LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
August 19/2006

Latest New from the Daily Star for August 19/06
Residents welcome Lebanese Army's historic deployment in South
Top UN officials head for Lebanon, Israel to assess truce
Mourners lay victims of Qana massacre to rest
Siniora: Weapons should be confined to army
Media reports UAE plan to rebuild schools, hospitals
Assad speech risks widening rift among Lebanese
Political battle expected over Judicial appointments
New front in war: Battle for local, world opinion
Hizbullah action, government inaction in poignant contrast
Remember, Palestine is the region's festering sore -By Rami G. Khouri
Toward a definition of 'Islamic fascism'-By David Ignatius
Haniyya: No unity government before MPs, ministers are free
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for August 19/06
Nations meet to discuss Lebanon troops-AP
Lebanon facing humanitarian crisis-Guardian Unlimited
Analysis: Cease-fire on verge of collapse-Jerusalem Post
Sending in the troops-Al-Ahram
Hizballah, Syria Political Maneuvering Raises Concern-CNSNews.com
Syria to form its own "Hezbollah"-Questions and Observations
Papal Envoy's Final Statement in Lebanon-Zenit News Agency
The dust settles-Al-Ahram Weekly
What now for Hizbullah?Al-Ahram Weekly

What now for Hizbullah?
Omayma Abdel-Latif examines the looming debate over disarming Hizbullah and how it might impact on the Lebanese political scene
In the southern Beirut neighbourhood of Al-Dahiya there is hardly a building left that does not bear the scars of Israel's war. One flyer hanging from a burnt residential building reads "God's promise has been fulfilled", an allusion to the one-month resistance operation which Hizbullah called The Honest Promise. In the words of its leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah has achieved "a strategic and historic victory" over Israel. The fighting may have ended but, say many observers, another battle awaits the party, this time on the home front where calls began to be voiced for Hizbullah to disarm even before the guns went silent. The calls, at a time when almost one million Lebanese citizens are displaced and Israeli troops remain on Lebanese soil, were described by Nasrallah in his latest speech aired Monday night, as "immoral". The speech directed harsh yet veiled criticism at those demanding Hizbullah hand in its weapons, and was the opening shot in what is likely to be a hard fought battle over the fate of the group's arsenal. Hizbullah has emerged from the month-long aggression with far broader support in Lebanon, and across many parts of the Arab world, than it previously enjoyed. Public backing of Hizbullah now goes beyond the Lebanese Shia community to include Christians, mostly belonging to the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), and Sunni forces. It came as no surprise that Nasrallah devoted the bulk of his last speech to issues surrounding the disarming of Hizbullah. The debate, he said, was "a sensitive and serious issue" and should have been conducted behind closed doors and not in front of TV cameras. Nasrallah, who appeared to be keen on keeping Lebanese national unity intact, reiterated that he was open to dialogue over Hizbullah's weapons but only "at an appropriate time and through appropriate channels".
He steered clear from engaging in a war of words against his opponents. "My beloved ones," he said, "this sensitive issue -- the disarmament -- cannot be solved through hasty decisions or provocation. Israel could not do it through military might, wanton destruction, the demolition of houses and the killing of children."
"Before we ask questions about the fate of Hizbullah's arms we have to ask whether or not the international community has real guarantees to protect Lebanon from future Israeli aggression. Can UNIFIL defend Lebanon if Israel attacked again? What alternatives do they have if the resistance handed in the weapons as they want? These are all questions that are tied to the future of Lebanon and they should not be addressed in a simplified and hasty manner." Such questions are likely to test the unity Lebanon demonstrated during the one-month crisis in the crucible of post-war politics.
Analysts agree that the US-Israeli military campaign against Lebanon failed to push the Lebanese into rallying against Hizbullah, one of the main goals of the campaign. While hitting civilian targets and infrastructure was designed to push the Lebanese population into blaming the destruction on Hizbullah, and thus rise against it, apart from a few within the 14 March coalition, the tactic backfired spectacularly.
"Lebanon was taken hostage not by Hizbullah but by the Americans and the Israelis who wanted, through their wanton destruction and targeting of civilians, to force the Lebanese population to do the dirty work of disarming the only force that stood up to Israel," said one Lebanese observer.
There is growing concern, though, that national unity is beginning to show signs of fracture under the intense international pressure being placed on the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been quoted as warning the Lebanese premiere of "the grave consequences" facing Lebanon should it fail to implement Resolution 1701. A cabinet meeting scheduled for Sunday was delayed amid speculation that there were growing divisions within the government over the disarming of Hizbullah. While Hizbullah sources denied they were behind the delay one cabinet minister was quoted as directly blaming the group. Sources close to Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora said the main item on the meeting's agenda was to address the logistics of deploying the Lebanese army in the south and not the disarming of Hizbullah.
While Hizbullah will rely heavily on its constituency in the battle to keep its arms it also has the backing of other groups. Fathi Yakan, the founder of the Islamic Group in Lebanon, one of the main Sunni factions, accused those calling for disarmament as "being in the same camp as Israel and the United States"."They want to turn the victory into a defeat and hand the Israeli enemy a victory it could not itself obtain," he said. Hizbullah also has support within the cabinet. Defence Minister Elias Al-Murr stressed in a television interview with LBC on Monday that disarming Hizbullah "was not a priority in Lebanon today".
"Before we ask Hizbullah to disarm we should ask what defence policy we want for Lebanon in the coming period," said Al-Murr. In what appeared to be a response to French foreign minister's call to disarm Hizbullah, he pointed out that "the Lebanese army which will be deployed in the south will be the only armed force there", but stressed that "Hizbullah will not be disarmed by force." "What can be done to disarm Hizbullah that Israel did not do? The war has shown that it is facile to think Hizbullah can be marginalised and forced to disarm, or that there can be any settlement outside the context of national dialogue." Hizbullah ministers in the cabinet have stressed that the party is willing to assist the Lebanese army in deploying its troops in the south of the country, while Al-Murr has dismissed any suggestion that it is the army's job to hunt for Hizbullah, saying, "the Lebanese army is not in the business of targeting Hizbullah... We have to assure the residents in the south that the state is strong enough to protect them."Joseph Smaha, editor-in-chief of the newly published Al-Akhbar newspaper, accused those who call for the disarmament of Hizbullah now as "completing the circle of Israel's aggression against Lebanon".
"It seems that there are some politicians desperate to jump on the first opportunity to reformulate Lebanon's political equation. They are treating Hizbullah as though it was defeated and want to force it out of the political game altogether," he said. Hizbullah believes that the ceasefire period will be a crucial test of Israel's real intentions. "How can Hizbullah, or Lebanon, be asked to give up a very important card before Israel's intentions are known," says Hizbullah MP Ali Ammar.
The debate over arms and the shape of Lebanon's post-war political map will test the mettle of Al-Siniora's cabinet. There are already calls for the cabinet to be dissolved in favour of a government of national unity. Nasrallah made a reference to the issue in his speech, suggesting "a strong state representative of all Lebanese" is what is most needed. Members of Michel Aoun's FPM, which represents the bulk of Lebanon's Christian community, have also been floating the idea of a national unity government. The FPM is not represented in the present government. The idea has been gaining ground. "At crucial times like these," says Smaha, "only a national unity government can be trusted to make what many believe will be historic decisions. Lebanon is going through a very tough moment in its history and only a government with representatives of the majority of Lebanese can be delegated to make the necessary decisions. The current government simply does not pass the test."

Hizballah, Syria Political Maneuvering Raises Concern
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
August 17, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Some politicians in Lebanon are concerned that Hizballah, emboldened after its military campaign against Israel, may be maneuvering -- with Syrian support -- to expand its authority on the national political scene.
Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druze minority (an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam), went so far as to accuse the Shi'ite terrorist group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, of plotting a "coup" against the Lebanese state, currently ruled by a coalition comprising Shi'ite, Sunni, Christian and Druze parties.
Jumblatt told the London-based Saudi paper Asharq Al-Awsat that Nasrallah's recent comment about building a "strong and fair state" suggested that the existing state did not have those characteristics.In a televised appearance earlier this week, Nasrallah declared that Hizballah's military "victory" was a victory for all of Lebanon.
He criticized some Lebanese government ministers who were calling for Hizballah to disarm. It did not serve the national interest to have such debates held in public, Nasrallah said. Without Hizballah, the Lebanese Army would be incapable of defending the country against the Israeli enemy.
Nasrallah's comments appeared designed to raise doubts about the suitability of some government figures. "Do these people have no feelings, no emotions? Can these people possibly be viewed as political leaders with a high level of awareness, devoid of any feelings or emotions?"
Jumblatt also expressed concern about remarks made this week by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who sought to paint Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's majority bloc in the ruling coalition as a tool of Israel. After remaining silent throughout the month-long conflict, Assad emerged Tuesday to boast about Syria's support for Hizballah. Although it drew most attention for his derisive comments about the U.S. plan for a "new Middle East," his speech in Damascus also took aim at Lebanon's anti-Syrian parliamentary group, which he accused of collaborating with Israel.
It was now fomenting strife by asking Hizballah to disarm, Assad said."But I tell those people that they have failed and that their fall is looming."
Assad also spoke about turning Hizballah's "military victory" into a "political victory."One Beirut daily newspaper, Al-Mustaqbal, described the address as "a declaration of war on Lebanon."Given Syria's decades of interference in Lebanon, Jumblatt and others are worried that the comments may presage more meddling -- possibly even an "assassination campaign" against those considered the enemy. Marwan Hamadeh, a member of Jumblatt's party and c ommunications minister in the Lebanese government, was quoted as saying Assad had "returned to his old habits -- murder and threatening murder."Syria is suspected of involvement in the Feb. 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, who opposed Assad's attempts to continue manipulating Lebanese politics even as Syria was under pressure to withdraw its armed forces from the country. (The pullout was completed later in the year.)
Jumblatt, whose checkered political career has included pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian periods, was expected to hold a press conference Thursday to air his concerns about Assad and Nasrallah.
'Nasrallah sounds like a president'
Created by Iran after the Islamic revolution and sponsored by Tehran and Damascus, Hizballah has been responsible for dozens of major terrorist attacks, with hundreds of Americans among its victims. On July 12 it crossed Lebanon's southern border and killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, triggering a bloody, 34-day conflict which ended with a cease-fire on Monday. In the days since the fighting was suspended, a number of Lebanese commentators have noted that Nasrallah is presenting himself to the Lebanese people as a national leader.
A televised speech on Monday night included promises that Hizballah would help to rebuild destroyed homes and to provide homeless Lebanese with money to pay for temporary rental accommodation or buy furniture. Nasrallah even warned suppliers not to exploit the situation by increasing prices. "He seemed to take on the veneer of a national leader rather than that as head of a single group in Lebanon's rich mosaic of parties," wrote Rami Khouri, a columnist with the Daily Star in Beirut. "In tone and content, his remarks seemed like those that a president or prime minister should be making while addressing the nation after a terrible month of destruction and human suffering.
"His prominence is one of the important political repercussions of this war."Khouri voiced concern about the implications, predicting greater polarization in Lebanon, and that in other Arab countries non-state parties will emulate Hizballah and step up political competition with state institutions whose credibility is seen to be wanting. Daily Star opinion editor Kevin Young also noted the tone, saying that towards the end of his speech, "Nasrallah began sounding, ominously, like a president." "If the secretary-general is so keen to build up a strong Lebanese state, presumably he intends to contribute to that effort from a position of authority," Young said. "So, is Nasrallah on the verge of taking that authority, flush from his tactical triumphs in the South and motivated by an understandable desire to draw attention away from the devastation inflicted on the Shi'ite community since July 12?" Writing on an independent Lebanese news site, Ya Libnan, Lebanese-American activist Joseph Hitti wondered what the Hizballah leader may try next. "Surrounded by a loyal Shi'ite base and an otherwise subservient Lebanese population, Nasrallah's 'victory' might certainly give him the idea that he should be running Lebanon, rather than the Sunni, Druze and Christian weaklings in the Lebanese government and political establishment."

Aug. 18, 2006
Analysis: Cease-fire on verge of collapse
By BARRY RUBIN
Three of Lebanon's top politicians have spoken out. Sunni leader Said Hariri and Druse leader Walid Jumblatt, who hate Hizbullah and Syria (which murdered both of their fathers) and thinks they are destroying the country, stated that Syria was trying to claim credit for Hizbullah's great victory.
Why, they asked, didn't Syria attack Israel in the Golan Heights instead of just watching the fighting? But they also criticized Syria for seeking to take over Lebanon again and sought to curry favor with other Arab regimes by highlighting the Syrian government's vicious rhetorical attacks on Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
The Monty Python Prize for Arab politics must go to Emile Lahoud, the well-known Syrian puppet who also happens to be Lebanon's president. Hizbullah, he explains, "is part of the Lebanese army." Rather than disarm Hizbullah, he is saying, Lebanon's army should fight alongside of it. Israel, by his account, should turn over southern Lebanon to the joint Lebanese army-Hizbullah forces.
Aside from invalidating the cease-fire, what Lahoud has done is to justify completely Israel's war effort. For if Hizbullah is part of Lebanon's army (it is already a member of the coalition government), then the attack on Israel was an act of war by Lebanon, which was completely responsible for everything that happened next. If this is true, why should the international community rush reconstruction aid to the aggressor? And how can a cease-fire depend on a government which views itself not as Hizbullah's master but as its ally? We may very well be on the verge of an amazing turnaround regarding the cease-fire in Lebanon organized by the UN Security Council. Consider the following points:
A. Hizbullah says it will not disarm voluntarily either in southern Lebanon or in the rest of the country. B. Lebanon says it will not disarm Hizbullah unless it wants to be disarmed. C. France, which is leading the national force of 15,000 UNIFIL soldiers that is supposed to be organized, says it will not send any troops if Hizbullah still has arms in southern Lebanon. D. Israel says that if Hizbullah does return to its positions with weapons, the IDF will resume its offensive. In short, the whole basis of the cease-fire is on the verge of collapse, and it is hard to see how it can be saved.
The reason for this is that Hizbullah will not even accept the minimum actions needed to activate the cease-fire. Its motives for this are several:
Hizbullah leaders may believe their Given their ideology and practice, they are not interested in making any compromise but believe they can get everything they want. They are being prodded toward intransigence by Iran and Syria.
They have contempt for the West, which they see as a paper tiger, unwilling to take action against them. Yet their concept of the situation is quite wrong. On a military level, they lost the war, despite their public relations successes. What we saw is actually fairly typical of wars historically. One side attacks using new techniques and weapons, at first scoring some successes. After a while, however, the other side adapts to these challenges and goes on to inflict heavy losses and take control of the battlefield.
Remember, for example, both fronts in World War II. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, using aircraft carriers in a new manner, and destroyed the American fleet, as well as taking the Philippines and other territory. But the US came back, with its superior resources and technology, to win the war. The same thing happened in Europe, where early German successes were reversed by Britain, the USSR and the US.
In 1973, the Egyptians inflicted heavy losses on Israel using new anti-tank weapons, and pushed into Sinai. By the end of the war, though, Israel had encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army and crossed the Suez Canal in the opposite direction. The same thing happened on the Golan Heights, where Syria almost broke through the Israeli tank forces before being pushed back almost to Damascus. If the war restarts, Hizbullah is going to face far greater pressures, especially since the Israeli government's leaders have already been harshly criticized for going too slowly in the ground offensive.
And that is not all. Hizbullah may face a two-front war. Lebanese Christians, Druze and Sunnis, the majority of the population, are largely angry at how Hizbullah dragged their country into a war and is increasingly subjugated it to Iran and Syria. Even within Hizbullah's own Shi'ite constituency, the rival Amal movement is trying to make a comeback by showing Shi'ites that it provides better services than Hizbullah. How are those just returning to southern Lebanon going to feel about the prospect of fleeing again? The Saudis are eager to fund anti-Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. There may or may not be another civil war in Lebanon but Hizbullah is definitely not becoming more popular there, whatever cheers it receives from those elsewhere in the Arab world who paid no price for the fighting. And what about the international community? It is not going to be happy about Hizbullah, with the help of its Iranian and Syrian backers, wrecking the UN peace effort. It is going to be hard to criticize Israel for taking military action under such conditions. Everything could turn around very quickly. Given what is happening, this prospect seems pretty possible.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary University and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.

Troops enter Hezbollah heartland
MARK MACKINNON
From Friday's Globe and Mail
KFAR KILA, LEBANON — Flying its country's cedar-tree flag from antiquated trucks and armoured personnel carriers, the Lebanese army began a halting deployment in Hezbollah's heartland in the south of the country yesterday, a key step toward ending five weeks of war.
But while it was a symbolic breakthrough to see Lebanese forces in what had previously been a no-go area for the regular army, its impact was called into question by the force's apparent unwillingness to disarm the Shia militia.
The makeup and arrival timetable for a beefed-up United Nations force that is supposed to bolster the Lebanese army was also thrown into disarray when France, which was supposed to lead the mission, said it would only send 200 combat soldiers to south Lebanon, rather than the thousands it was expected to contribute.UN deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch Brown said he wanted to see a 3,500-strong international force deployed as quickly as possible, and warned that delays were threatening the fledgling ceasefire on the ground. “We must convert promises into firm commitments, and commitments into rapid deployments on the ground. Every moment we delay is a moment of risk that the fighting could re-erupt,” he told a closed-door meeting of UN ambassadors, according to a published text of his remarks. “The situation on the ground is tenuous. We must all act with great urgency to construct a lasting ceasefire from the current cessation of fighting.”
Israel, which continued its withdrawal from the area yesterday, warned that its pullout was “conditional” on the ability of the Lebanese army and the UN force to take control of the area. As the advance units of a planned force of 15,000 crossed the Litani River, the natural border of south Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud made it clear he had no expectation that the army would try to take Hezbollah's weapons away.
“It is disgraceful to demand the disarmament of the national resistance while the blood of martyrs is still warm,” he said. Like Hezbollah, Mr. Lahoud is seen as an ally of Syria. “How can they ask us to disarm the only force in the Arab world who stood up to Israel?”
While Lebanese troops could be seen in and around major southern cities such as Tyre, Tebnine and Marjayoun, there was no presence at all yesterday in places like Kfar Kilo, a farming town flush against the Israeli border.
Hezbollah men with walkie-talkies, but no visible weapons, controlled the streets yesterday, just as they did before the war. Refusing to give their names, they said they would welcome the Lebanese army to town, but would never surrender their weapons to a force they saw as incapable of defending the country against Israel.
Meanwhile, from a hill near the town, it was possible to see six Israeli tanks, one of them seemingly damaged, and a pair of armoured personnel carriers massed on the Israeli side near a hole that had been cut in the border fence. With tension still thick in the air, many Shia Muslim residents of south Lebanon said they felt Hezbollah needed to retain its arms to defend the country.“If they take Hezbollah's weapons, we are finished,” said Awatief Jumaa, a 36-year-old beautician who drove to the border area yesterday so she could taunt the Israeli army in the valley below by waving a yellow Hezbollah flag from the top of an unfinished building. She said that even if the Lebanese army were ordered to, it would never be able to disarm what she calls “the resistance.”
“If Israel and America can't take Hezbollah's weapons, do you think the Lebanese army can?” she asked. The mood was exactly the opposite in Ain Ebel, one a handful of Maronite Christian towns in the Shiite-dominated region. Residents there blamed Hezbollah more than Israel for the war, and said they wanted to see the Lebanese army swiftly disarm what they called a “terrorist” group. The army hadn't arrived that far south as of yesterday afternoon, and residents were skeptical it would happen at all. “We'd love to have the Lebanese army in this area to protect us,” said Maroun Shahada, a 32-year-old bank employee. “Hezbollah doesn't protect the south, they destroyed the south.” The divide over Hezbollah's arms threatened to enlarge an already wide divide between political groups in Lebanon that are seen as pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian.
While Mr. Lahoud and Syrian President Bashar Assad have said Hezbollah should be celebrated for its “victory” over the Israeli army and given more political power, other leaders attacked Syria for its meddling in Lebanon and called for Hezbollah to give up its weapons.
Druze leader Walid Jumblatt told a press conference “Lebanon will remain a battleground” if Hezbollah is not disarmed or integrated into the regular Lebanese army. “Why can't . . . the army be responsible for holding the balance of power? Why can't the rockets be under the command of the army?” he asked. Saad Hariri, a Sunni Muslim who heads the largest bloc in parliament, said that instead of fighting battles on Lebanese soil, Syria should challenge Israel and try to retake the occupied Golan Heights.

Hezbollah Card Played in Nukes Fight
Lobby: Imagine Iran and Proxy With WMD
Ori Nir | Fri. August 18, 2006
WASHINGTON — Israel and its American allies are devising a diplomatic campaign that will use the recent conflict in Lebanon to bolster international efforts to block Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The United Nations Security Council has warned Iran to cease its uranium enrichment program by August 31 or face international sanctions. With the deadline approaching, Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel lobbyists in Washington are gearing up for an intense campaign to convince the international community that Tehran’s support for Hezbollah — particularly its transfer of potent weapons to the terrorist group — underscores the danger of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
“The grave risk of Iranian proliferation has truly been highlighted by the recent crisis,” Josh Block said. Block is spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group. Pointing out the pervasive pattern of arms transfers from Iran to Hezbollah, Block said, “This kind of sickeningly irresponsible behavior puts the danger of Iran’s nuclear weapons program in extremely sharp relief for the international community, especially as the deadline to impose sanctions at the Security Council rapidly approaches at the end of this month.” The war in Lebanon, Block said, “underscores the extreme danger we face when terror-sponsoring states acquire advanced weapons, let alone weapons of mass destruction, and their proven pattern of transferring those weapons to terrorist groups and nonstate actors.”
Israel and its allies are emphasizing that Iran supplied Hezbollah not only with thousands of relatively low-tech rockets that the terrorist group showered on northern Israel for more than a month, but also with advanced weapons. One such state-of-the-art weapon is the “silkworm” anti-ship cruise missile, which Iran purchased from China under the condition that Tehran would not transfer it to a third party. Iran also supplied Hezbollah with powerful Russian-made anti-tank missiles, as well as with advanced drones. Iran sent at least two drones toward Israel in the past month. Jerusalem suspects that they were carrying explosives. Both were intercepted and destroyed without causing damage, according to official Israeli reports. Israel says that Iran helped Hezbollah build a vast, sophisticated network of underground bunkers and provided the terrorist group with more than $100 million per year in financial support. According to official Israeli reports, Iranian revolutionary guards were found in southern Lebanon and helped Hezbollah use its anti-ship “silkworm” missiles.
Pro-Israel activists in Washington are arguing that if Iran transferred its most advanced military technology to terrorists, it can be expected to supply nuclear material to Hezbollah once Iran possesses highly enriched uranium. Referring to the evidence of Iran’s extensive arms exports to Hezbollah, one activist said, “This surely puts some arrows in our quiver.” Pro-Israel activists were encouraged Monday when President Bush said, during a press conference, “We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran has the nuclear weapons it seeks.”
“Iran,” Bush added, “has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel.”
Jewish groups are working to reinforce the message that the latest fighting reinforces the need for a crackdown on Iran’s nuclear program. But a public, high-profile campaign at the end of August, when Washington is on collective leave, would be of little value, pro-Israel activists said. “This is something you do in quiet, private conversations, diplomatically,” said Nathan Diament, who directs the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. “But to the degree that Iran is boasting a victory, it should be all the more incentive for the Europeans and the Russians and the others to confront Iran at the end of this month rather than allow it another victory lap.” The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution July 31 that implored Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program by August 31 or face economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Since then, Tehran has thumbed its nose at the resolution. On August 6, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told reporters that his country intends to expand the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium. He warned that an international attempt to punish Iran for doing so would only boomerang, pushing Iran to use its “oil weapon.” This week, in an interview with CNN, he repeated his assertion that Iran would not comply with the Security Council resolution. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also said several times recently that he does not intend to give up his country’s uranium enrichment program, which he insists is intended for peaceful purposes only.
Iran’s defiant attitude indicates its intention to challenge the international community in a game of chicken, said Barry Rubin, a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. Iran feels emboldened rather than weakened by the war in Lebanon, he said. The war increased Hezbollah’s prestige in the Arab world and, by proxy, Iran’s as well.
The war also underscored the limits of Israel’s military power. It showed that even with bunker-buster and “smart” bombs that Israel used during a month of aerial sorties, it was unable to destroy Hezbollah’s command and control sites. If Israel attempts to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, it would be unable to wage such a long campaign and would have to take target sites that are much better protected, Israeli military sources said, speculating on what the thinking in Tehran is.
“Iran, without a doubt, is already applying lessons from the air campaign to its underground, fortified nuclear sites,” a senior Israeli reserve officer said, reflecting the thinking of colleagues in the Israeli Air Force.
But while Iran may appear haughty and undeterred coming out of the month-long war that its proxy fought against Israel, there are several developments that ought to be causing concern in Tehran, said Michael Herzog, former military secretary to Israel’s minister of defense. First, Herzog said, Israel has proved in this war that it can “go berserk” and use its overwhelming military air power in ways that most of its adversaries do not anticipate. “The ‘I can do insane things’ notion has always been an element of Israel’s deterrence,” Herzog said.
Conventional wisdom among military observers is that an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be an almost crazy step because of its slim chances of success. Now, Iran’s leaders may see such an Israeli attack as more plausible.
Second, Herzog said, the mere erosion of Hezbollah’s military strength in Lebanon should serve to weaken the threat of Iran responding –– from Lebanese soil ––to a possible Israeli military strike against Iran. “Simply put, Iran spent a valuable card in Lebanon,” he said. Although Iran’s regime has been celebrating what it describes as a victory in Lebanon, there are many in the Islamic Republic who do not view the recent developments as an achievement.“There has been a debate played out in the Iranian press where some have been saying that Hezbollah’s actions prove the high price that can be inflicted as a result of confrontational policies,” said Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Clawson follows the Iranian press. The editor of the Iranian daily newspaper Shargh was fired earlier this month after publishing articles that doubted the prudence of Hezbollah’s belligerent actions. Clawson said that Iran’s popular hard-line daily newspaper Kayhan assailed Shargh’s analysis, exposing a debate over a fundamental Iranian national security question. The coming weeks, Clawson said, will be crucial for international efforts to restrain Iran. America and Israel will have an opportunity to leverage the war’s lessons to solidify the international coalition against Iran’s nuclear quest. But, he added, equally if not more important is whether the international community makes sure that the cease-fire arrangements in Lebanon are implemented in a way that “significantly clips Hezbollah’s military presence” and Iran’s ability to rearm the Shi’ite group.
According to Clawson, such measures, if effective, “could reinforce the attitudes inside Iran, by the more cautious types, that confrontation comes with a price tag, not just with advantages.”
Fri. August 18, 2006

Hezbollah Balks At Withdrawal From the South
Lebanese Officials Work on Compromise
By Edward Cody and Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, August 16, 2006; Page A01
BEIRUT, Aug. 15 -- Hezbollah refused to disarm and withdraw its fighters from the battle-scarred hills along the border with Israel on Tuesday, threatening to delay deployment of the Lebanese army and endangering a fragile cease-fire.
The makings of a compromise emerged from all-day meetings in Beirut, according to senior officials involved in the negotiations, and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora scheduled a cabinet session Wednesday for what he hoped would be formal approval of the deal. Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said. Homeward-bound residents cross a bridge in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah activists provided money for the trip to many refugees around the country. (By Georges Farah -- Bloomberg News)
More than 1,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes in a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.
Violence escalates as Israel responds to militant attacks from Gaza, Lebanon.
More photos: Battered Survivors EmergeDeadly Attack in QanaAfter the Bombs Have Fallen Caring for the Injured Protestors Demand Cease-FireBombs Shake Hospital Shelter Americans Evacuate War Zone Foreigners Flee Lebanon Anxiety Grips Civilians Caught in Growing Violence U.S.-Israeli Friendship Mideast Conflict Escalates Israeli Offensive Expands Israel Launches Gaza Operation Hasan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, had insisted that any disarmament of his militia -- even in the border area -- should be handled in longer-term discussions within the Lebanese government, according to government ministers. But the Lebanese army, backed by key political leaders, refused to send troops into the just-becalmed battle zone until Hezbollah's missiles, rockets and other weapons were taken north of the Litani River, the ministers said.
At stake in the standoff was implementation of a crucial provision of the U.N. Security Council cease-fire that went into effect Monday. The accord called for quick deployment of 15,000 Lebanese army troops south of the Litani River along the border with Israel. They were to take up positions under the aegis of a reinforced contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, to form a peacekeeping corps with a total strength of about 30,000. Hezbollah's reluctance to get its men and arms out of the border zone reflected nervousness over the continuing presence of Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil. But it also demonstrated the militant Shiite Muslim movement's increased assertiveness here after a war of more than a month during which it stood off the Israeli army while Lebanon's national army stood aside.
In a televised speech Monday evening, Nasrallah accused those who are pushing Hezbollah for immediate disarmament of "insensitivity and immorality." He recalled that Lebanon's Shiite-inhabited areas took the worst battering and suffered the highest number of casualties during 33 days of warfare in which at least 800 Lebanese civilians were killed and 750,000 were driven from their homes, with some estimates substantially higher.
"Those people have performed veritable miracles," he said, referring to the Shiite Muslims who are the largest sect among Lebanon's 4 million inhabitants.
"And at this emotionally difficult and fateful time, some individuals speaking with wooden tongues sit behind desks in their air-conditioned offices and talk about these issues," he added. "This is inappropriate and wrong. I advise that no one exert pressure, bearing in mind that the most ferocious battle in the history of Lebanon has just been waged south of the river."
The Israeli military said it would begin handing over its positions in Lebanon to UNIFIL officers before the end of the week. A UNIFIL spokesman, Milos Strugar, said U.N. observers reported no significant Israeli withdrawals along the border on the second day of the cease-fire.
Israel television, however, showed troops walking and riding military vehicles back into Israel and dozens of tanks taking up positions on the Israeli side of the border.
"We are hoping the last IDF soldiers will cross the border in a matter of days," Maj. Jonathan Davis of the Israel Defense Forces said in an interview near the border. "We want to do it as quickly and swiftly as possible. As soon as UNIFIL and the Lebanese army are ready to assume responsibility in the area, which we hope is as soon as possible, we will leave."
Israeli officials have declined to say how many of their soldiers are inside Lebanon. Strugar said that whatever the number, their withdrawal has to be coordinated with UNIFIL and Lebanese army officers in the coming days. "This is a complicated issue," he said.
Israeli soldiers killed three armed men who approached their positions in southern Lebanon, the military announced. But there were no reports of rockets being fired or sustained clashes, despite the existence of Hezbollah and Israeli positions at relatively close distances.
[The army said early Wednesday that Israeli forces killed the head of Hezbollah's special forces, identified as Sajed Dawayer, just before the U.N. cease-fire took effect, but a Hezbollah official dismissed the announcement as "baseless," the Associated Press reported from Jerusalem.]
The political repercussions of the war continued with the disclosure by Maariv newspaper that the Israeli military's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, sold his stock portfolio, worth about $27,600, just hours after learning that two Israeli soldiers were seized July 12. The newspaper reported that he phoned his stockbroker as the Israeli cabinet was meeting to decide to go to war.
The number of Hezbollah fighters in the border zone also was unclear, largely because the movement keeps its presence secret and many militia members are local residents who take up arms only when called on by their leaders. Their departure has not been envisaged, Lebanese officials said, and only the militia's officers and their weapons must be pulled back north of the Litani as part of the U.N. cease-fire.
Thousands of Lebanese families again filled the roads leading south, heeding a call from Hezbollah that they return immediately to their often-shattered villages. Leaflets dropped by Israeli aircraft warned them to stay away, but cars loaded with children and household belongings streamed down the coastal road.
Hezbollah activists provided money for the trip to many refugees leaving centers around the country. In his televised talk, Nasrallah promised they also would receive money on the spot to help them rebuild their homes, starting an immediate aid program for displaced people while the government was still holding meetings and appealing for funds.
The Lebanese army would like UNIFIL troops to deploy first in southern Lebanon and for the Israelis to pull out, which would then remove Hezbollah's reason for remaining there under arms, according to a government minister who spoke on condition that he not be named. Once Hezbollah's militia pulls back from the border zone, he suggested, the question of its full disarmament or incorporation into the army can be debated.
"As the defense minister said, where there are Lebanese army troops, there can be no other armed presence," he added. "The position of Hezbollah, at best, is ambiguous. They seem to have a fundamental problem with surrendering their arms and moving out of the south. That is very disappointing. The best spin you can put on it is that Nasrallah wants it sorted out in private."
Nasrallah, in his television address, suggested that for the time being the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon is the only way to defend Lebanon's sovereignty against Israel. Although the long-term solution is state authority over the entire territory, he said, that has to be worked out carefully and cannot happen overnight given the war that has just been fought.
On the ground, Hezbollah's militia and social welfare infrastructure were the only things still functioning in dozens of devastated villages across the border zone. Army troops in the village of Srifa, for example, were seen working under the orders of Hezbollah militia officers during a search for bodies buried under the rubble of buildings destroyed by Israeli bombing.
"What are the alternatives you have come up with?" Nasrallah asked. "Can the Lebanese army and the United Nations troops step up to the plate to defend the nation? Haste and simplification are out of the question. We were ready and will always be ready for dialogue to extend the authority of the state. We are part of the government and a basic part of it." Struck reported from Jerusalem. Correspondent Nora Boustany in Beirut and special correspondent Tal Zipper in Kiryat Shemona contributed to this report. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.© 2006 The Washington Post Company

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
B’nai Brith Canada responds with ‘guarded optimism’
to United Church decision on ethical investment
TORONTO, August 18, 2006 – B’nai Brith Canada has expressed guarded optimism over the decision by the United Church of Canada (UCC) to abandon its planned boycott of Israel. However, the Jewish human rights organization has also cautioned that it will adopt a “wait and see approach” in assessing future UCC policy, which to date has exhibited blatantly anti-Israel tendencies.
“This latest move by the Church to opt out of a divestment from Israel campaign represents an important and positive step forward in recognizing Israel’s absolute right to exist and, seemingly by extension, its right to defend its citizens against terrorism,” said Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s Executive Vice President. “However, this decision cannot be seen in isolation, especially in light of the United Church’s long history of looking at the conflict solely from the view of the Palestinians, while ignoring completely their record of terrorism against Israel’s civilians.
“The mere fact that an anti-Israel boycott was ever proposed, betrays the Church’s entrenched negative attitudes towards the Jewish State. Such hostile views were also clearly evidenced in the recent diatribe by the Reverend Lawrence Pushee to a member of the Jewish community. Even though the Church, to its credit, has since ousted Reverend Pushee from a leadership position for his vile remarks, the fact that he has been active in formatting the Church’s Middle East policies gives us cause for concern.
“It remains to be seen how the UCC’s policy of ethical investment will ultimately be implemented, given its partnerships with such groups as Sabeel, which has openly worked for the delegitimization and demonization of Israel. We hope that ultimately the voices within the Church that truly seek a meaningful and just peace in the Middle East will prevail. We stand ready and willing to meet with the Church leadership and trust that they will take up this challenge.”

BAR THE COUNTRIES THAT VOTED AGAINST THE
UNHRC RESOLUTION FROM PARTICIPATING IN UNIFIL
On August 11, 2006, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held a special session in Geneva to consider the grave human rights situation arising out of Israel's military operations in Lebanon. UNHCR issued a resolution strongly condemning the grave Israeli violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law in Lebanon including the massive bombardments of Lebanese civilian populations, especially the massacres in Qana, Marwaheen, Al Duweir, Al Bayadah, Al Qaa, Chiyah, Ghazieh and other towns of Lebanon, the displacement of one million civilians, and the bombardment of vital civilian infrastructure resulting in extensive destruction and heavy damage to public and private properties. The council also decided to urgently establish and! immediately dispatch a high-level inquiry commission to investigate the above violations and crimes.
The resolution was supported by the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia. They deserve the thanks of the Lebanese people as they were able to distinguish right from wrong and uphold the right.
Eleven countries voted against the resolution, namely: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. They proved that they are unable to distinguish right from wrong.
It is clear that the countries that voted against the UNHRC resolution upholding the human rights of the Lebanese have taken a position which implicitly supports the violations of human rights and international law which were condemned by the resolution. Hence they are no longer neutral on this subject. Consequently their participation is unacceptable in the UNIFIL forces entrusted with supervising the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.
The rules of human rights and international humanitarian law rank higher than UN Security Council resolutions and measures adopted by the UN Secretariat.
Therefore the undersigned declare that they reject participation by any of the said eleven countries in UNIFIL forces and demand that the Lebanese council of ministers and parliament categorically reject such participation.
The undersigned further call for the widest popular movement in support of the above.