LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Militancy, hedonism coexist in duality of Lebanon
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — Lebanon's twin worlds of war and the good life intersect at the St. George's Yacht Club, where sunbathers loll beside the pool of a hotel that was blasted during the 1975-90 civil war and again in a bombing that killed a former premier three years ago.
Even some of the clientele seem willing to embrace both the militant and hedonistic paths of a country that emerged from its latest crisis with a deal giving Hezbollah, the Iran-inspired group that fought Israel in 2006, a powerful say over decisions by the weak, Western-backed government.
"They have an organization that is honest, ready to die for their country, ready to die for their belief," says Sam Zein, who lives in Hezbollah-dominated south Beirut but doesn't fit the image of a typical follower of the hard-line Islamic group. Deeply tanned, the former Mercedes mechanic wears a gold chain and talks of an early romantic encounter as a spiritual experience.
The extremes of the Middle East — the Western-style consumerism exemplified by Dubai's skyscrapers and the cult of holy war that flourishes in Iraq and the Gaza Strip — collide head-on in Lebanon.
Symbols of the two visions are easy to find.
Beirut's new central district, conceived by Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister assassinated in 2005, was built as a symbol of post-civil war renewal. Where ruins once stood, designer stores and luxury homes occupy sandstone and limestone buildings with carved facades and balconies. A Porsche dealership is on the waterfront.
Not far from this opulence, Hezbollah keeps thousands of rockets in Shiite Muslim areas stretching from the northern Bekaa valley to the south near archenemy Israel. Its fighters seized parts of Beirut from pro-government gunmen earlier this month, forcing the government to grant veto power to Hezbollah and its allies.
Duality is the essence of Lebanon. Yes, it is a breeding ground for Islamic militants and proxy battleground for regional conflict, but it is also a sun-splashed destination for tourists and tycoons. Its European flavor, a legacy of French colonial administration, and the bullet-pocked shells of old buildings add to the flair.
Some Lebanese embrace, at least jokingly, their splintered society.
"Contradiction is everywhere in the world," said Paul Aryss, head of Lebanon's association of restaurant owners. "If there's something homogenous, you get bored."
Aryss said Lebanon's approach lies in the philosophy of "you do it your way and we do it our way," and Hezbollah appears to agree at times. Lebanon has 18 sects, including Muslims, Christians and Druse, and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has said he has no plans to try to impose Islamic law on such a diverse country.
A woman in a bikini beside the yacht club's pool wondered about Hezbollah's plans.
"We are living in different worlds," said the woman, who did not want to be identified because her husband works in the delicate arena of politics. "As long as we can do whatever we want and don't have restrictions, it's OK. We respect them, but we don't want them to change the country into a new Iran. There are a lot of question marks for the future."
The respect, however grudging, comes from Hezbollah's military record against Israel, which withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 under militant attack and could not crush the group in 2006. Washington says Hezbollah is a terrorist group, but many Lebanese call it the "resistance" in an echo of the glorified French saboteurs who harassed the Nazis during World War II.
To Hezbollah's supporters, the St. George's Hotel near the pool could be a symbol of the venality of Lebanon's wealthy classes. Once one of Beirut's top hotels, it is caught in a dispute among developers and stands empty.
In Hezbollah's stronghold, the poor, southern suburb of Dahiyeh, bulldozers have cleared or pushed aside mounds of debris from Israeli bombing two years ago. Hezbollah agents in beige uniforms with walkie-talkies direct traffic.
A Hezbollah souvenir shop sells Oriental perfume bottles, wallets with the trademark image of a Kalashnikov rifle in a clenched fist, a cigarette lighter with a button that projects an image of Nasrallah.
In the plush central district, art gallery owner Aida Cherfan prepared for the opening of an exhibition by a Lebanese artist whose paintings show curvaceous women reclining on sofas, chairs and a horse. They cost up to $40,000. "When people are cultured, when there is a minimum of education, we find out that we all think the same," said Cherfan. Her clients, she said, come from "all over" Beirut.

Lebanon back on track as top tourist spot
Thu May 29, 2008
By Yara Bayoumy
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Just a week after feuding Lebanese leaders sealed a political deal to end 18 months of conflict, restaurants have re-opened, hotel bookings have soared and tourists have replaced gunmen on the streets of Beirut. "The deal has had an excellent impact. We've had a flood of reservations and we're expecting a very good season," said Nizar Alouf, a member of the Lebanese Hotel Owners Association. It took months of agonizing negotiations -- punctuated by bouts of violence that many feared would trigger civil war -- to install a new president and form a government, but record time for Lebanon to regain its standing as a top tourist spot. Now where an opposition tent city occupied large squares, paralyzing central Beirut and turning it into a ghost town, restaurants are bustling, open-air concerts are being held and gridlock traffic is back.
"It's good to be back" and "It finally feels like people are living" are common utterances among the droves of Lebanese and tourists crowding the Parisian-style pavement cafes. Tourism Minister Joseph Sarkis said he expected between 1.3 million to 1.6 million visitors to Lebanon this year compared to around 1 million in 2007 and 2006 -- violent years plagued by political assassinations, bombings and a war with Israel.
"After the (presidential) election, things are much better regarding tourism activity this summer ... which is due to the stability in the coming time," Sarkis told Reuters on Wednesday. President Michel Suleiman was elected on Sunday after the seat remained vacant since November, as part of a political crisis between the U.S.-backed government and the opposition, led by Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah. Lebanon back on track as top tourist spot
Thu May 29, 2008 10:44am BST Email | Print | Share| Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+] Suleiman's election was part of a package deal agreed upon by the bitter rivals in Doha, leading the opposition to remove its encampment in central Beirut after it was guaranteed veto power in the new government.
GULF TOURISTS
Tourism accounted for about a fifth of Lebanon's gross domestic product before the industry was destroyed by the 1975-90 civil war. Industry experts say the sector could grow to form up to 12 percent of the economy were Lebanon to enjoy a protracted period of calm. While Lebanese are cautious about whether the new political agreement will last for long, tourists are thronging to the country, judging by hotel bookings and airplane reservations.
"Reservations have picked up very fast ... once we had the deal we covered our loss of 10 percent and gained 20 percent of bookings in flights to Lebanon," said Nizar Khoury, head of commercial at Lebanon's flagship Middle East Airlines.
Khoury said he expected a 20 percent increase in passengers to Lebanon from last year's 450,000 to 500,000. "The reservations are picking up day by day, so it could even be 30 to 40 percent up," he told Reuters. "There was some hesitation from Europe and North America, but now we're seeing a lot of reservations from (there)." Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, whose citizens make up the bulk of Lebanon's tourists, had urged their nationals to refrain from traveling to the liberal Mediterranean country at the height of the crisis. But Khoury said airplane reservations from those countries were picking up fast too
Lebanon, whose economy is expected to grow more than 3 percent this year because of the deal, is one of the most popular destinations in the Middle East for Arabs seeking its relaxed atmosphere, sandy beaches and mild weather.
"As of today, we've seen a 30 percent increase in hotel bookings from 2007 and we expect that this will increase day by day," said the Lebanese Hotel Owners Association's Alouf who is also the general manager of the Hotel Riviera in Beirut. Festivals of performing arts such as the famed Beiteddine festival are also due to be held this summer, having faced repeated cancellations in recent years. In the meantime downtown Beirut is regenerating its image as a smart area rebuilt from civil war ruins by slain former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Bilal Daya, supervisor of Kiub's restaurant in central Beirut, had like many other central Beirut cafes, tried to stay open a few months into the protest before eventually closing. "We used to get two or three tables a day, now it's always crowded," he said. "At night there's no place to sit, you have to wait." (Editing by Nadim Ladki, Tom Perry and Mary Gabriel

US suspects Syria hiding nuclear sites
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Although American efforts to defuse the nuclear crisis with Iran have yet to bear fruit, the Bush administration now appears to be focusing on yet another nuclear program which they believe is under secret development, this time in Syria. In a report published by the Washington Post on Thursday, the US is said to be appealing to the United Nations to send inspectors to search for hidden nuclear facilities in the country. According to the report, the Bush administration suspects that Syria is hiding at least three sites, which they believe were intended to support a nuclear reactor which was destroyed in September. On September 6, Israeli warplanes reportedly bombed a nuclear reactor deep in Syrian territory. Damascus has repeatedly denied ever having built a reactor, and soon after the bombing, bulldozed the area and erected buildings on top of the site. Israel has never formally admitted to carrying out the attack.
US intelligence suspects that at least three secret facilities may have been used to provide fuel for that nuclear reactor, the report states. In a briefing to US congressmen earlier in the year, intelligence officials suggested that the Syrian reactor was nearly operational at the time that it was bombed. Yet no fuel source has ever been found for the reactor - a fact which has baffled experts. The suggestion that nuclear facilities still exist in the country and remain hidden potentially solves that problem. US government officials declined to describe the specific sites that have drawn interest, or to discuss how they were identified, according to the Washington Post report.

Waiting for Nasrallah
By Yossi Melman
Despite the impression created this week by various TV reports that it would be only a matter of days, the prisoner exchange with Hezbollah is still a long way off. Hassan Nasrallah said this week "very soon Samir Kuntar and his brothers will be with you." Reporters, eager to make headlines, rushed to conclude that the deal had already been formulated. It seemed the press forgot that Nasrallah has announced at least four times in the last four years that Kuntar is on the way home.
"These are fragile, delicate and complex negotiations, and ups and downs are to be expected," stressed a security source. Four people are handling the contacts and are experts on the details of the deal that is in the works. Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah, who controls the negotiations regarding this matter, instructed one of his aides, whose name has not been disclosed, and the aide met in Beirut with the international mediator, Gerhard Conrad. Conrad formerly headed the German foreign intelligence service (BND) office in Damascus and was loaned to the United Nations for the mediation assignment. Advertisement
Conrad forwarded the messages from Nasrallah and his aide to Ofer Dekel, the prime minister's point man for negotiating the release of the captive soldiers. In addition to the confidential messages, the two sides have no problem using spin and psychological warfare and leak tendentious information intended to influence the other side and public opinion at home.
The negotiations are not symmetric. Nasrallah is not accountable to anyone. He makes decisions on his own, though they are influenced by the Iranian leadership and to a small extent by pressure from the families of the five Lebanese whom Israel is holding.
Dekel not only must report to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, but also depends on the grace of government decisions and must take into account the families of Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser, Ron Arad and Smadar Haran.
One release
On Sunday, Israel will, through the International Red Cross, transfer to Lebanon Nissim Nasser, who has finished serving a six-year sentence for minor security violations. Nasser, the son of a Jewish mother who converted to Islam, moved from Israel to Lebanon for financial reasons. For fear his family in Lebanon would be harmed, he says, he agreed to gather intelligence for Hezbollah. The impression that his release is part of the deal is not right. Hezbollah considers him small fry though it will celebrate his release. Israel considered holding on to him in administrative detention, but legal experts said it would be difficult to defend such a decision before the High Court of Justice.
Israel expects a written response from Hezbollah soon. A lack of confidence has both sides demanding that any understanding be put in writing. Israel relayed a clear message to Hezbollah (first published in Haaretz 10 days ago): Israel will not agree to the release of Palestinian prisoners, and Hezbollah must make do with its four fighters, who have been held by Israel since the Second Lebanon War; the terrorist Samir Kuntar; and eight bodies of Hezbollah men buried here.
Nasrallah, whose power was bolstered in recent events in Lebanon, is deliberating. Nasrallah formerly demanded the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners. If he insists this time, the deal will become stuck and revealed as a hollow promise about freeing Kuntar. But he won't have the glory of serving as a "liberator of Palestinians." The German magazine Der Spiegel, in its online edition, reported yesterday, based on Lebanese sources close to Hezbollah, that Nasrallah is on the verge of handing Israel a positive answer.
The Israeli dilemma is no less difficult. The government can explain to the public that it subdued Nasrallah. The deal was achieved for the low price of five Lebanese prisoners and - for the first time - Israel refused to release Palestinian prisoners in a deal with Nasrallah. But the government will have to change the decision it made before the release of businessman Elhanan Tennenbaum deal in order to release Kuntar. That decision in 2004 said Kuntar would be freed only in exchange for a sign of life from Ron Arad or "scientific proof" that he is not alive.
Most defense establishment experts maintain that Arad is not alive, and Hezbollah has a strong interest in trading information about him. That it has not done so is considered a sign the organization cannot provide such information. But defense officials also believe Hezbollah knows more about Arad than it is willing to reveal. In no circumstance would Israel release Kuntar unless Hezbollah provides a solid file explaining what it has done in the search for him. That would be a face-saving for Israel. And another thing is clear. Only on the day the deal is carried out will Israel know whether Regev and Goldwasser are alive or dead. Though the prevailing assumption is that both or at least one of them is not alive.
The government of Israel will have to decide whether to release Kuntar and possibly receive only the captives' bodies or postpone the deal (in which there is a slim chance the two or one of them is alive) and turn Karnit Goldwasser, Ehud's wife, into a chained woman (aguna) like Tami Arad.

U.S. says missile-related shipment to Syria stopped
28/05/2008
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four countries last year prevented Syria from receiving equipment that could be used to test ballistic missile components, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday. U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley described the previously undisclosed incident in a speech to members of thePro liferation Security Initiative, a network of countries thatseeks to stop illicit weapons of mass destruction shipments.
The Bush administration has portrayed the PSI effort, which was launched five years ago and has more than 90 nations as members, as a significant success in its drive to prevent biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism.
Analysts say it is hard to judge its effectiveness because members are reluctant to disclose successes to avoid betraying sources that provide intelligence needed to stop shipments.
"One example of its success occurred in February 2007, when four nations represented in this room worked together to interdict equipment bound for Syria -- equipment that could have been used to test ballistic missile components," Hadley said at a conference to mark PSI's fifth anniversary.
"Interdictions like this one have been successful all over the world -- and have stopped many shipments of sensitive materials destined for Iran, North Korea, and Syria," he said, providing no further details.
The United States in April released photographs of what it said was a Syrian nuclear reactor built with North Korean help.Israel destroyed the reactor in a September 6 air strike that was initially shrouded in secrecy out of what U.S. officials said was fear that its disclosure could prompt Syrian retaliation.
Syria has denied the facility was a nuclear reactor.
U.S. Acting Undersecretary of State John Rood on Tuesday said there had been dozens of PSI interdictions, including preventing the export of dual-use missile-related technologies as well as nuclear-related items to Iran. He gave no details.
Dual-use technologies are those with both civilian and military applications.
MEASURING SUCCESS
Hadley argued that the countries in PSI -- some of whom do not want their involvement publicized -- need to explain their efforts and to prevent their citizens from becoming complacent about the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
"This is no time to fall under the spell of an apparentcalm or the illusion of false security," he said.
In an effort to deter countries, militant groups or individuals from promoting chemical, biological or nuclear attacks, Hadley repeated the long-standing U.S. position that it reserved the right to use "overwhelming force" in response. Echoing a speech he made in February, he also said theUnited States would hold "fully accountable" those who support "terrorist groups" to acquire WMD "by facilitating, financing,or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts." Robert Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state fornon proliferation who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, praised PSI but stressed that countries had made such efforts for years. "PSI was a good idea and it provides value added to what was done before," he said, saying holding exercises had created habits of cooperation and smoothed the way for joint action. "How do we measure success here, especially where thepartners are understandably reluctant to share informationabout successes or failures?" he said. "It's very hard."

The Saniora Return Upsets Hizbullah, Allies
President Michel Suleiman designed incumbent premier Fouad Saniora to head a new government based on his nomination by a majority of parliamentarians. The Hizbullah-led opposed voiced dismay. Saniora was summoned to the republican palace in suburban Baabda to be informed of a presidential decree designating him to form a 30-member cabinet of national unity in which the Hizbullah-led opposition would hold veto powers. "Based on his consultations with members of parliament ... The president has asked Fouad Saniora to form a new government," the presidential decree said. Saniora, 64, will begin consultations on Thursday with the various parliamentary blocs on forming a cabinet in line with the Doha Accord that set the rule of partnership between the majority, opposition and President Suleiman. Saniora, talking to reporters at the Republican Palace, vowed to bridge the gaps separating the rival factions as he stretches a hand to cooperate in the interest of Lebanon. "I extend my hand for cooperation and solidarity so that our country can achieve the breakthroughs it deserves," Saniora said.
He expressed hope that all parties would learn lessons from past events that must not be repeated.
"I call on all of you to heal the wounds and to overcome the divisions we have experienced and not to resort to violence to solve our problems," he said. Of the 127 members in parliament, 68 MPs gave Saniora their backing on Wednesday. Formation of a unity government is a key plank of a deal hammered out by rival factions last week to end an 18-month political crisis that boiled over into deadly fighting and threatened to plunge the nation into a new civil war.
Under the deal, the majority would hold 16 seats in the new cabinet and the Hizbullah-led opposition 11, with the president appointing three ministers.
Mustaqbal Bloc leader Saad Hariri said his bloc had decided to nominate Saniora again as he was the best man for the job.
"We didn't name Saniora as a challenge (to the opposition) but as a move toward real reconciliation and to turn over a new page," he told reporters.
The opposition, however, made clear it was not satisfied with Saniora, saying he did not reflect the spirit of national unity called for in last week's Arab-brokered accord reached in Doha. "His nomination is a recipe for conflict rather than reconciliation," Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun warned. "It seems the ruling bloc, rather than battling for a new Lebanon, is seeking to unleash a new conflict."He added, however, that his camp would not stand in the way of forming a new government. Saniora, a Sunni Muslim and close ally of slain former premier Rafik Hariri, has been prime minister since 2005 and headed a caretaker government since Suleiman's election by parliament on Sunday. Much of Saniora's previous term was dominated by the standoff with the opposition that withdrew its ministers from his government late in 2006 in a bid to force Saniora to resign. Analysts said the parliamentary majority decided to keep Saniora in his post to allow Hariri, son of Rafik Hariri, to prepare for legislative elections next year. Beirut, 28 May 08, 08:24

Suleiman asks Siniora to stay on as PM, preside over new unity government
Hariri insists nomination was not intended as 'challenge' to opposition
By Hussein Abdallah and Nafez Qawas -Daily Star staff
Thursday, May 29, 2008
BEIRUT: President Michel Suleiman appointed incumbent Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on Wednesday to head a government of national unity after the parliamentary majority gave Siniora its backing. Of the 127 members in Parliament, 68 MPs named Siniora as their candidate. "Based on his consultations with members of Parliament ... the president has asked Fouad Siniora to form a new government," the presidency said.
Siniora told reporters after arriving at the Presidential Palace in Baabda and meeting with Suleiman that he would seek to bridge the gaps among all rival parties as he forms a new government and begins a new term as prime minister.
Before meeting with Siniora, Suleiman also met Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and informed him of the result of the consultations.
"I extend my hand for cooperation and solidarity, so that our country can achieve the breakthroughs it deserves," Siniora said.
He added that he hoped all parties would draw lessons from recent events that must not be repeated.
"I call on all of you to heal the wounds and to overcome the divisions we have experienced and not to resort to violence to solve our problems," he said. "I look to the future with great hope that we will go from a situation where we suffered greatly to one that the Lebanese people aspire to, that is stability, constructive work and democratic competition."
Siniora, 64, will begin consultations on Friday afternoon with the various parliamentary blocs on forming a 30-member cabinet of national unity in which the opposition will have veto power over key decisions.
Formation of a unity government is a key plank of a deal hammered out by rival factions last week to end an 18-month political crisis that boiled over into deadly fighting and threatened to plunge the nation back into civil war. Under the deal, the ruling bloc will hold 16 seats in the new cabinet, the opposition 11, and the president will appoint three ministers.
Parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri - who had also been tipped as a possible prime minister - said his bloc had decided to nominate Siniora again as he was the best man for the job.
"We didn't name Siniora as a challenge [to the opposition] but as a move toward real reconciliation and to turn over a new page," he told reporters Wednesday after meeting Suleiman.
MP Walid Jumblatt, head of the Democratic Gathering bloc, also named Siniora for the post, and so did the Lebanese Forces.
Out of 68 majority MPs, only one did not commit to the decision taken by the March 14 coalition: Beirut MP Bahij Tabbarah told reporters he named Hariri and not Siniora.
But independent MPs Michel Murr, former opposition member, surprisingly named Siniora for the post, thus securing 68 votes.
The opposition made clear it was not satisfied with the choice of Siniora, saying he did not reflect the spirit of national unity called for in Doha.
"His nomination is a recipe for conflict rather than reconciliation," Reform and Change bloc leader Michel Aoun said. "It seems the ruling bloc, rather than battling for a new Lebanon, is seeking to unleash a new conflict."
He added, however, that the opposition would not stand in the way of forming a new government. "We are determined to take part in the government without offering our backing to the premier," Aoun said. "We will take part in the cabinet as an opposition force."
Aoun told reporters that his bloc named three candidates for the post; former Minister Leila al-Solh, Tabbarah, and Public Works and Transportation Minister Mohammad Safadi. While Solh is independent, Tabbarah and Safadi are members of the parliamentary majority.
Aoun's allies in the opposition, Hizbullah and Amal Movement abstained from naming any candidate for the post.
After meeting with Suleiman, Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad said that the next prime minister should be concerned about "preserving the arms of the resistance, and should be against any form of foreign patronage."
"We did not name any candidate, but we believe that the Lebanese are in deep need of a positive shock at the beginning of the new presidential term," Raad said.
After being officially named by Suleiman, Siniora hailed the president's inaugural address during his election on Sunday and said that his [Siniora's] vision conforms with that of the president on many issues.
"The president's inaugural speech revived the role of the presidency, which we missed for a long time," Siniora said, referring to the six months of presidential vacuum that followed the end of Emile Lahoud's term last November.
Siniora added that all parties in the next government, which he described as "the government of all Lebanon," should cooperate together to face future economic and political challenges.
"We should work to liberate the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms and to resume the reconstruction in Beirut's southern suburbs and the South," he said. "We should also protect the right of our brother Palestinians to return to their homes."
Siniora also focused on strengthening the Lebanese Army to enable it to face the enemy and preserve peace and stability in the country.
At the end of his speech, Siniora recalled those "who were targeted by assassination, violence, and terrorism."
"We must also remember the people who lost their lives in the wrong place and at the wrong time," the premier said, referring to the recent casualties after deadly clashes between opposition and pro-government supporters in different areas of the country.
The violence left at least 65 people dead and 250 others wounded. - With AFP

Israel set to deport Lebanese jailed as Hizbullah spy - Red Cross
Daily Star staff
Thursday, May 29, 2008
BEIRUT: Israel is to release and deport on Sunday a Lebanese-born man jailed more than six years ago on charges of spying for Hizbullah, senior security sources said on Wednesday. Nessim Nisr, born to an Israeli Jewish mother and a Lebanese Muslim father, held Israeli citizenship at the time of his arrest in 2002. He was sentenced to six years in prison for working with Hizbullah. He is to be transferred to Lebanon at 11 a.m. on Sunday, the sources said.
The International Committee of the Red Cross said on Wednesday the organization will help transfer Nisr this weekend. Christian Cardon from ICRC confirmed to The Daily Star that the body will help transfer Nisr into Lebanon at the Naqoura crossing at 11 a.m. Sunday.
Nisr's release is being seen as part of a broader prisoner swap between the Jewish state and Hizbullah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006, according to officials. Israel's Army Radio reported on Monday that Israel was prepared to release five Lebanese prisoners and return the bodies of 10 Hizbullah fighters in exchange for the two servicemen. Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a speech on Monday to mark the eighth anniversary of the Israeli pullout from most of the South that a release of Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons was in the offing.
Earlier this week, Nisr's family in Lebanon said he had called them to inform them of his imminent release. Nisr, born in 1968, left Lebanon during the Israeli invasion of 1982 and joined his mother's family in Israel, where he settled near Tel Aviv. Nisr's brother Mohammed said Nessim had told him in a phone call a month ago that "his jailers had placed him in solitary confinement in a bid to persuade him to abandon his plans to return to Lebanon with his two daughters."
There have been several swap deals between Israel and Hizbullah. Most recently, in October last year, Israel exchanged a kidnapped mentally ill Lebanese civilian and the bodies of two Hizbullah fighters for the remains of an Israeli civilian whose body washed ashore in Lebanon after he drowned off the Israeli coast. - The Daily Star, with AFP

Judicial authorities start probe into Dohet Aramoun clashes
By Hussein Abdallah -Daily Star staff
Thursday, May 29, 2008
BEIRUT: Judicial authorities have started an investigation into Tuesday's clashes in Dohet Aramoun, southeast of Beirut, which led to the death of army soldier Hussein Janbeh. Security sources told The Daily Star that Janbeh was accidentally shot by Hizbullah gunmen who were exchanging fire with gunmen loyal to Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader Walid Jumblatt. However, a media source close to Hizbullah said Janbeh was accidentally shot by a PSP militant identified as Dany Abdel Khalek. Meanwhile, parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri visited the Makassed Hospital in Beirut on Wednesday to look in on a number of people who were wounded during clashes in Beirut on Monday.
Future Movement MP Ammar Houri accompanied Hariri during his visit. Rival oposition and government supporters clashed on Monday evening in the Corniche al-Mazraa neighborhood of west Beirut, leaving at least 15 people wounded on both sides. Clashes erupted with sticks and stones and degenerated into exchanges of gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades before the army intervened and separated the partisans. Security sources told The Daily Star that judicial authorities issued arrest warrants Wednesday for 11 people who allegedly took part in the clashes. Meanwhile, a number of Future Movement supporters in the Beirut area of Tariq al-Jadida reportedly attacked two opposition supporters late Tuesday.
The two men were identified as Hussein Hammoud and Ahmad Moallem. Both men were arrested by the Lebanese Army as they were riding their motorbikes illegally late on Tuesday and were driven to an army post in Tariq al-Jdeedeh. Earlier on Tuesday, The Central Security Council decided to impose a ban on using motorbikes in the capital. The ban was implemented at 6 p.m. on Tuesday. According to security reports, Hammoud and Moallem were attacked while still in the army's custody. Hussein Hammoud is the son of Major Ali Hammoud of the Parliament Police.
Meanwhile, security reports said two people were wounded in clashes between opposition and pro-government supporters near Sidon in the South.
The two wounded men were Future Movement supporters, according to the reports. Tuesday's clashes came after the Central Security Council launched a new security plan in which motorbikes, political slogans, and flag waving were banned in Beirut. The council, comprised of representatives of the Lebanese Armed Forces, the Internal Security Forces, the General Security Forces, and headed by the interior minister, did not specify the duration of the ban.

March 14 returns Siniora to premier's seat to offset losses in Doha - analysts
Hariri saving energy, political capital for 2009 ballot
By Michael Bluhm -Daily Star staff
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Analysis
BEIRUT: Rather than expending parliamentary majority leader MP Saad Hariri's political capital in a short-lived, fractious "unity" cabinet, the March 14 coalition has cast outgoing Premier Fouad Siniora back into the prime minister's seat to offset the camp's perceived losses from the Doha accord and to steer the coming government through the expected gloomy conditions, a number of analysts told The Daily Star on Wednesday.
During the talks between the March 14 and March 8 leaders in Doha earlier this month, many had suggested an emerging unity government could offer Hariri the chance to take the political mantle of his father, assassinated five-time former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. However, despite the bonhomie attending the political settlement reached in Doha, the political tensions that soured the past 18 months will still cling to the next administration, which will govern only until the general elections slated for May 2009, said Oussama Safa, executive director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.
"It won't be an easy job," he said. "It'll only be a one-year government. Saad Hariri wants a strong mandate. This is not a good time for him to start as prime minister."
Instead, Hariri's absence signals that he and the March 14 Forces are focusing more on preparing for the 2009 ballot, with the vision that an electoral victory would sweep Hariri into office with a far better chance to follow the coalition's program, said Patrick Haenni, International Crisis Group senior analyst in Beirut.
"Saad is saving political energy and credit to run for 2009," Haenni said. Selecting Siniora is "an indication that March 14 is already working on a 2009 agenda, much more than any kind of provocation."
Some might interpret Siniora's nomination as a provocation of the March 8 opposition, after a number of their backers spent 18 months camped in tents in Beirut's Downtown area with the stated goal of bringing down a Siniora-led government they labeled unconstitutional; however, once the March 14 camp decided not to tab Hariri, the group was left without a surplus of qualified candidates for the post, said retired General Elias Hanna, who teaches political science at Notre Dame University.
Siniora not only has the experience of leading the Cabinet through the past three stormy years, but also served for years as finance minister to Rafik Hariri, Hanna added. In addition, anointing Siniora again might be a way to "compensate" him for being virtually confined to the Grand Serail for the past year and a half as opposition leaders rained down vitriol upon him, Hanna said.
In any case, the post will offer Siniora little reward, with March 14-March 8 relations still frosty and the regional situation still explosive, Hanna added. From the perspective of March 14, the battle-tested Siniora can function like a "shock absorber" for the certain sallies of the opposition, Hanna added.
Choosing Siniora - the object of much opposition scorn - also represents an attempt by March 14 to save face after most readings of the Doha agreement scored the deal a victory for the March 8 camp, said Haenni.
The March 14 coalition is "coming out of Doha with the strong impression of having been defeated," he said. "They have lost a lot in Doha, and they know it."
Nominating Siniora could "symbolically establish a certain kind of balance," Haenni added.
At the same time, asserting strength by sticking with Siniora also means "definitely a slap" in the face to March 8, Safa said.
Of March 8 figures, only Free Patriotic Movement head MP Michel Aoun on Wednesday said Siniora signified confrontation, but Aoun has long said he never again wanted to see Siniora in the Serail.
"He hates him," Hanna said. "For Aoun, it's something personal. For Hizbullah, they don't care. They have shown and flexed their muscles. They have the upper hand militarily, psychologically, politically."
The opposition's brief seizure of western Beirut three weeks ago and their perception of their coming out ahead in Doha will do much to shape the trajectory of Siniora's next cabinet, first by dragging out the deal-making over ministerial seats as each side maintains the mindset of the political face-off, said political analyst Simon Haddad.
"It's not a reward to take the position in this difficult situation - on the contrary," Haddad said. "The political confrontation goes on - with Siniora."
Despite March 14 having 16 of the cabinet's 30 seats, Siniora can expect dogged opposition from March 8 representatives, Hanna said.
"Usually you don't make concessions when you are strong - now March 8 considers itself strong," Hanna said.
As a result - and in spite of the joy surrounding the Doha settlement - the citizenry should not expect major achievements from this government, Haddad said.
"In the short run, I can't see that they can do much," he said. "The Doha understanding did not resolve anything. It's just a compromise to have a president elected."
Political factions will instead turn their sights toward next year's general elections, with issues such as the electoral act, the drawing of districts and the election campaign likely to draw the most attention, Safa said.
"Mostly the battle is going to concentrate on electoral politics," he added. "There'll be a lot of attacks, mobilization [and] polarization."
The ongoing squabbling on the institutional level, however, should not obscure the fact that something "quite different" is happening on the ground, Haenni said. The Sunni community ostensibly led by Hariri and Siniora was "radicalized" by the ease of Hizbullah's military successes this month, and a process of "micro-mobilization" is likely to take place while Siniora guides the government to the May 2009 vote, Haenni said.
Sunnis lost faith in the army and saw that Hariri and Siniora's Future Movement could not protect them, either - although this will not necessarily drive them into the arms of jihadists of the Al-Qaeda stripe, the mobilization could lead to many gathering arms, he added. "We're not speaking about Islamists - we're speaking about local, grassroots activists," Haenni said. In the end Siniora may very well find himself in a second term in office as fraught as his first, Safa said.
"Trust has been broken for three years," he said. "One week in Doha is not going to bring it back."

Union for Lebanon offers Suleiman congrats
Thursday, May 29, 2008-Daily Star
BEIRUT: The Union for Lebanon, headed by Massoud al-Ashkar, issued a statement on Wednesday congratulating President Michel Suleiman for his new post. "We hope that Michel Suleiman's tenure as president will be as successful and productive similar to his tenure as commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Amnesty International sees little to celebrate in Lebanon
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Report
Editor's note: Following is the Lebanon section of Amnesty International's annual report for 2008, "The State of the World's Human Rights."
Political violence and instability dominated the year, with more than 40 people killed in bombings and other attacks and hundreds killed in months of fighting between the Lebanese Army and the Fatah al-Islam armed group in and around Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp. The tension and divisions in the country, still recovering from the devastating war between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006, virtually paralyzed parliament and prevented the election of a new President.
Women faced discrimination in law and practice, and the state failed adequately to protect them against violence. Palestinian refugees continued to suffer discrimination and violations of their ... rights. Reports of torture and ill-treatment in detention increased. Courts continued to condemn people to death but there were no executions.
Nahr al-Bared
Intense fighting broke out in Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp on 20 May between Fatah al-Islam, an Islamist armed group that had recently moved into the camp, and Lebanese armed forces. According to reports, 168 Lebanese soldiers, 42 civilians and 220 Fatah al-Islam members were killed before the army gained control of the camp on 2 September.
During the clashes, both sides put civilians at risk. Fatah al-Islam established armed positions in the camp and withdrew to them after attacking an army base. The army carried out heavy and possibly indiscriminate artillery shelling of the camp. The camp was largely destroyed. It appeared that after the army took control there was widespread looting, burning and vandalism of vacated homes and property. In December, the Prime Minister wrote to Amnesty International to say that the army was investigating the reports, noting that one finding was that the army had burned some homes to rid them of a poison spread by Fatah al-Islam.
Most of some 30,000 Palestinian refugees displaced from Nahr al-Bared relocated to Beddaawi refugee camp. They were allowed to return to Nahr al-Bared from October but the majority remained displaced at the end of the year. The camp remained off-limits to the media and local human rights organizations.
On 22 May, two civilians were killed and others injured when a UN convoy delivering relief supplies inside the camp was hit by at least one explosive device. The army reportedly denied responsibility. The same day, Naif Selah Selah and a pregnant woman, Maha Abu Radi, were shot dead and other passengers were injured as their bus fleeing the camp approached an army checkpoint. A boy aged 13 or 14 was taken from the bus by armed men, threatened with a knife and given electric shocks to make him "confess" to planning a suicide attack, before being released. There were no known independent investigations into the incidents.
Scores of Palestinians were threatened, humiliated and abused by soldiers, often after being stopped at army checkpoints. Abuses included being stripped, being forced to lie on the road, and being beaten, kicked, hit with rifle butts, insulted and humiliated. In several cases individuals were reportedly whipped, given electric shocks and sexually abused.
Some 200 people were arrested and remained detained on account of their suspected involvement with Fatah al-Islam. Tens of these were reportedly charged with terrorism offences that can carry the death penalty. There were reports that some detainees were tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
On 29 June, three protesters were killed during a peaceful demonstration calling for refugees displaced fromNahr al-Bared to be allowed to return to their homes. Lebanese Army soldiers opened fire on the protesters and then reportedly failed to intervene when Lebanese civilians attacked the demonstrators.
On 12 December, General Franois el-Hajj, the Lebanese Army's chief of operations during the fighting in Nahr al-Bared, and a bodyguard, were killed in a car bomb attack in Baabda.
Killings
More than 40 people were killed in bombings and shootings by unknown assailants.
Two members of parliament who supported Fouad Siniora's government were assassinated in separate car bomb attacks in Beirut. MP Walid Eido and nine others were killed on 13 June, and MP Antoine Ghanim and five others were killed on 19 September.
On 24 June, six UN peacekeepers were killed in an explosion targeting their convoy near the southern town of Khiam.
Rafik Hariri assassination
On 30 May the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1757 to establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to try those suspected of involvement in the February 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others and, if the court so decides, a number of other possibly related attacks committed since October 2004. Five senior security officials and four other individuals arrested between August and November 2005 in apparent connection with the investigation remained detained without charge ...
Torture and other ill-treatment
There were increased reports of torture and other illtreatment, particularly of Palestinians, Sunni security suspects and individuals suspected of involvement with Fatah al-Islam. At least two men died in custody, possibly as a result of ill-treatment.
Nine men on trial before the Military Court from 21 April alleged that they had been tortured while held incommunicado from March and April 2006 at the Ministry of Defense detention centre in Beirut. Ghassan al-Slaybi said he was given electric shocks, beaten with a stick and forced to participate in the torture of his detained son, Mohammad. Others said that they were subjected to falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet) and the ballanco (hanging by the wrists tied behind the back). Several of themen said they had signed false confessions under duress. The court reportedly refused their request for amedical examination.
On 20 February the ... authorities and the [International Committee for the Red Cross] signed a protocol giving the ICRC access to "all detainees in all places of detention."
On 19 August Fawzi al-Sadi, a Palestinian suspected of involvement with Fatah al-Islam, died in Roumieh prison, reportedly because he was denied adequate medical care. No investigation was known to have been initiated.
In a rare successful prosecution, a private in the Internal Security Forces was sentenced on 8 March by the Beirut Criminal Judge to 15 days' detention for torturing an Egyptian worker in May 2004 at a Beirut police station. He had used the farruj (chicken) method, whereby the victim's wrists are tied to the ankles and they are then hung from a bar placed behind the knees.
In February, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared the detention of Nehmet Naim al-Haj, held since November 1998, to be arbitrary and noted that his "confession" was obtained by torture. In May, it declared the detention of Yusef Chaban to be arbitrary and noted that he had been convicted largely on the basis of a "confession" allegedly made under torture and denied any right of appeal to a higher judicial authority.
Death penalty
Four men were reportedly sentenced to death on 4 December for murder. At least 40 other prisoners remained on death row, but there were no executions.
Refugees
Several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees, most of whom have lived in Lebanon all their lives, continued to suffer from discriminatory restrictions affecting their economic and social rights, notably their access to employment, healthcare, social security, education and housing. Over half of Palestinian refugees live in decaying and chronically overcrowded camps or in informal gatherings that lack basic infrastructure.
Hundreds of some 50,000 Iraqi refugees were detained for not having valid visas or residence permits. The detainees faced indefinite detention or return to Iraq.
Discrimination and violence against women
Women continued to face widespread discriminationin public and private life. Neither the legal system nor the policies and practices of the state provided adequate protection from violence in the family.
Discriminatory practices were permitted under personal status laws, nationality laws, and provisions of the Penal Code relating to violence in the family. Migrant domestic workers continued to receive inadequate protection from workplace exploitation and physical and psychological abuse, including sexual abuse. At least six female migrant domestic workers reportedly died in suspicious circumstances. It was unclear what investigations were carried out into the deaths or any abuse that might have preceded them.
On 25 January it was reported that Bereketi Amadi Kasa, aged 22 from Ethiopia, had fallen to her death while trying to flee her employers' home in al-Zalqaa, north of Beirut.
In August Shia cleric [Sayyed] Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah issued a fatwa against "honor" killings, describing them as a repulsive act banned by Islamic law.
Aftermath of 2006 war
No participants from either side of the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah were brought to justice for serious violations of international humanitarian law.
At least seven civilians were killed and 32 civilians were injured in 2007 by hitherto unexploded cluster bomb units fired by Israeli armed forces during the 2006 war. Two other civilians were killed and nine other civilians were injured by other previously unexploded or unidentifiable military ordinance. Five people working with clearance teams were killed and 14 others were injured. The Israeli authorities continued to refuse to furnish the UN with comprehensive cluster bomb strike data.
The fate of two Israeli soldiers seized from northern Israel by Hizbullah militants in July 2006 remained unclear. Hizbullah continued to deny them access to the ICRC.
Impunity
No criminal investigations or prosecutions were initiated into mass human rights abuses that were committed with impunity during and after the 1975-1990 civil war. Abuses included killings of civilians; abductions and enforced disappearances of Palestinians, Lebanese and foreign nationals; and arbitrary detentions by various armed militias and Syrian and Israeli government forces. In 1992 the Lebanese government said that a total of 17,415 people had disappeared during the civil war.

Hassan Nasrallah is trapping himself
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Listening to the speeches of President Michel Suleiman and Hizbullah's Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah earlier this week, it is becoming apparent that there are really only two projects in Lebanon today: There is the project of the state, which Suleiman and the parliamentary majority embody, assuming the president abides by his public statements; and there is the project of a non-state, supported by Hizbullah and its allies.
If that wasn't plain enough, then consider what happened on Monday night, after Suleiman had spent his first day at the Baabda Palace. Hizbullah and Amal partisans, as has become their habit lately, fired in the air to celebrate Nasrallah's speech, then took to the streets and began firing at their political adversaries. In the Bekaa Valley much the same thing happened. There was a message there, perhaps more a Syrian than an Iranian one this time around, and it was that the new president should not imagine he will be able to build up a state against Hizbullah.
Thanks to the Israelis, who may soon hand a grand prisoner exchange to Hizbullah, Nasrallah may earn a brief reprieve for his "resistance." It's funny how Hizbullah and Syria, always the loudest in accusing others of being Israeli agents, are the ones who, when under pressure, look toward negotiations with Israel for an exit. Hizbullah has again done so to show that its "defense strategy" works and to deflect growing domestic insistence that the party place its weapons at the disposal of the state.
Nasrallah has started peddling what he thinks Lebanon's defense strategy should be. Hizbullah's model is the summer 2006 war, he explained this week. But if the defense strategy Hizbullah wants us to adopt is one that hands Israel an excuse to kill over 1,200 people, turn almost 1 million civilians out into the streets for weeks on end while their villages are bombed and their fields are saturated with fragmentation bomblets; if Nasrallah's strategy is one that will lead to the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, the ruin of its economy, the emigration of its youths, the isolation of the Shiites in a society infuriated with Hizbullah's pursuit of lasting conflict; if that's his defense strategy, then Nasrallah needs to get out of his bunker more and see what is really going on in Lebanon.
The only good thing that came out of the 2006 war, the only thing that both a majority of Lebanese and the Shiite community together approved of, was the deployment of the Lebanese Army to the South, the strengthening of UNIFIL, and the pacification of the border area. The Lebanese approved of this because it made less likely a return to Nasrallah's inane defense strategy. Unless of course the Hizbullah leader is now telling us that the neutralization of Hizbullah's military activities along the frontier with Israel was also a part of that strategy, because in practical terms it too was a result of the 2006 war.
Nasrallah's speech only reaffirmed that Hizbullah cannot find an exit to its existential dilemma, other than to coerce its hostile countrymen into accepting its armed mini-state. Very simply, the days of the national resistance are over. The liberation of the Shebaa Farms does not justify Hizbullah's existence as a parallel force to the army, and it does not justify initiating a new war with Israel. After all, the Syrians have a much larger territory under occupation and have preferred negotiations to conflict in order to win it back. As Suleiman implied, the best thing that can happen now is for Hizbullah to share with the state its resistance expertise, which was a gentle way of saying that the party must integrate into the state.
Nasrallah's defensiveness also revealed something else, almost as worrying as his untenable position on Hizbullah's defense strategy. It revealed that the party views Doha as a setback. Nasrallah is right in that respect. The agreement negotiated by the Qataris was several things. It was, above all, a line drawn in the sand by the Sunni Arab world against Iran and Syria, telling them that Lebanon would not fall into their lap. In this the Qataris were part of an Arab consensus, and the Iranians, always pragmatic, backtracked when seeing how resolute the Arabs were.
But the Doha agreement was mainly a failure for Syria. Damascus had planned to use the open-ended political vacuum in Beirut as leverage to bring in a new president and government on its conditions, to negotiate Syria's return to the Arab fold from a position of strength, to torpedo the Hariri tribunal, and to prepare an eventual Syrian military return to Lebanon. The Qataris thwarted this, and in a conversation between Syrian President Bashar Assad and Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Assad was pushed into approving Suleiman's election. As a last measure he tried to prevent the granting of 16 ministerial portfolios to the March 14 coalition - a simple majority in the 30-minister government allowing the coalition to have a quorum for regular Cabinet sessions. Sheikh Hamad rejected this and Assad had no choice but to relent, before instructing Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to accept the Qatari plan.
Hizbullah's plan was little different than that of the Syrians, so the Qataris substantially complicated Nasrallah's calculations as well. Suleiman is still an unknown quantity, but if he sticks to the principles highlighted in his inauguration speech, Hizbullah will be squeezed. Unlike the time when Emile Lahoud was still around and formed, with Berri, an alliance against Siniora, if the next prime minister and Suleiman can craft a joint strategy to strengthen the authority of the state, it is Berri, as the senior opposition figure and Shiite in office, who may find himself out on a limb.
Speaking of Berri, Hizbullah's bloc may have made a grave mistake in choosing yesterday to name no favorite as prime minister. That means that the bloc is ignoring the wishes of the Sunni community to bring back Siniora. Recall that when Berri was elected as Parliament speaker in 2005, those parliamentarians voting for him defended the choice on the grounds that "the Shiites want him." By inference, in not naming Siniora yesterday, mainly because the Syrians oppose him, the opposition has given the future majority in Parliament, if it happens to be a majority opposed to Hizbullah and Amal, an opening to reject Berri's re-election as speaker in 2009, regardless of whether the Shiites want him.
The ink on the Doha agreement is barely dry, but already Hizbullah and Syria are trying to water down its terms. Nasrallah's speech showed that he has no intention of entering into a substantive discussion on his party's weaponry. His promise not to use his guns in the pursuit of domestic political goals was meaningless, as he has already done so. In fact, his reading of what he can do with his weapons is much more advantageous to Hizbullah than what the Doha agreement stipulates. But Nasrallah has a problem. Most Lebanese want a real state and most Shiites don't want another war with Israel. Hizbullah, in contrast, doesn't want a real state but needs permanent war to remain relevant. That's Nasrallah's trap.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Tackling corruption in aid disbursement should top Siniora's to-do list
By The Daily Star
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Editorial
What a refreshing moment Lebanon enjoyed Wednesday, when an elected president consulted with the factions of an operational Parliament and designated the person with the majority's support to form the next government. One would think that things have gone back to a normal, rational state of affairs in Lebanese politics. Well, perhaps, but this is not fully confirmed yet, because the mechanics of Fouad Siniora being asked to form the next government may or may not mark a break with the recent ugly past of political contention, stalemate and violence in Lebanon. The crucial factor now will be the behavior of Siniora himself, and how he performs as prime minister in leading the national unity cabinet to new pastures of effective governance.
Many things will happen that are uncertain or beyond his control, but several other things are well known and within his orbit of action. At the top of that list is the need to restore Arab confidence in the Lebanese system of government, so that substantial Arab aid and investment can flow into the country to help resolve some of its massive structural distortions and weaknesses. Siniora and some of his technocratic colleagues have already shown a remarkable capacity for proficient reform and modernization in fields such as efficient tax collection and budget disbursements, even in times of war. Now he has to tackle the challenge of restoring Lebanon's tattered reputation as a black hole of other people's aid money. Many of Lebanon's wealthy Arab friends refuse to provide significant aid because they fear - from experience - that their munificence may not reach the intended target audience. Lebanon, like some other Arab lands, is notorious in the region for seeing public funds pilfered for private gain. That image - and the reality behind it - must be tackled quickly and reversed substantially, if the Siniora government is going to have any chance of restoring aid and investment flows from the region.
The immediate priority for Siniora and his government must be to quickly establish a mechanism at cabinet level that allows for foreign aid to be allocated and disbursed in a transparent, speedy and accountable manner. Technically, this should be easy to do, for many others have done this in the world. Fortunately, it should also be politically compelling for the government majority and its opposition minority partners in power. The main opposition forces in the Hizbullah-led camp have often spoken about the need to reduce corruption and improve the equitable delivery of state services to all parts of the country. A corruption-proof aid allocation mechanism would appear to be the sort of issue that everyone could agree on, and that the Lebanese people and economy would celebrate without reservation. It would also set the stage for other such collaborations for more efficient governance in Lebanon, on critical issues like education, environment and job creation.
The mutual animosity that continues to plague Lebanese politics is dangerous, because it could grow to overwhelm the spark of amicable cooperation that most citizens have welcomed and would like to nurture. The best way to push this government toward efficient incumbency is to start with issues that serve the entire country, and that both sides of the government can agree on. Corruption-free foreign aid stands out on that list like the cedar stands out on the national flag.

The Syria-Israel talks: old themes, new setting
Carsten Wieland
27 - 05 - 2008
Open Democracy

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-syria-israel-talks-old-themes-new-setting

The flow of rumour, speculation and argument about negotiations between Syria and Israel has oscillated over many years and around many occasions. Even at times of the highest tensions, close observers of the region would be able to make a sure bet that some kind of channel (as informal or as indirect as it may be) between these adversaries remained open. This makes the most recent revelation of intermediated peace talks between Syria and Israel, on 21 May 2008, less surprising than the often breathless reportage and commentary that accompanies the news suggests. The question, now that an expectant world has had time to digest the story, is whether this phase represents a new beginning or merely a rehashing of old constellations and positions.
Carsten Wieland is the author of the book Syria - Ballots or Bullets? Democracy, Islamism, and Secularism in the Levant (Seattle, Cune Press, 2006), published in Europe as Syria at Bay: Secularism, Islamism, and "Pax Americana" (C Hurst, 2006)
A first inspection might favour scepticism. It is difficult to imagine a new take on such issues as the Golan heights, security guarantees, or demanding that Syria renounce terrorism. After all, previous negotiations have addressed these issues in the form of a demilitarised zone in the Golan and the creation of a natural park, and even clear borders between the two states.
Moreover, a deal between Syria and Israel was within close reach in the January 2000 negotiations in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. United States participants testified that Syria's then president, Hafez al-Assad, had made exceptionally far-reaching concessions in security issues and in matters of normalising relations (involving, for example, diplomatic exchange and trading across open borders). But his counterpart, prime minister Ehud Barak sensed growing opposition among the Israeli population to the return of the Golan heights to Syria. Barak retreated from compromise on this crucial issue and on a commitment to a complete withdrawal to the borders of 4 June 1967. Syria saw this as a betrayal. These negotiations were a missed opportunity.
In Geneva in March 2000, the then US president Bill Clinton made an attempt on Barak's behalf to persuade the terminally ill Hafez al-Assad to surrender land east of Lake Genezaret that had - according to the international borders of 1923 - belonged to Syria before 1967 (and in which the Syrian leader had reputedly splashed around as a child. Al-Assad remained unbending in what proved to be the last big decision of his life. He refused to take part in any further discussions and in a rage flew back to Damascus where he died on 10 June 2000.
The difficulties then notwithstanding, peace talks and possible compromises looked more plausible in 2000 than they do today, when the circumstances of any negotiations are far more difficult. Even a few years ago - say, before the 2003 war in Iraq (after which Syria drifted further away from the orbit of western politics) or as recently as before the Hizbollah-Israel war in Lebanon in summer 2006, the respective states' positions did not seem as entrenched as in 2008.
In the intervening period, seven developments have occurred which make a rapprochement look more remote than before:
* Any Israeli government will have a harder time now selling to its voters the idea of giving up another stretch of occupied land, after parts of the country have experienced relentless shelling from the Gaza strip after Israel's withdrawal in August 2005. The strength of Hizbollah on the northern border after the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 2000 - exemplified in the 2006 war - further contributes to induce a sense of insecurity in the Israeli public
* Israel's negotiations with authorities in the Palestinian territories as a whole are much more difficult after the intra-Palestinian split between Fatah and Hamas. Indeed, on both sides, insecurity and unpredictability rule the agenda
* Both the Israeli and the Syrian governments are, for different reasons, at present relatively weak and threatened by domestic adversaries. But peace talks need strong governments that can fulfil their promises and persuade their people to accept tough decisions
* After the war in Iraq, Syria has increasingly drifted towards making alliances with anti-western actors such as Iran, and even Venezuela and North Korea. This is mainly due to a lack of foreign-policy alternatives after isolationist measures from the United States and its allies - fuelled by Washington's manichean "war on terror" and by the European Union's disillusionment with Syrian politics
* To ask Syria to cut its links with Iran and Hizbollah is an even harder demand after Hizbollah's demonstration of force against its domestic adversaries in May 2008, which enabled it to acquire an increased veto-capacity within Lebanon's delicate political fabric (see Robert G Rabil, "Hizbollah and Lebanon: the curse of a state", 21 May 2008). In addition, Syria's oil reserves are fading, while Iraq, Iran and Venezuela's strong resources have increased their own strategic importance
* The post-2006 political developments in Lebanon have encouraged Syria partially to regain its lost grip on its close neighbour, with the help of Hizbollah. However, whereas Syria was the main actor in this relationship during the Hafez al-Assad era, the roles now have changed: Syria seems to need Hizbollah more than Hizbollah needs Syria
* In contrast to 2000, the Israel-Syria talks are not sponsored by the United States. Moreover, they are taking place in counterposition to the foreign-policy concept of George W Bush, who insists on ignoring and isolating "rogue states" on the extended "axis of evil" instead of engaging them. Indeed, Israel has turned more pragmatic than its most important ally.
An unsettled climate
These seven developments offer solid reasons for pessimism. Yet the present situation is less wholly bleak than dialectical - requiring careful inspection to locate the kinds of initiative that could genuinely shift matters forward. Two points in particular (at first sight contradictory) can be made here: peace efforts in the region can only become stable and sustainable if an overall solution is found that includes all actors in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Syria and Lebanon, since they are so interrelated; yet it is an advantage that the Syrian and the Palestinian portfolios have been separated.
In May 2003, Hazez al-Assad's son and successor Bashar al-Asad promised to accept any decision by the Palestinian leadership in peace negotiations with Israel. Until then, Syria had always officially insisted on co-representing the Palestinians, though in the January 2000 peace negotiations with Israel in West Virginia, Hafez al-Assad had already secretly signalled that he would accept a peace settlement even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had not been satisfactorily resolved.
This strategy of pragmatism concerning the Palestinian issue could help to break the vicious circle. However, the Syrian political analyst Samir Altaqi said in an interview in November 2003: "Syria is not able to make any further concessions (in the Palestinian issue) ... This would harm the regime's identity." Altaqi himself is now said to be part of the negotiation team with Israel.
Bashar al-Assad signalled his readiness to hold talks with Israel in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war; he has repeated his offer several times since (most prominently at the end of 2003, and despite the continuation of the second Palestinian intifada). He is said to have sent his younger brother Maher al-Assad to Amman for secret negotiations with Israeli representatives.
As tensions and hopes run high, every incident, no matter how minute, is subject to worldwide public scrutiny. This was certainly true of the first handshake between a Syrian and an Israeli president, which took place at the funeral of Pope John Paul II on 9 April 2005, in Rome. When speculation arose, the Syrians hastened to clarify that this gesture between Bashar al-Assad and Iranian-born Moshe Katzav was nothing but "a formality".
In Israel, especially within the intelligence community and within moderate political camps, there have been more voices calling for serious negotiations with Syria, though with no preconditions. Syria had always insisted on resuming negotiations at the point where the two sides had broken off in March 2000. Under these conditions, Syria would regain the entire Golan heights in line with the borders of 1967.
At the end of 2003, Bashar al-Assad surprisingly dropped this condition - which was based on a promise from the assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin - thus placing Israel in a temporary predicament. Bashar directed his strategy toward Washington in order to demonstrate his goodwill and avert pressure on Syria. He has reaffirmed his readiness to negotiate without preconditions several times, as in the speech to parliament in Damascus on 5 March 2005, when he announced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
The Syrian minister of expatriates, Buthaina Shaaban, insisted in an interview in 2004 that "Syria would be prepared to resume peace negotiations today if only the United States would induce Israel to negotiate." But Washington has not been interested, she continued, because it wants to hold on to arguments for putting pressure on Syria in the "war on terrorism." Until now, Israel has had no major interest in peace negotiations because it would rather wait and see how much US pressure is softening up Syria, which would strengthen the Israeli position in negotiations over the Golan heights.
However, after the overt failure of the Bush administration's policy in the middle east (and beyond), Israel has wisely decided to go its own way. Above all, it is both in Israel's and even in the US's interest not to undermine a stable regime in the neighbourhood (which is a reversal of the widespread regime-change rhetoric after the invasion into Iraq). A toppling of Bashar al-Assad and his clique in Damascus could result in an outcome that is even worse from the perspective of Israel's national interest. Despite all, the Ba'ath regime is still a secular player with a strong record of pragmatism in crucial issues, as well as a history of stern opposition to Islamist militants.
A crescent in the sky
It will not be easy to follow up the failed negotiations of 2000 when a "normalisation" of relations was part of the package. A step-by-step approach focusing on security guarantees and terrorism issues first seems more likely, if at all. Maybe it is not even so bad that the United States does not play an active role in the rapprochement this time, but has acceded its place to a regional actor: Turkey. Washington and Europe's efforts have failed in the past; now there is a first opportunity for a purely regional constellation to be given a chance.
Turkey is respected by Israel because of its long-term membership of Nato, and as a traditional US ally. More recently, Turkey has gained respect among Arabs and Muslims in the region because it is the only country in which democracy and Islam have combined in a fruitful relationship. The ruling AKP's foreign policy has focused on rekindling Turkey's relationships with neighbouring states, above all Syria. Turkey serves as a model for moderate and for even more conservative Islamic opposition movements in the region's (mostly secular) dictatorships.
This political and strategic constellation is a novelty. It may also become the foundation of an integral approach in this battered region - and at least be given a chance to do so. By the time the United States has its new president in January 2009, a new momentum and new confidence-building ideas may just come from this direction also. If the constellation survives intact over the next critical period, the Syria-Israel talks may become more than a footnote to history. But it is a big "if".

What is going on

By: Tony Safa (tony_safa@hotmail.com)
May 27, 2008 9:42:40 PM
Prior to 2005 parliamentary election, most Lebanese took to the street in March-14 forming the largest demonstration in Lebanon history. The largest demonstration was a respond to earlier demonstration by Hezbollah. The number of people turned on March-14 demonstration predicted a failure for Hezbollah in 2005 Lebanese parliamentary election. Suddenly a prisoner deal between Hezbollah and Israel came to life giving Hezbollah a Victory that helped Hezbollah gain back some credit in 2005 election.
Now in 2008 and prior to next parliamentary election Hezbollah turned his weapon on Lebanese killing and injuring 100's last month. Majority of Lebanese realized that Hezbollah weapon is a threat to their life and again all signs point at 2008 election in favor of the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah would only form a minority in coming Lebanese parliamentary election. However, few days ago news of another Prisoners-Deal between Israel and Hezbollah is emerging again! Israel is going to help Hezbollah in 2008 election by giving Hezbollah another Victory.
It would be the 4th time Israel saves Hezbollah:
1st when Israel provided a safe passage to Hezbollah Fighter to get from North Lebanon to South Lebanon to fight their opponent Amal Movement back then.
2nd in 2000 Israel one sided-withdrawal from south Lebanon to Hezbollah instead of Lebanese Army.
3rd prior to 2005 election Israel breaks a deal with Hezbollah giving Hezbollah a victory
4th Now prior to 2008 election Israel will give Hezbollah another Victory as they badly need one to deceive the Lebanese public.

The Concerns of Damascus’s Allies
27/05/2008
By Tariq Alhomayed - Asharq Al-Awsat
Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, the youngest person to be appointed that position. Mr. Alhomayed has an acclaimed and distinguished career as a Journalist and has held many key positions in the field including; Assistant Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, Managing Editor of Asharq Al-Awsat in Saudi Arabia, Head of Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper's Bureau-Jeddah, Correspondent for Al - Madina Newspaper in Washington D.C. from 1998 to Aug 2000. Mr. Alhomyed has been a guest analyst and commentator on numerous news and current affair programs including: the BBC, German TV, Al Arabiya, Al- Hurra, LBC and the acclaimed Imad Live’s four-part series on terrorism and reformation in Saudi Arabia. He is also the first Journalist to conduct an interview with Osama Bin Ladin's Mother. Mr. Alhomayed holds a BA degree in Media studies from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, and has also completed his Introductory courses towards a Master’s degree from George Washington University in Washington D.C. He is based in London.
If there was anything striking about the joint press conference held by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Hamas supremo Khaled Mishal, it would be what they didn't say publicly about Syrian-Israeli negotiations.
Mottaki and Mishal are questioning Israel’s intentions for returning the Golan Heights, and are thereby skeptical about the outcome of the Syrian-Israel negotiations.
“Israel must return the Golan Heights to Syria without setting any conditions, " Mottaki stated. Meanwhile, Mishal said, “We regard [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert to be too weak to take the necessary steps to achieve peace with Syria.”
Both statements come as a warning to Damascus to not get dragged too deep into negotiations. Mottaki is talking about rejecting the conditions, and it is common knowledge that any negotiations entail conditions and concessions from both sides, while Mishal has doubts about Olmert’s ability to deliver.
Mottaki and Mishal have tried, using the language of diplomacy, to send a message to Damascus; however, that rhetoric does not conceal their deep concern about their Syrian ally’s negotiations with Israel.
So, can one say that a crack has appeared between the allies in Damascus, Tehran, and loyalist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas? I believe is the answer is ‘yes’.
Following his meeting with the Syrian Defense Minister [Hassan Turkmani], Ahmadinejad confirmed that he was sure that the Syrian leadership “will not abandon the front lines until all threats from the Zionist entity have disappeared,” he stated.
But these are aspirations and not the words of an ally in the know.
Here we must juxtapose separate geographical details side-by-side so that the observer may be able to see the larger picture of the region. First; there is Imad Mughniyeh’s assassination in Damascus, then the crushing of Moqtada al Sadr in Iraq, followed by Hezbollah’s coup on Beirut, and the official admission by all parties that there are Syrian-Israeli negotiations taking place.
It is also important to recall the circulating reports that say that Syria has firmly sealed the Syrian-Iraqi borders a few days ago. Today, Syria is hinting at diplomatic exchange with Lebanon, while Israel is talking about a new understanding of the peace process. Instead of the concept of land for peace, Tel Aviv is talking about security for land. This means that the Golan Heights will be returned at the expense of relations with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
The Israelis have publicly announced this and no matter how much the Syrians say that they reject the preconditions; it is impossible to imagine that negotiations over a year and a half between Damascus and Tel Aviv would not touched upon these topics – in fact, they are likely to be the basis for negotiations [the preconditions]
The Syrian rejection of the conditions is questionable; the Israelis are publicly stating that Damascus has been seeking to initiate peace negotiations with Israel for the past four years. Syria knows that it does not have an Arab cover and that it is isolated internationally, and it is also aware that the region is headed for stormy seas following the Arab regional maneuvers to counteract the Iranian pursuit to dominate over the Arab world. And Syria is the weakest link in the bone crushing arena.
The concern felt by Syria’s allies is evident and it is noticeable that they are the ones talking while Syria remains silent. Likewise, the shock of those who were driven behind pompous slogans has come into sharper focus – whether the Syrian negotiations with Israel have tangible results or not.

Moroccan judge questions a Hezbollah TV journalist suspected in terrorism case
The Associated Press- May 27, 2008
SALE, Morocco: A Moroccan investigative judge on Tuesday questioned a journalist from Hezbollah's Al-Manar television who is being held on terrorism charges, court officials said.
Moroccan journalist Abdelhafid Sriti is the correspondent here for the Lebanon-based Al-Manar TV. He was arrested in February along with 35 others suspected of belonging to a terrorism cell headed by Abdelkader Belliraj, a Belgian of Moroccan origins accused of ties to al-Qaida and local terror groups.
The alleged cell is suspected of plotting to commit terrorism attacks and organizing an al-Qaida support network to send money and fighters to Iraq.
Authorities did not say what Sriti is specifically accused of, but the official MAP news agency reported he was being held in "pre-emptive detention" since his arrest. Sriti was heard by an investigative judge on Tuesday, while Belliraj, the alleged ringleader, already has been questioned by a judge at the Sale tribunal, next to the capital, Rabat.
Investigative judges operate under the Moroccan judicial system much like district attorneys in the U.S., and Sriti's interrogation Tuesday was not open to the media.
Today in Africa & Middle East
South Africa considering camps to house displaced foreigners Lebanese president reappoints Fuad Saniora prime minister Iraqi prime minister arrives in Sweden for UN conference
All 36 suspects, including the journalist, are being investigated for "murder with premeditation" and "organizing a criminal group to prepare and commit terrorist actions," as well as arms smuggling, forging documents and money laundering.
No date has been set for their trial.
In a separate case, the Sale criminal court announced Tuesday it was postponing until June 10 the sentencing of 27 defendants from another group known as the "Tetouan cell" after the northern Moroccan city where many alleged members came from.
The court, which specializes in terrorism cases, is judging the cell on charges that include forming "a terrorist structure with international ramifications and specialized in recruiting and sending volunteer (fighters) to Iraq."
Alleged ring leader Khaled Ould Ali Tahar faces 25 years in prison, and Ahmed Safri, a Swede of Moroccan origins, could be sentenced to 20.
Safri's lawyer pleaded not guilty for his client on Tuesday.
"There is a lack of proof, the legal procedures weren't respected, and the various elements of the accusations don't apply to my client," Abdellatif Ennouari told The Associated Press outside the court room.
He said he also pleaded not guilty for eight of the other suspects he has been assigned to defend on a pro-bono basis because they hadn't been able to hire a lawyer.
Several of the defense lawyers say the only evidence against the cell, which was dismantled in January 2007, is confessions taken by police — which they say aren't admissable in court and were, at times, coerced.
The official MAP agency said the prosecution has separate evidence to back its terrorism charges based on "objects confiscated by police." Neither the prosecutor nor the agency have elaborated on this.
Also Tuesday, the appeals court at the Sale tribunal heard Mohammed Benmoujane, a former Guantanamo detainee who was acquitted by Moroccan authorities but remains in jail until all prosecution appeals are ruled on.
The court postponed his hearing until October. Benmoujane was caught by the U.S. military in Afghanistan in 2003 and held at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay naval base on Cuba island until 2006. He was then handed to Moroccan authorities, who sentenced him to 10 years in prison in November 2006 but then acquitted him in appeal in May 2007.
MAP said the state prosecution, which is appealing to overturn the acquittal, asked for the case's postponement Tuesday so it could prepare "decisive" proofs against Benmoujane

Deal Imminent between Israel and Hezbollah
By Ulrike Putz in Beirut
Israel and Hezbollah are once again close to a deal that would bring two kidnapped Israeli soldiers back home. Details of the agreement, negotiated by a German middleman, indicate that the two might not still be alive.
It was an impressive scene, though hardly a new one: Tens of thousands of Hezbollah supporters gathered in south Beirut on Monday night to celebrate -- as they do every year -- the "Day of Resistance" against Israel. Above the crowd a sea of yellow Hezbollah flags waved and the voice of the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, thundered above them.
The leader of the Hezbollah -- who for security reasons only appeared on a big screen via video link -- served up his usual repertoire: He first lambasted Israel and then the US, before turning to domestic politics. And as his supporters cheered, a short sentence that pointed to a significant success in Middle East diplomacy was nearly drowned out in the celebrations.
DPA
Celebrating the "Day of Resistance" in Beirut: A woman holds aloft a photograph of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
"Before long, Samir and his brothers will be with you in Lebanon," Nasrallah declared over the loudspeakers. His followers knew exactly what he was referring to: A prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah, which has been arranged by German mediators, seems to be a done deal and the transfer of the men imminent. The Hezabollah supporters cheered the news.
If the exchange succeeds, the Shiite militia will add another victory to their triumphs of the past few weeks.
At least six Lebanese men are still locked up in Israeli prisons, and Hezbollah has made it its goal to get them out. To gain leverage in this game of political poker, fighters from Hezbollah carried out a raid in Israeli territory on July 12, 2006 and abducted the Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser (more...). Their kidnappings triggered the 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006.
A 'Disinterested and Honest' Broker
Immediately after the war, negotiations for the release of the two Israelis began under the auspices of the United Nations. Once again, Germany was chosen as a go-between.
It was hardly a new role for the country. Indeed, Berlin has already facilitated several deals between the Shiite militia group and the Jewish state. In January 2004, Ernst Uhrlau, who was then the secret service coordinator in the German chancellory, managed to facilitate a deal that saw Israel release 435 mostly Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in return for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers.
This time around, the German intelligence service BND is once again playing a vital role.
"Germany is trusted by both sides because, over the years, it has demonstrated that it is a disinterested and honest broker," Kamel Wazne says of Germany's special role in secret diplomacy in Beirut. Wazne, who is close to Hezbollah, is a commentator much in demand by Western media when it comes to explaining the it. Wazne said: "Germany always did what it promised it would, which has given the country a lot of credibility with Hezbollah."
Are Regev and Goldwasser Still Alive?
According to the well-informed Israeli army radio, Israel has said it is willing to hand over five Lebanese prisoners for the return of Goldwasser and Regev. Israel would also be willing to release the bodies of 10 Hezbollah fighters, it added. The low numbers of prisoners being mentioned in the deal has raised eyebrows in Israel. Many take it to mean that the two soldiers are no longer alive.
From the very moment of the abduction, the Israeli army was convinced that the two men were badly hurt because of the blood stains they found at the site of the attack. In the two years since, Hezbollah has offered no signs of life from the two men.
Common practice, however, dictated that Israel stick to the official line that the two soldiers were still alive. Indeed, when the Israeli government recently threatened to declare Goldwasser and Regev dead, observers saw it as a message to Hezbollah. In Middle Eastern hostage poker, living prisoners are worth more than dead ones. An Israeli statement saying they no longer expected to get the soldiers back alive would have weakened Hezbollah's negotiating position. The message was: This is our last offer.
NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.
When the transfer will actually happen remains unclear. Mahmud Komati, a member of the Hezbollah political bureau, told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the standard practice is for Hassan Nasrallah to personally decide the timing.
"Given what Nasrallah recently said," Wazne says, "it could happen very soon." He says it looks as though Hezbollah is willing to accept the current offer, which was made by the German mediator two weeks ago.
Now, the ball is in the Israeli court. "The problem is that Olmert is wounded and has hardly any support among the population," he said. Another problem, Wazne added, is that Olmert's opponents might try to scuttle a deal that Olmert would take the credit for. (Calls for Olmert to resign amid a growing bribery scandal continue to gain momentum on Wednesday.)
This isn't the first time a deal on the swap was close. Just under a year ago, a trade was scuttled -- allegedly because the Israeli press did not stick to an agreement to remain silent and government critics were able to torpedo the deal in public.
Moreover, although nearly every Israeli wants to see the return of the two kidnapped soldiers, the upcoming deal is likewise not free of controversy. Hezbollah has explicitly called for the release of men who -- in Israel -- fall into the category of those "with blood on their hands." And many Israelis find it hard to accept that terrorists -- who not only planned but carried out attacks -- should be sent home.
The Crux of the Barter
From the start, the biggest hurdle was Samir Kuntar, who Nasrallah mentioned in his speech. Kuntar has been languishing in an Israeli prison for over 28 years, and Israel has always rejected his extradition because of the seriousness of his crimes.
In 1979, Kuntar infiltrated the Israeli port city Nahariya by boat with a commando team and abducted Danny and Einat Haran, a 28-year-old father and his 4-year-old daughter. On the way back, Israeli police intercepted the kidnappers, and a gun battle ensued. Kuntar then shot Haran in front of his daughter, before beating her to death. He was sentenced to 542 years jail.
Now, however, signs that he will be released after all -- and that the prisoner exchange is imminent -- are increasing. Jerusalem announced it would soon release Nasim Nasr, an Israeli accused of spying for Lebanon. Nasr, who converted to Islam, was sentenced to six years prison in 2002. Although he has served his sentence, Israel still holds him in custody.
According to his lawyer, Smadar Ben-Natan, the timing of his release is "no coincidence." She told the Israeli media that her client could be part of the agreement negotiated by Germany.

Will the International Community Abandon Lebanon?
That's for the Lebanese people to decide.
By Shmuel Rosner-Slate
Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2008,

http://www.slate.com/id/2192209/pagenum/2
Why Washington welcomed the Doha agreement—the deal that put an end to the political stalemate in Lebanon—is anyone's guess. You can take Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at her word and believe that she believes the agreement is a "positive step toward resolving the current crisis." Or you can assume that was the only option if the United States wanted to see a deal done. The agreement was signed, and Washington had no choice but to pretend that it was a good one.
So much so that Rice's assistant for Middle East affairs, David Welch, felt the need to praise even the most unlikely regimes: "If Syria and Iran have supported that," he said, "then perhaps they will continue to exercise a more constructive role in Lebanon." If he had his fingers crossed behind his back, no one saw. If he winked as he suggested such an improbable outcome, nobody noticed. But Welch knows, as do all the others, that neither Syria nor Iran are suddenly planning to play a "constructive" role in Lebanon. If they support the agreement and the United States also supports it, pretty soon one party is going to look stupid.
The Doha agreement is a series of mostly bureaucratic measures—necessary in the most complex of systems that is Lebanese politics. One such step was completed Sunday with the elevation of Gen. Michel Suleiman—a Christian relatively close to Syria—to the presidency. A more important component will be tested in the future: There's an understanding that Lebanon will hold elections in 2009—that's assumed to be the main achievement of Lebanon's pro-democracy factions.
So the agreement has achieved its short-term goal—after weeks of clashes in which more than a hundred Lebanese citizens died, a full-fledged civil war was averted. And as for the long term? Maybe there's no such thing in the Middle East—especially when discussing the future of Lebanon.
The Lebanese understand this painful truth better than anyone else. Their deep-rooted mistrust of all the other players in the region—and beyond—is justified, considering circumstances and history. They fear that Lebanon will be the one to pay the price for a regional grand deal. And last week they had an even stronger reason to worry: As Syria and Israel announced the resumption of peace negotiations, the Lebanese could easily foresee that their sovereignty would again be compromised in return for a change in Syria's behavior.
That's one of the reasons the Bush administration was so reluctant to see a resumption of the Syria-Israel talks. In the last couple of years, Washington has changed its attitude toward Lebanon. A country that was mainly seen as a minor player—a chip on the regional trading table—is now a just cause.
President Bush and Secretary Rice have publicly committed themselves to a more democratic Lebanon. (During the 2006 Lebanon War, Rice was ridiculed for stating that the conflict represented "the birth pangs of a new Middle East.") They try to treat Lebanon not as a playing field on which Israel, Syria, and Iran can war with one another in a contained fashion but, rather, as a real country. Sometimes, they seem to believe this even more than the Lebanese themselves do.
President Bush has praised Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on many occasions. "He's a good guy; he's tough, and he's in a really tough situation. I admire him," the president told me in an interview two weeks ago. And Washington even backed its new commitment with action. Over the last two years, it has provided Lebanon with more than $300 million worth of equipment and training.
But in recent weeks, the Lebanese military—which is supported by the United States—decided to stay on the sidelines rather than clash with Hezbollah militants when Hezbollah demonstrated its power by taking over parts of Beirut. Hezbollah was willing to cave on many political components of the Doha deal. Its main interest and achievement was not in the shuffling of Cabinet seats but, rather, in avoiding any attempt at disarmament of Lebanese factions by the Lebanese state. The international community, knowing full well that Hezbollah will be the most challenging roadblock on the way to a peaceful, democratic Lebanon, was suddenly silenced. A deal is a deal—and if this is what the Lebanese people want, no one will be able to stop them.
This, essentially, is what Jeffrey Feltman, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and until recently the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, said even before the recent crisis was resolved at the Doha talks. About two months ago, Feltman was a guest at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "The international community," he said there, "has been supporting an agenda defined by the Lebanese themselves and not imposed from the outside with the combination of the broad Lebanese domestic desire and the international backing that leads to success." In other words: The Lebanese have to lead—the world will follow.
This might be the realistic, perhaps even the noble, way of handling a country. The problem is that the decisions the Lebanese have recently made only increase the likelihood that they will eventually be abandoned by the international community. "There is no contradiction between having a foreign policy that looks at Lebanon as Lebanon and also sees how Lebanon fits into our regional calculations," said Feltman. That is true, unless "Lebanon as Lebanon" makes decisions that render it easier for regional forces to meddle in its affairs. Choosing a pro-Syrian president might be such a decision. Avoiding the question of disarmament might be another such decision.
"Hezbollah does not want power over Lebanon, nor does it want to control Lebanon or govern the country," Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah vowed on Monday. Why would he want such a thing? He already has the power he wants—the power of arms. As long as no one tries to confront him, he has no problem letting the government take care of the less important aspects of daily life.
If the Doha agreement proved anything, it is that regional forces are now taking things into their hands, brokering a deal that is far from ideal but that buys some quiet for the time being. The Bush administration will be gone pretty soon; the Israelis and the Syrians have started to talk; Hezbollah can quietly get more arms from Iran via Damascus. All the components for a future that is not much different from the past are in place.
That is, unless the Lebanese people decide to take matters into their own hands. In his Saban Center talk, Feltman described a cable he sent from Beirut just one day before the "March 14" demonstrations swept Lebanon, leading to the withdrawal of Syrian forces and to the most hopeful period in Lebanon's recent history. "So there was nothing at all in my cable of March 13, 2005, about the fact that the following day more than a third of Lebanon's population would turn out in a mass demonstration that changed Lebanon's history," he confessed. Feltman and the international community did not help initiate these demonstrations, nor did they understand the impact they would have.
The one thing the international community could do was to support Lebanon after the fact. That was the case in 2005—and it's the case today. So will Lebanon eventually be abandoned? That's for the Lebanese people to decide.

MARED conference in Cairo-Egypt for all Egyptians
Hany Danial-Nader Shukry
Trouble appeared from the outset of the first conference of the Egyptians against Religious Discrimination group held in Cairo last month. ‘Egypt for all Egyptians’ was supposed to have been held at the Journalists’ Syndicate, but a group of fundamentalist journalists locked the door and barricaded themselves inside the building forcing organisers to shift the conference to the headquarters of the Tagammu Party. The syndicate’s council responded by referring Gamal Abdel-Rahim, the leader of the group, to an investigation committee.
Imported Wahabi thought
The conference attracted about 350 activists and politicians, several of whom were expatriate Copts who came to Cairo for the occasion. Makram Mohamed Ahmed, the syndicate’s chairman, apologised for the inconvenience and condemned “the bearers of terrorist ideology who resorted to any means at hand to prevent the conference from going ahead.”
The group’s founder, Mounir Megahed, said that discrimination against non-Muslims had reached an unendurable level. “The current situation is dangerous because discrimination is practiced by ordinary people who have fallen prey to a continuous process of promoting intolerance and hatred, launched and nurtured by religious extremists.” he said. “Joint efforts should be exerted to confront discrimination and enhance harmony in the community,” he stressed.
Fouad Riyadh, a member of the National Council for Human Rights, drew attention to the persistent absence of Copts from decision-making circles, the media and arts, as well as their exclusion from leading posts. According to Dr Riyadh, ‘two factors stand behind the current situation: the decline of the middle class, supposedly the bearer of modernity, and the advent of ‘Bedouin thought’ from the Arabia peninsula, which has no relation whatsoever to the Egypt’s inherent civilisation.
Laws should be purified from all forms of discrimination, Dr Riyadh said, and the religion box removed from ID cards if the rights of citizenship are to be respected.
Automatic conversion
The head of the Egyptian Union for Human Rights, Naguib Gabrail, referred to the difficulties faced by Christian women whose husbands converted to Islam, and how much they suffer. Children of Muslim converts automatically become Muslims, a situation creating great problems for themselves and their mothers.
Dr Mohamed al-Sayed al-Said, editor-in-chief of the left-leaning Cairo daily al-Badeel newspaper, said religious discrimination has existed in Egypt since decades ago. He argued that the absence of Coptic political figures signified discrimination in the political arena. “The same argument applies to Nubians, Sinai Bedouin, and the inhabitants of the oases,” he said. “Without the contribution by these groups in Egypt’s political life, discrimination is likely to last.”
Writer and researcher William Wissa, who resides in France, focused on discrimination in the media. He showed that ‘Muslim scholars had all the right to discuss and question other religions, but it was not the other way round. Violence against Copts was usually referred to in the press as “sectarian strife”, a neutral term that, according to Dr Wissa, treated offenders and victims on an equal footing. “The result is that Copts are presented in the media as responsible for the violence practised against them,” he said.
Discriminatory curricula
Another Egyptian who resides in France, writer and researcher Adel Guindy, spoke of the role of education in boosting discrimination. He criticised the insertion of Qur’anic texts widely in the curricula, and stressed the problems of Christian students having to study a huge number of Islamic texts, without any mention of their own faith. The outcome is that Copts are becoming more and more alienated and frequently take refuge in isolation and passivity. “School curricula should be revised, Mr Guindy noted, and the influence of religion should be confronted in favour of civil values and citizenship principles.”
In the same vein, Kamal Mughith’s presentation centred on the significance of the contribution of school curricula to the culture of religious discrimination. Dr Mughith, who is an expert in the education field, said that teaching about the Coptic era in Egyptian school curriculum was an area of conflict between the Ministry of Education and a group of illuminated professors on the one hand, and fanatical text book authors on the other. For a long time, he explained, the Coptic era had been overlooked in the curriculum of history. Thus the six centuries separating the advent of Christianity to Egypt and the Arab invasion of Egypt by Amr Ibn el-Ass was ignored altogether. When this era finally began to be recognised, teachers purposely ignored it as though it did not exist. School curricula made no reference to Christian feasts and symbols, or the role played by the Coptic Church in preserving the Egyptian identity. “The fact that so many Egyptian teachers worked in the Gulf States has had major negative implications on Egyptian education,” Dr Muguith said. “We now see teachers imposing the veil on female students and separating Muslims and Christians in classrooms,” he added.
Exclude Coptic doctors
Salem Sallam, professor of medicine at Minya University, pointed out that thousands of Christian engineers and doctors had emigrated because they were denied that right of employment in Egypt. They returned as experts in their fields. Wahabi thought added to the crisis. He said. For instance, it had become taken for granted by many doctors that Christian doctors should not examine Muslim female patients. Such ideas were seized on by inefficient Muslim physicians, since they helped them get rid of the competition posed by their Christian colleagues. Equally dangerous, however, was the inclination not to appoint Christian graduates among the teaching staff in faculties of medicine. If it were necessary to appoint Christian graduates, they should be excluded from some departments. Christians were usually appointed to academic rather than clinical departments. “Christians account for 40 per cent of the students of the faculty of medicine, though they represent three to four per cent of the teaching staff,” Dr Sallam said. “They are prevented altogether from being appointed as staff members in departments of genecology and obstetrics.”
Nabil Abdel-Fattah, the assistant manager of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, argued that under the presidency of Hosni Mubarak Islamic radicalism had taken the lead and the State had become dependent on religious institution in many spheres. “The regime has proved a failure in dealing with sectarian crises,” Dr Sallam continued. “The evidence is that crises of this kind are usually resolved through informal sessions of reconciliation rather than legal means.”
First class; second class
Bahyeddin Hassan, manager of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies, said the most dangerous form of discrimination was that which relates to the building of places of worship. “One group of Egyptians, the Muslim population, is treated as first class citizenry and allowed freely to build their places of worship, while a second group, the Copts, is treated as second class and has to go through many arduous processes and fulfil many conditions before they are allowed such a right,” he said.
Participants from political parties presented their parties’ views vis-à-vis the question of discrimination. Dr Jihad Ouda, member of the ruling National Democratic Party’s Policies’ Committee stressed the relevance of constitutional amendments that placed citizenship rights at the forefront of the Constitution. Amina al-Naqqash, deputy chairman of the Tagammu Party, said much effort was needed from intellectuals to confront ideas and appearances of discrimination, while Osama Harb, chairman of the Democratic Front Party, said that discrimination mainly grew in a climate of tyranny and dictatorship.
Finally Emad Gad, secretary-general of the Arab Organisation against Discrimination, argued that religious discrimination was a product of the ruling regime when it controls education, the media and the building of places of worship. “The result is the absence of values of citizenship rights and equality,” Dr Gad said.