LCCC ENGLISH
NEWS BULLETIN
August 10/2006
Latest New
from miscellaneous sources for August 10/2006
Nasrallah urges Arabs to leave Haifa-AP
Israeli shakes up war's chain
of command-AP
Israel to expand south Lebanon offensive-United Press International
Israel Decides to Widen Operations in Lebanon-New York Times
Hezbollah proves to be a formidable enemy-Canadian
Jewish News
Intense clashes ensue in Ayta al-Shaab in south Lebanon-Israel
Insider
French President Says UN Resolution on Lebanon Must Include-Voice of America
Media bias in Lebanon: Rubes fall for the oldest trick in the book-Boston
Herald
ACT News Update: Lebanon-Reuters
Latest New
from the Daily Star for August 09/2006
Nasrallah backs troops in South, warns of 'graveyard' for enemy
UNICEF announces 9,000 measles vaccinations so far
Mobile medical facilities fill crucial gap
Off-the-cuff relief has been great but could be
better
Material damage to private sector put at $200 million
Saudis, Jordanians chastise Israel for punishing
offensive in Lebanon
Turkey can help Lebanon into a new 'long peace-By
Chibli Mallat
Latest New
from miscellaneous sources for August 09/2006
Israel Likely to OK Broader
Offensive-ABC
News
Olmert wavers over IDF plan to expand ground operations-Ha'aretz
Cabinet
convenes. Peretz: Israel fighting for free world-Ynetnews
Israeli
Cabinet approves wider offensive-AP
Harper's parry on Middle East conflict is correct
Harper picks Liberal MP as Mideast advisor-Toronto Star
UN Security Council close to securing a ceasefire deal-Irish Times - Ireland
Israel targets any vehicle in
south Lebanon-Chicago
Tribune
Lebanon Aims to Take Control-Wall Street Journal - USA
Iranian and Syrian Media Stepping Up Statements on the War-Middle East Media Research Institute -
Israel targets any vehicle in south Lebanon-Chicago Tribune
Casualties in Lebanon-Israel fighting-Houston Chronicle
As Lebanon's Fuel Runs Out, Fears of a Doomsday Moment-New York Times
IDF arms recovered in Lebanon-Ynetnews
The Lebanese Army / 60,000 soldiers not really looking for work-Ha'aretz
US, France at odds over Lebanon demand-CTV.ca
Lang and Moratinos in Damascus-Dar Al-Hayat
Israel shuts down south Lebanon-Boston Globe
MPs set to visit Syria, Lebanon-Toronto Star - Ontario
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for August 09/2006
MPs set to visit Syria, Lebanon
3 parties to send representatives Trip organized by Arab council
Aug. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
JENNIFER DITCHBURN-CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA—MPs from at least three of the four main parties are set to travel
together into the heart of the Middle East conflict next week on a fact-finding
mission, despite divisions over how to respond to the hostilities. The trip,
organized by the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, is scheduled to
include stops in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, but security concerns will play a big
role in where the MPs actually go. The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats
all plan to send an MP, while the Bloc Québécois says it will only attend if a
ceasefire is in place. Over the years, Canadian politicians have not shied away
from visiting countries racked by unrest, but entering one in the middle of
fighting is unusual. Mazen Chouaib of the council said he's in regular contact
with the Department of Foreign Affairs to assess the risks. He said humanitarian
convoys travelling between Damascus and Beirut have been bombed by the Israeli
army in recent days, so the Lebanon portion of the trip will be in flux. The
idea of the trip is to get first-hand information about the regional situation
from ministers, parliamentarians and academics, particularly those in Lebanon.
"We want them to have the discussions with different players in Lebanon, a
broader discussion, and see the broader impact of the conflict on Lebanon,"
Chouaib said. Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro, who has been charged in recent
weeks with reaching out to Canada's Lebanese community on behalf of the
government, is scheduled to go. The government has been emphasizing its
commitment to rebuilding the region once a ceasefire is firmly in place.
"I'm looking forward to meeting government representatives who can provide a
little more information and better perspective,'' Del Mastro said.
On the danger factor, Del Mastro said he couldn't turn down the opportunity
while at the same time supporting the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan
and elsewhere. His Liberal travel mate, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, said he felt a
similar obligation to take the trip. "People keep talking about Canada's past
neutrality,'' Wrzesnewskyj said. "We have never been neutral, but we have taken
on a diplomatic role. Rather than using war and destruction to find a
resolution, we prefer diplomacy."
Interview with Dr Walid Phares in Two British Publications on
the Jihadists and the present War with Hezbollah
'The jihadists are a fascist movement'
The Spectator-The Sunday Business
Allister Heath
Published: Monday 7th August 2006
First published in The Business
Walid Phares, the brilliant scholar of terrorism, lived through the worst of
times in Lebanon, the country where he was born. At the height of the civil war,
he would make the perilous journey out of Lebanon in flimsy vessels that were
easy targets for Syria's long-range missiles. In the 1980s, we used commercial
ships, with no Navy escort, sometimes under direct artillery action, he recalls.
It was in the rather more relaxed setting of London's Savoy Hotel that I met
Phares, who now lives in America and has made his name since 9/11 as one of the
leading analysts of terrorism. His latest book, Future Jihad: Waging War Against
the West, will be published in the UK in the autumn; its superb US edition has
become a must-read in foreign policy circles in Washington and for good reason.
Talking to Phares, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of
Democracies, made me realise how right Lenin was when he said everything is
connected to everything else. What was supposed to be a quick chat about recent
events morphed into a lengthy and fascinating seminar about the history of the
Islamic world and the theory and practice of jihad across the ages, but still
left me hungry for more.
The emergence of current strands of Islamic extremism long predates the creation
of Israel or the Cold War, Phares explains. He peppers the conversation with
Arabic to make his case, which is that today's
jihadist movements see themselves as a continuation of the Islamic state and
strive for its reestablishment within in its old borders.
The abolition of the Caliphate by Ataturk in 1924 freed jihadists from an
ultimate Islamic authority for the first time since the seventh century. This
unleashed the Saudi Wahhabis, and triggered the creation of Egypt's Muslim
Brotherhood. The Afghan battlefield produced a convergence into al-Qaeda, which
soon became a rival school of its own. All these groups compete over the best
way to re-establish the Sunni Caliphate, held up as the solution to the Muslim
world's problems. Meanwhile, the Iranian revolution saw the rise of a Shia
jihadism; it too seeks leadership of Islam and to wage war against the infidels.
Phares, who advised the UN on disarming Hezbollah, is at his most passionate
when discussing his native Lebanon. As long as there is no strategic change in
Lebanon, starting with Hezbollah's disarming and having international forces
taking the control of the Lebanese-Syrian and Lebanese-Israeli borders, the
bombings may give Israel some time, but will eventually transform Lebanon into
an extension of Iran, he argues.
When Rafiq Hariri, the Lebanese Prime Minister, was murdered in 2005, prompting
the Cedar Revolution, one and a half million people Christians, Druze, Sunnis
and even some Shia marched for democracy, dealing Hezbollah and their Iranian
paymasters a devastating blow. It shattered the myth of Syria's śbrotherly
occupation, forced Damascus to withdraw, and proved that only a minority
supported Hezbollah.
But the jihadists immediately fought back to re-establish the
Tehran-Damascus-Beirut axis at the heart of the Iranian regime's blueprint for
dominance of the global jihadist movement. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah
leader, struck a deal with Prime Minister Fouad Seniora: three members of
Hezbollah joined the cabinet, laying the seeds for disaster. As part of a
one-year plan, Hezbollah, perhaps with the help of Syrian intelligence, launched
an assassination campaign against politicians and journalists supportive of the
Cedar Revolution, convincing most anti-Syrian politicians that any serious
opposition to Iran-Syria-Hezbollah would be savagely punished.
The government was forced to stall on UN Security Council resolution 1559, which
stipulates that all militias should be disarmed, and to sit down instead with
Hezbollah to “discuss” the future of their weapons. Parliament was paralysed
with the help of the pro-Syrian speaker Nabih Berri and the Aoun bloc; the
allies of Emile Lahoud, the equally pro-Syrian president, were also tapped.
Soon, says Phares, the Lebanese army command was intimidated, the Lebanese
diaspora divided, pro-Syrian and jihadist networks in Lebanon and within the
Palestinian camps reactivated, and weapons distributed to allied militias.
Hezbollah's plan was to bring war with Israel back to the forefront of Lebanese
politics; eventually, Seniora would be accused of treason and overthrown, and a
new, non-Cedar government imposed, realigning the country with Tehran. As to
timing, events in the region were crucial: Iran needed to divert attention from
its nuclear programme; Syria wanted to inflame the Gaza and the Israeli-Lebanese
borders to overshadow the UN investigation on the assassination of Hariri;
finally, Hamas needed a new clash with the Zionist enemy to deflect attention
from its looming civil war with Fatah.
While the response from Israel, as well as the original reaction from Seniora
and most Arab states they didn't extend their full support to Hezbollah took the
Iranians by surprise, they quickly readjusted their strategy. Together with
supporters of ex-premier Michel Aoun, Hezbollah unleashed a campaign to depict
the Israelis as aggressors rather than victims, making full use of horrible
tragedies such as the civilians deaths in the Lebanese village of Qana. Lebanon
and the Arab world are all now furiously condemning Israel. Hezbollah's plan for
the Lebanese army is to drag it into a fight with Israel, to destroy it, says
Phares.The options are very limited: either Hezbollah will dominate Lebanon, or
the latter will disarm Hezbollah. Anything in between would be a waste of time.
The international community must form a multinational force to assist the
Lebanese army
As to the wider war on terror, Phares is angry that the West has ignored
moderate Muslims and reformers, in the West as well as in the Islamic world,
instead treating those who support the jihad as truly representative. For
decades, the only issue debated was the Arab- Israeli conflict, he says. There
was little study of jihadism, human rights abuses, women's liberation movements
or the treatment of minorities; worst of all, terrorists were routinely
presented as reformers.
The vast majority of intellectuals still live on a pre 9/11 planet. They refuse,
even after the rise of democratic movements and dissidents in the region, to
acknowledge that the jihadists are a fascist movement This must change, Phares
pleads; the only hope is to support young Muslims who advocate democracy and
social change.
Across the centuries, the jihadists often agreed temporary tactical alliances
with one enemy, better to defeat another, a lesson which France, China and even
Russia appear not yet to have learnt. But Phares crucial lesson is that we
should never forget that all jihadist strands, regardless of how much they hate
one another, are ultimately committed to the same aim, which is to wage war
against those with whom they disagree. The barbarians killed each other more
than they killed Romans, Phares warned me. Yet they eventually destroyed the
empire.
Harper picks Liberal MP as Mideast advisor
Aug. 8, 2006. 09:00 PM
JOAN BRYDEN
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tapped a surprise source for advice
on the Middle East: a Liberal MP of Muslim faith.
In a move apparently aimed at quelling criticism that he's been too ideological
and too pro-Israel in his approach to the Lebanese conflict, the Conservative
prime minister announced Tuesday that he's appointed Wajid Khan as his special
adviser on South Asia and the Middle East.
Khan, the Liberal MP for Mississauga-Streetsville, was born in Pakistan, where
he served as a pilot in the air force.
Calgary MP Jason Kenney, Harper's parliamentary secretary, said the prime
minister wanted "independent" advice from someone with intimate knowledge of the
region. Kenney said Khan could also help Harper build bridges to the Arab and
Muslim communities, which have been furious about Harper's unequivocal support
for Israel's bombardment of Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
Khan is "somebody who has credibility with some groups of Canadians that might
be skeptical about our mission in Afghanistan, for instance," Kenney said.
While supportive of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Khan voted against a rushed
government motion last spring to extend the mission for two years. He said
Tuesday he opposed the haste and lack of debate surrounding the motion but is
strongly committed to Canada's ``democracy-building" role in Afghanistan.
Kenney hailed Khan's appointment as an example of Harper ``thinking outside the
box in the context of a minority Parliament on an issue where there should be a
national consensus rather than just narrow partisanship prevailing.""I think it
shows a willingness to reach out and to listen."
Moreover, Kenney said Khan's appointment demonstrates the government is trying
to establish "principled foreign policy" while being "respectful in our dialogue
with the diversity of Canadians."Polls suggest Harper's stance on Lebanon is out
of sync with the majority of Canadians, who prefer to maintain a more balanced,
neutral position in the Middle East. Support for the Afghanistan mission has
also slumped as more Canadian soldiers return home in coffins.
The Conservatives' fortunes have slumped at the same time, particularly in
Quebec, where opposition is greatest to Harper's decisions to extend the
Afghanistan mission for another two years and to unequivocally back Israel in
the Lebanese conflict. Khan dismissed suggestions that Harper is using him to
help restore his political fortunes or quell anger in Arab and Muslim
communities.
"I give a lot of credit to the prime minister," Khan said. "Canada must be able
to utilize, I believe, all of its resources, even if it means putting aside
partisanship, in order to get the best long-term results." Khan will shortly
embark on a fact-finding tour of the Middle East and South Asia. He will then
report to Harper "on medium- and long-term opportunities to further Canadian
engagement there in early October," said a statement from the Prime Minister's
Office.
Before accepting the assignment, Khan said he got approval from interim Liberal
leader Bill Graham and encouragement from Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Volpe,
for whom Khan is Ontario campaign chairman. Volpe was vehemently opposed to the
extension of the Afghanistan mission. Despite disagreeing over that policy, Khan
said he remains a strong supporter of Volpe's leadership candidacy.
Harper's parry on Middle East conflict is correct
By Garry Barankin, Hamilton
The Hamilton Spectator
(Aug 9, 2006)
Re: Editorial cartoon (Aug. 4)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's poll numbers dwindle, seemingly due to his
outspokenness on the Middle East conflict. But I wonder if Canada was attacked
by a terrorist group, if some of our soldiers and civilians were killed and/or
kidnapped, how we as Canadians would feel if our friends the British or the
Americans refused to "take sides" in order to keep "impartial."
Harper took a principled stand. As far as "neutrality" goes, it has been said
that, "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Harper-bashers would prefer that he use the old Liberal tactic of sitting on the
fence, never doing or saying anything even remotely controversial, lest it cost
him votes. Thankfully, he is above that.
Human Rights Watch <hrw-news@topica.email-publisher.com>
Reply-To : <webadmin@hrw.org>
Sent : August 8, 2006 11:38:30 PM
To : phoenicia@hotmail.com
Subject : U.N.: Open Independent Inquiry into Civilian Deaths
U.N.: Open Independent Inquiry into Civilian Deaths
(New York, August 8, 2006) – The United Nations should immediately launch an
international investigation into civilian deaths in Lebanon and
northern Israel, Human Rights Watch said today. In a letter to the U.N. Security
Council today, Secretary-General Kofi Annan concluded that the
effects of the conflict on civilians in Lebanon and Israel require a
comprehensive investigation.
"Kofi Annan rightly recognizes the need to investigate the impact of this
conflict on civilians, but that investigation won't start by itself," said
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "The U.N. should waste
no time in sending experts to look at the terrible toll of civilian deaths in
Lebanon and northern Israel." In several reports in the last four weeks, Human
Rights Watch has documented indiscriminate use of force against civilians by
both the Israel Defense Forces and Hezbollah. Human Rights Watch researchers,
investigating more than 20 attacks that killed more than 150 civilians in
Lebanon, described a systematic failure by the Israeli forces to distinguish
between combatants and civilians that may constitute war crimes. Human Rights
Watch also accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes by deliberately and
indiscriminately killing civilians by firing rockets that cannot be aimed at
military targets into populated areas and killing more than 30 civilians in
northern Israel.
On July 30 the Security Council asked the secretary-general to report on the
circumstances of that day's Israeli attack on the village of Qana. Based on the
information he gathered, the secretary-general found that the deaths in Qana
should be seen in the broader context of a possible pattern of violations of
international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law,
committed by both sides during this conflict. "It's no use looking at one
incident or one side in isolation," Roth said. "A full and fair investigation
would press both parties to do more to protect civilians."
Human Rights Watch has called for Secretary-General Annan to appoint an
International Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate reports of violations
of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes, in Lebanon and
Israel, and to make recommendations aimed at holding accountable those who
violated the law. The COI should be headed by a widely-respected and impartial
expert with direct experience investigating wartime compliance with the laws of
war, and should be adequately funded and staffed with a team having expertise in
forensics, ballistics and weaponry, and international humanitarian law.
Lebanese army may help break deadlock
By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press
Lebanon's national army is no match for Israel's military. It won't take on the
Hezbollah guerrillas or fight Israel head on.
But it is being called upon to be part of a peaceful settlement to the worst
Hezbollah-Israeli confrontation in 24 years.
The 70,000-member force has largely stayed out of the battle — though it has
been hit several times by Israeli strikes that killed 29 soldiers. Still, it may
help get between the two combatants to ensure an end to fighting.
The Lebanese government said Monday it will send 15,000 soldiers to south
Lebanon as soon as Israeli forces withdraw, and the army command called up
reserve soldiers to prepare for the deployment.The idea has drawn interest in
the United States and Israel, and Lebanon is pressing for it to be incorporated
into a draft U.N. cease-fire resolution. It could help break a deadlock caused
by what Lebanon and Arab nations say is a key fault in the U.S.-backed draft
resolution, which calls for a cease-fire but would leave thousands of Israeli
troops in south Lebanon for the time being.
Hezbollah has said it won't abide by any cease-fire while Israeli troops are in
Lebanon. Israel says it won't halt its offensive until it is guaranteed
Hezbollah rocket fire will stop.The United Nations, the U.S. and Israel have
long demanded the deployment of the Lebanese army along the border with Israel.
But until Monday, the Lebanese government refused, saying it won't act as a
policeman for Israel and that a deployment without an Arab-Israeli peace
settlement would risk having its army destroyed by Israel's more powerful
military.
Many Lebanese also feared that moving into the south would mean a confrontation
with Hezbollah that could split the military — which includes many Shiites —
along sectarian lines, as happened in the 1975-1990 civil war.
That effectively left the guerrillas in control of the border area. On July 12,
they crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers, sparking the current
bout of fighting. Hezbollah and pro-Syrian Lebanese politicians have led the
resistance to sending the army south. But after devastating Israeli airstrikes,
the government, including Hezbollah's two Cabinet ministers, yielded to the
demands Monday and said it would send soldiers south.
Hezbollah may have done so in hopes of preventing the deployment of a larger
international force, a key part of the U.S.-backed peace plan.
The Lebanese government has not accepted or rejected the plan for a new, larger
force. Instead, it is talking about beefing up the 2,000-member U.N.
peacekeeping force already present in the south to help the Lebanese army once
it deploys.
There are already 1,000 soldiers and police in the south but they have no
presence on the border where Hezbollah acts freely.
The military has also turned a blind eye to weapons shipments to Hezbollah. When
anti-Syrian politicians raised rare criticism over a shipment the military let
in from Syria earlier this year, the command replied that under government
policy the guerrillas were a legitimate force and it was up to the Cabinet to
decide otherwise.The Lebanese army has been rebuilt and grew from 35,000 to
70,000 since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war. It far outnumbers
Hezbollah's estimated 6,000 fighters. But its troops lack the guerrillas' battle
experience and the religious zeal driving the Shiite Muslim militant group. The
army has no fixed-wing aircraft, only helicopters equipped with machine guns.
Still, many believe the army can be trusted to act as a protective force in the
south.
It stayed cohesive — and neutral — in the last 18 months of political upheaval
in Lebanon, when Syrian troops were forced to end their decades-long presence in
the country and anti-Syrian politicians were voted into power. The army refused
to quell massive anti-Syrian protests but also has prevented any moves to oust
Lebanon's pro-Syrian president — and it warded off any slide into violence
during the Syrian withdrawal.
Some — including U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen and anti-Syrian Lebanese
politician Walid Jumblatt — have raised the idea of integrating Hezbollah
guerrillas into the military. But Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a Hezbollah
ally, rejected that idea. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Tuesday said the
offer of a Lebanese army deployment in the south was "interesting." But it
appeared Israeli leaders were wary it might be a ploy to get Israeli troops out
without removing Hezbollah first. "We should see actions," said Asaf Shariv,
Olmert's chief spokesman. "Let's see what happens on the ground."
Qatar warns against U.N. Mideast draft
By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press
A draft Security Council resolution on ending the war between Israel and
Hezbollah would only complicate the crisis and result in "grave ramifications"
for Lebanon and the region, Qatar's foreign minister said Tuesday. Hamad bin
Jassem Al Thani told the Security Council the U.S.-French draft would be
impossible to enforce in its current form, and that any resolution must call for
the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and the strengthening of
U.N. peacekeepers in the area. "We draw the attention of our august council to
the repercussions of adopting a non-enforceable resolution that would further
complicate the situation on the ground and have grave ramifications for Lebanon,
Arab countries and all the countries of the region," Al Thani said.
Al Thani, who led an Arab delegation that included the chief of the Arab League
and the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, implicitly criticized the
Security Council for taking little substantive action in response to the
fighting, which began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12
and has killed hundreds of people. "It is most saddening that this council
stands idly by, crippled, unable to stop the bloodbath which has become the
bitter daily lot of the defenseless Lebanese people," Al Thani said. The United
States and France circulated the draft resolution on Saturday. They demanded
that Hezbollah stop all attacks and that Israel end all offensive operations.
That distinction drew criticism from Lebanon, which was also angered that the
resolution mentioned nothing about a timetable for Israel to withdraw from
southern Lebanon.
The delegation was sent to the U.N. by a meeting of Arab foreign ministers,
which hoped they could convey Lebanon's objections to the draft resolution.
Earlier Tuesday, the United States and France wrangled over ways to allay
Lebanon's fears that Israel would win too much from the draft.
In a private meeting, the Americans and French considered two tentative
proposals they hoped would both accommodate Lebanon's demands and revive
diplomatic efforts to end the fighting. Both nations agree on one proposal: that
the resolution should support Lebanon's offer Monday to deploy 15,000 troops to
monitor a buffer zone in the south, once under de facto Hezbollah control and
now partly occupied by Israeli troops, diplomats said.
The other proposal, still in the early stages, is to deploy an international
force to Chebaa Farms, a disputed area along the Lebanon-Syria-Israel border,
diplomats said. Lebanon had made that demand previously and was upset when the
original draft resolution did not reflect it.
The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized
to speak publicly about the talks.
Washington and Paris had been expected to circulate a new draft of the
resolution Monday but decided to wait to hear from the Arab delegation. They
could now introduce a new draft late in the day or on Wednesday. Because of
Security Council rules, 24 hours must pass before a resolution can be voted on.
That means any vote probably won't occur until Thursday at the earliest.
Hezbollah has said it will reject any halt in fighting that leaves Israeli
troops in Lebanon, and Israel has insisted it won't withdraw until it is
guaranteed Hezbollah rocket fire will stop.
Revive Taif, as a Shiite safety net
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 10, 2006
As debate continues in New York over a United Nations Security Council
resolution dealing with Lebanon, Israel has decided what to do next. It plans to
head for the Litani River, and maybe beyond. The Lebanese government must
prepare for this by reworking the political context that will accompany an end
to the fighting.
Israel intends to expand the ground war for a number of reasons. Its army has
seemed indecisive in weeks of fighting, and must now show that it cannot be
beaten. And while few doubt the resolve of Hizbullah's combatants, Israel will
win that war if it employs whatever it takes to do so. The real question,
however, is whether it can disengage at the right time and avoid getting bogged
down. That's where Hizbullah might try to turn the tables and reverse its
reluctant approval for the Lebanese Army's deployment to the South - a decision
reportedly reached with Iran's acquiescence. Or more worryingly, the party might
try to drag the army into the conflict, which could destroy its ability to take
over control of the border area.
The Israelis are also starting a ground war to avoid being trapped by diplomacy
at the UN. The Lebanese proposal for sending the army to the border is designed
to render unnecessary a wider Israeli assault; however, the Israelis apparently
feel that an attack can both strengthen the Lebanese government's hand by
weakening Hizbullah and reduce any momentum that would compel Israel to withdraw
from the South too early. It's a neat plan, but the uncertainties are such that
that any action might prolong the war in the South for weeks if diplomacy is
thrown into further chaos.
But the land war aside, what can the government of Prime Minister Fouad
al-Siniora do in the interim to prepare for a possible change in the political
landscape, if this comes to pass? The state simply can't afford to buy into the
presumption of a certain Hizbullah victory, particularly when hundreds of
thousands of Shiites are languishing in makeshift shelters. There will be a
boomerang effect from that disaster - whether inside Hizbullah if Israel makes
sizable gains in the South; or among frustrated civilians if the triumph
promised by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah comes up short.
That's where Taif comes in. In recent months Hizbullah has resisted disarming
under the banner of the 1989 national conciliation document, which outlined a
process for the wartime militias to surrender their weapons. Party
representatives pointed out that the agreement was negotiated in a different
environment, and therefore did not apply to Hizbullah today. This was alarming
to Nasrallah's partners in the national dialogue because it suggested the party
was beginning to deny Taif its legitimacy.
There may be a way out of this. If Hizbullah rejects the disarmament clauses in
Taif, it might be less inclined to do so if they come together with those
proposals for political reform.
This is not to say that Nasrallah is pining for more seats in Parliament, or a
seat on the Solidere board. Hizbullah's problem is that it doesn't readily play
by the comfy rules of sectarian apportionment, but thinks that, as a
revolutionary movement, it is entitled to establish entirely new rules of its
own. However, within a matter of days or weeks, Hizbullah's leader may, thanks
to the looming dilemma the party is now facing, be obliged to make a very
difficult choice.
What is this dilemma? If Israel pushes Hizbullah back to the Chouf and steadily
destroys its bases in the South, the party may be left with one of two stark
choices: to accept the demand of a majority of Lebanese and hand over its
weapons to the state - which would mean abandoning its reason to exist; or to
save itself by trying to take over the state and pursuing its resistance, which
could lead to civil war. To prevent the latter from happening, Shiites must be
offered some sort of safety net, one that compensates for the terrible price
they have paid in the past month.
There is phenomenal dead weight to the Lebanese consensual game, and Hizbullah,
for all its vitality, would find it difficult to budge that weight without
provoking devastating consequences. At the least, Nasrallah is in no position to
provoke civil strife (nor has he indicated any such intention) with the reality
of a humanitarian catastrophe all around him. Hizbullah needs normalization to
take care of its supporters, who in the best of cases may face months of torment
before returning to normal lives.
Taif was designed to build a post-war state. It should be re-tooled to bring the
Shiite community back into the Lebanese fold, after a decade and a half when
Hizbullah effectively broke it off from the rest of society. Independent Lebanon
was not always kind to the Shiites, but that time is over. Can Shiites now
accept a consensual and sovereign Lebanon, without seeing the state as just an
instrument of their marginalization?
The Israeli offensive will come and go, but it's the war's domestic consequences
that the Lebanese will have to manage very carefully. Israel can destroy a great
deal, but only the Lebanese can destroy their own country. Siniora should begin
thinking now of ways to avert this.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.
Nasrallah backs troops in South, warns of 'graveyard' for
enemy
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah voiced support Wednesday for the Lebanese government's
offer to deploy the army to the South to help alter a UN resolution and urged
Arab residents of Haifa to evacuate. The Hizbullah leader's speech came hours
after Israel's Security Cabinet agreed to expand the ground war in Lebanon, amid
warnings the conflict could last another month or more.
Eleven Israeli troops were killed in fighting Wednesday, while nine Lebanese
civilians, including six children, lost their lives in Israel's air strikes.
Nasrallah said the Lebanese government's seven-point plan was the least the
country should accept as part of a draft resolution to end the fighting.
"The government has announced the decision to deploy 15,000 soldiers in the
South. This will help Lebanon and its friends in adapting the UN draft
resolution to pave the way ... to stop the aggression," he said.
In his first comments since the draft was unveiled Sunday, he gave a deeply
negative assessment of the resolution.
"The least we can describe this [draft resolution] is as unfair and unjust. It
has given Israel more than it wanted and more than it was looking for," he said,
urging the government not to give in to US pressure, which is trying to impose
Israeli demands on Lebanon through the draft.
He warned that the US and Israel have been trying to "sow division" among the
Lebanese. The Jewish state has been "deliberately attacking civilians and
infrastructure to exert more pressure on the government and Lebanese citizens,"
he added.
Hizbullah is determined to "preserve unity on both the popular and political
levels and to strengthen the Lebanese state's position on the negotiations
table," Nasrallah said.
In a special appeal to Haifa's Arab residents, Nasrallah urged them to quit the
Israeli city to give Hizbullah a chance to step up attacks without fear of
shedding the blood of fellow Arabs.
"To the Arabs of Haifa, this is a special message. I say we are sad for your
martyrs and your wounded. I beseech you and ask you to leave this city.
"During the past phase, your presence and what happened to you made us hesitant
to attack this city," he said.
"I hope you do this ... Please leave so we don't shed your blood, which is our
blood."
Premier Ehud Olmert's Security Cabinet earlier authorized the move to send
troops further, possibly to the Litani River, up to 20 kilometers from the
border. Nine ministers approved the move. Three abstained.
In response, Nasrallah said Israeli attacks had not weakened Hizbullah's rocket
capabilities and its fighters would turn South Lebanon into a "graveyard" for
invading Israeli troops. "The enemy has failed to weaken our rocket-launching
capacity and our guerrillas are still fighting on the front lines," he said,
adding Hizbullah has killed over "100 Israeli officers and soldiers."
Regarding the Israeli Cabinet's decision to expand its offensive in South
Lebanon, Nasrallah "urged" Israel to send in more troops, saying: "You won't be
able to stay in our land, and if you come in, we'll force you out, we will turn
our precious Southern land into a graveyard for occupying Zionists."
A statement from Olmert's office said the Security Cabinet had approved the plan
presented by the Israeli defense establishment, but left it to Olmert and
Defense Minister Amir Peretz to decide the scope and timing of the operation.
"The military presented its timetable, saying it needed at least 30 days, and
this was endorsed by the Cabinet," a senior political source said.
One government minister was quoted by the Haaretz newspaper as saying the
offensive would not begin for two or three days, while Deputy Premier Eli
Yishai, said he believed "it is not accurate to talk of 30 days. I fear it could
last much longer."
Israeli warplanes struck in the north, east and center of Lebanon, hitting
roads, bridges, fuel tankers and homes.
At least six projectiles fired from Israeli ships slammed into Beirut's southern
suburbs as residents were conducting a funeral for some of the 41 victims killed
in the Shiyyah suburb three days earlier, police said.
Four Israeli troops were killed in a rocket attack in the village of Aita
al-Shaab; seven died when Hizbullah blew up a booby-trapped house near the
village of Debel, 5 kilometers from the border. Lebanese sources said at least
three Hizbullah fighters had been killed. - Agencies