LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِApril
16/2010
Bible Of the
Day
Peter's First Letter 2/11-17:"Beloved, I beg you as foreigners and pilgrims, to
abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 2:12 having good
behavior among the nations, so in that of which they speak against you as
evildoers, they may by your good works, which they see, glorify God in the day
of visitation. 2:13 Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for
the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme; 2:14 or to governors, as sent
by him for vengeance on evildoers and for praise to those who do well. 2:15 For
this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the
ignorance of foolish men: 2:16 as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak
of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.
2:17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. 2:18
Servants, be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good
and gentle, but also to the wicked. 2:19 For it is commendable if someone
endures pain, suffering unjustly, because of conscience toward God. 2:20 For
what glory is it if, when you sin, you patiently endure beating? But if, when
you do well, you patiently endure suffering, this is commendable with God. 2:21
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an
example, that you should follow his steps, 2:22 who did not sin, “neither was
deceit found in his mouth.”* 2:23 Who, when he was cursed, didn’t curse back.
When he suffered, didn’t threaten, but committed himself to him who judges
righteously; 2:24 who his own self bore our sins in his body on the tree, that
we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were
healed. 2:25 For you were going astray like sheep; but now have returned to the
Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Syria seeks a military return to
Lebanon/By
Michael Young/April
15/10
Iran's Nukes: An International Security
Priority/By: Dr. Walid Phares April 15/10
National Dialogue 'devoid of substance' - analysts/By
Michael Bluhm/April
15/10
Younger faces, same old
routine/Daily Star/April 15/10
Talking to Michael Young /Now
Lebanon/15 April/10
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April
15/10
Hizbullah admits receiving Syrian scuds/Jerusalem
Post
Syria: Israel diverting attention from its
nuclear arsenal/Ynetnews
SLA woman's body transferred to Lebanon for
burial/Ynetnews
Dialogue Adjourned till June 3 Amid
New and Controversial Stances on Hizbullah Arms./Naharnet
U.S.:
Lebanon at 'Significant Risk' After Alleged Syrian Transfer of Missiles to
Hizbullah./Naharnet
US warns Syria about Hezbollah-bound missiles/The
Associated Press
US concerned Syria may be giving Scuds to Hezbollah/Washington
Post
Dialogue to resume amid US arms concerns/Daily Star
Maronite patriarch to visit Akkar region on May
15/Daily Star
Arrest warrant out for bank employee spying for Israel/Daily
Star
Magistrate grills two suspects in plot to kill
officer/Daily Star
Syria puts Hezbollah in charge/UPI.com
Aoun:
Dialogue Has No Goal, No Resistance Arms Alternative./Naharnet
Syria: Israeli Scud
Allegations Aimed at Undermining U.S.-Syrian Rapprochement./Naharnet
Washington: International
Tribunal Not a Bargaining Chip./Naharnet
Jumblat in Syria Friday
for Talks with Nassif, Shehabi./Naharnet
State Budget Forwarded to
Cabinet./Naharnet
Hariri Says U.S. Can
'Easily' Find Solution to Stalled Peace Process 'if it Wanted to'./Naharnet
Israel Releases Lebanese
Jailed on Charges of Drug Smuggling./Naharnet
Building Collapses in
Gemmayze, No Casualties./Naharnet
Gemayel blames Hezbollah for
domestic conflict/Now Lebanon
Aoun: No alternative to Hezbollah’s
arms, LAF and Resistance complement each other/Now Lebanon
MEA says criticisms
against it meant to cover corruption/Now Lebanon
SLA woman's body transferred to Lebanon for burial
Husband, children of Hanna Jalad, who died over the weekend, escort her body to
Rosh Hanikra border crossing but will not be able to attend funeral. Deputy
Minister Kara: Hezbollah withdrew its objection to body's transfer following
international pressure
Hagai Einav Published: 04.15.10, 12:31 / Israel News
The body of Hanna Jalad, who arrived in Israel with her family after the IDF's
withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, has been transferred to her home
country for burial.
Jalad, 70, died over the weekend and her body has been kept in a Nahariya
hospital since then. In her will, she asked to be buried in her birth place of
Ain Ebel, a Christian village in southern Lebanon. Israeli security officials
authorized the request and coordinated the body's transfer with the Red Cross.
Body handed over to Red Cross reps (Photo: Avisag She'ar Yeshuv)
Ayoob Kara (Likud), deputy minister of the development of the Negev and Galilee,
assisted in coordinating the body's transfer to Lebanon. "In the past Israel has
opened its gates in many humanitarian cases, but here we had to wait a long
time, together with the grieving family, until we received authorization from
Lebanon," he said.
"It is my estimation that international pressure convinced Hezbollah to withdraw
its objection to the transfer of the body," said the deputy minister.
Jalad's family moved to Israel along with the families of other South Lebanese
Army (SLA) officers.
The deceased woman's husband, children and grandchildren escorted the body to
the border crossing at Rosh Hanikra, where some 100 people attended a ceremony
in her honor. The family will not be able to attend the funeral.
The body was transferred to Rosh Hanikra from the Upper Galilee village of Gush
Halav.
A few months ago a Druze doctor was brought to burial in Israel after living in
Syria for the past 30 years. The doctor, Afif Jamal al A'aur, 50, was born in
the Golan Heights village of Bukata. He was transferred to Israel via the Red
Cross and was laid to rest in his native village.
Hizbullah admits receiving Syrian scuds
By JPOST STAFF AND ASSOCIATED PRESS
15/04/2010 14:54
Group accuses Israel of blowing incident out of proportion.
Hizbullah sources confirmed Thursday that the terror group received a shipment
of Scud missiles from Syria, the Kuwaiti paper Al-Rai reported. According to the
report, the missiles were claimed to be old and unusable. Hizbullah also accused
Israel of blowing the incident out of proportion in order to provoke a media
ruckus. The sources added, "Our organization has many surface-to-surface
missiles spread across all of Lebanon, in case Israel attacks the country
again.”In spite of this confirmation, the Syrian Foreign Ministry denied the
reports, saying Israel was trying to stoke tensions in the Middle East and could
be setting the stage for a possible Israeli "aggression" to avoid Middle East
peace requirements. Thursday's Syrian statement comes after President Shimon
Peres accused Syria of supplying the Lebanese guerrillas with Scuds for the
first time. Israeli defense officials also have said they believe Hizbullah has
Scud missiles, and that their introduction could alter the strategic balance
with the Islamic guerrilla group.
In an effort to prevent a new conflict, Al-Rai reported Monday that the US State
Department summoned the Syrian ambassador in Washington, Imad Mustafa, and
warned him that war could break out if the weapons shipments were not stopped.
At the same time, according to the Wall Street Journal, the IDF came very close
recently to attacking a convoy carrying weapons from Syria to Lebanon, but at
the last moment decided against it. The possibility that Syria would transfer
Scud missiles to Hizbullah is not a new fear in the Israeli defense
establishment. According to the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Israel sent warnings to
Syria through Turkey and Qatar that it would “bomb Lebanese and Syrian targets
in case the missiles crossed the border and reached Hizbullah.”In related news,
Col. Ronen Cohen, former head of the Northern Front in Military Intelligence and
the current chief intelligence officer for the IDF’s Central Command, said in a
research paper that an Israeli bombing of Lebanese national infrastructure would
likely unite the Lebanese people behind Hizbullah and its leader, Sheikh Hassan
Nasrallah.
World Jewish Congress: New Mideast Course for America?
by Hana Levi Julian/Arutz Sheva
The World Jewish Congress has added its voice to the growing chorus of concern
about the apparent White House hostility towards Israel. The organization sent a
letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, expressing the group's deepening concern
over the U.S. foreign policy on the Jewish State, as well as the increasing
Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and the world.
WJC President Ronald S. Lauder told Obama in the letter released to the media
Thursday, “Jews around the world are concerned today... about the nuclear
ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against
Israel... that the Jewish state is being isolated and de-legitimized... [and]
about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United
States and Israel.” Lauder, heir to the mammoth international Estee Lauder
cosmetics fortune, also expressed American Jews' anguish at what appears to be
escalating hostility towards Israel from the White House. “Can it be true that
America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides
defensible borders for Israel?” he asked bluntly. “Is a new course being charted
that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion
prior to 1967?”
Lauder also asked about the country's strategic ambitions in context of the
“broader Middle East,” noting that the Obama administration's “desire to improve
relations with the Muslim world is well known." "But,” Lauder added, “is
friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening
relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on
the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is
intended.”
McCain's Warning
U.S. Senator John McCain, meanwhile, contends that the United States has been
backing away from a brewing fight with Iran, while that country moves ever
closer to having nuclear weapons.
McCain opened a Senate hearing Wednesday by saying that Iran will succeed in
obtaining an atomic bomb unless the United States acts more boldly. Speaking
figuratively, the Arizona Republican said the U.S. keeps pointing a loaded gun
at Iran but failing to “pull the trigger.”Lauder echoed McCain's concern,
asking, “What about the most dangerous player in the region? Shouldn't the
United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the
world today? That threat is a nuclear-armed Iran.”
His letter added that world Jewry embraces Obama's “sincerity” in his “quest to
seek a lasting peace,” but urged the White House to “end our public feud with
Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.”**The World
Jewish Congress, founded in Geneva in 1936, is an international organization
with headquarters in New York representing Jewish communities and organizations
in 80 countries on six continents. According to the organization's mission
statement, it seeks to “foster the unity and creative survival of the Jewish
people while maintaining its spiritual, cultural and social heritage.” Due to
its global status, WJC has special credentials and recognition at the United
Nations, where it has a diplomatic seat and a presence within many of its
institutions, commissions and sub-bodies
Russia: Iranian Nuke Reactor Ready for August 2010 Launch
by Hana Levi Julian/Arutz Sheva
Russia announced Wednesday that the Iranian nuclear reactor it is helping to
build is set to launch its operations this August. Sergei Kiriyenko, head of
Russia's state nuclear corporation, said the reactor currently being completed
at Bushehr is on schedule. Kiriyenko told reporters during a visit to Argentina,
“Bushehr doesn't threaten the regime of nonproliferation in any way. No one has
any concerns about Bushehr.”The announcement comes in the wake of the 40-nation
nuclear summit just hosted by the Obama administration in Washington, D.C.
Cooperation - Not With Russia
Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security,
testified Wednesday before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that
President Barack Obama had “gained cooperation from Ukraine, Chile, Canada and
others to help lock down this dangerous material.” She carefully avoided any
statement specifying that Russia would cooperate in U.S. efforts to contain
Iranian nuclear development activities, focusing instead on Obama's diplomatic
successes. The U.S., she said, had just signed a new START Treaty in Prague,
which she said would enable Washington and Russia to “safely reduce our nuclear
forces because the threat environment has changed. Today's most pressing nuclear
threats come from terrorists and additional countries seeking nuclear weapons."
The nuclear summit was intended to seek commitments from participants to “take
steps to secure vulnerable nuclear materials and prevent nuclear smuggling,”
Tauscher said, “in order to stop terrorists or criminal organizations from
acquiring these dangerous materials.
“We must deny highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium to terrorist
groups because they would surely use the material to develop a weapon and use
the weapon itself,” she added.
Tauscher avoided mentioning Iran's current activities in precisely this area, an
uncomfortable reality made even less palatable by the fact that the U.S. has so
far failed to convince the other members of the United Nations Security Council
to agree to impose harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
“We are working to build international consensus for steps that will convince
Iran's leaders to change course,” she told the committee, “including new UN
Security Council sanctions that will further clarify their choice of upholding
their NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and safeguards obligations or facing
increasing isolation and painful consequences.”
Netanyahu and Medvedev
In February, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev in Moscow on the issue. Netanyahu's meeting came on the heels of an
announcement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Natanz nuclear
plant had begun to enrich uranium up to 20 percent. Netanyahu told Medvedev,
"What is needed now are very tough sanctions that can influence this regime and
severe sanctions that will considerably and convincingly harm the import and
export of oil."
Medevedev was polite but noncommittal in his response, and Russia later
announced that it did not believe it necessary to impose such harsh restrictions
on Iran at the present time.
Waking up to Increasing Hizbullah Danger
by Hillel Fendel/Arutz Sheva
The U.S. is not happy with the Syrian transfer of missiles to Lebanon - and
Israel will have to take action, an expert says.
Prof. Eyal Zisser, head of the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies in Tel
Aviv University, told Arutz-7 that the news requires Israel to make some
difficult decisions. “There’s no question that the transfer of [these missiles]
is an escalation,” Zisser said. “These Scuds are more precise than those that
Saddam Hussein launched at us in the Gulf War of 1991, and they have a longer
range as well.”
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the U.S. has relayed its concern to the
Syrian government, Senator John McCain raised the issue at the hearing on Iran
on Wednesday, and Under Secretary of Defense Flournoy said the U.S. is “very
concerned” by these reports.
In addition, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters that any
such missile transfer would put Lebanon at "significant risk,” later adding –
under a questioner’s pressure – that other countries in the region, “including
Israel,” would also be endangered.
Crowley’s remarks came a day after President Shimon Peres accused Syria of
supplying Scud missiles to Hizbullah, and after Defense Minister Ehud Barak said
it was a “blatant violation” of relevant U.N. Security Council decisions.
Crowley did not confirm that Syria actually supplied the missiles, saying only
that the “reports” are of concern.
The Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai Al Aam reported that the missiles transferred by
Syria to Hizbullah can reach a range of 300 kilometers - nearly halfway between
Be’er Sheva and Israel’s southernmost point, Eilat.
Hizbullah Has Been Building Rocket Stocks for Years
In truth, Prof. Zisser said, the danger from Hizbullah is not new: “Ever since
the Second Lebanon War [in 2006], Syria has given Hizbullah nearly 40,000
rockets, some of which are very similar to Scuds. Hizbullah now has another
40-50,000 rockets, most of them short-range that can reach Haifa; they are not
the most precise, but they can cause great destruction. We destroyed their
Iranian-supplied Zilzal long-range rockets on the first day of the war, but they
have a few hundred new long-range missiles that they received from Syria… They
have basically tripled their strength.”
Despite this, the picture is not entirely black, Zisser said. “First of all, we
can also cause terrible damage in Lebanon, and the other side knows this. We
hurt them much more badly in the Second Lebanon War than they did us. In
addition, as opposed to the last war, when they had rockets they could set up
simply with a timing device and run away – the Scuds that they now have are much
bigger and more easily detectable, and we can attack the launching teams much
more easily. The Scuds are also interceptable with our systems.”
In the long run, Zisser believes that though we dealt them a heavy blow in 2006,
“they are getting stronger, and the rocket smuggling from Syria and Iran
continues, and Israel will sooner or later have to deal with this. True, [Hizbullah
leader] Nasrallah is still [hiding out] in the bunker, but he continues to pull
the strings, and the government of Israel will have to set the time at which it
will act. In the meantime, we’re not hearing that this is being done.”
6. Lt.-Gen. Ashkenazi: the Bible is the IDF's Guide
by Gil Ronen /Arutz Sheva
"The IDF sees the Bible as a guide in the deep and practical sense of the word,”
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said Wednesday in a meeting with
participants in the International Bible Quiz for Youth. “It is no accident that
the IDF swears in its soldiers with a weapon in one hand and the Bible in the
other – a custom that reflects the uniqueness of the IDF and the deep bond of
the Jewish people to the Book of Books,” he added.
The 46 competitors in the Bible Quiz hail from twenty different countries. They
met Lt.-Gen. Ashkenazi at Beit HeChayal in Jerusalem, in the presence of the
IDF's Chief Education Officer, Brig.-Gen. Eli Shermeister, Chief Military rabbi
Brig.-Gen. Avichai Ronsky and members of the World Management of the Bible Quiz.
The 47th annual World Bible Quiz for Youth is being held with the aid of the
Jewish Agency. Its theme this year will be “Hebrew Comes Alive,” to honor the
150 yea birthday of Zionist visionary Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl and 120 years since
the establishment of the Council for the Hebrew Language. The quiz will take
place on Independence Day, April 20, the Ninth of Iyyar.
The contestants – all of whom won the Bible Quizzes in their respective
countries – have been taking part in an 18-day preparatory camp which includes
volunteer activity, hikes through Biblical sites, a visit to Yad VaShem and gun
training in the Gadna Youth Corps base. Four of the 46 participants are the
Israeli quiz's finalists, one of whom is the Prime Minister's son, Avner
Netanyahu
Syria puts Hezbollah in charge
Published: April 14, 2010
BEIRUT, Lebanon, April 14 (UPI) -- Hezbollah's power in Lebanon is growing,
largely because Syria is firmly back in charge five years after it was forced to
withdraw its military forces following the assassination of former Lebanese
premier Rafik Hariri
Hezbollah is part of the new coalition government headed by Saad Hariri, the
slain prime minister's son and political heir, who in December had to bend the
knee to Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose regime he long held responsible for
his father's death Feb. 14, 2005.
Now Hariri is under growing pressure from Damascus to ditch his Christian allies
in the Western-backed March 14 movement -- named after a massive anti-Syrian
rally in Beirut by the Hariri family's allies a month after the assassination --
and embrace Hezbollah.
Syria's restoration of its domination of Lebanon followed a rapprochement -- of
sorts -- between Damascus and Washington.
U.S. President George W. Bush broke with Damascus, part of his infamous "axis of
evil" with its ally Iran, after the Hariri assassination. His administration
accused Syria of aiding insurgents in Iraq and arming Hezbollah and hinted
strongly that it was behind the Hariri killing, something Assad has repeatedly
denied.
President Barack Obama has taken a different course and sought to engage
Damascus in hopes of luring it away from Iran.
There is little sign Assad is prepared to do that. But whether he does or not,
it's clear the Syrians are back in charge in Lebanon, historically part of
Greater Syria and widely seen as its "economic lung."
One likely result is that a U.N. tribunal investigating Hariri's death won't
publicly hold Syria accountable. That dismays many Lebanese, particularly Saad
Hariri, who see it as a U.S. betrayal in the interest of geopolitical expediency
amid the region's ever-shifting political landscape.
Hariri's acknowledgment of Syrian tutelage followed a 2009 reconciliation
between Saudi Arabia, a staunch supporter of his father and opposed to Syria's
alliance with Iran.
Hariri had no choice but to follow where his patron went. But he's not the only
one to have had to come to terms with the Levant's harsh political realities.
Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, a one-time pillar of March 14, also had to make the
pilgrimage to Damascus to make peace with Assad.
Jumblatt and Hariri shared a common bond: Both blamed Syria for the demise of
their fathers. Jumblatt's parent, the leftist Kamel Jumblatt, was assassinated
March 17, 1977, after he broke with Damascus.
But Jumblatt has a history of changing sides, adjusting his political position
to the prevailing political winds.
He had moved toward the Americans before Hariri's death but with the debacles in
Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran's resurgence, he concluded he was backing the
wrong horse.
His defection from Hariri's camp followed an invasion of Sunni-dominated West
Beirut and Jumblatt's mountain stronghold by Hezbollah's Shiite warriors May 7,
2008. More than 100 people died in a week of fighting that almost ignited a new
civil war.
Hezbollah acted in response to a move by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Rafik
Hariri's right-hand man, to dismantle its private telecommunications system, a
key component of its military machine.
Jumblatt's 180-degree turn and reconciliation with Assad was particularly
revealing because it was engineered by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, with
whom Jumblatt had feuded for years.
As the March 14 movement disintegrated under remorseless Syrian intrigue and
subterfuge, so has the so-called Cedar Revolution it had spawned that sought
sweeping reforms in Lebanon's sect-driven politics.
Both Hariri and Jumblatt have had to publicly acknowledge Hezbollah's status and
its right to possess a large arsenal of weapons, which makes it militarily
stronger than the Lebanese army.
This has been a major source of friction within Lebanon, where all other
militias were disarmed after the civil war. Hezbollah claimed it needed its arms
to resist Israeli occupation, which effectively ended in May 2000.
Now Hezbollah holds Lebanon's future in its hands, with Damascus and Tehran
pulling the strings.
While Hezbollah's political weight swells, it doesn't appear to be in any rush
to engage Israel in a repeat of their 2006 war.
But if Iran's confrontation with the United States and Israel over its nuclear
project reaches ignition point, conflict is inevitable and this time, because
Hezbollah is in the government, Israeli leaders have threatened to flatten all
of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah's bastions.
US warns
Syria about Hezbollah-bound missiles
(AP) –WASHINGTON — The White House says it has raised concerns with Syria about
reports that the Middle East nation is providing Hezbollah with Scud missiles
that could hit any part of Israel. Press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday
the Obama administration has relayed concerns to the highest levels about
weapons that could destabilize the region.
Israel this week accused Syria of giving Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the
Iranian-backed militia. Gibbs told reporters at the White House that the U.S.
has an unbreakable bond with the Israeli people and in ensuring their security.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
U.S.
concerned Syria may be giving Scuds to Hezbollah
By Matt Spetalnick
Wednesday, April 14, 2010;
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States voiced concern on Wednesday that Syria
may have supplied Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas with Scud missiles that can hit
deep inside Israel, potentially altering the military balance between the
long-time foes.
A day after Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of handing over
"sophisticated Scud missiles to Hezbollah that threaten Israel," the White House
said it had warned Damascus of a possible "destabilizing effect" for the region.
"There's concern that this is under consideration, but it's unclear whether or
not the missiles have been transferred," said a U.S. official, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
Such a development could threaten U.S. President Barack Obama's diplomatic
outreach to Syria and create new obstacles to the confirmation of a new U.S.
ambassador to Damascus after a five-year absence.
One Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Scuds were
smuggled in to Hezbollah, an Islamist group backed by Iran and Syria, over the
past two months.
Another Israeli official said the missiles were believed to have come without
launchers but called that "irrelevant" since they were placed in improvised
silos. There was no immediate word on where in Lebanon the missiles were
stationed.
The Obama administration said it made its displeasure known at the highest
levels of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government.
"We obviously are increasingly concerned about the sophisticated weaponry that
... is allegedly being transferred," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.
"We have expressed our concerns to those governments and believe that steps
should be taken to reduce any risk and any danger of anything from happening,"
he told reporters.
Hezbollah fought a war with Israel in 2006 that cost Lebanon a heavy civilian
toll. The group fired off barrages of rockets with ranges of 20-60 miles that
forced evacuation of large parts of northern Israel.
The Scuds reported to have been sent to Hezbollah are believed to have a range
of more than 435 miles, which would put Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's nuclear
sites within range, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing Israeli and U.S.
officials.
Washington said the presence of Scuds on Lebanese soil could threaten the
country's stability.
"If such an action has been taken, and we continue to analyze this issue ...
clearly it potentially puts Lebanon at significant risk," said U.S. State
Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
Such a move by Syria would also jeopardize Obama's effort to ease strained ties
with Damascus, which the Bush administration tried to isolate, accusing it of
obstructing Middle East peace and fueling the insurgency in Iraq.
The nomination of Obama's choice for ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, was
approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, but some
Republican senators expressed concerns about it, signaling they may try to block
a vote by the full Senate.
Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, visited
Damascus as a U.S. emissary recently and raised concerns with Assad about the
flow of arms from Syria to Hezbollah, according to Kerry's spokesman, Fred
Jones.
Peres, discussing Syria with French Prime Minister Francois Fillon in Paris,
accused Damascus of "doublespeak" for talking about peace on one hand and arming
Hezbollah on the other.
"The transfer of arms from Syria to Hezbollah and Syria's support of terrorist
organizations does not square with its declarations of seeking peace. We will
not allow Syria to play this double game. The transfer of weapons reveals
Syria's true face," Peres told Fillon, according to a statement from the Israeli
president's office.
Peres's accusation is the latest volley in a war of words between Israel and
Syria.
Four rounds of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel, mediated by
Turkey, broke down in 2008. Syria says the talks cannot continue without an
Israeli commitment to withdraw from the whole of the Golan Heights, a strategic
plateau which Israel occupied in 1967.
(Additional reporting by Ross Colvin, Arshad Mohammed, Susan Cornwell, Adam Entous and Dan Williams in Washington and Ari Rabinovich in Jerusalem; Editing
by Chris Wilson)
U.S. says missiles to Hezbollah put Lebanon at "significant risk"
2010-04-15
WASHINGTON, April 14 (Xinhua) -- Lebanon would be put at " significant risk" if
Syria transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the U.S. State Department said on
Wednesday.
"We are concerned about it. If such an action has been taken ... it would
represent a failure by the parties in the region to honor UN Security Council
Resolution 1701. And clearly it potentially puts Lebanon at significant risk,"
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.
U.S. has raised the issue with Syrian ambassador in Washington during a recent
meeting, he said
Iran's Nukes: An International Security Priority
By Walid Phares
Many leaders of the 46 countries attending President Obama’s two-day nuclear
security summit this week are urging that the summit serve as a benchmark for a
renewal of international focus to prevent nuclear terrorism.
Ironically, the summit is taking place a few days after the Iranian regime,
which constantly thumbs its nose at the international community, celebrated its
so-called “National Day of Nuclear Technology.” Beyond the obvious, what should
have be the prime focus of the summit?
Without any doubt, it should have been the looming Iranian nuclear threat. This
is a regime that is rushing to build and deploy nuclear weapons at the same time
it is issuing public statements that it would wipe an entire country from
existence and would enjoy a "world without America." This alone should be a red
flag.
Also, the Iranian regime, while seeking nukes, is interfering in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It has an alliance with the Syrian regime, which, like Iran,
supports Hezbollah with weaponry, funding, and operational support, all of which
could trigger a regional war at any moment. This week the US asked Syria to
refrain from shupping Scud Missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Moreover, the Iranian regime is backing an armed insurrection in northern Yemen.
It has a presence in the Red Sea. And it has signed a treaty with Hugo Chavez’s
Venezuelan regime in our own hemisphere.
If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we may end up seeing the deployment
of those weapons on three continents. President Obama has a unique opportunity
to gather a vast international consensus on isolating Tehran and opposing its
nuclear ambitions.
On the other hand, terrorist organizations can put their hands on nuclear
material or weapons and eventually use them. The first stage in this threat is
proliferation: Where can terrorist groups acquire these weapons? This is the
crux of the problem. Who would give, sell, or allow them to obtain such weapons
in any way?
Then, if they do indeed acquire them, how will they use or threaten to use them?
How to stop them?
This is our second problem. Tight international cooperation is one of the best
ways to combat nuclear terrorism. Some terrorist groups have a very focused
interest in acquiring and eventually using them. Osama bin Laden stated that he
wishes to put his hands on such weapons and he also has alluded that he believes
the Pakistani nukes belong to the jihadists.
But if Iran’s regime obtains these weapons, it goes without saying that
Hezbollah could receive them. Hezbollah already has the missiles capable of
delivering these weapons.
We should be concerned about the situation in Pakistan. The government there is
anti-Taliban and has assured the United States and the international community
that these weapons are secure. However, there are concerns that those
sympathetic to the Taliban might facilitate a transfer of one or more of those
weapons to the jihadists, or the jihadists might seize them outright.
Nuclear material from former Soviet republics is also a matter of concern.
Obviously, North Korea is another potential source of proliferation.
Ironically, reports mentioned that Turkey and Egypt were planning on raising the
issue of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and could raise it in the next meeting in New
York. Why would two American allies focus on Israel and not on Iran?
Traditionally, Turkey’s secular administrations have been careful not to enter
the fray of nuclear debate in the region. However, it seems that the AKP Islamic
Party is adopting an increasingly pro-Islamist position, and thus is using the
issue in regional and international forums to enhance its stance with Islamist
forces in the Arab world.
The AKP government has declared its solidarity with Iran’s nuclear program while
claiming that the latter is not a military program, and it has supported the
Omar al-Bashir regime in Sudan as well as Hamas in Gaza. Turkey’s government
also has been vocally critical of its former military partner, Israel. I expect
the AKP is preparing to declare its own intention of acquiring such technology
in the not-so-distant future. As for Egypt, its government is under severe
propaganda and political pressure from the Muslim brotherhood at home and in the
region and thus takes advantage of international forums to show ideological
toughness.
---------------
Dr. Walid Phares is director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War
Against Future Jihad. He served on an NSC Task Force on Nuclear Terrorism in
2006-2007.
On CTV http://www.blip.tv/file/3481127
ON RT
http://www.youtube.com/rtamerica#p/u/6/-WtLPgHP--M
April 14, 2010 07:14 PM Print
Dialogue 'devoid of substance' - analysts
Consensus on Palestinian arms is ‘only thing that brings Lebanese together’
By Michael Bluhm/Daily Star staff
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Analysis
BEIRUT: Thursday’s National Dialogue session won’t accomplish anything,
illustrating the impossibility of the standing political dynamic allowing for
action on substantial issues such as Hizbullah’s arms or Palestinian weapons
outside refugee camps, a number of analysts told The Daily Star on Wednesday.
“It’s devoid of substance … an extended photo-op,” said Habib Malik, who teaches
history at Lebanese American University. “None of the thorny issues in Lebanon
will ever get resolved at a dialogue table.”
March dialogue session about the country’s defense strategy didn’t produce any
tangible results, while Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt has
been urging the National Dialogue framework to drop discussions of Hizbullah’s
arsenal.
Even though the dialogue could not affect Hizbullah’s arms, Jumblatt’s call
represents his gesture of gratitude toward the Shiite party for paving the way
for Jumblatt to return to Damascus two weeks ago to reconcile with Syrian
President Bashar Assad, said Hilal Khashan, who teaches political studies at the
American University of Beirut. Jumblatt “is paying them back,” Khashan said.
Jumblatt’s suggestion, while also confirming his growing allegiance to the
Hizbullah-led March 8 political coalition, won’t find any traction at Thursday’s
session from among many of Jumblatt’s former partners in the March 14 alliance,
Khashan added.
“Those who remained in the March 14 Forces – the [Lebanese Forces] and the
Phalange Party – will certainly not go along with that proposition,” Khashan
said. “That’s why [Thursday’s] meeting will amount to nothing.”
In the larger sense, said retired General Elias Hanna, a political science
instructor at various universities, Jumblatt’s proposal, along with Free
Patriotic Movement head Michel Aoun’s Monday statement that he would withdraw
from the dialogue if the media reported on Hizbullah’s arms, signify a new
approach from March 8 to differentiate between the nation’s defense strategy and
Hizbullah’s arms. March 8 appears to want the National Dialogue to address
defense but not deal with Hizbullah’s weapons, which should be taken for
granted, Hanna added.
“It means that the arms of Hizbullah – as well as of what we call the resistance
– is a taboo, a red line – and for Syria as well,” which backs Hizbullah, Hanna
said.
Recent clashes at the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General
Command’s (PFLP-GC) base in Qousaya have also put the question of Palestinian
arms outside refugee camps on the agenda of the National Dialogue. With all of
the countries’ parties against the presence of armed Palestinian groups outside
the camps, the issue is politically “safe sex” for Thursday’s meeting, but
politicians will probably not be able to translate their rare unanimity into
action, Malik said.
Syria controls the PFLP-GC, Khahsan said, meaning that Lebanon would first have
to secure Syrian approval for any move against the group.
“Consensus on the Palestinians is the only thing that brings the Lebanese
together,” Khashan added. “PFLP-GC is an instrument of Syria. The Lebanese are
not at liberty to act on this issue without the permission of Syria.
“They may reach consensus, they may make decisions, but it will remain
unimplemented,” Khashan added.
However, Hanna said, recent comments by President Michel Sleiman advocating
action against Palestinian arms outside the camps might signal that Syria has
given its assent for movement against the PFLP-GC. By giving ground on the armed
Palestinian groups Syria supports outside the camps, Damascus might be offering
Lebanon quid pro quo for removing the issue of Hizbullah’s arms from the
National Dialogue, he added.
“When the president is talking about this issue, it means that maybe he has some
assurances from the Syrians that they will do something about it,” Hanna said.
“If the Cabinet makes a decision about it, it means the Syrians are OK with it.”
In regional terms, Hanna added, the bid to withdraw Hizbullah’s arms from debate
at the National Dialogue underscores how important the Shiite party’s arsenal
has become for the regional bloc of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. With a
“major shift” looming in the Middle East as US troops begin to substantially
draw down their numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hizbullah’s weapons gain in
weight and will ensure that Lebanon remains in the Iran-led axis for the
foreseeable future, Hanna said.
Proposing to end dialogue on Hizbullah’s arms “means that Syria, Iran and
Hizbullah … are trying to institutionalize the system … as well as the
rhetoric,” he said. “Hizbullah and the arms of Hizbullah became a major
strategic resource for the resistance to achieve their political goals.”
Regardless of the stature of Hizbullah’s arms in the Middle East, Khashan said,
regional powers – and much less the National Dialogue – aren’t going to do
anything about the weapons because they are focusing on the post-election crisis
in Iraq. Syria and Saudi Arabia are working together to stabilize Iraq, and with
Syria an essential part of the Iraq situation, Damascus can take advantage of
its importance to asphyxiate any political movement in Lebanon – leaving the
National Dialogue a largely irrelevant meeting, Khashan added.
“For everybody in the region, the situation in Lebanon can wait,” Khashan said.
“Right now nobody is interested in Lebanon,” he added. “Meeting is one thing;
acting is another thing.”
Dialogue to resume amid US
arms 'concerns'
Tensions rise over weapons held by non-state actors in Lebanon
By Elias Sakr
Daily Star staff
Thursday, April 15, 2010
BEIRUT: Thursday’s National Dialogue session is set to convene against a
backdrop of rising tension over weapons held by non-state actors in Lebanon,
after the White House expressed its “concern” over the alleged transfer of Scud
missiles from Syria to Hizbullah.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that Washington has
relayed its “concerns to those governments,” referring to Syria and Lebanon, due
to the “sophisticated weaponry that … is allegedly being transferred.”
The statement came after Israeli President Shimon Peres declared that Syria and
Lebanon were both violating international law by helping Hizbullah increase its
arms stockpile across the countries’ porous border.
“Syria claims it wants peace while at the same time it delivers Scuds to
Hizbullah, whose only goal is to threaten the state of Israel,” Peres told
Israeli public radio on Tuesday.
Prior to the White House’s announcement, and with the formulation of a national
defense strategy topping the agenda of Thursday’s National Dialogue at Baabda
Palace, Hizbullah MPs reiterated that the issue of the resistance’s weapons was
not subject to discussion, while March 14 figures said that the arms naturally
figured in any such dialogue.
Hizbullah’s ally, Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, has gone further,
threatening to withdraw from National Dialogue if debate over the issue of
weapons continued in the media.
Similarly, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt has recently
repeated a demand for Hizbullah’s arms to be removed from the agenda in the
National Dialogue.
“The insistence by certain parties on raising the issue of Hizbullah’s weapons
is to gain political popularity, based on sectarian provocations,” Tyre MP Nawaf
Musawi told Al-Jadeed television Wednesday.
Musawi declined to comment on the accusations that Scuds were being transferred
to Hizbullah, saying that the resistance didn’t publicly discuss the weapons it
possesses, or is seeking to acquire.
Musawi challenged the international community to provide proof of the Scud
transfers, saying “they have satellites that can take photographs … let them
present something to us.”
Amid the rising debate on Hizbullah’s weapons, Musawi also slammed the Maronite
patriarch without naming him for supporting the right of residents Oyoun
Orghoush, in the Bekaa, to defend themselves and their land.
Sfeir made his statements earlier this week during a visit by the Tawq family of
Oyoun Orgosh to Bkirki, after two of its members fired gunshots and
rocket-propelled grenades in the village to defend themselves against
individuals believed to be thieves. Part of the Tawq clan is affiliated with the
Lebanese Forces.
Musawi took exception to the patriarch’s stance, saying: “I wonder how some
parties accept that defending land is a legitimate right for militias that are
attempting to drag the Lebanese into civil war, while stressing the illegitimacy
of a resistance to defend the country.”
For his part, Beirut MP Ammar Houri stressed that Hizbullah’s weapons were part
of the defense strategy, while denying that the parliamentary majority proposed
disarming the resistance.
“We’re seeking to reach a strategy that leads to handing over those weapons to
the Lebanese Army or the least grant the state political authority [over them],”
Houri said.
Tackling the issue of armed Palestinian groups outside refugee camps, Houri said
“it’s beneficial to discuss the implementation of the decision to disarm those
groups rather than re-discuss the issue itself.”
“The main responsibility for implementing the decision lies with the Cabinet,”
Houri added.
Similarly, Batroun MP Antoine Zahra said that “we will only accept discussing
the issue of a defense strategy and Hizbullah’s weapons, since it’s an issue
that almost led the country to explode before we made a compromise” in May 2008,
during the Doha Accord.
“We need to withdraw weapons, rather than withdraw the issue from discussion,”
said Zahra, an LF official.
The Doha Accord ended civil strife after the Cabinet’s decision to dismantle
Hizbullah’s telecommunications network.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese Cabinet, which met Wednesday evening at the Grand Serail,
didn’t discuss recent Israeli provocative measures near the Blue Line, as
Information Minister Tarek Mitri told reporters that the issue was being
followed up by the Foreign Ministry. – With Reuters
Syria seeks a military return to Lebanon
By Michael Young
Daily Star/Thursday, April 15, 2010
When Syria’s President Bashar Assad withdrew his army from Lebanon in 2005,
there was a naive belief he had accepted the new situation and would be
satisfied merely with reasserting Syrian political influence in Beirut. In fact,
his ambition always was, and remains, to return Syria militarily to Lebanon.
In recent weeks, the US has accused Syria of transferring advanced weaponry to
Hizbullah. Kuwait’s Al-Rai al-Aam newspaper and Israeli media have suggested
this may include Scud-D missiles. There have also been reports, including
statements by Israeli officials, that Syria has sent the party anti-aircraft
missiles, including possibly the advanced SA-24 Igla. Damascus has denied this,
but in 2007, when Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said the party had
acquired a new “surprise” weapon against Israel, many believed that he meant an
advanced anti-aircraft capability.
It is hard to accept as credible Syria’s denials that it has sent improved
weapons to Hizbullah when Assad has repeatedly stated that he would not allow
the “resistance” to be defeated. Senator John Kerry, a prominent defender of
American engagement of Damascus, is said to have raised concerns about the
weapons when he last visited with the Syrian president. Why is Damascus upping
the ante in Lebanon today?
Let’s go back to April 2007 to understand Assad’s frame of mind. At the time,
the Syrian president received UN chief Ban Ki-moon, in Damascus. The two men
discussed several issues, then Assad made this comment: “In Lebanon, divisions
and confessionalism have been deeply anchored for more than 300 years. Lebanese
society is very fragile. [The country’s] most peaceful years were when Syrian
forces were present. From 1976 to 2005 Lebanon was stable, whereas now there is
great instability.”
Assad was right; there was great instability. And that was largely thanks to the
efforts of Syria and its Lebanese allies, who between 2005 and 2009 undermined
all efforts by the parliamentary majority to consolidate a sovereign Lebanese
state. But Assad’s assessment was more than a detached observation. It was an
essential part of his worldview, passed on by his father, Hafez, that Syria must
rule over Lebanon to punch above its weight in the Middle East.
And without a military presence in Lebanon, Bashar Assad knows, Syrian hegemony
will always be incomplete. Damascus has no real “soft power” in Beirut. It’s
allies, other than Hizbullah, which is ultimately more Iranian than Syrian, are
weak. Only an army in place can intimidate the two communities at the heart of
the Syrian regime’s preoccupations since the mid-1970s, when Hafez Assad
dispatched his brigades to Lebanon: the Sunnis and the Maronites.
The Maronites have lost much since then, but continue to be a significant thorn
in the Syrians’ side. They have long led opposition to Syria, and even if Michel
Aoun has reconciled with Damascus, his efforts have convinced few Christians.
The Syrians aren’t blind. The Lebanese Forces have proven more dynamic than the
Aounists lately, even if there are Christians who will never embrace Samir
Geagea. But the future bodes ill for the Aounists. The movement is divided over
Aoun’s succession and is likely to fragment once he expires.
The Syrians are watching Geagea very carefully, and have made it clear that
their relationship with Prime Minister Saad Hariri is partly a function of
Hariri’s ties with Geagea. Syria wants to break the Hariri-Geagea bond, and
through it a Sunni-Maronite barrier to a Syrian military return. But Assad also
must sense that unless his army is in Lebanon, little will keep the Sunnis and
Maronites in line.
More disturbing to Syria’s regime is Lebanese Sunni discontent. Strangely
enough, Geagea speaks to that more effectively than Hariri, principally because
the prime minister is constrained by his position and by his Saudi sponsors. The
Sunnis are the main hindrance to absolute Syrian control over Lebanon, a
community as powerful as the Shiites, a reminder to the minority-dominated Assad
regime of its own vulnerabilities, and, under Hariri, a personification of the
divorce from Syria after the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the May 2008
takeover of western Beirut by Hizbullah and Syria’s allies.
In this context, what role are the Syrian arms to Hizbullah playing? To return
to Lebanon militarily, Syria needs several prerequisites: An Arab consensus in
favor; an Israeli green light; approval by Western governments, above all the
United States; and a Lebanese political class that is split over Syria. Assad is
working hard on the last of these conditions, and would probably face anemic
Arab opposition to a military return to Lebanon if the situation allowed it.
That leaves the US and Israel. In 1976, both signed off on a Syrian move into
Lebanon to bring the PLO to heel. If Bashar Assad were able to depict Hizbullah
as a new PLO, a threat to regional stability, he might successfully replicate
his father’s actions over three decades ago. But for that to work, the Syrian
leader needs a new war to show up the party as a problem that only Syria can
resolve. So you arm Hizbullah with weapons that are game changers in a conflict
against Israel. However, Hizbullah need not worry. Assad would never stifle the
party, since he needs to keep it alive as a menace to justify Syria’s presence
in Lebanon. This would return the country to the pre-2005 balance that Syria and
Hizbullah mutually benefited from.
That’s Assad’s objective, but can he implement it? Much will depend on America.
Unless Assad sees that a new Lebanon war might also harm him, he will continue
to plot his Lebanese military comeback.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. His “The Ghosts of Martyrs
Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster) has
just been released.
Aoun: No
alternative to Hezbollah’s arms, LAF and Resistance complement each other
April 15, 2010
In an interview with An-Nahar newspaper published on Thursday, Free Patriotic
Movement leader MP Michel Aoun said that there is no alternative to Hezbollah’s
arms, adding that the Resistance and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) complement
each other and have the same enemy, referring to Israel.
“How are we supposed to face Israeli threats? I do not believe that the UN or
any other state would protect us [should things escalate],” he said, adding that
it is unacceptable to consider Hezbollah’s arms unnecessary.
Aoun also said should any group in the South be threatened, then it has the
right to defend itself, especially that the LAF is incapable of facing Israel
whether now or later.
The FPM leader touched on the 2010 national dialogue, saying that all parties
should discuss setting a national defense strategy only during the dialogue
sessions and not through the media.
“I do not wish to obstruct the national dialogue,” he said. “However, I am
wasting my time.”
Aoun commented on the issue of Palestinian arms outside the refugee camps,
saying, “[We all agreed] during the 2006 national dialogue that all Palestinian
groups outside the camps are to be disarmed.” He also said the Lebanese
authorities should work toward reaching that goal.
This comes after the Bekaa town Kfar Zabad clashes that broke out between the
members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).
Aoun also told the daily that the Ouyoun Orgosh incident – when the LAF
confiscated weapons and drugs from the village – was not given the importance it
deserves. However, he did not elaborate further.
On Lebanese-Syrian relations, the FPM leader said the cabinet is the only body
that decides the type of relations Lebanon wishes to pursue with Damascus. He
added that the issue of the missing Lebanese believed to still be in Syria
should be handled the government’s priority.
-NOW Lebanon
Michel Aoun
April 14, 2010
On April 13, the website of the Free Patriotic Movement, www.Tayyar.org, carried
the following report:
The Change and Reform Bloc held its weekly meeting in the house of General
Michel Aoun in Rabieh. Following the meeting, General Aoun talked to the
journalists and announced that the meetings of the bloc will be temporarily
halted and will resume on May 4 due to the municipal elections, so that the
bloc’s deputies are able to follow up on municipal affairs. On the April 13
anniversary, General Aoun said: “This day marks the 35th anniversary of the
eruption of civil war. On April 13, society collapsed along with the state and
all its institutions.” He considered that had it not been for society’s
downfall, there would not have been civil war and that a country cannot be built
on destroyed institutions, thereby requiring renovation and a new mentality.
“The militias mentality is still prevailing, along with personal interests...”
Regarding the municipal electoral law, General Aoun stated: “I will not comment
on what recently happened in the Cabinet. This issue cannot be linked to
anything but the temporary interests of certain sides.”
He thus considered that it was not permissible to recant it after an agreement
was made, “or else, how can we build trust?” He added that all the sides wanted
a reform law that was tailored to fit them and wanted reforms that suited their
interests. Back to the April 13 anniversary, General Aoun stated that this day
should not be forgotten since political loyalty should not be upheld for the
appointments solely, adding that corruption had become part of the state’s
structure and that the Lebanese society had grown more tolerant toward it. “One
example for corruption is the Middle East Airlines company. How is it being
managed today? Is it an institution belonging to the Lebanese community or a
private, denominational, sectarian and partisan institution? We must know how
things are run in it, how people are sanctioned, how some are ousted from their
jobs and replaced by others. What are the administrative principles based on
which the company is managed and who is monitoring it. Today, we will settle for
asking these questions but we will have another position later on.”
On the other hand, General Aoun called for a national committee to follow up on
the dossiers of the missing, the DNA bank and the information delivered about
them, namely their birth date, the date of their disappearance and the location
from which they disappeared, but he also called on the government to clear its
name in regard to this issue, especially since the ruling parties were militias
during the war and held a lot of information about these missing people.
Regarding the dialogue session which will be held on Thursday, he wondered about
the purpose of the media outbidding in regard to the arms issue, considering
that the dialogue table was formed to remove this issue from the media. He thus
announced he will withdraw from the dialogue table if this matter is not
handled, adding: “The arms dossier should not surface each time the elections
are imminent... Everyone is talking about the arms while the real threat facing
the community is the drugs problem. I asked the state to present the information
it holds in regard to the number of addicts in schools and universities and the
quantities of drugs that were confiscated from traders and dealers.”
He thus reiterated the call for a meeting in Rabieh next Saturday at 11am with
the official and non-official anti-drugs committees, the awareness institutions
and the media outlets, in order to turn the entire society into one [front]
against drugs. He assured in this context that the health minister will send
doctors responsible for this issue and that he contacted the interior minister
and requested the presence of the anti-drugs apparatus represented by Brigadier
General Mashmoushi. Regarding the appointments mechanism, he stated: “This
mechanism was ratified and maintained the constitutional mechanism. However, the
implementation of the drastic measures is still slow and must be clear. This is
all we were able to get...” He then said regarding today’s game that he hoped
everyone will participate as part of one team, because this way, the goals will
be scored in the enemy’s net. Asked about the deal that is being talked about in
regard to the municipal elections in Beirut, he rejected the word deal because
it was not featured in the dictionary of the FPM, adding that everything being
circulated in this regard was not true, assuring that the movement will run in
the elections in Beirut.
The Ghosts of Martyrs Square
Talking to Michael Young /Now Lebanon
Nicholas Lowry , April 15, 2010
Michael Young’s new book, The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of
Lebanon’s Life Struggle.
Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Daily Star and a contributor to this
website, has written his first book, The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness
Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle, which hits stores today. A mix of reportage
as well as an introduction to Lebanon’s political culture, the book focuses on
the turbulent period in Lebanese history stretching from the assassination of
former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 and the subsequent withdrawal of
Syrian forces that same year, to 2009, which Young says marked Syria’s return.
NOW Lebanon caught up with Young to talk about his new book, the events of the
last four years, and Lebanon’s future.
First the obvious: What inspired you to write The Ghosts of Martyrs Square?
Michael Young: I always wanted to write something on Lebanon, and after 2005
this vague desire suddenly had the structures of a genuine story, and in many
respects part of that story was developing as I was writing the book. I was
lucky – or perhaps unlucky – that there was a neat finality to the story. It
begins in 2005 with the assassination of Rafik Hariri and ends in 2009 with what
I consider to be the return of Syrian domination over Lebanon – 2005, of course,
being the year the Syrians withdrew their army. But also more generally the
point of the book was to use the events between 2005 and 2009 to write an
introduction to Lebanon’s political culture. It was always my idea that this
book would be more than a narrative limited in time; it would also be a way of
explaining how Lebanon functions.
It’s common in Lebanon and the West to bemoan Lebanon’s sectarian system, but
you note a somewhat paradoxical connection between the sectarian balance and the
inability of one group to dominate others, and the country’s relative openness
and vibrancy.
Young: I think that Lebanon, though it is a dysfunctional place, is also in many
respects a paradoxically liberal place. Why paradoxical? Because its liberalism
is often based on illiberal institutions. Political leaders in Lebanon are not
really liberals. The way the system functions, its reliance on sect, is not
inherently liberal. Yet this mishmash of contradictions in the society has
allowed spaces to open up where people can behave much more freely than in other
parts of the Middle East.
My argument is quite simple: The biggest problem in the Middle East is the
overbearing state that keeps citizens in line with the perpetual threat of
violence, usually implicit. But in Lebanon, because of the sectarian structure,
we were never able to develop such a state. Society is stronger than the state,
in many respects. And, while this poses problems, it also has advantages,
because it is much more difficult to impose an autocratic order. So Lebanon’s
different sects tend to balance each other out, the system tends toward
equilibrium, and consequently it’s more difficult for a single leader or group
of leaders to control all aspects of life.
To what degree during the years of Syrian domination were certain spaces closed
off, and to what degree did the Syrians respect those spaces?
Young: The Syrians allowed spaces in which society could maneuver, as they could
not control everything. They essentially controlled the commanding heights of
the system and the machinery of repression. They used this sparingly, and, when
they did use it, they tended to operate through the Lebanese.
The Syrians to a certain extent respected [the] rules of the game... And one of
the arguments of the book is that Bashar al-Assad, when he extended the mandate
of [then-President] Emile Lahoud in 2004, made the mistake of not respecting
those rules... These were in no way liberal rules, but there was always a
certain understanding between the Syrian leadership and the Lebanese political
class, and when Bashar failed to respect them, there was a revolt of part of the
Lebanese political leadership that had once been allied with Syria.
What happened in 2005 did not begin as a popular movement; it only became that
later on once Hariri was assassinated. But let me add that while the Syrians did
respect certain rules, at least until 2004, what they also did was empty
Lebanon’s political system of its meaning by eroding any sense of constitutional
continuity.
As someone who has supported March 14, where do you think the coalition went
wrong, what did it do right?
Young: One thing I must insist upon is that my book is not a March 14
interpretation of what happened in 2005, even if my sympathies for the
objectives of March 14 are evident. On the contrary, what I want to argue once
again is that what happened in 2005, while it was a popular revolt for about one
month, began as a revolt of part of the Lebanese ruling class against Syria, in
part because they felt the Syrians had betrayed them by extending Lahoud’s
mandate. This was not a liberal revolt on their part; it was not a revolt for
freedom and independence; it was a revolt because part of the ruling class felt
Syria was trying to marginalize them.
When Hariri was assassinated in February that’s when people came out, when you
had a genuine popular revolt, which, incidentally, some leaders in March 14
always wanted to ensure that they could control. We saw what happened in its
aftermath: the divisive elections of 2005. When you look at Lebanese politics
you have to understand the limitations on political action. The notion that what
happened in February to March 2005 was a revolution against the established
order was always, to my mind, very naïve.
Where did March 14 go wrong?
Young: March 14 was always a coalition of disparate forces that remained united
through a common agreement that Syria had to leave Lebanon, then later through a
common fear of a Syrian return to Lebanon in the aftermath of the Syrian
military withdrawal in April 2005. The Syrians almost immediately began a
process of trying to reassert their control over Lebanon even though there was
an electoral alliance in 2005 between Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt and two Syrian
allies, Hezbollah and Amal. When that alliance broke down and Syria continued to
try to reassert its domination, this forced March 14 to remain unified against a
Syrian return.
March 14 was always a coalition of parallel interests. It was not a party, not a
movement. It was a coalition of different forces that pragmatically came
together against Syria. And last year, when Saad Hariri, at the urging of Saudi
Arabia, was compelled to reconcile with Syria, March 14 began disintegrating.
Suddenly the game changed. And that is why the end of the book is quite
pessimistic. It’s a post-mortem of sorts. Syria is back politically, and I very
much believe they intend to prepare the terrain for a military return.