LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 16/2010
Bible Of the
Day
5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
5:2 When he had come out of the boat, immediately a man with an unclean spirit
met him out of the tombs. 5:3 He lived in the tombs. Nobody could bind him any
more, not even with chains, 5:4 because he had been often bound with fetters and
chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him, and the fetters broken in
pieces. Nobody had the strength to tame him. 5:5 Always, night and day, in the
tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones.
5:6 When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and bowed down to him, 5:7 and crying
out with a loud voice, he said, “What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of
the Most High God? I adjure you by God, don’t torment me.” 5:8 For he said to
him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 5:9 He asked him, “What is your
name?” He said to him, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” 5:10 He begged him
much that he would not send them away out of the country. 5:11 Now on the
mountainside there was a great herd of pigs feeding. 5:12 All the demons begged
him, saying, “Send us into the pigs, that we may enter into them.”
5:13 At once Jesus gave them permission. The unclean spirits came out and
entered into the pigs. The herd of about two thousand rushed down the steep bank
into the sea, and they were drowned in the sea. 5:14 Those who fed them fled,
and told it in the city and in the country. The people came to see what it was
that had happened. 5:15 They came to Jesus, and saw him who had been possessed
by demons sitting, clothed, and in his right mind, even him who had the legion;
and they were afraid. 5:16 Those who saw it declared to them how it happened to
him who was possessed by demons, and about the pigs. 5:17 They began to beg him
to depart from their region. 5:18 As he was entering into the boat, he who had
been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. 5:19 He didn’t
allow him, but said to him, “Go to your house, to your friends, and tell them
what great things the Lord has done for you, and how he had mercy on you.” 5:20
He went his way, and began to proclaim in Decapolis how Jesus had done great
things for him, and everyone marveled.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
Lebanese reform mustn't harm minorities/By
Rayyan al-Shawaf/March
15/10
Obama's Turn Against Israel/Wall
Street Journal/March
15/10
14th March Sticking to its guns/NOW
Lebanon/March
15/10
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for March 15/10
Cassese: Justice is Coming …
Killers to Be Identified/Naharnet
Aoun: Internal Stability
Not Meant to Stifle Political Speech/Naharnet
Hariri from Germany: We
Cannot Protect Lebanon if Division and Mistrust Continue/Naharnet
March 14 Vows Independence
Uprising Will Continue Until It Reaches Objectives, Suggests 7-Point Plan/Naharnet
Jumblat Admits Offending
Assad, Not Sure Syrian President Could Tolerate Him/Naharnet
Bazzi to Amr Moussa: No
Mediation Requested for Libya Arab Summit/Naharnet
Geagea: Weapons Outside
State Control Sign of Abnormality/Naharnet
Williams Hopes Lebanese
Political Factions Would Agree on National Dialogue Timeframe/Naharnet
2 French Peacekeepers
Killed, 3 Injured in Personnel Carrier Accident/Naharnet
No
Official Syrian Response to Jumblat's Remarks, Al-Watan: Jumblat Didn't
Apologize/Naharnet
Lebanese hold ceremony to show solidarity with Iraqi Christians/Daily
Star
Billionaire Carlos Slim attends mass in Bkirki/Daily
Star
UN:
Threats risk fresh Lebanon-Israel war/Daily
Star
Sleiman to miss Arab summit over imam Sadr Libya feud/Daily
Star
March
14 demands fixed timeframe to conclude national defense strategy/By
Elias Sakr
Siniora condemns 'campaign' against ISF/Daily
Star
Hariri says future conflict will not be Lebanon's fault/Daily
Star
Jumblatt voices regret for his past 'improper' criticism of Assad/Daily
Star
Lebanon to get additional internet bandwidth from India/Daily
Star
Lebanon's external debt appraisal kept at underweight/Daily
Star
Head
of Palestinian Armed Struggle in Lebanon insists he retains position/Daily
Star
Alain Aoun: Bristol meeting
attempted to revive outdated alignments/Now Lebanon
Libya delivers Arab summit
invitation to Lebanese Embassy in Syria/Now Lebanon
Aoun: I am ready to
provide Vatican with explanation of Hezbollah’s role/Now Lebanon
Siniora condemns 'campaign' against ISF
By Mohammed Zaatari
/Daily Star staff
Monday, March 15, 2010
SIDON: Former Premier MP Fouad Siniora said Sunday that discussions over a
security agreement with the United States to train Internal Security Forces (ISF)
should be restricted to the concerned Lebanese establishments and not be subject
to allegations of betrayal. What took place wasn’t an agreement but an accord by
which the US offered a grant that included delivering aid to the ISF and the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), the Sidon MP told visitors to his office in the
town of Hlaliyeh, east of Sidon. “It is as if the campaign against the ISF was
prepared in advance to undermine the Lebanese establishments and especially the
ISF,” he said, adding that all sides should support the ISF for its efforts to
combat crime, terrorism, drugs and Israeli espionage networks. “The works of
such Lebanese institutions should be endorsed rather than obstructed.” Siniora
urged all sides responsible for launching the campaigns against the ISF to
refrain from such acts, highlighting the need for a united Lebanese voice to
overcome continuous Israeli threats.
When asked about allegations made by Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad that Siniora had
tried to remove the word “resistance” from the recent National Dialogue
session’s report, the Sidon MP refused to comment on the claim, saying he would
remain silent for the sake of “maintaining a suitable atmosphere for discussing
the issue at the dialogue table.” Last week, the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir
published information about a security accord signed between then-US ambassador
to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, and head of ISF, Major-General Ashraf Rifi, in May
2007. As-Safir claimed the agreement, which granted $50 million to the ISF, was
approved by Siniora’s government in a step that “breached constitutional
standards and the hierarchy of authorities.”
The newspaper also said that that Rifi and the current US ambassador to Lebanon,
Michele Sison, had agreed on amending the security accord on February 2009,
whereby support was increased to $80 million. According to the agreement, the US
government delivers training and support to the ISF, including equipment, the
newspaper said. In return, Lebanon provides the American employees and personnel
at the US Embassy in Lebanon with diplomatic immunity and other privileges that
protect them from facing legal action. Verifying that no ISF employee was
connected to “terrorist organizations” and granting US officials complete access
to the hardware donated was also part of the accord, the paper said.
News of the accord provoked an uproar and prompted the Information and
Telecommunications parliamentary committee to launch investigations into the
details of the alleged agreement. – The Daily Star
Hariri says future conflict will not be Lebanon's fault
Monday, March 15, 2010
BEIRUT: Prime Minister Saad Hariri said over the weekend that any future war in
the region would be the direct result of the international community’s inaction
and failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “War in the region has
never been due to a decision taken by Lebanon. Any war is a direct result of
inaction on the part of the international community and the failure to move
seriously on the peace process,” Hariri told the German Press Agency DPA in an
exclusive interview. “All wars with Israel, in which Lebanon has been the victim
of, have been launched by Israel, not by us, and Lebanon is the one who paid a
very high price, in human lives, displaced people and destroyed infrastructure,”
Hariri said.
Asked about Israeli threats to hold the Lebanese government responsible for any
attack by Hizbullah on Israel, the premier said: “This is not the first time
that Hizbullah has been part of the government. This goes to show how the
Israelis are always looking for pretexts.” The Shiite party is represented in
Parliament as a result of democratic elections, he said.
Hariri said that he will make a three-day visit to Germany on Sunday to “discuss
the regional situation and how to protect the country from regional conflicts.”
He told DPA that talks in Berlin will tackle ways to boost cooperation with
Germany which contributes to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
The prime minister also warned of growing political extremism given the failure
of the peace process.
“Today fighting extremism is not the responsibility of one country alone. It is
the responsibility of the whole world. In our region, for instance, extremists
are unfortunately gaining audience, at the expense of moderates,” he said. On
relations with Syria, Hariri told DPA that ties “are on the right track.” “We
are approaching them in a very positive attitude, and we are met with a very
positive attitude by Damascus. We are two neighbors, united by Arab identity,”
he said. Hariri said he will be visiting Damascus again “in the coming weeks for
more in-depth discussions on all these issues.” Turning to the issue of the
Special Tribunal for Lebanon that would try his father’s suspected assassins,
Hariri said: “I have complete faith in the Tribunal. Whatever the results from
it, I will accept.”– Naharnet
Sleiman to miss Arab summit over imam Sadr Libya feud
By Dalila Mahdawi/Daily Star staff
Monday, March 15, 2010
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman will skip an Arab League summit in Libya later
this month because of a diplomatic spat over the disappearance of an influential
Lebanese cleric 32 years ago, a government official said Friday. “President
Sleiman will not take part in the summit in Libya based on a request by Speaker
of Parliament Nabih Berri,” Agence France Presse quoted the official, who spoke
on condition of anonymity, as saying.
The official said it remained to be seen who would represent Lebanon at the Arab
League summit, which is scheduled from March 27-28. “With two weeks left before
the summit, Lebanon has yet to receive an official invitation,” they said.
Iranian-born Lebanese Imam Moussa al-Sadr, together with his two companions
Abbas Badreddine and Mohammad Yaqoub, disappeared during an official trip to
Libya in 1978. The Lebanese widely blame Libyan leader Moamar Gadhafi for
ordering the men’s disappearance, but Tripoli denies the allegations. Libya has
repeatedly claimed Sadr, who was the spiritual and political leader of the
Movement of the Deprived in Lebanon (Amal), had already left for Italy before
going missing.
Rome has always maintained Sadr never arrived there, though in 2004 the Italian
authorities returned a passport found in Italy belonging to the Shiite cleric.
Sadr’s disappearance remains a serious point of diplomatic friction between
Libya and Lebanon. Gadhafi, who has not visited Beirut since Sadr vanished, was
indicted by the Lebanese authorities along with six other Libyans in August 2008
for the imam’s disappearance. Berri, who has called for a boycott of the summit
since February, told Hizbullah’s Al- Manar television on Friday that Lebanese
participation would be an “unacceptable” affront on the country’s dignity.
Criticizing the approval of Arab states to host the summit in Libya for the
first time ever, Berri also said Lebanese participation would “jeopardize the
current political status quo” and go against the verdicts indicting Gadhafi in
Sadr’s disappearance. He asked: “Wouldn’t participation represent a challenge
against the judiciary?”
While several Shiite religious and political figures agree with Berri’s demand
for a boycott of the summit, Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Future Movement party
has said it supports a Lebanese presence, arguing that any disintegration in
regional politics would have enormous repercussions at home. Arab League
Secretary General Amr Moussa has reportedly been alerted to the fact Libya has
not yet sent Lebanon an invitation to the summit, a Lebanese unidentified
diplomatic source told the pan-Arab Ash-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper on Saturday.
Moussa warned Libyan officials it was be a “mistake” to fail to invite Lebanon
and that the snub could hurt Lebanon and the Arab League, the source added.
Moussa, who has not been asked to deliver an invitation to Lebanon, recently
agreed with Lebanese officials it was up to them to decide on the level of
participation at the summit.
On Saturday, Liberation and Development MP Ali Bazzi said he was “surprised” by
Moussa’s statements. “Sometimes he approaches the Lebanese like a mentor, other
times he wishes Libya would extend an invitation to Lebanon to attend the Arab
summit,” he said without elaborating. Moussa is expected to visit Lebanon on
Thursday.
UN: Threats risk fresh Lebanon-Israel war
Bellicose warnings from Tel aviv and Beirut utterly unhelpful
By Patrick Galey /Daily Star staff
Monday, March 15, 2010
BEIRUT: Strident threats of war are continuing to risk a fresh conflict between
Lebanon and Israel, the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon said on
Friday.
Speaking after briefing UN Security Council members in New York on the
implementation of Resolution 1701, Michael Williams said that bellicose warnings
coming from Beirut and Tel Aviv were “utterly unhelpful.”
“This rhetoric and brinkmanship contravenes that very spirit of Resolution
1701,” Williams told reporters on Friday evening.
However, he added that discussions with Lebanese and Israeli officials had shown
that neither side sought renewed hostility, in spite of what was publicly said.
“During my private meetings with Israeli and Lebanese officials, and in contrast
to some of their public announcements, both sides continue to express their
commitment to the cessation of hostilities,” Williams said.
Resolution 1701 was drafted to end the 2006 July-August war between Israel and
Hizbullah, in which more than 1,200 Lebanese – mostly civilians – and more than
100 Israelis – mostly military – were killed.
The resolution states that Lebanon’s sovereign borders not be breached, an
obligation Israel routinely flouts through its near-daily violations of Lebanese
airspace.
Williams expressed his concern at the on-going maneuvers. “These violations
raise tensions and may trigger an incident that, I remain convinced, the parties
do not want,” he said.
Williams used the example of Israeli over flights to demonstrate the need for
additional commitment on 1701. “Although the cessation of hostilities has held
well, key aspects of Resolution 1701 remain to be implemented, and this renders
the situation fragile,” he said. “The parties need to make progress on their
respective obligations and move toward a permanent ceasefire.”
Williams was speaking following the release earlier in March of UN chief Ban Ki-moon’s
interim report on Resolution 1701.
In it, Ban suggested Lebanon and Israel take the opportunity provided by current
relative calm along the Blue Line to ink a lasting peace agreement.
Ban also highlighted the need, according to the resolution, for nonstate groups
in Lebanon – including Hizbullah – to relinquish their weapons stockpiles,
something which Hizbullah has repeatedly stated will not occur. Williams said
Friday it was not only Israel which was failing some of its 1701 commitments.
“Another key concern remains the disarmament of armed groups in Lebanon. The
United Nations reiterates its position that this issue should be tackled through
a Lebanese-led political process,” he said.
The special coordinator welcomed the resumption of Lebanon’s National Dialogue
committee this week, although several participants stated that Hizbullah’s
weapons would not be discussed. Nevertheless, Williams expressed his hope that
the Dialogue sessions would lead to the establishment of “clear mechanisms,
benchmarks and timelines … so that progress can be assessed.” The UN has
continually called for the demarcation of the Lebanon-Syria border to begin in
mountainous areas, with the aim of stopping weapons and other illicit goods
crossing between countries. Williams repeated previous requests that progress be
made in this regard. “The government of Lebanon, for its part, must pursue its
efforts to address one of the main concerns under Resolution 1701, namely
potential violations of the arms embargo across its borders,” he said. “Lebanon
has started taking measures to improve the management of its borders.” Another
issue addressed by Williams was that of Ghajar village. According to the UN’s
Blue Line demarcations, the northern part of Ghajar is currently in Lebanese
territory.
Israel is obliged to withdraw under resolutions 1701 and 1559, but has yet to
remove its troops from the village’s northern sector.
“Israel still has to withdraw from the northern part of the village of Ghajar,”
Williams said. “We hope this withdrawal will take place as soon as possible.”
In spite of numerous concerns, Williams said that the situation in south Lebanon
remained “by and large calm” and paid tribute to parties involved in the
implementation of 1701, which “can guarantee this stability for Lebanon, Israel
and the region,” he added.
March 14 demands fixed timeframe to conclude national defense strategy
‘Our revolution will continue until our goals are achieved’
By Elias Sakr/Daily Star staff
Monday, March 15, 2010
BEIRUT: The March 14 alliance called Sunday for a fixed timeframe to conclude
dialogue on a national-defense strategy in order to keep Lebanese territories
from becoming a launch pad for an upcoming regional war. “Our revolution will
continue until the achievement of its goals despite many setbacks and mistakes
we committed in order to preserve our dream of an open-minded society,” the
March 14 Secretariat General Coordinator Fares Soueid said following the
alliance’s third conference at Bristol Hotel in Beirut.
Announcing a seven-point plan adopted by the March 14 alliance and entitled “The
protection of Lebanon is a national, Arab and international responsibility,”
Soueid called on the Arab League to assume its responsibilities in defending
Lebanon based on the Arab joint defense agreement.
Lebanese Forces (LF) chief Samir Geagea, Future Movement parliamentary bloc
leader MP Fouad Siniora along with MPs of “Lebanon First Bloc,” the Phalange
Party and the LF attended the conference marking the fifth anniversary of the
alliance’s formation.
However, Prime Minister Saad Hariri did not attend the meeting while Phalange
Party leader Amin Gemayel was represented by the party’s first Deputy President
Shaker Aoun.
Commenting on Hariri’s absence, Geagea said the premier did not attend the
meeting because he was in Germany.
“The pillars of March 14 are still the same,” he added. The plan also called on
the Arab league to participate in laying the foundations of the national-defense
strategy while urging the international community to assume its responsibilities
with regard to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
Resolution 1701 put an end to a 34-day Israeli war against Lebanon in
July-August 2006 and called for an arms-free region south of the Litani River as
well as the spread of the Lebanese Army and United Nations Interim Forces in
Lebanon in the area. The plan also called on all domestic parties to acknowledge
the state’s exclusive responsibility through its legal institutions and national
army to defend the country.
“It is the responsibility of the Lebanese Army to respond to any Israeli
aggression based on the evaluation of the situation by the Lebanese government,
whose members are entitled according to the Constitution to decide upon the
appropriate measures to be taken,” the statement added.
However, Soueid stressed that any Israeli aggression on any part of Lebanon was
an aggression against all of the country and thus the Lebanese would face it in
unity despite domestic divergence in stances.
On the practical front, Soueid said the March 14 Forces, as part of their
efforts to promote domestic dialogue, would “approach civil societies in order
to form a Lebanese social safety net.”
Also, on the Arab level, the alliance would urge Arab states to support and
protect the Lebanese model, which reflects a culture of openness and forgiveness
“away from ideological exploitation to the benefit of political parties or
states.”
On the international level, Soueid added that the alliance would seek to gather
foreign support for Lebanon’s role in the region as well as the Arab peace
initiative.
Separately, on Saturday, Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader MP Michel Aoun
criticized March 14 parties for questioning whether Hizbullah or the Lebanese
state held the war and peace decision.
“Both do not possess the war and peace decision; the Lebanese state could not
take a defense decision so how will it be able to take a war decision?” Aoun
asked, adding that “the Lebanese state lacked authority only over two regions,
the Israeli occupied territories and Palestinian camps.” Tackling the issue of
Hizbullah’s weapons, Aoun said that as long as Lebanese territories remained
occupied by Israel, the resistance’s right to weapons continues to exist. Aoun
also highlighted the international community’s incapability to enforce the
implementation of United Nations resolutions against Israel, adding that
Hizbullah won the July 2006 war against all odds.
“Israel will not succeed any more after the 2006 war and Lebanon, the smallest
country in the Middle East, managed to beat the army which considers itself the
biggest in the world,” he added. Tackling the FPM’s Memorandum of Understanding
with Hizbullah, Aoun stressed that his party aimed to promote understanding
among the Lebanese to strengthen the country.
It is “an understanding that was enforced during the 2006 war when the FPM made
a national choice to stand by the resistance’s side,” he added.
“We are in the basis of March 14 and if the March 14 alliance adopted our slogan
of freedom, sovereignty and independence, it does not make us followers,” Aoun
said, adding that his party stressed in the past that it would build “the best
ties” with Damascus after the Syrian troops’ withdrawal from Lebanon.
Criticizing Aoun’s statements, Geagea said “March 14 is a vision for Lebanon”
and Aoun’s decision to adopt another vision did not “mean that this vision no
longer exists.”
“Aoun said he was in the basis of March 14, which is true, but he chose to adopt
a different vision,” Geagea said.
Lebanese reform mustn't harm minorities
By Rayyan al-Shawaf /Commentary by
Monday, March 15, 2010
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s recent call to abolish political
confessionalism, in line with the Taif Accord, ignited a firestorm of debate
across Lebanon. However, certain features underpinning the rationale for
politically enshrined confessionalism have gone unmentioned. One example is the
link between modern Lebanon and its Christian character. The Lebanese population
has the highest percentage of Christians of any Middle Eastern country, and has
absorbed and naturalized Christians fleeing discrimination and persecution.
Perhaps the most compelling argument against political deconfessionalization is
that it would end Lebanon’s historical role as a sanctuary for Christians (as
well as Muslim minorities). Yet if political deconfessionalization is deemed
inevitable – even by its opponents – certain measures must be taken to ensure
that it does not lead to undesirable consequences.
Advocates of political deconfessionalization aim to reduce the pervasive nature
of Lebanese sectarianism and grant the Muslim majority representation reflecting
its numbers. The intention is not objectionable in and of itself. The fear,
however, is that such a move will, in practice, marginalize Christians and the
smaller Muslim sects, while simultaneously placing Lebanon on a path to “soft”
Islamization.
Dismantling political confessionalism is an undertaking fraught with peril if it
ignores three important issues. To begin with, not all of Lebanon’s political
bodies are identical. Treating confessionalism as something to be extirpated
from all political institutions without taking into account these institutions’
very different roles is simplistic and reductionist. The main requirement of a
minister is competence, meaning it should not be incumbent upon a government to
reflect Lebanon’s religious composition. However, the role of each
parliamentarian is to represent the whole nation, meaning Parliament should
reflect the nation’s diversity.
Thus, while it is not absolutely necessary for each community to have
representatives in Parliament, especially if members of one community feel best
represented by someone from another community, there is an undeniable logic in
allowing parliamentary quotas for women as well as for the different ethnic and
religious groups in the nation. Similarly, the state must distinguish between
parliamentarians and ministers, and ensure that the latter are not drawn from
the ranks of the former.
A second issue that merits attention is that of legally-enforced social
confessionalism. In Lebanon, members of different sects are subject to different
personal-status laws. The Muslim sects’ personal-status courts adjudicate
matters pertaining to marriage, divorce and inheritance. Although the Christian
sects voluntarily relinquished their jurisdiction over inheritance to the state
in 1959, marriage and divorce remain within their purview. Such a jumble of
different laws for different sects, together with the absence of civil marriage,
only consolidates sectarian divisions between Lebanese citizens. This is
arguably more pernicious than political confessionalism, as it interferes in
individuals’ private affairs.
Yet by far the most glaring lacuna in the discussion of political
deconfessionalization is the issue of secularism, or preventing religion from
intruding into the law. For Christians and members of smaller Muslim sects
worried about being marginalized in the event of political deconfessionalization
(like for well-meaning Shiites and Sunnis who oppose such an outcome),
secularization emerges as an obvious solution. Only secularism can block the
potential tyranny of a religious majority whose fair representation political
deconfessionalization enables. Without secularization, deconfessionalization
could lead to the marginalization of minorities and a greater role for the
religion of the majority.
In Lebanon’s case, it is almost inconceivable that a Muslim parliamentary
majority would attempt to establish an Islamic state. However, it is not so
difficult to imagine certain laws being “Islamized.” Were constitutional
secularization to accompany political deconfessionalization, such a development
could not happen.
It follows that, if political deconfessionalization is inevitable, Lebanese
Christians and concerned Muslims should attempt to tie it to a broader program
of secularization. Those who take up this cause would find that they have
significant leverage. Lebanon, after all, remains a consociational democracy;
those (mostly Muslim) Lebanese calling for political deconfessionalization are
wary of alienating those (mostly Christian) Lebanese frightened by such a
prospect, and are willing to offer them concessions as a consequence. In theory,
this makes a quid pro quo – secularization for political deconfessionalization –
feasible, though in practical terms such an exchange may prove more difficult to
achieve.
That is all the more reason to extract one measure of secularization for each
measure of political deconfessionalization. There are several opportunities
for pushing secularism through in this manner. Political deconfessionalization
can be broken down into distinct demands – from abolishing sectarian quotas in
Parliament to making Lebanon a single electoral district – each of which should
be confronted with a corresponding demand aimed at secularizing the country’s
laws.
Pursuing this strategy is essential for ensuring that Lebanon does not abandon
political confessionalism, only to end up sidelining the country’s minorities
and possibly even drifting toward a form of Islamization.
Rayyan al-Shawaf is a writer and book critic based in Beirut. He wrote this
commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
No
Official Syrian Response to Jumblat's Remarks, Al-Watan: Jumblat Didn't
Apologize
Naharnet/There was no official response from Syria on remarks made by Druze
leader Walid Jumblat during a weekend interview with al-Jazeera satellite
channel.
"It was an act of repentance," Al-Watan wrote of Jumblat's. Jumblat on Saturday
admitted that he had said "improper things" about Assad "in a moment of anger."
But al-Watan thought Jumblat's admission of guilt was not enough. "He (Jumblat)
did not deliver a clear-cut and direct apology" to Syrian President Bashar
Assad, said the privately-owned al-Watan, which is close to the government like
all Syrian media.
Cassese: Justice is Coming … Killers to Be Identified
Naharnet/Special Tribunal for Lebanon President Antonio Cassesse hoped that
progress will be made before year's end in the investigation into the murder of
ex-PM Rafik Hariri and related crimes, promising families of victims of
political assassinations to identify the killers and "prove our
professionalism." In an interview with al-Arabiya satellite channel, Cassesse
acknowledged that "investigators face difficulties in terrorist crimes."
He declined to predict on when the charge sheet into the Hariri attack and
related crimes would be issued, saying this falls under the jurisdiction of the
STL Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare. Cassesse, however, expressed hope that progress
will be made in the investigation before December 2010. He denied any
interference with the work of the court, nor with the work of Bellemare,
stressing that "everyone should understand that court work takes (more) time."
"I have no doubt that we will uncover the truth and I'm sure we are getting at
it," Cassesse told al-Arabiya. "We will contribute to strengthening the Lebanese
judiciary and reveal the truth based on the highest standards of justice," he
added. Addressing the families of victims of political assassinations, Cassesse
said: 'They have to trust the work of the professional and highly skilled
Tribunal. Justice is coming and we will identity the killers and prove our
professionalism. " Beirut, 15 Mar 10, 07:50
Aoun: Internal Stability Not Meant to Stifle Political Speech
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun said internal stability
"does not mean to stifle political speech or political arguments." "As long as
these squabbles do not turn into security confrontations, then they are
healthy," he said in an interview published Monday by the daily As-Safir. He
believed that the forces that are capable of influencing security stability "do
want stability in the country." Turning to Hizbullah, Aoun said many "sides"
believe that the Shiite group is a "temporary situation and, therefore, can be
beaten." Beirut, 15 Mar 10, 10:03
Libya Hands Over Summit Invitation to Lebanese Ambassador in Syria
Naharnet/Libya on Monday has reportedly handed over to the Lebanese ambassador
to Damascus an invitation to attend the Arab League summit scheduled in Tripoli
later this month.
The Voice of Lebanon radio station quoted well-informed sources as saying that
Lebanon's ambassador to Damascus Michel Khoury expressed reservations at the way
the invitation was sent. President Michel Suleiman will not attend the Arab
summit in Libya following demands by the Shiite community to boycott the
meeting. Sources from Speaker Nabih Berri's Development and Liberation bloc has
told An Nahar daily that "Lebanon's participation in the summit is a very
dangerous issue and would worsen the situation in the country." Shiites have
been demanding Lebanese authorities to boycott the summit over the disappearance
of Imam Moussa al-Sadr. In 1978, the Shiite religious leader flew to Tripoli for
a week of talks with Libyan officials. He was never seen or heard from again.
Beirut, 15 Mar 10, 12:15
March 14 General Secretariat
March 15, 2010
Now Lebanon
Protecting Lebanon was the focus of the March 14 alliance meeting at the Bristol
Hotel on Sunday. March 14 General Secretariat Coordinator Fares Soueid briefed
the press after the gathering, which he said was aimed at guaranteeing the
well-being of all Lebanese, despite their political and sectarian differences.
“Protecting Lebanon is a national, Arab and international responsibility,” he
said. Regionally, Lebanon is threatened by Israel, according to Soueid. It
refuses to work toward peace and continues to build settlements, he added. He
also cited Iran’s nuclear program as a danger to the country and region. “We
want to see the country united and free, fully Lebanese and fully Arab,” Soueid
added.
Despite any mistakes that were made, the Cedar Revolution will continue until
its goals are achieved, the March 14 General Secretariat coordinator said. With
that, Soueid introduced a seven-point plan to “preserve the safety of the
Lebanese people,” and called on the Lebanese to develop and elaborate on it.
The following are the seven points of the March 14 alliance’s plan:
1. Everyone should be committed to the decisions reached in the national
dialogue, and dedicated to establishing normal relations with Syria. The
national defense strategy is the only remaining issue that needs to be discussed
in the national dialogue. For the sake of the state’s well-being, all parties
should cooperate in the dialogue.
2. Internal disagreement is one thing, but facing occupation is another. Any
Israeli attack on any part of Lebanon is an attack on the entire country – and
any attack will be met by a unified stance.
3. Political parties should commit to the notion that national defense is the
responsibility of the Lebanese state, its army and institutions.
4. Lebanon should not be used to set off war in the region, under any
circumstance.
5. The Lebanese army is solely responsible for retaliating against any Israeli
attack, and will notify the cabinet under such circumstances. Only the
government has the right to assess the situation and take steps accordingly.
6. The March 14 alliance requests the government appeal to the Arab League to
fulfill its responsibility to protect Lebanon on the basis of Arab solidarity.
The Arab League should be included in the [national dialogue] discussions on
creating a national defense strategy for Lebanon.
7. The March 14 alliance calls on the Lebanese state to solicit the
international community for help in ensuring the strict implementation of UN
Security Council Resolution 1701. It is the government’s responsibility to
ensure the effective execution of Resolution 1701.
The March 14 alliance also announced its support for the following:
A) Creating a Lebanese civil society to ensure a “societal safety net.”
B) Insisting that Arab countries support Lebanon and protect Arab co-existence
which is symbolized in the country. Also, an effort to move away from abusing
ideology, in order to serve a certain state or political party. C) Requesting
that foreign countries assist in presenting Lebanon as a country that can play a
vital role in the region and world through the model of unique citizens, and as
a show of support for the Arab peace initiative, world peace, stability, and the
settlement of sectarian disputes.
Prime Minister Saad Hariri did not attend Sunday’s March 14 alliance meeting,
which fell on the fifth anniversary of the group’s formation, because he is on
an official trip to Germany.
New Opinion: Sticking to its guns
March 15, 2010 /(NOW Lebanon)
March 14 has rolled up its collective sleeves and addressed the gritty times in
which it lives. The movement that was the face of the 2005 Independence Intifada
used the fifth anniversary of the 1-million person demonstration that forced
Syria to withdraw its military and security apparatuses after 29 years to stress
that the state should be the paramount authority on all matters relating to the
defense of the nation.
Lebanon is once again simmering on the regional hotplate of war, caught in what
is developing into a chronic four-way nexus with Iran, Syria and Israel. Those
who value Lebanon’s ongoing national development cannot ignore this increasingly
dangerous state of affairs, and March 14 has, quite rightly, played its part by
formally announcing its position on who should take the lead in defending
Lebanon and making decisions on war and peace. It is a debate that most nations
have already resolved. But Lebanon is not most nations.
Those who felt jaded by March 14’s dysfunctional behavior of late will be
heartened by the coalition’s apparent unity in the face of what are very real
threats, urging a consensus on the national dialogue and reminding the Lebanese
that decisions of war and peace fall within the remit of the
democratically-elected government.
This was a more realistic March 14, a group that has been hardened by the
often-traumatic events of the last five years. Within its demands for a
structured assurance from all parties to work within the framework of the state,
it positioned Lebanon firmly in the bosom of the Arab world and at the disposal
of the Arab League. March 14 was also resolute in its determination not to be a
regional pawn, a clear response to Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah’s recent council of war with the Syrian and Iranian presidents in
Damascus in late February. But it was points three and five of the coalition’s
seven-point plan that underlined March 14’s commitment to the tenets of
statehood. They stated that “national defense is the responsibility of the
Lebanese state, its army and institutions,” and, should Israel declare war or
initiate an act of war, “the Lebanese army [will] be solely responsible for
retaliating… and will report to the government under such circumstances.” It
also once again called on the international community to help in the strict
implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. That said,
those who have been conditioned by their Lebanese experience to always see the
national glass half empty will be skeptical toward some parts of the movement’s
mini-manifesto. The most obvious flaw is the unrealistic call for Hezbollah to
stand aside in the event of an attack, be it provoked or unprovoked, especially
as there was no call for the party to disarm. Some sort of acknowledgment of the
role Hezbollah’s armed wing would no doubt play in any confrontation – and of
the inherent dangers such participation would involve – would have rooted the
document in reality. Furthermore, while defense and security are key, arguably
the key, to the challenges facing Lebanon’s evolution into genuine nationhood,
March 14 could have shown the breadth of its vision by also addressing other
areas that require attention, namely the economy, the environment, law and
order, and social and public-sector reform. Citing as an afterthought the
strengthening of its civil society activities just doesn’t cut it. Still,
Lebanon is what it is, and it can be argued that without a realistic and
state-centric defense strategy there can be no long-term movement on other
issues. Presumably the argument is “get defense sorted and the rest will fall
into place.” The ball is in the other court.