LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
APRIL 11/2006

Below news from miscellaneous sources for 11/04/07
Lebanon, Hezbollah and the Upcoming US-Iran Confrontation-World Forum
Lebanon, Hezbollah and the Upcoming US-Iran Confrontation- Global Politician-Dr. Joseph Hitti
In Lebanon, Syrians still behind the wheel-Ha'aretz
Shiites fume after loyalty questioned-Kuwait Times
An international criminal tribunal for Hariri-International Justice Tribune
Hezbollah slams Mubarak's Shiite comments-IranMania News
Profile: Sayed Hassan Nasrallah-Aljazeera.net - Qatar
Lebanon uncovers attempt on Hizbollah chief's life-Reuters AlertNet
Lebanon thwarts plot against Nasrallah-Middle East Online
Wahab's Bodyguards injure 3 in Hasbaya funeral-Ya Libnan
US Initiatives are Required, Not Just Acknowledging Mistakes-Raghida Dergham- Al-Hayat
Shebaa between Hariri and Nasrallah. By: Walid Choucair-Al-Hayat

Shebaa between Hariri…and Nasrallah
Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 08/04/06//
In late March this year, two striking stances surfaced in Lebanon, without being noticed in the midst of the heated dispute between the President of the Republic Emile Lahoud and his proponents and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his supporters. The row engrossed the country and heightened the harsh political discourse.
The first stance was taken by the leader of the "Future Bloc" MP Saad Hariri; it was revealed in an interview with the "Al Jazeera" satellite channel (on the eve of March 29). During the interview, MP Hariri explained that substantiating the Lebanese identity of Shebaa farms by means of a document obtained from Syria, according to the decision of the National Dialogue Meeting, will allow Lebanon to implement UN resolutions 1559 and 425 on Israel. Thus, the Lebanese will be armed with two international resolutions in their favor, since the first resolution also stipulates the pullout of the foreign forces from its territories. Although the intended party, upon the issuance of the resolution, was the Syrian army, this generalization provides for the implementation of this clause in its provisions on Israel as well. This is possible when the international community will call for the evacuation of the farms area, after rectifying the maps held by the UN, through a Lebanese - Syrian agreement, and reinstating the farms in the Lebanese map.
Those who heard Hariri's statement noted his ability to invest the international resolution that he never endorsed openly, as his father did, since it targets, among others, the arms of the resistance. Both Hariri Senior and Junior believed that dealing with this issue is a Lebanese affair. In fact, the young leader tried to convince Washington and Paris to discard the matter and leave it to the local parties to discuss and agree upon. They also noted that the young leader is reviving his father's refined style in adapting the international stances pressuring Lebanon with the Lebanese interest. Just as his father was able in 1996 to play a major role in taming the negotiations in order to reach the so-called "April agreement", with the cooperation of "Hezbollah" and Syria to bring it into line with legitimizing the resistance and "Hezbollah," Hariri Junior found a way to alleviate the situation, by bringing about an additional international framework to pressure Israel to withdraw from the Lebanese territory.
As for the second stance, which surfaced a few hours after Hariri's statement, it was the announcement of the Secretary General of "Hezbollah" Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah (Thursday March 30th during the convention of the Lebanese parties in support of the resistance) that the US side has previously offered him a deal. The latter includes removing the party from the terrorist list, guaranteeing an Israeli pullout from Shebaa farms, releasing the Lebanese detainees from the Israeli prisons and "paying a substantial amount of money… and opening the whole world before the party… in exchange of giving up resistance and handing in arms."
As much as the supporters of Hezbollah valued his steadfastness in facing the US temptations, keeping the arms, and clinging to the resistance, the question raised by those who express the stance of another category of the Lebanese public was: If the offers include Lebanon recuperating the farms, why doesn't the party handle or ask the Lebanese government to negotiate thereon? Why was this offer neglected especially that it did not include a condition to demarcate its borders with Syria?
It is obvious that Sayyed Nasrallah avoided, in his objection to this offer, to negotiate over the arms, which are being discussed within the agenda of the national dialogue, by linking it to "a defensive strategy to face the Israeli violations and aspirations."
The difference between the statement of MP Hariri and that of Hassan Nasrallah sums up the current conflict between the Lebanese over the role of the resistance's arms. The first one fathoms the benefit from the sacrifices of the resistance, its arms, and the power it is endowed with in order to reclaim the farms, following the liberation victory in 2000, via the international community, without having to make any concession, since it has become possible to invest two international resolutions in this respect. It is a stance that suggests that taking a unified stance towards those present on the round table over the defensive role of the arms, under the leadership of the government and the Lebanese army, legitimizes keeping the arms within the frame of the Lebanese government as an authority, not the party.
As for the second stance, it keeps the fate of the arms pending and rules out linking the issue to the Israeli pullout from Shebaa farms and transferring the authority to the State. It is a stance that doubts the readiness of the government to stand up to Israel, failing to differentiate between the government of 1943 and the government of the Taef agreement. In fact, the agreement defined the identity of Lebanon and its foe and set up a new distribution of the sectarian partnership. Thus, the notion that Lebanon's power lies in its weakness no longer applies.
If all this keeps the role of the arms and its authority "ambiguous," it becomes natural for "Hezbollah" to support keeping President Emile Lahoud in his position, since the man linked the issue of the arms to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

US Initiatives are Required, Not Just Acknowledging Mistakes
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 10/04/06//
NEW YORK - The acknowledgment by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the White House administration has made mistakes in Iraq is an important one, should be truly honest. It was not just a quick answer to head off blame. It is an important acknowledgment if George W Bush finally acquiesced that his administration has made mistakes, which requires setting up a comprehensive strategy to correct the mistakes in Iraq and in the Middle East in general. Should he do, the US president will have to admit the failure of many of his policies in Iraq, in order to correct them. He will also have to acknowledge the basic flaw in his policies toward Palestine and Israel in order to come up with the necessary initiative to fill the gap. He will have to notice the time factor in dealing with the Lebanese-Syrian issue, in its bilateral and Iranian dimensions. There are degrees of flagrant mistakes, which are not just limited to the American side; there is an urgent need for an international and American role to prevent seeing the players in the region assume that their mistakes can continue, without being held accountable. For the international community - and specifically US and European diplomacy - to have a serious impact on Iran and Iraq, it must move quickly and seriously in the Palestinian-Israeli arena and in the framework of the Lebanese-Syrian relationship so as not to miss a valuable opportunity for the future of the region, and for itself.
It is not enough for the Quartet to repeatedly invoke the Road Map for establishing a Palestinian state next to Israel. The meetings and statements of the Quartet have become a matter of carbon copy, especially in missing deadlines and objectives set down by the Quartet. The parties should engage in a collective and serious thinking about how to empower Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to materialize a negotiation achievement that goes beyond the outcome of the recent elections and the promises made during the campaign.
According to the Oslo Accords, which set up the Palestinian Authority, responsibility for drafting the foreign policy was entrusted to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Hence, Abbas can be legally empowered to engage in negotiations with the Israeli government, as President of the PLO and the PA. Olmert promised Israeli voters a unilateral solution on the West Bank, if needed, to entice the emotions of Israelis who want a complete separation from the Palestinians. However, Olmert intentionally left the door open to negotiations during his victory address. He mentioned, also intentionally, the US alone, as if urging it to contribute in strengthening this option.
The top priority in the US foreign policy requires from the White House to launch a new, serious initiative with Abbas and Olmert, to encourage them to negotiate as partners in establishing a state of Palestine, instead of a unilateral solution and separation. The initiative must come from the US, although Russia, the European Union and the United Nations must also have key roles. Abbas and Olmert can think of how to organize a process that takes the situation outside the option of separation and imposing a unilateral solution. This alternative is bad for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, despite the delusions by some on either side. Abbas and Olmert require, in addition to determination, leadership and bravery, is the international community. They can think about a proposal calling for the beginning of negotiations based on establishing a Palestinian state within temporary borders of 80% of the occupied Palestinian territories, provided that negotiations begin immediately on a final status solution for all Palestinian territory occupied in 1967. This means negotiating over the remaining 20%, how to divide Jerusalem, and the issue of returning Palestinian refugees.
Those calling for this option indicate that the Palestinian president enjoys the prerogative, if this scenario succeeds, to call for presidential and parliamentary elections that will set the option of negotiation against that of rejecting negotiation and partnership. This will likely change the situation on the ground, as Hamas will be unable to win when negotiation offers just solutions, unless the movement completely changes its skin.
Why should this option tempt the Israeli side, which seems to be in love these days with the idea of unilateral withdrawal and separation? At the end of the day, the juncture shows the wisdom of reaching an agreement about separation and negotiating over solutions instead of the stupidity of arrogance and contempt in robbing people of their rights and planting the seeds of revenge and anger. Other reasons have to do with who is in power now, and what a "Sharon" revolution might bring. Still in a coma, Sharon led the Israelis in giving up settlements and swallowing the idea of withdrawal. Olmert is in a unique position, having unexpectedly inherited the "revolution." He now has a chance to make Israeli history, and not that having to do with the "dream" of Greater Israel. Sharon began with this dream and Olmert needs to complete it; he needs the US for this, not in terms of its Jewish community but in terms of a wise administration.
The Bush Administration must now realize that there is a good opportunity coming from the Israeli arena. It must stop doing what the Jewish community in the US orders it to do, because it is more extreme than Israeli Jews. George Bush must stop subjecting the higher national interest as he rejects understanding the weight of his relationship with Israel on his war within the Arab-Islamic worlds.
Strategically, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important ways to address a group of US challenges in the Middle East and elsewhere. Others in the region use the conflict as a tactic in a strategy that has nothing to do with Palestinian rights, but rather objectives connected to certain regimes.
Iran is an example of falsely adopting the Palestinian cause; the Iranians have had an understanding with Israel for decades. Syria is an example of flagrantly using the Palestinian issue by embracing factions and militias whose goal is to sabotage Palestinian decision making and hinder the possibilities for reaching a Palestinian-Israeli peace before a Syrian-Israeli one. Iran and Syria are now agreed to use Lebanon as a chief center for their messages to the US. The Bush administration must began the required reading of these messages and do something about them. The language used by Tehran and Damascus in Lebanon is one of strengthening Lebanese and Palestinian militias in the name of "resisting" Israel, although the true resistance front these days isn't the Lebanese-Israeli, but the Syrian-Israeli border.
Iran and Syria want to see Lebanon become an arena for a war of militias speaking the language of resistance on behalf of them. They are subjecting Lebanon because the keys to the Lebanese militias are in the hands of Tehran, Damascus and the Palestinians. At this juncture, they are summoning even al-Qaida to see the destruction of Lebanon complete, turning it into another Iraq. The Syrian recently regained some self-confidence by relying on its alliance with Iran, which has felt stronger these days, bolstered by oil and the country's strategic importance to China and Iran. For the same reasons, Damascus believes that no one big in the international community is interested in the details of the Lebanese political arena; it send Ahmad Jibril, the head of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command to Beirut, to mislead people on various fronts. This is the traditional Syrian style of doing things, namely casting blame toward both the Lebanese and the Palestinians. This is a "small" matter for the big countries and Damascus sees it as the best way to get what it wants and obstruct the international agenda toward it and toward Lebanon.
The Syrian regime is working to destroy the Lebanese and international consensus, one brick at a time. Thus, it rejects demarcating the Lebanese-Syrian border and is avoiding the establishment of diplomatic relations. At the same time, Syria is trying to create a Palestinian-Lebanese crisis, as it works against the Palestinian Authority by involving it in the pro-Syrian Palestinian factions, such as Jibril's militia. Syria is doing this in order to buy time, because it believes that time will serve it. Damascus also sees a ray of hope in the style of Serge Brammertz, who has lifted the daily pressure on the regime compared to the style of Detlev Mehlis, who put the Syrian regime under the microscope when he headed the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri.
The son of the late premier, MP Saad al-Hariri, made a big mistake when he met with Ahmad Jibril, because Jibril's goal was to challenge and do away with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which claimed his father as a victim. The resolution calls for disarming Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora erred when he believed that Syria's sending Jibril to Beirut was part of the understanding by which Siniora would visit Damscus, to discuss demarcating the border and establishing diplomatic relations. Damascus will not do this. Siniora should have expected to be mislead; he should not have fallen into a trap in which it seemed he was negotiating for Jibril's militia to remain active in Lebanon, at the expense of 1559. Hariri and Siniora might be victims of "Arab desires" to cool down the Lebanese-Syrian front, especially since some Arab states believe Syria to be important to them, in view of its privileged ties with Iran. They might be good intentions, but they are extremely bad ones, and represent exploitation. We do not know if they mean, practically speaking, a blessing of an implicit decision to destroy or re-enslave Lebanon, an expression of a wish for revenge after Lebanon dared challenge Syrian hegemony.
The Palestinian people are busy with their tribulations, although this does not exempt them for moral responsibility toward a country that offered them so much. Arab peoples, including the Lebanese, have stood in support of the Palestinian cause; the Palestinian people should announce its clear position regarding who represents it in Lebanon: the pro-Syrian militias of Ahmad Jibril, or the PA, represented by President Abbas.
Also, Arab peoples should stop mixing between resisting Israel and its occupation of Syrian territory, and using Lebanon as an arena for the wars of pro-Syrian and -Iranian militias. These peoples should check their conscience; they should not be allies of governments that wish to destroy the Lebanese model, so that their own popular bases don't become bold enough to reject hegemony and rise up against such governments and topple them. The time has come for self-accountability, instead of taking pleasure for the mistakes of others. The US' mistakes in Iraq require George Bush, if he is honest in acknowledging these mistakes, to oust his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld and get rid of his Vice president, Dick Cheney, and his people. The political-electoral constraints will not allow Bush to make such a move, but he can think honestly about what the situation requires, following the mistakes in Iraq, in the form of corrective measures in US policy toward the region.
Acknowledging that mistakes have been made is necessary to correct the situation. It applies to US policy in Iraq, as well as Syrian policy in Lebanon. Syria's mistakes in Lebanon have been flagrant, costly, destructive and ongoing, just like the US' mistakes in Iraq. Both are the result of a perverted situation, namely occupation. Denying the mistake is equal to a decision to continue making it. Damascus doesn't admit its mistakes in Lebanon and is prepared to continue it old policy toward Lebanon, rejecting the notion of true independence and complete sovereignty over its territory.
What is important now is that international measures be taken - specifically American and European measures - to strengthen the independence of Palestinian and Lebanese decision making from Syrian hegemony and diktats. This can take place by boosting the negotiation and partnership option for the Palestinians and Israelis, while coming up with a creative plan for peace and establishing a Palestinian state, and abandoning a unilateral withdrawal. It is also necessary, through international insistence on implementing the provision in 1559 that calls for dismantling militias. The conflict now is between the forces insisting that Lebanon not return to Syrian domination regarding the Palestine and Lebanon "files," and those forces that want to allow Syria to burn Lebanon and prevent unified Palestinian decision-making via the use of Palestinian and Lebanese militias for the ends of Damascus and Tehran.

Wahab's Bodyguards injure 3 in Hasbaya funeral
Naharnet: Monday, 10 April, 2006 -Beirut- Three people were injured in clashes between former Minister Wiam Wahab's bodyguards and residents of a village in south Lebanon during a funeral procession, the National News Agency reported Monday.
The NNA said the pro-Syrian ex-minister's bodyguards started shooting randomly after a skirmish with residents of Khalwat in Hasbaya province who were protesting against Wahab's presence at the burial. But Legislator Wael Abou Faour, who is a member of Walid Jumblatt 's bloc in parliament, said that Wahab's security men fired on the villagers for no apparent reason denying that there had been a previous clash.He said those who were injured were merely trying to prevent the gunmen from shooting at the crowd.
"The incident shows that there is a Syrian political decision to blow up the situation in Lebanon," he said at a news conference after Monday's incident. Future TV said the Lebanese army arrested 12 of Wahab's bodyguards after the shooting incident.
Wahab, a staunch Syrian ally who is also a Druse, is an arch rival of the anti-Syrian Jumblatt. He has frequently launched virulent attacks on television against his rival who commands the loyalty of the majority of Lebanon's Druze community.
Last month Wahab warned of a coup that would bring the fall of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority and restore relations between Lebanon and Syria to their former state. The NNA said one person was hit in the foot, another in the chest and a third suffered injuries in his face from the bodyguards' rifle butts. Wahab, who was the Minister of Environment in Omar Karami's cabinet that was in power when former PM Rafik Hariri was assassinated, is a also a staunch ally of the pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud. He is one of the very few who visit the president on regular basis. The Syrians use him on a regular basis as a wedge to divide the Druze community, but he has very small following amongst the Druze and his influence is very limited.

In Lebanon, Syrians still behind the wheel
By Zvi Bar'el - Haaretz 10/4/06
As expected, the real plums are emerging only after the Arab summit meeting ended. Now, the verbal sparring can no longer be concealed in closed meetings. One of them, which is very relevant to Israel, relates to the great embarrassment Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh caused his boss, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.
The story began some three weeks before the summit in Khartoum, which ended a few days ago. It began when Siniora and Salloukh met to discuss the wording of the resolution that Lebanon would present there. At the same time, there was also a session underway in Lebanon on the "national dialogue," attended by senior political representatives such as Hassan Nasrallah, Sa'ad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt and Nabih Beri, in an attempt to reach an understanding to resolve Lebanon's acute problems: the replacement of President Emile Lahoud, Palestinian disarmament, the status of the Shaba Farms and Hezbollah's disarmament. At this session, some very specific formulas were adopted, and in them the participants enlisted the full range and precision of the Arabic language.
o, for example, of the Shaba Farms it was said that "their borders will be defined" after Hezbollah objected to the phrase "their borders will be drafted." As far as the organization was concerned, "will be drafted" creates the impression that it is a problem that affects Syria and Lebanon only, as if the Shaba Farms were not occupied by Israel. The phrase "their borders will be defined," according to Hezbollah, is more fitting because between defining borders and drafting borders there is another step - liberating them from Israel - liberation that endows Hezbollah with justification for continuing to hold on to its arms.
But that is not the important story. Prime Minister Siniora was convinced that the version his foreign minister would present at the meeting of foreign ministers preceding the summit would be the one that the pair agreed upon. The wording states: "The League stresses its support for Lebanon in its efforts to have the occupied Lebanese Shaba Farms restored to it, to draft its borders and liberate the area of the village of Shuba, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 of 1978."
This version completely ignores the role of the "resistance," i.e., Hezbollah. It also neutralizes the necessity of armed conflict to liberate Shaba Farms and in effect lays the groundwork for asking Hezbollah to disarm. In the end of this process, believes Siniora, who is supported by the UN Envoy for Lebanese Affairs Terje Larsen - the UN will be able to come and ask Israel again to withdraw from Shaba Farms and thereby eliminate finally the pretext for Hezbollah's arming itself.
However, this is not what Syria and its supporters in Lebanon had planned. Without the knowledge of the Lebanese prime minister, the Syrian foreign minister, Walid Mualem, arranged with his Lebanese counterpart some minor wording changes so that both Syria and Hezbollah would emerge satisfied. The new wording was as follows: "Lebanon seeks the support of the Arab countries for the liberation of Shaba Farms from the hands of Israel, as stipulated in UN Resolution 425 of 1978, and this shall be done by all legal means, including drafting the borders of Shaba Farms and in the framework of the brotherly ties between Lebanon and Syria, with an emphasis on the fact that the Lebanese resistance [i.e. Hezbollah - Z.B.] is a faithful and natural expression of the Lebanese people's right to liberate its land and defend its honor against Israeli aggression and covetousness."
Siniora read about this version in the Lebanese press one day after the foreign ministers' meeting. Salloukh did not bother to brief him for two days and when the newspaper Al Hayat asked Siniora about the matter, "he lowered his eyes and answered: It's nothing."
Two days before the summit and after an exchange of words between Siniora and his foreign minister, it was again clear to Siniora that the wording he presented would be the wording Lebanon would present.
And then, at the closed meeting ahead of the public announcement of the summit's resolutions, it became clear to Siniora that he had been tricked and that the version the Syrians worked out with his foreign minister would be the one to "represent" Lebanon. Siniora was fuming and the host, Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir, had to intervene to calm him down. In the end, he suggested a version that is somewhat reminiscent of the "right to object and defend one's honor." But it seems the revision did not reassure Lebanese president Emile Lahoud, who was also present in the room and shouted at the prime minister, "You're selling out the resistance (Hezbollah) and trading in the blood of Hariri (the assassinated Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri)."
Hezbollah and Syria got the version they wanted, and the Lebanese foreign minister is now trying to mend his relations with the prime minister, claiming that it was only a technical error. However to Siniora and the Hariri group it is crystal clear that the Syrians are continuing to navigate Lebanon's politics and that until Lahoud is removed from office, even the Siniora government will have a hard time setting its own course. But at least there was a binding formula produced for the matter of "drafting borders," which Larsen relied on when he visited Damascus this week in order to promote the issue of Shaba Farm. Israel, for its part, could have neutralized this Syrian effort and caused Hezbollah severe discomfort if only it were to declare now that it is ready to withdraw from Shaba Farms, regardless of its "national identity."
Amid the daily killings, abductions, car bombs and plain old robberies, the Iraqis are also finding time for a little humor, even if it is black humor. Columnist Khaled Zaki, for example, published the following list in the Iraqi paper Nahrain: "Due to a rise in incidents of fraud and deception and the emergence of several gangs claiming to have ties to higher-ups in the government and to American officers, and because these rogues demand outrageous sums in bribes, we hereby present you with the official bribery price list, so that you will not fall into the trap of these swindlers. We promise to update the prices as necessary."
The price chart consists of three columns. One lists the government ministry "service provider," the second lists the required service and the third lists the sum that has to be paid. For example, an appointment as a police police officer with the rank of lieutenant or captain, including a certificate attesting that the bearer served during the Saddam Hussein era and another certificate indicating that he was an opponent of Saddam's regime - one must pay the Interior Ministry a sum between $500-$1,000. This is a worthwhile investment because it promises a nice salary as well as a personal weapon and the authority to receive bribes from others. The release of a prisoner from Interior Ministry detention will cost the briber between $5,000 and $20,000, depending on the seriousness of the crime.
On the other hand, freeing a terrorist - so it specifically states - from U.S. detention will cost between $100,000-$200,000. Whoever wants to win the American tender to supply food must pay a bribe of between 10 and 20 percent of the value of the tender. On the other hand, anyone who wants to import a pre-2004 model car (this is illegal), pays only a $1,000 bribe to the customs authorities. A Kalashnikov rifle with 30 bullets costs $100,000-$150,000 and a transit card for gang members to cross from Syria or Jordan costs only $50 or a percentage of the ransom money collected from the person they abduct. A Ph.D. embossed with an original seal costs $600, a master's degree is $400 and an undergraduate degree costs $300. Updates, as mentioned, will follow shortly.

Shiites fume after loyalty questioned
By B Izzak -KUWAIT: Kuwaiti Shiite MPs yesterday strongly condemned what they called "irresponsible" statements by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in which he questioned the loyalty of the region's Shiites to their homelands. MP Hassan Jowhar said Mubarak's statements were unfortunate and demanded an official apology. "We are not begging certificates of loyalty and obedience to our nations from Mubarak and others. These are irresponsible statements from an Arab leader who is supposed to be wise," Jowhar told a press conference held in the National Assembly and attended by two other MPs.
In an interview with the Dubai-based Arab television news channel Al-Arabiya on Saturday, Mubarak warned that Iraq was in the middle of a civil war that threatened the Middle East and expressed alarm about Shiite Iran's influence in the Arab world. "There are Shiites in all these countries (of the region), significant percentages, and Shiites are mostly always loyal to Iran and not the countries where they live," he said. "Mubarak's statements coincide with the third anniversary of toppling the tyrant regime of Saddam Hussein. It comes at a time when Iraq is bleeding and the Gulf countries are trying to unify the Iraqi internal front," Jowhar said. He charged that such statements only serve to incite sectarian rifts in the Gulf states.
"We reject Mubarak's attempt to lay down the principles of loyalty and patriotism, especially since he long ago abandoned Islamic principles when he shook hands with the Jews. The Israeli flag is still flying in Cairo," he said. Jowhar said the statements have disturbed both the Shiites and Sunnis and nothing can repair the damage except "an unequivocal official apology by the Egyptian president".
MP Saleh Ashour charged that Mubarak's statements "represent a Western intelligence policy aimed at destabilising the region". He said that there is wide and strong popular condemnation of the statements in the Gulf states and expected that conferences may be held to further condemn them. Ashour said the Shiites have succeeded in pushing Israeli forces out of South Lebanon, but the Israeli flag was still flying in Egypt, the heart of the Arab world. "If he has information about the Shiite's loyalty, he should reveal them, but if his statements were a slip of a tongue, he should make an official apology," he said. A number of MPs will file a request to debate Mubarak's statements in the Assembly at the start of April 17 session, he said.
MP Salah Khorsheed said he held a meeting with speaker Jassem Al-Khorafi and asked him to issue a statement on behalf of the Assembly to condemn Mubarak's comments. Khorsheed called on the government to issue a condemnation of the statement. Kuwaiti Shiites represent about 30 per cent of the native population of the country of about one million. The leader of the Congregation of Muslim Shiite Ulema (Scholars) in Kuwait, Sayed Mohammad Baqer Al-Mahri, said Shiites living in the Gulf were loyal to their countries. "Our loyalty is always to our nations. We are prepared to take up arms and fight any aggressors who may attack our nations," Mahri said.
Ibrahim Jaafari, Iraq's incumbent premier and a devout Shiite, unequivocally condemned Mubarak's remarks. "The comments have upset Iraqi people who come from different religious and ethnic backgrounds and have astonished and discontented the Iraqi government," he told reporters Sunday. As Jaafari spoke, he was flanked by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and Adnan Al-Pachachi, a Sunni and the parliament's acting speaker. Jaafari's government has come under repeated accusations of collusion with Tehran from Sunni Arab factions in Iraq. Expressing his anguish at Mubarak's statements, Talabani said these "accusations against our Shiite brothers are baseless and we have asked our foreign minister to talk to Egypt about this."
Iran, with its 90 per cent Shiite Muslim population, many of whom make frequent pilgrimages to the shrines of revered Shiite imams in Iraq, also did not take kindly to Mubarak's comments. "It is evident that the Islamic republic of Iran is only interested in seeking security and stability in Iraq and the region," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran. "We have a lot of influence in Iraq, and in no way have we used it to interfere in Iraq's affairs. Our influence is a spiritual one," he added.
Tehran cut diplomatic ties with Cairo after then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel in 1979. In a sign of antipathy, the Islamic republic named a street in Tehran after Sadat's assassin. Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek, a leader of Lebanon's fundamentalist Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah, described Mubarak's remarks as "dangerous and false words that reveal fanaticism and sectarianism aimed at sowing discord wished for by America."
Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal appeared to back Mubarak when he told reporters that the violence in Iraq could only be described as a civil war. "The definition of civil war is that the people (of a country) are fighting each other ... I don't know what we can call (what is happening) in Iraq except a civil war," he said. Prince Saud said he hoped Arab states could help quell the unrest but added only "Iraqis themselves can stop this fighting."
Analysts voiced their surprise at Mubarak's comments, which they considered to be a diplomatic blunder. "Shiites may be loyal to Iran emotionally but not politically. Comments that Shiites are manipulated by Iran is a huge exaggeration," said Bahgat Korany, professor of political science at the American University in Cairo. "It was completely uncalled for," said Mohammed Sayed Said, political analyst with the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies. "He is giving an impression that there is a Sunni-Shiite divide in the Arab world. This way he is condemning half the population. Mr Mubarak used to be a man who calculated his words carefully, but I think age makes a difference," said the Cairo-based analyst.
The Egyptian presidency sought to defuse the tension engendered by Mubarak's interview and assured he was not pointing an accusatory finger at Tehran. "The president's words reflected his great concern over the deterioration of the situation and his commitment to the unity of Iraq," spokesman Suleiman Awad said in a statement. "What the president meant was that Shiites have brotherly relations with Iran because it hosts Shiite holy sites," he said, stressing that Egypt "did not distinguish or discriminate between (Iraq's) groups and communities."
For Shiites around the region, Mubarak's remarks hinted at Sunni-led Arab governments lining up against their community. The comments are "the engine which drives the whole region toward civil war," Fouad Ibrahim, a prominent Saudi Shiite writer, told AP from his exile in London. Mansour Al-Jamry, the editor of the Bahraini daily Al-Wasat and a Shiite, said the remarks "encourage those who have an interest in dividing the (Arab) nation." Even leaders of Egypt's tiny Shiite community expressed outrage. "What does loyalty mean if people are not treated equally as citizens," Ahmed Rasim Al-Nafiss, an Egyptian writer said. (With Agency inputs)

An international criminal tribunal for Hariri
On March 29, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution urging the Secretary-General "to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal of an international character based on the highest international standards of criminal justice" in order to try the perpetrators of an attack that killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri. On April 4, Serge Brammertz, the head of the fact finding committee that recommended this solution, met with the president of the Beirut bar association, who would like the seat of the court to be outside Lebanon. The Minister of Justice was expecting a visit by a UN delegation. © Justice Memo - 2006

Hezbollah slams Mubarak's Shiite comments
Monday, April 10, 2006 -LONDON, April 10 (IranMania) - Lebanon's Hezbollah party denounced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's comments that the Arab world's Shiites were loyal foremost to Iran, AFP reported.
The fundamentalist Shiite movement, which has its own militia, described Mubarak's statements as lies meant to stir tensions between the Arab world's Sunni and Shiite sects. "These are dangerous and false words that reveal fanaticism and sectarianism aimed at sowing discord wished for by America," said prominent Hezbollah member Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek. "The Shiites respect Iran and Syria and but work for the good of Lebanon... We have never been anyone's agent and we will not ignore our nation's interests on account of anybody else," Yazbek said. Hezbollah, established during Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war, was founded with support from Iran's elite Republican Guards and enjoys close ties with the Islamic republic.
A senior Shiite cleric Sheikh Afif Naboulsi from southern Lebanon's Shiite belt also expressed "surprise" at the Egyptian president's comments. Naboulsi said Lebanon's Shiites "were proud of supporting all countries who defend the rights and honour of the Muslim and Arab nations. We regret all that has been said about the Islamic republic, which leads Arab-Muslim countries in opposition to America and the 'Zionist' entity's projects." On Saturday, Mubarak warned in an interview with Al-Arabiya television that Iraq was in the middle of a civil war that threatened the Middle East and expressed alarm about Shiite Iran's influence in the Arab world, AFP added.

Profile: Sayed Hassan Nasrallah
Monday 10 April 2006,
Nasrallah steered a complex exchange of prisoners with Israel
Sayed Hassan Nasrallah is the ecretary-general of Hezbollah (Party of God), the Lebanese political party and Shia Muslim community’s dominant political bloc.
Born in 1960 in East Beirut, Nasrallah from a young age was described as a remarkable student devoted to the teachings of Islam.
In 1975, the Lebanese civil war forced his family to return to their ancestral home in the south Lebanon village of Bazzouriyeh.
There Nasrallah, 15, joined the Amal movement, a political and paramilitary organisation representing Shia in Lebanon.
From south Lebanon, young Nasrallah travelled to Najaf, Iraq, for Quranic studies at a seminary.
In 1978, Nasrallah and other Shia clerics and students considered by the Baath government to be "radical" were forced to leave Iraq and return to Lebanon.
Nasrallah then studied and taught at Amal leader Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi's school.
Rise of Hezbollah
In 1982, after the Israeli invasion, Nasrallah followed Musawi out of Amal and into an umbrella organisation called Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is backed by Iran.
Hezbollah is widely credited with evicting Israel from S Lebanon In 1992, the Israeli military assassinated al-Musawi along with his wife and three children. Nasrallah, at the request of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took over the movement's leadership.
Under Nasrallah's leadership, Hezbollah became a serious opponent of the Israel Defence Forces in southern Lebanon.
His standing in the country was strengthened after his son was killed by Israeli forces in 1996.
Israeli withdrawal
Hezbollah attacks on the Israeli armed forces were an important factor in Israel's decision to withdraw from south Lebanon in 2000.
The achievement has greatly bolstered the party's national political standing.
"I don't believe in the state of Israel as a legal state because it was founded on occupation"
After the Israeli withdrawal, Nasrallah was at the helm of a complex exchange of prisoners with Israel, resulting in hundreds of Palestinian and Hezbollah members being freed and bodies of fighters returned to Lebanon.
Hezbollah's position, along with that of Syria and the Lebanese government, is that the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon is not complete, with Lebanon claiming sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms.
The UN says the border area is an Israeli-occupied Syrian land unless Beirut and Damascus amend their border.
'Continued resistance'
Nasrallah continues to call for the "continued resistance" against Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
He is also a strong opponent of the state of Israel.
"I don't believe in the state of Israel as a legal state because it was founded on occupation," he said in an interview in 2000.
Nasrallah, who lives in south Beirut, is married and has three children.
The Hezbollah chief is said to enjoy reading the memoirs of political figures. He has read Ariel Sharon's autobiography, as well as Binyamin Netanyahu's A Place Under the Sun. Aljazeera + Agencies

Lebanon says bid to kill Hizbollah chief uncovered
10 Apr 2006 -Source: Reuters
By Alaa Shahine-BEIRUT, April 10 (Reuters) - Lebanese authorities have arrested nine men suspected of planning to assassinate the head of the Shi'ite Muslim Hizbollah group, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, security officials said on Monday.
The suspects are eight Lebanese and one Palestinian, a senior security official said. Security forces also seized an unknown quantity of weapons with the suspects, officials said. "The plot was at an early stage," one senior security official told Reuters. "We have smoke and we have fire but the details are not clear yet." He said the Lebanese suspects were related to each other.
Officials said the motive for the plan was not immediately clear. Hizbollah spokesman Hussein Rahal said authorities had informed the group of the plot. "We can confirm this," he said. "Lebanese authorities have informed us that they arrested a group accused of planning to assassinate Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah."
Hizbollah's attacks were vital in ending Israel's 22-year occupation of south Lebanon in 2000. It is listed by Washington as a terrorist organisation. Another security source said the suspects had been planning to assassinate Nasrallah on April 28, when he is expected to attend a round of national dialogue talks with other Lebanese leaders at the Lebanese parliament.
The talks have so far failed to bridge wide gaps on key issues dividing the country, including the domestic and international calls for Hizbollah to disarm. Hizbollah, also a staunch ally of Damascus, says it will not disarm even if Israel withdraws from the occupied Shebaa Farms. The U.N. says the border area is Israeli-occupied Syrian land unless Beirut and Damascus amend their border. Nasrallah is usually accompanied by heavy security and his movements are limited. His predecessor, Sayyed Abbas al-Mousawi, was killed in an Israeli raid in 1992. Hizbollah's headquarters in Beirut's southern suburb, where Nasrallah also resides, are heavily guarded. The suspects were questioned by military intelligence and then handed to a military magistrate, a security official said. A string of bombings and political assassinations has rocked Lebanon since the Feb. 14, 2005 killing of ex-Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. A U.N. inquiry has implicated Syrian officials and their Lebanese allies in the murder. They all deny any role but Syria was forced to bow to world pressure and end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon nearly 12 months ago.

Lebanon denies report of Nasrallah murder plot
Middle East On Line: As-Safir reports Hezbollah chief was target of assassination planned for April 28 involving anti-tank rockets. BEIRUT - Lebanon denied a report Monday that nine had been arrested in a plot to kill Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, but confirmed the men had been detained for planning an attack "against the state".
"The plans of the arrested did not include the assassination of Nasrallah," a judiciary official said, on condition of anonymity.
He dismissed the report in the As-Safir daily as "exaggerated" and said the suspects were being hauled before a military court for "trying to carry out an attack against the authority of the state and for possessing weapons."
He added the group was "planning its actions in the case of instability in Lebanon." In its article, As-Safir cited security sources who said that the assassination of the head of the armed Shiite party was planned for April 28 when Nasrallah was due to attend Lebanon's ongoing national dialogue. Lebanon's military intelligence service broke the network last week, it added.
The group "had been tracking Nasrallah's movements for March and April and had put in place a thorough plan to assassinate Nasrallah during the next meeting of the national dialogue." The attack would have been involved firing anti-tank rockets at the Hezbollah chief's vehicle convoy as Nasrallah made his way to the talks. Five of the suspects were relatives and weapons ranging from guided-missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles and silencers were found on the men when they were picked up at their homes and at work. The national dialogue, bringing together factions across Lebanon's political spectrum, started meeting in March with the aim of healing national divisions and tackling sensitive issues like the continued existence of Hezbollah's armed wing. Hezbollah had no comment on the newspaper report. The security sources told As-Safir the group had a sophisticated structured and had received "advanced training in weapons handling." The paper gave no information about the cell's affiliation or motivations. Hezbollah, formed during Lebanon's civil war in the 1980s, cemented its status in the Arab world after its insurgency forced Israeli troops out of southern Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah, which receives backing from Iran and Syria, remains the only Lebanese party to possess an armed wing in defiance of the terms ending Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war. The United States considers the group a "terrorist organisation" and blames it for the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 US Marines.

Bush calls Iran military plans 'wild speculation'
By Sam Knight and agencies 10/04/06
President George Bush dismissed claims that his administration was planning a pre-emptive military strike against Iran as "wild speculation" today. Mr Bush was reacting to two articles — one in The Washington Post on Sunday and another in The New Yorker magazine today — claiming that hawkish officials in the Pentagon and the White House were recommending a forceful change of regime in Tehran. In The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter, wrote that military planners had drawn up a list of targets for nuclear strikes to eliminate the threat of Iran's rumoured atomic weapons programme.  Hersh claimed that Mr Bush has become convinced that he has a historical mission to remove President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline leader of Iran who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
In a speech to John Hopkins University, Mr Bush paused to comment on the reports which have consumed America's media: "By the way I read the articles in the newspapers and it was just wild speculation... What you're reading is wild speculation."
The President insisted that his promise to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons — made in his National Security Strategy published earlier this year — "doesn’t mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."
The press reports formed part of a flurry of exchanges between Tehran, Washington and Brussels today as five inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continued to examine nuclear research facilities in Iran.
The IAEA will report its findings to the UN Security Council on April 28, when the permanent members will decide whether or not to impose economic sanctions on Iran for disguising a nuclear weapons programme as a peaceful attempt to secure a new source of energy.
Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, said today that trade and travel restrictions for Iranian officials were being considered but that military force was not on the table. "Any military action is definitely out of the question for us," he said.
But President Ahmadinejad accused the West of attempting to sow disharmony in Iran. One of the claims in Hersh's article centred on US attempts to win support from dissidents inside the country. In recent months, the Bush administration has set up a 24-hour cable channel to broadcast into Iran.
Speaking to thousands of people in Mashad, a provincial capital in northeastern Iran, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "Our enemies know that they can’t cause a minute’s pause in our nation’s motion forward. Unfortunately today some bullying powers are unable to give up their bullying nature. The future will prove that our path was a right way."
"They have pinned their hope to create differences among our nation," said Mr Ahmadinejad, who promised "good nuclear news" for Iran in the coming days but did not elaborate.
Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran’s supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator, advised America against the military option: "If the US commits such a mistake, it would receive a convenient answer," he was quoted as saying by IRNA, the state news agency.
The American news reports came after weeks of intense discussion in Washington about a possible change of stance towards Iran.
At the end of March, Joseph Cirincione, a director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and one of America's leading Iran experts, caused controversy saying that he believed that statements from the White House echoed those made in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
"For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view," Mr Cirincione wrote on the website of Foreign Policy magazine.
"In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran," he wrote.
Jack Straw, rubbished reports of a move towards a military strike as "nuts". He added: "I’m as certain as I can be sitting here that neither would the United States."
"There is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli [just cause for war]. We can’t be certain about Iran’s intentions and that is, therefore, not a basis on which anybody would gain authority to go for military action," he told the BBC.
Peter Brookes, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence in the first Bush Administration, also played down the significance of the recent stories, saying that plans for military strikes against Iran had existed since the late 1970s and the Iranian Revolution.
"The fact of the matter is: we have war plans, every country does," he told Times Online. "And they are updated on a regular basis... You can't just flip the switch and see what happens."