the vibrant urban space it was intended to be.
There's not a seat to be had at the pavement cafes lining the graceful avenues of the restored city center, which had served as the front line in Lebanon's civil war. The shops are staying open until late in the night.
Lebanon swears in new president And in Martyrs' Square, scene of the massive protests that drove Syrian forces out of Lebanon in 2005, nightly pop concerts featuring top Lebanese singers have drawn vast crowds of tens of thousands of people, from all sects.
"We came to be together, Christians and Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites," said Hassan Audi, 17, a supporter of the Shiite Hezbollah movement from Beirut's southern suburbs who was dancing with his friends to the songs of Joseph Attiyeh, a local star made famous by the "Star Academy" show, Lebanon's equivalent of " American Idol."
"Also, to celebrate the victory of Hezbollah and the defeat of the Americans, who have realized they can't do whatever they want," added his friend Hussein Masloom, 17.
Multiple crises had combined to keep people away from their downtown in recent years. Above all, Hezbollah's erection in 2006 of a tent city, in a bid to force the formation of a new government, had deterred Lebanese from venturing into an area so closely associated with their country's strife.
The deal gave Hezbollah what it was demanding—a new government in which it has veto rights—but only after the Shiite opposition movement had resorted to force, overrunning much of mainly Sunni West Beirut in a night of fierce battles against militia fighters allied to the U.S.-backed government.
The young people gathered for the concert in Martyrs' Square might not actually be the ones who fought one another in those battles—but at a minimum they supported the fighters who did.
Casting the recent past aside, they threw their arms around one another's shoulders to form long chains of dancing men, their feet moving in dizzyingly intricate patterns to the rhythmic beat.
But the mood may not last. Scattered skirmishes elsewhere in the city have already cast a shadow over the spirit of compromise contained in the political accord.
"It's not over," said a man from the Druze sect, which fought Hezbollah, as he arrived at the concert. He refused to give his name, out of fear of Hezbollah's rising influence. "For one and a half years they killed the spirit of Lebanon," he said. "There are too many bad feelings."
Around him, the dancing continued. Maybe it won't last, but Lebanese are enjoying the moment while they still can.
**Liz Sly is the Tribune's Beirut correspondent.