LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
May 22/08
Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
according to Saint Mark 9,38-40. John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone
driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not
follow us."Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a
mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is
not against us is for us.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Hezbollah's network confirms terror goals. By: Walid Phares 21/05/08
Ordinary Lebanese are just as frustrated as the mediators in Doha-The Daily Star 21/05/08
The myth of a 'Shiite Crescent' in the Middle
East-By Michael Broning 21/05/08
Lebanon and the Armed Abductor-By Tariq Alhomayed - Asharq Al-Awsat 20/05/08
Iran's Lebanon Game-By: Amir Taheri 20/05/08
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 21/08
Lebanese Leaders Reach Agreement Ending Crisis-Naharnet
Muallem: Syria Backs Lebanon Agreement-Naharnet
Lebanese Voice Relief at End to Political Crisis-Naharnet
France Hails Lebanon Agreement-Naharnet
Lebanon Among Least Peaceful Countries-Naharnet
FACTBOX - Key facts about Lebanon's next president-Reuters
FACTBOX - After deal, Lebanon faces divisive issues-Reuters
Political Agreement Reached in Lebanon-New York Times
France hails Lebanon agreement-Africasia
Syria backs Lebanon agreement: foreign minister-Africasia
Captive soldiers' families left in painful limbo-Ha'aretz
Israel fears Russia will sell Syria arms-Jerusalem Post
2 Hizbullah Gunmen Arrested After Helping a Suspicious Car Cross ...Naharnet
Syria Confirms
Holding Indirect PeaceTalks with Israel-Naharnet
'Deal agreed' on Lebanon crisis-BBC
News
Doha talks stumble over how to apportion seats in Beirut-Daily Star
Fadlallah: Muslim unity best guarantee to protect country-Daily Star
One year after start of battle with Fatah
al-Islam, much has changed-Daily Star
'Conditions of Christians have not gotten
better-Daily Star
LF blames Syria for 2002 killing of member-Daily
Star
Arab MPs voice 'grave concern' over Lebanese
crisis-Daily Star
NGO says clashes underline need for law banning
sectarian prejudice, incitement-By IRIN News.org
NGOs urge leaders to agree - or stay in Qatar-Daily
Star
Sfeir seeks Bush's pledge that Israel won't
attack-Daily Star
'Israel failed to rehabilitate north after 2006 war-AFP
Lebanon comes in near bottom of heap in Global
Peace Index-AFP
Latest violence drives more Lebanese to emigrate-AFP
Rivals duel over election law, ignore
compromise issued by official panel-Daily Star
Getting used to the (hopefully temporary)
return of 'West Beirut' and other symptoms of a civil war mindset-Daily
Star
Lebanese Prelate to Ask Bush's Help With Neighbors-Zenit News
Agency
Lebanon’s Brush with Civil War-Middle East Report Online
Lebanon rival leaders reach deal ending crisis: opposition MP-AFP
Aoun under pressure to accept proposal-GulfNews
Rival Lebanese camps in Qatar given deadline-San Jose Mercury News
Palestinians press for action on rebuilding
Nahr al-Bared-Daily Star
Ghattas Khoury: No Elections with Hizbullah's Arsenal-Naharnet
Arab Parliamentarians Concerned About Lebanon-Naharnet
Lebanon crisis talks to go into sixth day-AFP
Lebanon opposition would get ‘blocking minority'-Khaleej Times
Jumblat: Beirut was
the theater for a Regional Message-Naharnet
Hassan Khalil has
Hope in Comprehensive Settlement-Naharnet
GCC Leaders: Doha Talks at Decisive Stage-Naharnet
Doha talks: Deadline extended for rival Lebanese parties-Al-Bawaba
Lebanon crisis talks on knife-edge-AFP
Hezbollah's network confirms terror goals-Middle
East Times
Lebanon
Agreement Buoys Hizballah
Wednesday, May. 21, 2008
By ANDREW LEE BUTTERS/BEIRUT
Rival Lebanese leaders at the Doha talks, have reached agreement on steps to end
the crisis that has led to the worst violence since the 1975-1990 civil war.
Nabil Mounzer / EPA
The Lebanese are used to their leaders — sectarian warlords, corrupt tycoons and
rebel clerics — creating more problems than solutions. So when almost all of the
country's top men boarded planes on Friday for negotiations in Qatar to end the
country's worst crisis since the end of the Lebanese civil war, there was joy in
the land. "No one wants you; the population is living without you; your absence
has made us comfortable," go the lyrics of The Leaders Left Lebanon, an instant
hit song making the rounds on music television stations.
But then news reached Lebanon on Tuesday morning that the talks had produced an
agreement that may end the country's 18-month-old political crisis. The Beirut
stock market jumped, and opposition leaders announced they would dismantle their
protest campground in downtown Beirut that has clogged traffic, destroyed local
businesses, and become the tattered symbol of Lebanon's dysfunction. But the
relief among war-weary Lebanese is unlikely to be echoed in Washington, Paris
and Jerusalem, since the new arrangement is bound to reverse years of effort to
blunt Hizballah's influence.
The Lebanese political crisis started in the aftermath of the 2006 war with
Israel, when the Hizballah-led opposition accused the American-backed government
of carrying out an American plan to disarm the militant anti-Israeli group. When
the Lebanese government refused to back off and went further to accuse Hizballah
of orchestrating a Syrian and Iranian-inspired coup attempt, opposition protests
devolved into a series of street clashes, culminating earlier this month when
Hizballah fighters decimated loyalist militias in Beirut. The speed and ease
with which Hizballah overran the government's supporters, surrounded the homes
of cabinet ministers and occupied offices belonging to the ruling parties gave
the government little choice but to submit to Hizballah's demands.
The new agreement broadly gives Hizballah what it wants: legitimacy as an armed
state-within-a-state. The opposition will now have enough ministers in the
Lebanese cabinet to veto any major decisions, effectively ending any attempt to
move against Hizballah's weapons. It also calls for parliament to elect a
consensus candidate, army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman, to the country's
presidency, which has been vacant for months. The government had been hoping to
elect one of its own, since it controls a majority in parliament.
The current government could have continued to hold out against Hizballah and
clung to office and symbolic support from the West. But in the absence of any
real central authority, the country was already starting to unravel along
sectarian lines. Lebanon's multi-religious character and political system —
which divides power among the country's largest sects — is famously fragile. The
sectarian feeling unleashed by clashes between Hizballah, a Shi'a Muslim party,
and government supporters, who are mostly Sunni and Druze Muslims, threatened to
push the country into another civil war.
The agreement doesn't mean Lebanon is out of the woods. For real stability to
take root, the foreign countries fighting for regional supremacy in the cold war
for the Middle East will have to stop using Lebanon as a battlefield. On the one
hand, Syria could use Hizballah's political and military victory to work its way
back into dominance over Lebanon, which Syria occupied until 2005. Hizballah's
strengthened government role will help Syria get the new Lebanese government to
scupper plans for a U.N. tribunal to investigate the assassinations of a series
of anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians and journalists. Syria will also probably
want to stop Lebanese attempts to tighten controls over their porous common
borders, through which Syria probably sends Hizballah weapons.
The U.S. government may find a Hizballah-dominated Lebanon hard to swallow.
Disarming Hizballah and securing Lebanon's independence from Syrian and Iranian
influence was one of the Bush administration's major Middle East policies; it
garnered broad support among European governments, including France, that were
not on board in Iraq. Nor will Israel be keen to live with the fact that its
most formidable adversary is now in de facto control of almost an entire
country, with a sophisticated banking system, an international airport and a
varied mountainous terrain in which to train and prepare for war. But Israel and
America have few options. They can't isolate Lebanon like the Hamas-controlled
Gaza strip, and the last two Israeli invasions of Lebanon were disasters. Like
the American-backed government, they may have to admit defeat in Lebanon.
'Deal agreed' on Lebanon crisis
BBC 21/5/08
Political division has caused a
deadlock in Lebanon's parliament
A deal has been reached aimed at ending the political crisis in Lebanon,
officials at talks in Qatar say.
Arab mediators have been engaged in five days of talks to try to reconcile the
Western-backed Lebanese government and the Hezbollah-led opposition.
Lebanon's deep political divisions have led to an 18-month crisis that has come
close to sparking a new civil war.
The resulting deadlock in parliament has left Lebanon without a president since
November.
Street battles /The breakthrough came after both sides agreed on an electoral
law for parliamentary elections next year and on a power-sharing cabinet that
would allow a new president to be elected, delegates to the talks said.
Opposition MP Ali Hasan Khalil said he expected a parliamentary vote to elect a
president on Thursday or Friday. The rival groups had agreed last year on
electing army chief Gen Michel Suleiman to succeed outgoing pro-Syrian President
Emile Lahoud, but disagreement over the other issues delayed the vote. Lebanon
has been in political crisis since late 2006 when the Hezbollah-led opposition
left a national unity coalition cabinet, demanding more power and a veto over
government decisions. The crisis exploded into street battles between armed
supporters of the factions this month that left at least 65 people dead.
Government attempts to outlaw Hezbollah's private telephone network and reassign
Beirut airport's security chief triggered the worst violence since Lebanon's
1975-1990 civil war.
FACTBOX - Key facts about
Lebanon's next president
Wed May 21, 2008 3:23am BST Email | Print | Share| Single Page| Recommend (0)
[-] Text [+] (Reuters) - Rival Lebanese leaders agreed a deal on Wednesday to
end political conflict, paving the way to elect army commander General Michel
Suleiman as the next president.
The presidential election, delayed repeatedly since November, is now scheduled
for June 10, but since the leaders agreed on a deal in Doha, parliamentarians
are expected to confirm Suleiman into office this week.
The post is reserved for a Maronite Christian under Lebanon's sectarian
power-sharing system.
Here are some key facts about Suleiman.
* Suleiman, 59, has been army commander since 1998. Since then, Israeli troops
withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000, Israel and Hezbollah fought a war in 2006
and the army battled and defeated al Qaeda-inspired militants in north Lebanon
last year.
* The general, who has good ties with Syria, has been credited with keeping the
army neutral during domestic splits and violence over the past three years.
* But the anti-Syrian governing coalition did not view him favourably, partly
because he did not suppress those protests. Some have also criticised him for
not doing enough to quell the most recent violence in which Hezbollah fighters
routed supporters of the U.S.-backed government and briefly seized parts of
Beirut.
* Suleiman gained popularity last year after the army defeated Islamist fighters
at the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp. The fighting killed more than 420
people, including 169 soldiers.
* He graduated from the Military Academy in 1970 and holds a Bachelor of Arts in
Politics and Administrative Sciences from the Lebanese University. He was
commander of the 11th Infantry Brigade between 1993-1996, a time which witnessed
two major Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon.
(Compiled from Reuters and the Lebanese Army Web site, Writing by Yara Bayoumy)
© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved.
Lebanon Rivals Reach a Deal,
Published: May 21, 2008
DOHA, Qatar (Reuters) — After six days of talks here in this Persian Gulf state,
rival leaders in Lebanon reached a deal on Wednesday to end 18 months of
political conflict that had pushed their country to the brink of a new civil
war.
Delegates from the United States-backed governing coalition and the
Hezbollah-led opposition said disputes over a parliamentary election law and a
new cabinet had been settled.
“The deal is done,” an opposition delegate told Reuters. “The text has been
written.”
An official announcement was expected early Wednesday, he added.
A delegate for the governing coalition also confirmed the deal.
Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran and Syria, increased pressure on the
governing alliance this month by routing its followers in a military campaign.
The Qatari-led negotiations built on mediation that ended violence, which killed
81 people.
It was Lebanon’s worst civil conflict since the 1975-90 civil war, and it
exacerbated tensions between Shiites loyal to Hezbollah and Druse and Sunni
followers of the governing coalition.
The Qatari emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, joined the Doha talks shortly
before midnight after returning from Saudi Arabia, one of the main foreign
backers of the governing coalition.
A deal would open the way for Parliament to elect General Michel Suleiman as
president, a post that has been vacant since November because of the political
deadlock.
The vote in Parliament could take place as soon as Thursday, delegates said.
The delegates said the agreement would meet the opposition’s demand for veto
power in the cabinet. The anti-Syria governing coalition had long refused to
meet that demand, saying that the opposition was trying to restore Syrian
control of Lebanon.
Syria, a close ally of Iran, was forced to withdraw troops from Lebanon in 2005
after the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik al-Hariri.
The United States has held up the withdrawal as a foreign policy success story.
But Hezbollah’s military campaign this month was a major blow to United States
policy in Lebanon and forced Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s government to
rescind two measures singling out the group.
The deal will include a pledge by both sides not to use violence in political
disputes, echoing a paragraph in the agreement that ended the fighting.
Lebanese Leaders Reach Agreement
Ending Crisis
Naharnet/Lebanese leaders reached an agreement in Doha early Wednesday to end a
long-running political crisis that nearly drove the country to a new civil war.
"An agreement has been reached," between the pro-government majority and the
Hizbullah-led opposition, MP Ali Hasan Khalil told reporters.
The agreement calls for electing a president immediately, formation of a
government based on a 16-11-3 formula (16 for the majority, 11 for the
opposition and 3 to be chosen by the president), adoption of the Qada-based 1960
electoral law such as Beirut is divided into three constituencies ( 5 – 4 – 10)
for one time only.
"We expect a (parliamentary) vote to elect a president on Thursday or Friday,"
Khalil said ahead of a Wednesday deadline for the Doha talks to wrap up.
Another opposition delegate who requested not to be named had said earlier that
a joint committee formed to iron out differences over a decisive electoral law
for parliamentary polls due next year had been "making final touches to a deal."
Lebanese rivals agreed last year on electing army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman as
a successor to Damascus protégé Emile Lahoud, who stepped down at the end of his
term in November.
But they have differed over shares in a proposed unity government and the
electoral law.
The talks hung in the balance Tuesday after Qatari hosts announced a Wednesday
deadline to receive responses to two proposals put forward by an Arab
ministerial committee led by Qatar.
Qatar had put forward a compromise proposal calling for an immediate
parliamentary vote to elect Suleiman as president and the formation of a unity
government while postponing talks on a new electoral law, a government delegate
said earlier.
The Syria- and Iran-backed opposition refused to put off discussion of the
disputed electoral law, and insisted on getting a "blocking minority" in a
proposed unity government.
According to the government delegate, a second proposal suggested a return to an
electoral law adopted in 1960, which is no longer in force. That would require
amendments to disputed constituency boundaries in the capital Beirut -- the
bedrock of support for Sunni parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri.
Rival parties aim to secure as many as possible of the capital's 19 seats in the
128-member parliament.
Both proposals also offered the opposition the long-demanded blocking minority,
the same delegate said.
The 18-month-old political deadlock erupted into bitter sectarian fighting
earlier this month that saw 65 people killed and during which Hizbullah and its
Shiite allies briefly seized Sunni areas of mainly Muslim west
Beirut.(AFP-Naharnet)
Beirut, 21 May 08, 07:05
Muallem: Syria Backs Lebanon Agreement
Naharnet/Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, whose country supports Lebanon's
opposition, told AFP on Wednesday that Damascus backs the agreement reached
between rival Lebanese leaders in Qatar.(AFP
'Disgusted' Lebanese
21/05/08/Nahida Ghandour is leaving Lebanon and she won't be looking
back.
Like many of her fellow citizens, the latest bout of sectarian violence to rock
Lebanon has pushed her over the edge and left her with a deep sense of disgust
toward the country's rival politicians as they battle it out for power.
"This last round was it and I decided to pack up and leave to Kuwait," said
Ghandour, 38, an interior designer who lives in Corniche al-Mazraa.
Her west Beirut neighborhood was turned into a battleground earlier this month
between militants loyal to the Shiite opposition group Hizbullah and Sunni
supporters of Lebanon's ruling coalition.
Although the guns have fallen silent and negotiations between the rival camps on
ending a presidential stalemate have been held in Qatar since Friday, many
Lebanese have grown disillusioned with their leaders and expect little.
"From the first day I opened my eyes this country has been at war and I've had
enough," said Ghandour, whose father is Sunni and mother Shiite.
"If our leaders wanted to agree, they could have done so on their own land
rather than going to Qatar."
Salim Fanous, a resident of Ras an-Nabaa, a mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhood that
was also the scene of fierce clashes, said he held out little hope for lasting
peace.
"Our leaders are all liars and traitors working for their own ends," he said.
"They have been playing with us for more than 30 years and we all know that this
is all a political game."
"People are disgusted with their lies, they must take us for idiots," added
Fanous, as he stood near a bullet-riddled white jeep with flat tires -- a stark
reminder of the latest violence.
"They play with us like a bottle of soda that you shake until it foams up and
then dies down."
The anger and exhaustion of many Lebanese from the constant turmoil in their
country has been summed up by demonstrations held along the road leading to
Beirut's international airport by non-governmental organizations.
"If you don't agree, don't come back," read signs held up by protesters, some of
them handicapped from the civil war.
"Agree, shame on you," read another message to the bickering leaders, while a
third said, "We want to raise our children in Lebanon."
"I have lived through many wars, beginning with World War II and I am sorry to
say that these people (the leaders) have no honor, they have no brains," said
Anees Suleiman Abu-Hassan, 87, a resident of the mainly Druze town of Shwaifat,
southeast of Beirut.
"If I had fuel, I would burn them all."
A Hizbullah flag was hanging defiantly on Tuesday at an entrance to the town
where pictures of young Druze men killed in the recent fighting have been
plastered on buildings and cars.
"We are all nauseous by what we are seeing and can't take it anymore," said
Jihan, who is Druze and whose husband is Shiite Muslim.
"Can you imagine that just recently we commemorated the 33rd anniversary of the
start of the civil war," said Jihan, who did not want her last name used. "Now
our children wait for the evening news to see what is happening in the country."If the politicians would just leave us, we could live in peace together," she
added. "That's why we don't want them back, and if they dare return from Qatar
without an agreement, we'll beat them back onto the plane."(AFP)
Beirut, 21 May 08, 02:32
Lebanese Voice Relief at End to Political Crisis
Naharnet/Weary Lebanese expressed relief on Wednesday at the announcement of a deal to
end 18 months of crisis that drove the country to the brink of civil war but
concern it might be only a temporary reprieve.
"Hopefully this is not a Band-Aid solution and is a long-lasting one," said
Aleco Assaf, 64, a resident of Beirut. "People need to live in peace."Throughout the country people were glued to radio or television sets listening
to the Qatari prime minister announce the deal between government and opposition
leaders after six days of talks in the Qatari capital Doha.
"I am very optimistic because finally we're going to be able to live," said
Josiane Nakad, who sells swimwear in the Hamra district of west Beirut.
"I haven't had many sales lately because people didn't know whether they would
be spending their summer on the beach or under the bombs.
"I just hope this is a long-lasting accord and not just a reprieve."
On the streets, in coffee shops and in telephone conversations, people could be
heard congratulating each other on the end to the deadlock between the
government and the opposition that erupted in sectarian bloodshed earlier this
month.
In the southern coastal city of Tyre, drivers honked their horns on hearing the
announcement with some shouting "Mabrouk" (congratulations).
"Since the deal was announced sales have been brisk," said Abu Fadi, who sells
Lotto tickets in Beirut. "In the last two days no one was buying but today
everyone is hoping that the deal will bring them luck."Beirut resident Zeinab al-Said, 28, said she was especially happy that the
agreement had brought an end to the opposition's 18-month-old protest camp
outside the government's headquarters that turned part of the city centre into a
ghost town.
"I am ecstatic," she told AFP. "I am sure things will get better. We're going to
be OK."
Some older Lebanese expressed scepticism, however, that the rival leaders had
really buried the hatchet.
"I have seen a lot in my 85 years and it usually only calms down a bit to start
over again later," said Elie, who would not give his last name. "Maybe I'll be
lucky enough to die when it's calm."(AFP)
Beirut, 21 May 08, 12:42
France Hails Lebanon Agreement
Naharnet/France on Wednesday hailed an agreement in Qatar to end Lebanon's crisis as an
"essential step" to returning the country to "unity, stability and
independence."In a statement in which he recalled his own mediation efforts, Foreign Minister
Bernard Kouchner said it now was up to "all Lebanese" to strive for national
reconciliation.The agreement -- between Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's government and the
Iranian- and Syrian-backed opposition led by Hizbullah -- is "an essential step
in fully restoring the unity, stability and independence of Lebanon."(AFP)
Beirut, 21 May 08, 10:53
2 Hizbullah Gunmen Arrested After Helping a Suspicious Car Cross Into Syria
Two Hizbullah gunmen were arrested in east Lebanon's Bekaa Valley on Tuesday
after helping a suspicious vehicle cross into Syria without inspection by
Lebanese customs, An Nahar daily reported.
The newspaper on Wednesday quoted official security sources as saying the gunmen
were arrested after helping the occupants of the vehicle, a Lebanese identified
as Ahmed H. and two Iranians, to cross the Masnaa border.
An Nahar said the gunmen were carrying safe passage cards issued by the Lebanese
army's intelligence unit in the name of Abbas Sh. and Mohammed Ali L.The official sources told the newspaper that the two armed men intervened at the
Masnaa crossing to stop the search by the Lebanese customs which became
suspicious of bags inside the vehicle.The car then sped away and entered Syrian territories, the sources added.
Beirut, 21 May 08, 06:15
Lebanon Among Least Peaceful Countries
Iceland is the world's most peaceful nation while Lebanon is ranked among the
bottom 10 countries in the "Global Peace Index" released Tuesday.
The study, which is compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, ranked Lebanon
132nd out of 140 countries according to how peaceful they were domestically and
how they interacted with the outside world. The index also gave Lebanon a score
of 2.840.
The annual study gave poor marks to the U.S. and Russia, ranking them
respectively 97th and 131st, and said Iraq is the most violent country in the
world.
Countries in the bottom five also include Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and
Israel, according to GPI.
"The world appears to be a marginally more peaceful place this year. This is
encouraging, but it takes small steps by individual countries for the world to
make greater strides on the road to peace," said GPI founder Steve Killelea.
The study's authors take into account 24 indicators, ranging from levels of
violent crime to U.N. deployments overseas, and from political instability for
risk of terrorist attacks.
On these grounds Iceland rates the best, followed by Denmark, Norway and New
Zealand, while Japan is the highest member of the Group of Eight (G8) leading
industrialized nations in the rankings.
Beirut, 21 May 08, 02:04
Syria Confirms Holding Indirect Peace Talks with Israel
Naharnet/Syria confirmed on Wednesday that it has begun indirect peace negotiations with
Israel under Turkish auspices, state media reported.
"Syria and Israel have begun indirect peace negotiations under Turkish
sponsorship," a foreign ministry official told the state SANA news agency.
"The two sides expressed their desire to launch negotiations in good faith and
decided to pursue a dialogue in earnest to achieve the goal of a comprehensive
peace in conformity with the Madrid conference."The last was a reference to a 1991 peace conference between Israel and its Arab
neighbors which adopted the principle that Israel exchange territories it seized
in the 1967 Middle East war in return for peace.
Israel earlier announced the launch of indirect negotiations brokered by Turkey,
eight years after the last attempt at peacemaking broke down over the fate of
the occupied Golan Heights.
"Israel and Syria began indirect peace talks under Turkish auspices," the office
of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said.
Turkey also confirmed the indirect peace negotiations had begun between the two
nations, which have technically been in a state of war since the 1967
Arab-Israeli war when Israel captured the strategic Golan plateau from Syria.
"The two sides declared their intention to conduct these talks frankly and
openly," Olmert's office said in a statement. "They decided to conduct the
dialogue in a serious and continuous manner in a bid to reach a comprehensive
peace."
Two top Olmert advisors, Shalom Turgeman and Yoram Turbowitz were in Ankara
holding talks with Turkish officials on the issue, senior Israeli officials
said. Media reported that the two would return to Israel later on Wednesday.
The last round of peace talks between Syria and Israel broke down in 2000 over
the fate of the Golan, which the Jewish state annexed in 1981 in a move never
recognized by the international community.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad revealed last month that Turkey had passed on a
message from Israel expressing its readiness to swap the Golan Heights for
peace, as Ankara renewed mediation efforts launched last year.
Damascus has consistently demanded the return of the whole of the Golan down to
the shores of the Sea of Galilee -- Israel's main water source -- as its price
for peace. But Israel baulked at the demand in the last peace talks.
The suggestion the area could be returned to Syria is highly controversial in
Israel.
Housing Minister Zeev Boim, of Olmert's Kadima party, said he opposes "in
principle any withdrawal from the Golan Heights.""Nevertheless we should hear exactly how and on what issues the negotiations are
held," he added.
"A peace agreement can be reached with the Syrians only if they end all terror
activities, including supporting and arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and giving up
its strategic dependence on Iran," Boim said in a statement.
Israel considers Iran -- a close ally of Syria -- its greatest strategic threat
because of Tehran's accelerating nuclear program and remarks by President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicting the demise of the Jewish state.
An opinion poll last month showed more than two-thirds of Israelis oppose a
complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace.
The survey reported that 74 percent of Israelis "did not believe Assad was
serious" about a peace deal.
Earlier this month, Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said that "preliminary work"
already had been carried out towards resuming the peace talks with Syria.
"We don't just want to restart only a process of negotiations, we want to start
a political dialogue," he said.
"The Syrians understand well what Israeli expectations are on such a process and
we understand well what the Syrians' expectations are on such a process."Wednesday's announcement came just two weeks after U.S. President George Bush
said he was extending U.S. sanctions against Syria following Washington's charge
that Damascus had been building a nuclear reactor with North Korea's help.
Bush announced on May 8 his decision to continue for one year a freeze on Syrian
assets and the ban on the export of certain goods to Syria.
He accused Syria of "supporting terrorism ... pursuing weapons of mass
destruction and missile programs including the recent revelation of illicit
nuclear cooperation with North Korea."Syria denies the U.S. claims it has been building a secret nuclear reactor for
military ends.(AFP)
Beirut, 21 May 08, 12:37
Lebanon will be Weak until the
Rule of Law is Strong
By Dr. Muhamad Mugraby
Beirut, May 16, 2008: Of all the human rights that have been systematically
obliterated in Lebanon over the past century or so, the most precious is,
unquestionably, the right to life, especially when large numbers of human
beings, innocent or not, are easily and summarily put to death with little or no
mercy. The next most important human right in peril is and has always been the
right of free speech. This right is almost equal to the right to life, not only
because the ability to express oneself is a decisive and distinct privilege of
the human kind but also due to the fact that many of the killings represent
flagrant acts of repression against the exercise of the right of free speech by
scores of gifted Lebanese intellectuals and activists.
The right to life and to free speech, as well as the other internationally
recognized human rights, can only be protected by the law, and not by
vigilantism. Similarly, the abuse of those rights, by infringing upon the rights
of others, cannot be left for vigilant individuals or groups to settle on their
own initiative. For both the protection of rights and the protection against the
abuse of rights can only be entrusted to law in accordance with pre-existing
rules equally respected and equally applied.
The recent brief shutdown of two television stations that carry the Future label
and are owned by the Hariri family evokes the memory of the indefinite shutdown
of MTV, owned by Gabriel Mur, in the summer of 2002. It would be interesting to
ask the question: Which one of the two cases is more flagrantly representative
of the state of lawlessness that continues to prevail in Lebanon to the unending
detriment of human rights?
Both the Future stations and MTV were shut down on "orders'", except that the
MTV order was an official "judgment" passed by two judges sitting on a Beirut
court of appeal. Strangely, the judges seized the case without any prosecution
or the bringing of an action by any claimant. They gave their decision without
summoning the owners of MTV to make their defense against the charges brought
autonomously by the court itself. MTV was not accorded the benefit of the
presumption of innocence or allowed any delay for appeal. Every effort by a team
of first-class lawyers to challenge the closure decision was busted, either by
the same judges who made the decision or by higher judges of the court of
cassation on the flimsiest of procedural grounds. MTV's equipment rotted under
police seal and Gabriel Mur was left with little resources to re-launch his
station once the changed political environment - and not the court decisions,
which remain standing - allowed the resumption of its broadcast.
This is where the two cases differed.
The similarity lies, however, in the real motives for their shutdowns. They all
became very sharp and potent political instruments to foster the political
agendas of their respective owners. In the process, the political opponents of
the owners - which included, in the MTV case, the owner's own brother and niece
- developed strong grievances. If the Future stations and/or MTV exercised their
rights of free speech in a manner that justly gave rise to such grievances or
abused the human rights of others, the solution was for the aggrieved parties to
bring action in the courts of law. It appears that this option was never
available or effective, except in theory, and continues to be so.
In addition, one should not forget that the process of licensing of TV stations
left a lot to be desired by restricting the licenses to a select few who had the
political power and the money. Furthermore, and in plain violation of the law
which forbids the ownership by any one person or family, directly or indirectly,
of more than 10 percent of the shares of a company that owns such license, each
TV station is owned and/or controlled by one person and/or his family members
and/or fully controlled cohorts. Finally, the idea that the media, including TV
stations, owes its first duty to the public, and not to the selfish objectives
of its owners and/or their sponsors, was, and continues to be, totally absent.
All the above is symptomatic of, and further contributes to, the already
existing general state of lawlessness and the total absence of the rule of law
in Lebanon. Under such conditions, the law is taken into the hands of
individuals who make, and enforce, their own private "law," not the duly enacted
statutes that appear on the books of the republic, and change their own rules of
"law" as they go depending on the particular needs of the moment. As a result,
the weakest individuals are chronically deprived of the equal protection of the
law, not only when they are faced by more powerful adversaries, but because many
of their judges, duly appointed in accordance with the law, do not feel or act
as if they are bound by the law, which does not protect them, either.
In this persisting general state of lawlessness the Lebanese are divided into
two broad categories: Category One consists of those who do not consider
themselves bound by the law of the land and make, and enforce, their own private
rules as and when needed and apply such rules with no advance warning or mercy
to the general public; and Category Two, which comprises the general public
consisting of the weak and disenfranchised Lebanese. Unfortunately, when the
intellectuals, entrepreneurs, scientists and professionals have to make a
choice, they mostly opt to join Category One as mere surrogates, and, as a
precondition, assign away their right of free speech.
This is one of the reasons why Lebanon's dangerous crises never, ever, come to
an end, and Lebanon will always be weak, vulnerable and divided.
Make no mistake. The only way to bring Lebanon out of this chronic state of
weakness and vulnerability is to establish and abide by the rule of law with all
its necessary prerequisites. Among the most significant of such prerequisites is
the full recognition of, and protection for, human rights, starting with the
right of free speech, which is the cornerstone for accountability. This cannot
happen before all "Category One Lebanese" are, like former European nobility and
feudal lords, decisively brought under the law and become fully accountable, and
their power of private rule-making is decisively ended. Simultaneously,
"Category Two Lebanese" must be enfranchised and energized by providing them
with concrete socioeconomic protection and a job creation program which,
together, bring an end to poverty, with affordable housing, and with
state-subsidized and decent education and training. In such a state of
liberation, "Category Two Lebanese" must be allowed to determine their own
destiny through democratic representation brought about by general parliamentary
elections based on the one-man-one-vote principle in a repression-free and
bribery-free environment where spending by politicians and candidates is
strictly controlled. Part of the requirements is for substantial numbers of the
Lebanese intelligentsia to retreat from their positions of surrogates to
"Category One Lebanese" and join the ranks of their "Category Two" brethren to
actively help with the creation of political leaderships of the modern kind.
***Muhamad Mugraby, a lawyer, human rights defender, and president of the Center
forDemocracy and the Rule of Law, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR. His
e-mail address is mugraby@cdrl.org.
For further information: E-mail info@cdrl.org and visit http://www.cdrl.org/.
Hezbollah's network confirms terror goals
By: Walid Phares
May 20, 2008 - Op Ed
A detailed map released by a French web site citing Lebanese sources shows the
main network of communications established by Hezbollah throughout Lebanon. It
details the organization's closed circuit telephone system, a network
independent from the one operated by the government.
This parallel network was at the heart of the recent flare-up between Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora's cabinet and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.
The latter accused the government of attempting to seize the network while the
Lebanese government stating that no communication network could operate outside
the law. Hezbollah's response was that its status as a "resistance" organization
justified it running its own "closed communications system." In other words, to
behave as a state within the state.
Under the country's constitution the Lebanese government had the right to demand
that Hezbollah shuts down its illegal operation. But no sooner was the
ministerial decision made public that Hezbollah launched a blitz campaign on the
Lebanese government.
Even though the government was not in a position to dismantle Hezbollah's
network or prepared for a militarily confrontation, Hezbollah Secretary General
Hassan Nasrallah held a press conference, declared war against the government
and gave a signal to the coup.
Why would Hezbollah wage such a risky war for a telecommunication system? Is it
because of the income generated by the network to sell international phone
calls? Less likely. The Iranian foreign aid to the group was upgraded from $300
million to a little less than $1billion a few months ago.
Obviously more revenue is always welcomed by the leaders of the so-called
"resistance," but more important is the big picture revealed by the Hezbollah
phone map.
Close analysis of the map tells us the following:
The "Red Lines" stretch from southern Beirut along the coast to the Hezbollah
exclusive zones in the south. It covers a complex network of bases in the area,
cuts through the Jezzine district and connects with the Bekaa Valley all the way
up to northern Lebanon. The most important features and dimensions of the Hizbo-net
are the following:
1. The net covers large parts of Greater Beirut: This can provide Hezbollah with
the ability to organize its forces in Dahiye (southern suburb of Beirut) for
assaults against West Beirut, East Beirut and the Druze Mountain in Aley and the
Chouf. The closed circuit can mobilize thousands of fighters without
interception from Lebanese or international monitoring. It explains how
Hezbollah launched its blitzkrieg offensive on Sunni Beirut, the Druze Mountain
and was testing Christian Beirut, without real warning to the areas under
attack.
2. The coastal cable-line links the Dahiye to the inner land of the Hezb. It
serves to move troops and material from the south to the north without major
detection. It explains how thousands of Hezbollah forces were moved from as far
as Nabatieh and Tyre to Beirut. But it also tells about the capacity of
Hezbollah to use it against UNIFIL forces in the future, if needed.
3. The network between the south and the Bekaa indicates a Hezbollah strategy to
close the gap to the east.
As I have indicated in many articles and interviews previously, the
Lebanese-Syrian borders are all that count to Hezbollah's terror network. As
long as these frontiers are open for Iran to supply weapons and logistics via
Syria, the state within the state can thrive and grow.
The Lebanese government and the U.N., with European and U.S. backing, should
have closed that gap three years ago, but they didn't. Let's leave the blame
game to another discussion. Hezbollah was faster than anyone else.
According to this map the Iranian backed militia built an impressive network
throughout east Lebanon from the southern fortresses to the closest position to
the northern borders with Syria. This means that Hezbollah by now, has covered
the entire Bekaa Valley, and thus has beaten the international community to the
borders with Syria.
Military and intelligence analysts can understand this development very clearly.
Strategically, Hezbollah is in control of these areas as shown by a map B, which
I established two years ago.
4. In the mid-Bekaa, the cable route connects the center of the valley to one of
the highest peaks in Mount Lebanon and thrusts into the mostly Christian
districts of Byblos and Kesrouan. This shows that Hezbollah has already
established an axis of penetration inside the Mount Lebanon area, at few
kilometers only from the seashore.
5. Map A also shows that Hezbollah positions are connected to the Anti-Lebanon
Range and thus to the Syrian hinterland. Militarily there are no Lebanese-Syrian
borders to stop the flow of weapons and forces coming from Iran through Syria
into Lebanon.
6. The northern tips of the Hezbollah "cable road" show clearly that its forces
are deployed as far north as the eastern slopes of the Cedars Mounts. From these
positions, the Iranian-backed forces can seize the highest peak south of Turkey,
leap to the Akkar district and reach the northern borders with Syria.
7. More importantly, and because of the strategic bridge between Hezbollah and
Iran, this communications network is a battlefield system which can be used by
the Iranian Pasdaran and eventually by Syrian Special Forces in a potential mass
return to Lebanon.
In summer 2007 I presented a projection-map in a briefing to the Caucus on
Counter Terrorism at the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as to a number
of high ranking U.S. military personnel. It showed the potential paths of a
Hezbollah offensive in Lebanon.
Indeed, strategic projections show that Hezbollah can move its forces from the
south toward Beirut (which was executed in May). But it also shows that combined
forces of Hezbollah and Pasdaran can move on the Damascus road to Beirut and
Mount Lebanon and the center of mountain as well.
Hezbollah-Pasdaran forces would move in the north on an East-West axis and
jihadist elements and pro-Syrian forces can move from the borders to Tripoli.
The Hezbollah communication systems shows that when the time will come, massive
reinforcements from Syria and Iran can move swiftly along axis already secured
by Hezbollah across Lebanon. The invasion of West Beirut and the attacks against
the Chouf and Aley districts are only the early signs of what is to come.
8. Last but not least, the Hezbollah communications network can also allow an
activation of their massive rocket and missile system across Lebanon without
significant interference from Western assets.
The aim of this powerful missile force seems to be against a potential
"international" force tasked with the mission of bringing peace to the country.
Here again Hezbollah – and Iran – have already beaten the West in the race
toward dominating the Eastern Mediterranean.
Iran's Lebanon Game
By Amir Taheri
The New York Post | Tuesday, May 20, 2008
"RWANDA on the Mediterranean!"
That's how some Beirut residents described Lebanon's prospects last week, as
Hezbollah gunmen went on the rampage in Sunni Muslim districts and Druze
villages in nearby mountains. They feared that the move would trigger a
religious version of the 1990s Hutu-Tutsi conflict.
By the end of the week, however, those fears were somewhat alleviated as all
factions decided not to cross the Rubicon. Hezbollah withdrew from the areas
captured, while Sunni Muslims, Christians and the Druze who back the government
of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora kept whatever armed force they had out of sight.
What had looked like the start of a coup d'etat by Hezbollah ended as a mere
coup de force by the Shiite militia. By the weekend, representatives from all
Lebanese communities were in Doha, Qatar, to acknowledge another stalemate.
So, why did Hezbollah make the move, and why did it decide to change gears
midway?
The trigger was the government's decision to remove a pro-Hezbollah officer from
his position at Beirut Airport and to open an investigation into the parallel
communications network that Iran is building for Hezbollah without
Lebanese-government authorization.
Hezbollah saw the decisions as the start of a plan to disarm the militia in
accordance with two United Nations Security Council resolutions. Hezbollah has
rejected both resolutions and vowed to fight anyone trying to disarm it.
By forcing the government to suspend both decisions, Hezbollah not only won a
major political victory, but also made it clear it could impose its will by
force. It also destroyed part of its rivals' media assets and political
structures.
Muhammad Khatami, Iran's former president, has said there "would be no Lebanon
without Hezbollah." The last few days' events have showed this wasn't an empty
boast.
Backed by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah pushed Lebanon to the edge of destruction to
preserve its position as a state within the Lebanese state.
As far as Hezbollah is concerned, there are only two ways out of the current
crisis: the creation of a government dominated and protected by Hezbollah,
something that other Lebanese communities wouldn't accept; or the de facto
acceptance of a dual reality - the existence side-by-side of a formal Lebanese
state and a Hezbollah state-like structure alongside it.
The Siniora government's dream of absorbing Hezbollah into the broader Lebanese
reality by breaking its parallel state-like apparatus would lead to conflict -
perhaps even civil war.
Hezbollah's coup de force, staged on the eve of President Bush's Middle East
high-profile visit, was also designed to remind the Americans that their dream
of creating a pro-US Middle East was fading fast.
For the last three years, Washington has singled out Lebanon for praise as the
vanguard of regional democratization. It now seems that the Islamic republic has
decided to prove that, far from being the beating heart of a new democratic
Middle East, Lebanon is part of the Iranian sphere in a broader war against the
US and its Israeli ally.
Tehran wanted the coup de force in Beirut in order to test US resolve as the
Bush administration moves toward its end.
The Americans' weak response and the Lebanese government's quick surrender may
have sent the wrong signals to Tehran and its allies in Damascus - persuading
Tehran to make a more direct bid for seizing control of Lebanon in the next few
months, when the United States would be preoccupied with elections.
That, in turn, may oblige the Lebanese communities who don't want to see their
country become an Iranian satellite to respond to force by force. In doing so,
they'd certainly find local allies, especially among Arab nations that see
Tehran's hegemonic schemes as a threat. Lebanon's lesson has always been that no
one can win exclusive control. Everyone can lose, as the 15-year-long civil war
amply proved a generation ago.
Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has expressed pessimism about Lebanon's future. Many
facts support his pessimism. The Lebanese are divided by conflicting national
visions. Some see it as a beach where people enjoy life, make money and express
themselves freely. Others see it as a bunker in a war of civilizations between
the Muslim world and the US-led "Infidel" camp, starting with Israel.
Supporters of both visions, however, are found in all communities. This fact
makes me less pessimistic than Jumblatt. If no community can press its adepts
under a single flag, none can impose its vision on the whole nation.
Hezbollah won a tactical victory for which it may have to pay a strategic price.
In 2006, most Arabs saw it as their champion in the struggle against Israel.
Today, they see it as a pawn in Tehran's gambit to dominate the Middle East.
Exclusive: Jerusalem reproves Paris for talking to Hamas - amid its own indirect
contacts
May 20, 2008,
Clinching a deal that will end Hamas'isolation
DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources point to disturbing policy contradictions in
Israel’s handling of the Palestinian Hamas. Ahead of French foreign minister
Bernard Kouchner’s arrival Tuesday, May 20, Jerusalem asked France to clarify
the contacts made by an emissary with Hamas officials as part of an effort
requested by the family to help free the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilead
Shalit.
At the same time, prime minister Ehud Olmert has approved indirect Gaza truce
negotiations via Cairo with the Palestinian fundamentalists, who are sworn to
destroy the Jewish state and are building up strength for this very goal. The
go-ahead was conveyed by Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak to Egyptian
president Hosni Mubarak and intelligence minister Omar Suleiman when they met in
Sharm el-Sheikh Monday, May 19.
Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak further consented to Cairo accompanying
the ceasefire with progress on its initiative for patching up the feud between
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, headed by Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. It
was agreed that if the truce held, it would be the key to Hamas-Fatah talks
maturing up to the goal of a shared Palestinian government. The Cairo formula
would assign ministerial portfolios to a-political technocrats.
Abbas’ condition for going along with the plan is the handover to his
presidential guard of responsibility for the reopened Rafah border crossing to
Sinai and the southern part of the divided Rafah border town.
Hamas is inclined to buy the plan to attain two immediate objectives:
1. A Palestinian power-sharing regime will free the terrorist rulers of Gaza of
responsibility for providing the population’s food, water, fuel and medical care
needs. It will pass to the shared government without threatening Hamas’ grip on
the Gaza Strip.
2. Hamas will gain a respite to focus fully on its main mission, which is to
build an army comparable in size and weaponry to the Lebanese Hizballah’s
40,000-strong militia. In an interview Saturday, May 17, outgoing Israeli Air
Force commander, Lt. Gen (res.) Eliezer Shkedi likened Hamas’ missile stockpile
to that of Hizballah, stressing it was still growing.
DEBKAfile’s Israel military sources warn therefore that the evolving truce
regime will not only lead to the end of Hamas’ isolation and Israel-Egyptian
blockade of Gaza, but give its war planners a shot in the arm, space for
building up its war machine and time to top up its seizure of Gaza by gaining
control of the West Bank.
Gov't Minister: Israel is Negotiating With Hamas.
Israel is holding direct talks with "Hamastan," Chaim Ramon said. The same day,
Israel requested clarification from France over just such contacts.
Gov't Minister: Israel is Negotiating With Hamas
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
Israel is holding direct negotiations with Hamas, despite a government policy
prohibiting such talks, Vice Prime Minister Chaim Ramon said Monday. The same
day, Foreign Ministry officials requested clarification of the French position
on contacts with the Palestinian Authority Islamist terror organization.
Speaking at a meeting of the Kadima party's Knesset faction, Ramon expressed
frustration at the government's contacts with Hamas and said he hoped that the
decision to eliminate the terrorist entity would soon be made.
[Ramon said] he hoped that the decision to eliminate the terrorist entity would
soon be made.
"The IDF knows what to do," Minister Ramon said. "We are not fighting a
terrorist group, but a terrorist state called Hamastan."
According to a government resolution, Israel is not to make direct contact with
Hamas until it recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and agrees to abide by
agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Until Monday,
government officials claimed that all negotiations with Hamas were being
conducted via Egyptian mediators.
In reaction to Ramon's admission, Knesset Member Avigdor Lieberman, the head of
Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home), said Monday that direct talks with Hamas
"will bring [Hamas leader] Khaled Mashaal in through the front door of the White
House." The talks will give Mashaal legitimacy, as happened with former
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, he explained.
"Terrorist groups should be dismantled, not strengthened," Lieberman said.
Israel Questions France Over Hamas Contacts
With ironic timing, while Minister Ramon was revealing Israeli contacts with
Hamas, the Foreign Ministry demanded that senior French officials explain their
statement that the French government has "contacts" but not "relations" with the
PA Islamist organization.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Aryeh Merkel said that the French government has
assured Israel that there is no change in the position of France regarding
relations with Hamas. In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack
told reporters questioning him about France's contacts, "We don't believe it is
helpful to the process of bringing peace to the region."
Egypt: Israel Dropped Demand for Release of Cpl. Shalit
Leaks from the Egyptian brokering of contacts between Israel and Hamas continue.
Egyptian officials have asserted that Israel will agree to a version of a
ceasefire in Gaza without demanding the immediate release of kidnapped IDF
soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas. However, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said
earlier this week that there will be no deal without advancing the return of the
soldier, who was abducted almost two years ago in a cross-border raid that
killed two other soldiers.
Unnamed Egyptian sources were quoted as saying that Israel will settle for a
renewal of talks involving the release of Arab terrorists in return for Shalit.
Lebanon and the Armed Abductor
20/05/2008
By Tariq Alhomayed - Asharq Al-Awsat
General Michel Aoun described the negotiations between the majority of states in
Doha like "haggling at the vegetable market". I believe that this description is
not an accurate one; what is taking place in Lebanon today is more like a family
being held under armed house arrest while the police are incapable of rescuing
it.
The problem with the Lebanese crisis is that it lacks a political horizon, which
is not possible when the balances of power are disrupted on the ground; one
party possesses arms and is backed by the Syrian-Iranian intelligence agencies
while the other party only possesses civilized tools [dialogue and negotiation],
especially since there are questions raised around the Lebanese army.
The majority of parliamentarians in Lebanon resemble a family held under armed
house arrest while the abductor dictates his terms, gaining from the tarrying of
the police. The family's endurance will be at the expense of its nerves and
safety. And if it chooses to fight then the outcome is predictable: in both
cases the family faces death.
The Lebanese opposition wants to impose its conditions and consolidate its coup
on Beirut – but over and above this; it wants to be rewarded for the coup. The
opposition does not accept any mediation, even if means releasing hostages from
the family or pledging to not bear arms and demolishing the house with
everything in it. And after that; may God forgive what has passed.
Lebanon is held hostage by Syria and Iran and we have witnessed how Syria
launched a brutal attack on Saudi, stating that Saudi diplomacy in Lebanon had
failed. The reason, from Syria's point of view, was because the Saudi ambassador
did not communicate with the Iranian ambassador in Beirut.
Could anything stranger be said?
And today, when we say that what is happening in Beirut is an Iranian coup
staged through Syrian coordination with the aim of hijacking Lebanon and
changing its makeup – we are declared sectarian.
The events unfolding in Beirut now are not an extension of the history of the
usual conflicts and divisions – it is larger than that. We are witnessing how
Syria and Iran are trying to thwart all efforts in Doha; the opposition's
statement yesterday amidst the negotiations cannot be described as anything but
an attempt to strike at the efforts in Qatar.
What is happening in Lebanon is a grand scheme that started in Iraq then moved
on to Gaza, and today; we are witnessing it in Beirut. And this will continue
until it surrounds the Arab states. Then Iran will be the predominant power in
the region and all our nations will be compelled to follow Tehran's agenda.
What we are being told, that this is all mobilization to confront Israel, is not
the real issue. Syria which hails itself as a nation of resistance can only be
described as subordinate, and here we see it negotiating with Tel Aviv. As for
Tehran, it has not fired a single bullet in the direction of Israel.
As mentioned before, the absence of a political horizon in Lebanon, the
disruption of the balances of power and the blatant foreign intervention in the
state is a solution that resembles handing the hijacked home over to the
abductor and commending him for his achievements.
This is why all that presently appears on the horizon is a dark cloud that is
fuelled by abhorrent sectarianism. Although we may be able to see its beginning,
we cannot know its end and based on that; it would be best to fasten our
seatbelts and prepare for a turbulent ride.
IRAN UPDATE
May 20, 2008
RETHINKING THE REVOLUTION?
Khatami questions Khomeini – and suffers the consequences
Ever since the 1979 revolution that created the Islamic Republic of Iran, its
radical regime has worked hard to “export the revolution” – to promote Iran ’s
aggressive brand of Shi’a political Islam beyond its borders. More often than
not, Tehran has sought to do so by force, creating organizations such as Lebanon
’s Hezbollah and colluding with other Islamist groups. But now, a member of the
regime’s inner circle apparently has called that agenda into question.
“What did Imam Khomeini mean by exporting the revolution?” former president
Mohammad Khatami asked in reference to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic
Republic’s founder, during a sermon in early May. “Did he mean that we take up
arms, that we blow up places in other nations and we create groups to carry out
sabotage in other countries?”
Predictably, Khatami’s words touched off a political firestorm. The conservative
Kayhan newspaper accused the former president of tarnishing the “shining
reputation of the Islamic Republic” and providing fodder for “baseless
accusations” against Iran by the United States and other Western powers. So,
too, have more than a few Iranian politicians, who are supposedly planning to
lodge a formal protest against Khatami with Iran ’s feared intelligence
ministry.
In Iran , where Khomeini’s teachings remain inviolable and where the regime
responds severely to real ideological opposition, these are serious charges
indeed. So it’s not at all surprising that Khatami already has backed away from
his own questions, claiming he was not trying to undermine Revolutionary
principles and accusing his opponents of manipulating them for “character
assassination.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told an influential Washington audience last
October that he has been searching for “the elusive Iranian moderate” for nearly
three decades, to no avail. In the end, Khatami may not fit the bill. But his
willingness to question the sacred cows of Iranian foreign policy, and to do so
just as Tehran ’s mischief grows more visible in Lebanon , Afghanistan , and
Iraq , suggests that at least some in Tehran may be starting to have a change of
ideological heart.
Just as clearly, however, this change of heart is still very much the exception,
rather than the norm.
www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org. P.O. Box 33249, Washington DC 20003-3249
Contact: Larry Haas, larry@larryhaasonline.com. 202 257-9592
Lebanon opposition would get
‘blocking minority'
(AFP)-20 May 2008
DOHA - Lebanon's Hezbollah-led opposition would get a blocking minority in a
future unity government under two altenate proposals put forward by Arab
mediators as solutions to the country's political crisis, a delegate in ruling
majority said on Tuesday.
The two proposals would also entail the immediate election of army chief General
Michel Sleiman as president, the delegate, who requested anonymity, told AFP in
Doha, where crisis talks were in their fifth day. The rival sides had previously
agreed on Sleiman as a compromise candidate, but differences over the proposed
unity government and a new electoral law have blocked his election, leaving
Lebanon without a president since November. Both proposals would give the
opposition, backed by Syria and Iran, a blocking minority of 11 ministers in a
unity government -- more than a third of cabinet seats -- as it has long
demanded. The US-backed majority would get 16 ministers, while three neutral
ministers would be named by the president. The only real difference in the two
packages is related to the electoral law that will govern parliamentary
elections due next year. In the first proposal, parliament would debate the
terms of a completely new statute after Sleiman is elected. The alternative
would be to return to a law adopted in 1960, which is no longer in force, but
with amendments to disputed constituency boundaries in the capital Beirut, the
bedrock of support for Sunni majority leader Saad Hariri.
The Qatari hosts to the talks said they had extended the negotiations until
Wednesday. That was in order to meet a demand by one of the parties for more
time to study the two proposals. The Arab League-mediated talks kicked off on
Friday after 65 people were killed the previous week in sectarian fighting that
pushed Lebanon to the brink of a new civil war.
Lebanon crisis talks to go into sixth day
DOHA (AFP) — Crisis talks between rival Lebanese leaders are to
be extended to Wednesday after the Hezbollah-led opposition turned down
proposals to resolve a political feud which has sparked sectarian bloodshed, the
Qatari hosts announced.
An Arab mediating committee, chaired by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin
Jassem bin Jabr al-Thani, "has agreed to give time until tomorrow," the minister
of state for foreign affairs said on Tuesday. "One of the two parties asked
today for more time to respond" to two proposals put forward by the committee to
break the deadlock, Ahmed bin Abdullah al-Mahmud told reporters in Doha.Qatar has put forward compromise proposals calling for the immediate election of
a new president by parliament and the formation of a unity government while
postponing talks on a proposed new electoral law.
Ahead of the new deadline, however, the Syrian- and Iranian-backed opposition
shot down the proposals.
They have refused to postpone discussion of the disputed electoral law, while
stressing it remains committed to a deal brokered by the Arab League in Beirut
last week that paved the way for the Doha talks."The opposition takes the Arab negotiations back to square one," the
pro-government newspaper Al-Mustaqbal said in Lebanon.But despite the prevailing pessimism, a source in the opposition said there was
still hope of clinching a deal in the talks which opened last Friday in the
Qatari capital.
"Hope is still there, and it could be possible to reach a solution during the
next few hours," the source close to parliament speaker Nabih Berri told AFP
late Monday. The two sides have agreed on army chief General Michel Sleiman as a
consensus candidate to succeed Damascus protege Emile Lahoud as president.
Lahoud stood down at the end of his term of office in November.
But differences over the makeup of a new unity government and proposed changes
to the electoral law have so far blocked the election of Sleiman.
The deadlock has worsened a crisis that erupted back in November 2006 when six
pro-Syrian ministers quit the cabinet of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora that has
the support of Washington and Riyadh. The 18-month-old deadlock erupted into
bitter sectarian fighting earlier this month that saw 65 people killed and
during which Hezbollah and its Shiite allies briefly seized Sunni areas of
mainly Muslim west Beirut.
The proposed changes to the electoral law could prove decisive in determining
the outcome of parliamentary elections due next year. The two sides differ over
the size of some constituencies for the elections.
Qatar has also proposed including a clause in the final statement of the talks
requiring all sides to renounce any new resort to armed violence in internal
disputes.
Disagreements between the two sides over Hezbollah's large arsenal have proved a
key stumbling block in the talks, with the government representatives insisting
that it be on the agenda. But the head of the Hezbollah delegation, Mohammed
Raad, said on Sunday: "The issue of the resistance, its arms and capabilities is
not up for discussion." Hezbollah was the only group not required to disarm
after Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war. It has always tried to justify the
exemption as a means to defend the country against Israel, with which it fought
a devastating 2006 war.
It's Them or U.S.
written by: Barry Rubin, 19-May-08
After seeing how Western leaders are handling Lebanon, said an Israeli official
privately, "Hizballah could only laugh. We have to take it into consideration
that nobody will ever help us."Of course, Israel is not alone because there are so many others becoming victims
of a combination of Western dithering and radical aggressiveness.
Whether or not the West figures it out, the other side knows well what's going
on. "There are only two sides--Iran and the United States," said the Iranian
newspaper Kayhan. Another leading Tehran daily, Jomhouri-e Islamia, explained
that as a result of Hizballah's victory in Lebanon, "The U.S.'s Influence in the
Region will stop, and the regimes identified with it will be replaced."1 From
Tehran's viewpoint, that's about 20 countries, all but Syria, maybe Sudan, and
the Gaza Strip."It's a zero-sum game: Them or U.S., so to speak. Today, Lebanon (or at least
west Beirut); tomorrow the world!
Somewhere to the south of Iran target Lebanon, a bit west of Iran target Iraq,
north of Iran target Egypt, and adjoining Iran targets Jordan and the West Bank,
sits little Iran target Israel.
A Gulf Arab journalist, in an article tellingly entitled, "Iran is Enemy Number
One," wrote a few days ago: "The true feeling of the Saudis, Bahrainis,
Kuwaitis, and Qataris is that Iran is the enemy and it must be brought down and
weakened."
These people know they are at war, with the two fronts right now being Lebanon
and Iraq. The Arab-Israeli conflict still exists but has become more of an
Israel-Palestinian, Syria, and Iran conflict in practice. For most Arab regimes,
it's useful for making propaganda and proving their militant nationalist-Islamic
credentials but things have changed a great deal from past decades.
Of course, this doesn't mean they will cooperate or make peace with Israel.
Moderation not only threatens to expose them to radical subversion but also to
weaken their own dictatorships' structure, which rests heavily on demagogically
blaming Israel for all their shortcomings.
As one Gulf ruler put it privately, "We can use Israel and bash Israel
simultaneously." In other words, Israelis--as well as Americans and some
Europeans--must oppose Iranian ambitions for their own reasons. So why should
Arab regimes give anything to them for doing so, even if it means protecting
their own sovereignty and systems as well?
In this context, the idea that solving the Palestinian issue will bring peace
and stability in the region, ensure good Arab-Western relations, and quiet
radical Islamism becomes especially laughable.
Consider the following. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it might use them on
Israel. This is such a serious threat genocide that Israel must be prepared to
attack Iran's installations to block the possibility.
But this is just a possibility. There is also an absolute certainty. If Iran
gets nuclear weapons: no Western country will stand against it, Arab regimes
will rush to appease it, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims will join radical
Islamist groups to replace all those regimes Iran says must go.
For the moment, however, Lebanon is the Spanish Civil War before the main
conflict. A democratic majority, a united front of Christians, Druze, and Sunni
Muslims, defies terrorist attacks sponsored by Syria, Iran's ally. They simply
don't want to live under an Iran-style Islamist regime. Government supporters
are angry that Hizballah can launch war on Israel whenever it pleases at great
cost to their nation. They angrily remember decades of Syrian domination,
repression, and looting.
Spain, of course, became progressive humanity's great icon of in the 1930s. Such
people were horrified that the Western democracies would not help Republican
Spain while the German and Italian fascists poured troops, weapons, and money
into the Fascist side.
But why didn't Britain and the others act? Their motives were precisely the same
as inhibits determination today. They feared war and the resulting cost and
casualties. They profited by trading with the other side. They disliked the
great power that was doing more (in those days the USSR, today America of
course). Since the Catholic Church backed General Francisco Franco's cause they
didn't want to be labeled what today would be called "Catholophobic." They
lacked confidence in their own society, which Ezra Pound called a "botched
civilization," "an old bitch gone in the teeth." Pound eventually preferred the
fascists, as too many intellectuals and artists now find the Islamists the
lesser of the two evils.
William Butler Yeats said it best: "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and
everywhere, The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction,
while the worst , Are full of passionate intensity."
In 2006, for example, the UN--all the world's nations nobly assembled--decided
that troops would be sent to southern Lebanon, Hizballah would be kept out from
there and disarmed, weapons smuggling would be blocked. Hizballah disagreed and
did what it wanted. The world gave in: Hizballah (Syria and Iran), 1; World, 0.
So if the world won't even help Arab, Muslim-led, democratic, Lebanon, why
should Israel give credence to any such promises or guarantees. Ah, but Israel
can defend itself. It's the toughest of all Iran's intended targets.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill recalled in December 1941, speaking to Canada's
parliament, that collaborationist French generals warned him that if Britain,
too, didn't surrender to Hitler, "In three weeks England will have her neck
wrung like a chicken." Churchill wryly told his cheering audience: "Some
chicken; some neck!"
A few years later, Hitler lay dead and defeated.
***Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA)
Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.
His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter
Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp
Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy
in the Middle East (Wiley). -----------------------------
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel
Email: info AT gloriacenter.org - Phone: +972-9-960-2736 - Fax: +972-9-960-2736
© 2007 All rights reserved