LCCC ENGLISH
DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 04/07
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 8,5-11. When he entered
Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, "Lord, my
servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully." He said to him, "I
will come and cure him." The centurion said in reply, "Lord, I am not worthy to
have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.
For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I
say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to
my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and
said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I
found such faith. I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and
will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of
heaven,
Releases.
Reports & Opinions
The Horses are Tied... in Lebanon-By:
Zouheir Kseibati .Dar Al-Hayat. December 3/07
New
Player in the Middle East. By NICHOLAS BLANFORD. Times. December 3/07
Is the U.S. now ready for talks with Syria?By Nicholas
Blanford. Christian Monitor/December 3/07
Is Syria an Ally or Adversary of Radical Sunni Movements-By: Eyal
Zisser- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. December 3/07
Clear as mud-By:
Sami Moubayed
-Al-Ahram
Weekly-December 03/07
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for December 03/07
Mubarak says Annapolis could lead to peace including Syria,
Lebanon-Jerusalem Post
Lebanon majority plans petition to vote
army chief as president-AFP
Sarkozy
Telephones Assad for a Second Time over Lebanon-Naharnet
Euro MPs to Visit Beirut
after Talks in Damascus-Naharnet
March 14 Alliance Clears Baabda's Way for Army
Commander Suleiman-Naharnet
Hamadeh: Majority to Draft a Petition to Amend Constitution-Naharnet
One
Year After Sit-In, Opposition Warns: Either Consensus and Partnership or Nonstop
Action-Naharnet
Hizbullah: The Majority must Discuss New Government, Army Commander with Aoun-Naharnet
Sfeir remains concerned as support for Sleiman increases-AsiaNews.it
- Italy
Iran Says Ties With Syria Rock Solid-The
Associated Press
Syria reassures Iran on Mideast: official-AFP
Syria, Iraq reopen border crossing closed for over 3 years-International
Herald Tribune
Lebanon leaders back army chief-BBC
News
Consensus on Lebanon's presidency-BBC
News
Lebanon: Al-Hariri's masterstroke-ISA -
Tel Aviv,Bosnia and Herzegovina
Amal chastises
Feltman for 'disgraceful interference'-Daily
Star
'The truth hurts:'
Sfeir stands by indictment of politicians-Daily
Star
Suleiman gains
support from March 14, awaits official word from opposition-Daily
Star
Olmert tells Israeli daily
US will not sell out Lebanon for Syria
(AFP)
Thunderstorms pelt
much of Lebanon with hail-Daily
Star
Young leaders to
learn ways of UN-Daily Star
Opposition supporters mark
first anniversary of Beirut sit-in
(AFP)
Beirut Stock
Exchange rides hopes for political thaw-Daily
Star
Italian
peacekeepers tread softly in wounded land-Daily
Star
'People of all ages, social status and races are
equally vulnerable' to AIDS
Beirut ceremony to
honor Arab world's 'Prince of Poets'-Daily
Star
Syria reassures Iran over presence at Annapolis-(AFP)
Ahmadinejad: Enemies can't harm strong ties with Syria-International
Herald
Tribune
EU must help find Mideast peace: Syria-EUbusiness (press release)
Significant Meeting between Gemayel, Geagea,
Suleiman-Naharnet
Lebanon's Unease-New York Times
Lebanese-American pleads guilty in bid to aid Hezbollah-Ya
Libnan
One PA - with Hamas-Ha'aretz
Aoun - Murr parliamentary alliance is falling
apart-Ya
Libnan
Berri's Amal Accuses Feltman of Violating Diplomatic
Rules-Naharnet
US Seems to Soften Syria Stance.Wall Street Journal
U.S. may be softening Syria policy.WebIndia123.com
A Year On, 'Tent City' Paralyzes Beirut-The
Associated Press
Hezbollah Hints at Support for Suleiman-Washington
Post
Syrian archeologists discover ancient remains
among famous ruins-International
Herald Tribune
March 14 Alliance
Cleares Baabda Way for Army Chief Suleiman
March 14 Alliance announced that it would accept army chief General Michel
Suleiman as a compromise candidate for the vacant presidency, clearing the way
to an end to a year-old stand-off with the opposition. The coalition "announces
that it is going back on its initial opposition to an amendment to the
constitution and... is supporting the candidacy of General Michel Suleiman for
president," said a statement read by former president Amin Gemayel, a leading
Christian coalition politician.
The meeting was held at the fortified Phoenicia Hotel were 40 Majority MPs have
been residing for fear of assassination. The change of policy was intended to
"put an end to the vacancy in the presidency" since pro-Syrian head of state
Emile Lahoud stepped down last month without a successor in place, Gemayel said
in the statement broadcast by Lebanese televisions. Suleiman's candidacy
requires a change to the constitution as Article 49 bars public servants from
acceding to the presidency within two years of stepping down. Coalition
politicians had expressed opposition to any new change to the constitution after
their regional foe Syria pushed through an amendment in 2004 paving the way for
a three-year extension to Lahoud's term of office.(AFP) A significant
meeting took place Saturday at the Defense Ministry in Yarz between Suleiman,
Gemayel and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea Sources said the atmosphere of
the meeting which lasted for two hours was "very satisfactory." and it paved the
way for the broader gathering today. Beirut, 02 Dec 07, 08:53
Olmert tells Israeli daily US will not sell out Lebanon for Syria
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Monday, December 03, 2007
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the United States will not sell out
Lebanon to Syria. In an interview with Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, Olmert
also revealed that he was the one who insisted on Syria's invitation to the
Annapolis peace conference, despite Washington's objection.
Olmert stressed that the US was not willing to deceive Lebanon in return for
normalization of relations with Syria.
"We are aware that the Syrians will not get involved in peace talks unless the
Americans changed their stance toward them," Olmert told the daily.
"And for establishing normal ties with Syria, the Americans will have to betray
Lebanon, and George Bush's administration is not willing to do so," he said.
Meanwhile, the US said it sees a "mixed picture" from Syria about whether it now
seeks to cooperate with US aims in the Middle East.
Speaking to reporters over the weekend State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack, could not offer a "definitive assessment" when asked if there was any
proof that Syria is cooperating more with Washington to support free elections
in Lebanon. - AFP
Lebanon leaders back army chief
BBC/The president's chair has been empty since Lahoud left office
Lebanon's parliamentary majority has backed a compromise candidate for
president, raising hopes of an end to months of tense political deadlock.
The western-backed ruling bloc had initially rejected army chief Gen Michel
Suleiman who has conditional support from the pro-Syrian opposition.
His election requires an amendment to the constitution to allow senior civil
servants to take over the presidency.
The repeatedly postponed presidential vote is now scheduled for 7 December.
Lebanon has been without a head of state since 27 November as rival factions
argued about a successor to the pro-Syrian incumbent, Emile Lahoud.
Gen Suleiman, 59, has held his post since 1998, when he was nominated by the
outgoing Gen Lahoud.
Correspondents say he has remained neutral during the year-long political crisis
and has repeatedly called on the army to keep out of politics.
Conditional support
In a televised statement, Amin Gemayel, leader of the right-wing Maronite
Christian party, the Phalange, announced the governing coalition's support of
Gen Suleiman's candidacy.
Gen Suleiman has remained neutral in Lebanon's recent upheavals
The former opposition candidate for the job, Michel Aoun, had earlier lent his
conditional support to Gen Suleiman's candidacy.
His conditions include the appointment of a neutral prime minister - something
the governing coalition has previously rejected.
He also asked that Gen Suleiman step down at the 2009 parliamentary elections
rather than serving a full term until 2013.
The Shia militant group Hezbollah said it would back Gen Suleiman on condition
of Mr Aoun's endorsement.
This means most political groupings have now expressed support for him, but the
BBC's Kim Ghattas in Beirut says there is no guarantee he will get the job.
Paralysis
Under the current constitution senior civil servants are barred from becoming
president within two years of stepping down.
Analysts say the hope is now that the amendment can be passed without further
another crisis breaking out.
The deadlock has paralysed Lebanon politically and economically since the
devastating 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel.
The constitution has been amended twice since 1998, first to allow Mr Lahoud to
become president and again in 2004 to extend his term by three years.
That move sharply divided Lebanon into pro- and anti-Syrian camps, and months
later Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon amid huge protests after the
assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri, who had recently joined the anti-Syrian
side.
An amendment to Article 49 must now be approved by cabinet, which has been
dominated by pro-westerners since six pro-Syrian ministers quit in November
2006.
Under Lebanon's sectarian power-sharing system, the country's president must be
from the Maronite Christian minority.
The post of prime minister is always reserved for a Sunni Muslim, while that of
parliament speaker goes to a Shia.
Aridi: Lebanon opposition failed in its 1 year protest
Sunday, 2 December, 2007 @ 8:24 PM
Beirut - Lebanon's Minister of Information Ghazi Aridi declared the Hezbollah
-led opposition has failed in its one year old sit-in protest
" They failed in toppling the government which was the primary objective of the
opposition." He said
Aridi revealed that the Government has operated as usual and issued several
resolutions which bind the opposition too. One of these resolutions was the
by-Elections in Beirut and the Metn region and the opposition participated in
these elections.
Aridi said all the resigned ministers have returned to their posts at various
times to take care of pending business and have even signed some of the
resolutions that the government issued.
The Iranian and Syrian backed Hezbollah along with its ally former General
Michel Aoun have been leading a sit-in protest in downtown Beirut since last
December to topple the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. They insisted
on having a new government in which they will hold a veto power , but they
failed since the government of Siniora enjoys the support of the majority of the
Lebanese and the International community.
The Hezbollah-led opposition built a tent city in Downtown Beirut which
transformed the plushiest section of Lebanon into a shanty town and forced over
200 businesses to close down
Lebanon army trying to rearm and modernize itself
Monday, 3 December, 2007 @ 2:31 AM
By : Riad Kahwaji
Beirut - The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) is working to modernize and rearm
itself amid political turmoil in the country and the region, according to
officials and experts here.
On Nov. 23, parliament failed to elect a new president, leaving the seat vacant
for the first time. The Lebanese government has assumed the duties of the
president until parliament elects a new leader.
“Despite the political turmoil, almost all Lebanese regard the LAF as the best
guarantee for the country’s future and stability,” a senior Lebanese military
official said.
In September, Lebanon ordered 40 Leopard-1 tanks and 32 YPR armored infantry
fighting vehicles with 25mm guns and spare parts that were “offered by Belgium
at a bargain price”
The money will come from what remains of the $100 million donated by Saudi
Arabia in June to help the military crush an al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist group
called Fatah Al-Islam in northern Lebanon.
The official said Beirut is now waiting for Brussels to clear its own crisis —
Flemish and Francophone parties failed to agree on a coalition government
following general elections earlier this year — and officially endorse the
transfer. Belgium will replace the Army-surplus vehicles with variants of the
Mowag Piranha-III.
The LAF is still looking for fighter jets — perhaps Jordanian or Saudi F-5E/Fs —
to replace five old Hawker Hunters that have been grounded for years by a lack
of spare parts.
“There are a number of old but fairly good jet fighters available in the market
that the LAF could get for either free or very low prices, but the problem is
that the best offers are American-built, which means Washington would need to
give its approval for the transfer to Lebanon, and that is a problem now,” one
Lebanese Air Force officer said.
A U.S. Embassy official here said giving Lebanon fighters & offensive weapons
would require a policy review. The US embassy is concerned that these weapons
could fall into the hands of Hezbollah, which is considered stronger than the
Lebanese army .
Meanwhile, Lebanon will save money on advanced pilot training by sending five to
10 Air Force pilots to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has offered to
provide training free of charge on its Hawk jets, the Air Force officer said.
Such training would cost thousands an hour at European countries, as initially
planned, the official said.
“The UAE has been very generous to the LAF. First, it gave nine U.S. Gazelle
helicopters, and now the training,” the official said.
Discussions are under way with companies to overhaul and maintain five Bell-212
and three Puma helicopters.
Sources: defensenews.com
A New Player in the Middle East
Sunday, Dec. 02, 2007 By NICHOLAS BLANFORD/BEIRUT
For more than two years, Lebanon's so-called Cedar Revolutionaries — the
country's anti-Syrian politicians — have helped lead the Bush Administration's
charge to promote democracy and curb anti-Western extremism in the Middle East.
Since the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, which
sparked the anti-Syrian protests in Beirut — dubbed by Washington as the Cedar
Revolution — and ended three decades of Syrian domination, the U.S. has backed
the pro-Western government in Lebanon in hopes of denying Syria (and Iran)
influence in the country.
But now, the White House has begun signaling a new approach to Syrian relations
— for starters, it invited Syria to last week's Annapolis peace conference to
revive Israeli–Palestinian peacemaking. And Washington's overtures to Damascus,
which the U.S. has repeatedly slammed for sponsoring terrorism and meddling in
Lebanon and Iraq, have left pro-Western Lebanese leaders worried about being
"sold out" as part of a broader U.S.-Syrian deal to stabilize the region.
"The message the Americans are sending to the region is that what succeeds is
terror, bombings and a total disregard for democracy," a senior member of the
anti-Syrian March 14 coalition in Lebanon tells TIME. "No one is going to remove
the feeling from March 14 that we have been dumped by the Americans."
The first sign of this discontent came a day after the Annapolis conference when
the March 14 block, which forms a slim majority in the Lebanese parliament,
revealed that it would back the presidential nomination of General Michel
Suleiman, the commander of the Lebanese army — a candidacy that it had
previously opposed. The Lebanese presidency has been vacant since November 23
when parliament failed to elect a successor to Emile Lahoud, the pro-Syrian head
of state whose term ended the same day. The recent decision by March 14 to opt
for Suleiman — who is seen as having close ties to the militant Shiite
Hizballah, which spearheads the pro-Syrian opposition to the Western-backed
government in Beirut — apparently caught the opposition by surprise, not having
expected the general's candidacy to be promoted by its political foes.
"The Syrians are very happy," says Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst. "I
think this is what the Syrians always wanted — Suleiman." Parliament is
scheduled to reconvene on December 7 when Suleiman is expected to be elected
president.
With the announcement of Suleiman's candidacy immediately following Annapolis,
it was widely assumed that Syria and the U.S. had brokered a deal to fill the
Lebanese presidency as a way to help ease months of tension between their
respective allies in Lebanon. However, senior March 14 politicians tell TIME
that the proposal to nominate Suleiman had arisen more than a week before
Annapolis, several days before Syria even announced it would attend the peace
conference. The anti-Syrian block had determined it was better to choose a
president acceptable to the opposition than risk a prolonged constitutional
vacuum and the threat of violence erupting in Lebanon between rival factions.
"We're sure that Suleiman is better than the void," says an adviser to Saad
Hariri, whose Future Movement is the largest component of March 14.
Another reason Suleiman got the nod was, perhaps, simply the lack of a better
option: March 14 had determined that it had few chips left to play, given that
the Bush Administration had apparently withdrawn support. "With America's
realignment and engagement with Syria, obviously [the U.S.] cannot exert
pressure on Syria anymore. We understood the message and acted appropriately,"
says Ghattas Khoury, a member of March 14.
U.S. officials insist, however, that March 14's fears are unfounded. "There was
no deal with the Syrians at Annapolis about Lebanon," Jeffrey Feltman, the U.S.
ambassador in Beirut, tells TIME. "There will be no U.S. deal with the Syrians
regarding Lebanon's presidency. This is an issue for the Lebanese alone to work
out."
But it will be a tough sell convincing the anti-Syrian coalition in Beirut that
the Bush Administration's support is unstinting. After all, they still remember
that it was Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, who green-lighted Syrian
hegemony over Lebanon in 1990, in exchange for Syria's help in ousting Iraqi
forces from Kuwait.
Indeed, Lebanon has a long and unhappy tradition of being the battleground for
competing foreign powers. Lebanese political bosses accept the support of
foreign patrons to gain extra leverage against domestic rivals, while regional
powers use their proxies in Lebanon to fight their own battles. It is a
symbiotic relationship that seems to benefit everyone but the host; over the
past two centuries, it has repeatedly plunged this tiny Mediterranean country
into violence, and threatens to do so again today.
Once again, instability may come at the hands of Washington. Since 2005, the
U.S. has lent the pro-Western government support, as Lebanon teetered on the
edge of chaos, wracked by a war between Hizballah and Israel, battles with
Al-Qaeda-style militants, further assassinations of anti-Syrian politicians,
economic stagnation and political gridlock. But now the Administration seems to
be having a change of heart on Syria — recognizing that, like it or not,
Damascus remains integral to almost every challenge in the Middle East: Lebanon,
Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestine. "The Administration was only using a policy of
sticks [against Syria] and now it is going to use some limited carrots as well
as sticks and see if it yields results," says Andrew Tabler, editor of the
Damascus-based monthly magazine, Syria Today.
Small comfort, perhaps, to the anti-Syrian legislators in Lebanon who fear —
rightly or wrongly — that history is repeating itself, with Washington once more
sacrificing their interests on the altar of political expediency.
Is the U.S. now ready for talks with Syria?
Washington appears to be backing the Lebanese presidential contender favored by
Damascus.
By Nicholas Blanford – Correspondent and Howard LaFranchi – Staff Writer
from the December 3, 2007 edition
Reporter Nicholas Blanford describes a recent breakthrough in the Lebanese
presidential selection process.Beirut, Lebanon; and Washington - It's too early
to gauge the impact of last week's Middle East peace summit in Annapolis, Md.,
on its intended goal: Israeli-Palestinian peace. But after the gathering, an
emerging American approach to the region may end a crisis in Lebanon and weaken
Iran's influence.
Over the weekend, Syria's favored candidate for the unfilled Lebanese
presidency, Gen. Michel Suleiman, all but sealed the title. Lebanon's
anti-Syrian, US-backed factions dropped their opposition to the general a day
after Annapolis. Now, parliament is expected to vote for him on Friday.
Analysts say that the U-turn in Beirut can be traced to signals from the US that
it wants to reengage with Syria. They say Washington wants to deal with the
country it has maligned as an agent for Iranian designs in the region, including
the trafficking of weapons to anti-US/Israel militias in Lebanon and Iraq.
"There is a new spirit in the Middle East, a real chance for peace. Will Syria
be left on the sidelines or give up its support for terror, leave Lebanon alone,
support the Iraqi government and make a decision in favor of peace?" Stephen
Hadley, the National Security Advisor, told students at Johns Hopkins
international studies school in Washington last week.
Many Beirut politicians say the proposal to elect Suleiman, an army commander
who took his post in 1998 when Syria controlled Lebanon, as president is the
first reaction to a changing American stance toward Syria.
While this may be easing the political deadlock in Lebanon, which has not had a
president since Emile Lahoud left office on Nov. 23 and parliamentarians failed
to elect a successor, American allies and anti-Syrian politicians here are
saying they look to be losing Washington's support.
"We are not saying they dropped us, but there has been a rearrangement of US
priorities after Annapolis," says Ghattas Khoury, a member of the anti-Syrian
March 14 bloc, which holds a slim majority in the Lebanese parliament.
"The Americans want a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians and
that means talking to the Syrians," he says.
The March 14 bloc, named for the massive rally that helped drive Syria from the
country, declared last week that it had reversed its earlier objection to
Suleiman, who is also seen as close to Hizbullah, the militant Shiite group that
heads the Lebanese opposition. The announcement, which came a day after
Annapolis triggered instant speculation that a deal had been cooked up in
Maryland between the US and Syria to end the crisis over the Lebanese presidency
and ease months of tension among their the feuding allies in Lebanon.
But the Suleiman proposal was launched more than a week earlier, according to
March 14 sources, before Syria even said it would attend Annapolis. But they say
it was made in recognition that Washington's tough policy toward Syria was
softening, entailing, they say, reduced US backing for March 14.
"It seems that the March 14 leaders looked hard at the options available to
them, in light of public opinion and the need to get the presidential vacuum
filled as quickly as possible," says a Western diplomat in Beirut.
But the diplomat added that the anti-Syrian block's fears of being "sold out" by
the Bush administration in favor of rapprochement with Syria are misplaced. "The
Lebanese are persuading themselves and frightening themselves of a monster that
does not exist."
Certainly, despite Syria's attendance at Annapolis, US officials are playing
down the prospects of renewed dialogue with Damascus, insisting that Syria still
needs to change its behavior first. Still, speculation of a deal was perhaps
inevitable, given that Syria, scorned by the US under the Bush administration as
a state sponsor of terror, was invited to and chose to attend a conference
hosted by President Bush.
Beyond that, Moscow began hinting that it hopes to hold a follow-up to Annapolis
early next year that would focus on a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement.
Some US officials and experts now say that the change in tone could mean that
Syria and Israel end up reaching an agreement on the Golan Heights – Syrian
territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 Mideast war – and a bilateral peace
accord before one is reached in the more complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Syria is being brought back in, including by Washington, and Syria is trying to
dress itself up and get on Israel's dance card" to get the Golan Heights back,
says Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, and
author of the widely read "Syria Comment" blog.
Some analysts say adding a peace accord with Syria to the ones Israel already
has with Egypt and Jordan would provide an important impetus to the ultimate
prize of Israeli-Palestinian peace. But they say that will require more
proactive and positive encouragement from the US than what has been evident so
far.
"It's a good idea to encourage and facilitate Israel and Syria going forward
rather quickly to secure a deal," says Patrick Lang, a former Middle East
specialist with the Defense Intelligence Agency. "That would set the stage for
the real deal between the Israelis and Palestinians." But he adds that it will
take an "active role" by the US on the Israel-Syria front. "If we don't do that
after the opening provided by [Annapolis], then we have lost an opportunity."
But an Israeli-Syrian deal on the Golan Heights is not Washington's chief
interest in pursuing a dialogue with Damascus, analysts say. Instead,
Washington's principle motives are to seek Damascus's cooperation on the
Israeli-Palestinian track as well as attempting to loosen Syria's close
relationship with Iran.
Syria and Iran have been allies since 1980, but their ties strengthened
significantly in the past two years as a result of both countries facing
increased international pressure and isolation.
"It's very unlikely for the US to break Syria from Iran, maybe perhaps ever,
because Syria maintains a balance of power relations with its neighbors and
powers in the region and I don't think it would like to put all its eggs in one
basket," says Andrew Tabler, editor of the Damascus-based Syria Today monthly.
Tabler says the weak link in the Syria-Iran relationship, which could be
exploited by the US, is to provide assistance to promote Syria's moribund
economic reform program.
"The Syrians are in a fiscal crunch due to declining oil revenues, and one of
the biggest problems they face is corruption and low productivity," he says.
"The US has a lot of expertise that it could extend Syria's way. That's a
special sweetener that I just don't think the Iranians could ever offer."
One Year After Sit-In, Opposition Warns: Either Consensus and Partnership or
Nonstop Action
Hundreds of opposition supporters rallied in downtown Beirut on Saturday to mark
the first anniversary of the Hizbullah-led sit-in that has sent 2,700 people
unemployed and forced closure of 75 restaurants and coffee shops.
The protestors gathered in Riad Solh Square where the opposition, supported by
Syria and Iran, has maintained a tent city outside the offices of Prime Minister
Fouad Saniora.
They vowed to maintain their tent city for years if need be to force the
resignation of Saniora's majority government.
The demonstrators waved Lebanese flags as well as the banners of Hizbullah,
Amal, the Free Patriotic Movement of Gen. Michel Aoun and a number of pro-Syrian
parties.
"One year on the sit-in for national unity," said one placard. "One year on,
against monopoly," read another.
The opposition wants a government of national unity installed in place of
Saniora's administration which has been dominated by foes of Damascus since six
pro-Syrian ministers quit in November last year.
Hizbullah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan warned that the Opposition is ready to keep up
its sit-in protest if the ruling March 14 coalition "went too far."
"The Lebanese nationalist opposition is ready for a settlement through a
consensual president and a government of partnership," Hajj Hassan told the
rally.
"But the opposition is also ready today to pursue its (sit-in) action, if the
other party led a different track, away from consensus and partnership," he
said.
"We will continue to stay in the downtown area until the government falls," said
Zaynab, a 37-year-old woman from Beirut's southern suburbs, or Dahiyeh.
"We are here to support the opposition. This government is illegitimate and
guided by remote control by foreigners," the chador-clad Hizbullah supporter
told AFP.
Sarah Bazzi, a 40-year-old Hizbullah supporter also wearing the head-to-toe
black chador, said: "We don't feel like we are represented in this government,
so it should go away.
"The opposition is at least two million people if not more, so when they say
that they represent the majority, they are telling a lie," she said.
March 14, which holds a majority of the seats in parliament, accuses the
opposition of seeking to block ratification of an international tribunal to try
suspects in the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, widely blamed
on Syria.
The continued sit-in comes as the country grapples with a dangerous political
vacuum that has left the presidency vacant because of a standoff between pro-
and anti-Syrian factions.
The year-long sit-in has transformed a large swathe of Beirut's usually bustling
downtown into a ghost town and led to the shutdown of some 200 businesses and
thousands of job losses.
And although the sprawling tent city pitched by the protestors on streets
leading to Saniora's offices is now empty for the most part, it is a sore
reminder for passers-by of the crisis pitting the government against the
opposition led by Hizbullah.
Groups of young men mill outside the tents at night, some smoking water pipes
and others chit-chatting about politics, reading a newspaper or watching
television.(AFP-Naharnet)
Beirut, 01 Dec 07, 19:16
Is Syria an Ally or Adversary of Radical Sunni Movements?
Eyal Zisser
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Bashar al-Assad is clearly not his father. He is not respected or feared as was
his father. People accept him in Syria not because of his character or his
charisma - which is nonexistent - but because the average Syrian citizen sees no
alternative.
Syria displays a bunker mentality. It sees itself as a small country, constantly
under attack by foreigners and by neighboring countries, always the target of a
conspiracy, like Cuba or North Korea, which have a similar bunker mentality.
American-Syrian relations were destroyed because of mistakes made by Bashar
al-Assad. He destroyed Syria's close relations with the European Union,
especially with France. He also destroyed the delicate relations his father
built with the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Saudis. His father was smart
enough to create this web of alliances that balanced each other. This doesn't
exist anymore.
There is a debate in America about whether the U.S. should engage in a dialogue
with Syria, but what Bashar wants from America is full capitulation, a total
American withdrawal from Iraq. Bashar is not happy about the prospects for the
emergence of a pro-Western regime in Iraq. There is also nothing to discuss with
Bashar about Lebanon unless the Americans are ready to give Lebanon back to the
Syrians.
We should be very realistic about what we can get from Syria. Syria is not about
to become a close ally of the United States and part of what we call the
moderate camp in the region. Syria is not Egypt, which is a big country with a
long history and tradition, and which feels secure and sure of itself. This is
why in the long run we can only get something very limited from Syria.
Bashar al-Assad's Syria
What more can be done in order to remove Syria from its alliance with North
Korea and Iran? What more can be done to engage Syria in a more positive
dialogue with Israel, the international community, and the United States?
Unfortunately, there is very little we can do.
When we speak about Syria nowadays, we speak about Bashar al-Assad. When Bashar
became president of Syria in June 2000, it wasn't clear if the generals, the
bureaucracy, and the party members would ever accept him. Bashar has now
survived for seven years and I see no real threat to the stability of his
regime.
Bashar is the one who makes the decisions. When he became president we used to
speak about the Old Guard, people who were left from the period of his father,
Hafez al-Assad, like Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam and Minister of Defense
Mustafa Tlass. They are all gone. Khaddam is now in exile, Tlass retired, and
all around Bashar are people who were appointed by him and not people left from
his father's era.
However, he is clearly not his father. He is not respected or feared as was his
father. People accept him in Syria not because of his character or his charisma,
which is nonexistent. The main reason for Bashar's support is the lack of any
alternative seen by the average Syrian citizen. The democratic option, which
probably will bring radical Islamists to power, is not popular in Syria. There
is no liberal, pro-Western democratic camp as there was in Eastern Europe when
the Soviet Union collapsed.
The Syrians have Lebanon on one side, which is approaching a new civil war, and
on the other side they have Iraq, where the war actually reaches Syria in the
form of almost two million Iraqi refugees. When the man in the street in
Damascus sees the disintegration and chaos of Iraq, he concludes that it is
better to stay with what he has right now that provides him with limited
stability and security - the regime of Bashar al-Assad. That is the main reason
why this regime is popular. In addition, Bashar's anti-Israeli and anti-American
rhetoric is well accepted among the Syrian population and that is also a source
of support for this regime.
Syria's Bunker Mentality
In order to understand Syria we have to take into consideration not only Bashar
but also the mentality of the Syrian regime. Since it became an independent
state in the 1940s, Syria has displayed a bunker mentality. It sees itself as a
small country, constantly under attack by foreigners and by neighboring
countries, always the target of a conspiracy. We usually compare Syria to Egypt
or other Arab countries, but the more correct comparison is to states like Cuba
or North Korea, which have a similar bunker mentality.
The Syrians really believe that there is an American conspiracy to take over the
Middle East. Seeing this immediate threat, they became closer with radical
Muslim movements and with Iran, even though Syria's natural place is with Saudi
Arabia, with its Arab brothers, and not with Iran.
The Syrians were surprised to discover that their readiness to cooperate with
radical Islamic groups helped them in unexpected ways. For example, for some
time the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood supported Syria.
Hafez al-Assad never came out with any creative ideas to promote and achieve
progress in Syrian-Israeli or Syrian-American relations. It was always the
Israelis or Americans presenting their proposals to be rejected or discussed by
the Syrians. We should not expect the Syrians to follow Anwar Sadat - to have a
vision about how to get their country out of the bunker and to achieve economic
progress. That is not Syria. This was not Hafez al-Assad, and it is not Bashar
either.
In the early 1990s, a year or so after George Bush senior was defeated in the
1992 elections, he came to visit his friends in the Middle East. Bush didn't
visit Israel, but he did visit Hafez al-Assad, back when American-Syrian
relations were considered to be an asset for the Syrians. American-Syrian
relations were destroyed because of mistakes made by Bashar al-Assad. He
destroyed Syria's close relations with the European Union, especially with
France. He also destroyed the delicate relations his father built with the
Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Saudis. His father was smart enough to create
this web of alliances that balanced each other. This doesn't exist anymore.
Bashar survived, but he has left Syria standing in place, an undeveloped country
with increasing economic problems and no chance of any improvement. At the same
time, Syria has created an intimate alliance with Iran and with Hizbullah.
Hizbullah is the friendliest element in Lebanon toward Syria, but they don't
want Syria to come back into Lebanon. They have their own project of gaining
control over Lebanon and they are doing well, but it will take them time. If the
Syrians come back, they will just divide and rule, and this will be the end of
Hizbullah's dream.
A U.S. Dialogue with Syria?
There is a debate in America right now about whether the U.S. should engage in a
dialogue with Syria. A dialogue about what? What Bashar wants from America is
full capitulation, a total American withdrawal from Iraq. There is nothing to
discuss. Bashar is not happy about the prospects for the emergence of a
pro-Western regime in Iraq. There is nothing to discuss with Bashar about
Lebanon unless the Americans are ready to give Lebanon back to the Syrians, like
they did in the 1980s.
Can the Syrians do more to prevent people from going to Iraq and fighting the
Americans or the Shi'ites there? Can the Syrian regime do more to destroy the
training camps in Syria and block the transfer of money to these people? Yes, it
can do more. But this is part of the Syrian mentality and the Syrian way of
thinking, that it is all to be bargained over with the Americans.
Bashar only has a theoretical interest in having peace with Israel. He doesn't
have the eagerness, decisiveness, or courage that we saw when Anwar Sadat came
to Jerusalem. Bashar has no clear vision of where he wants to see Syria in five
or ten years. Bashar is not heading anywhere and there is very little we can do
to change his behavior and engage him in a more positive dialogue with the West.
He's still in the bunker and isn't ready to get out.
Radical Islamists and Syria
In 2004, for the first time in twenty years, radical Islamic groups began
operating in Syria against Syrian targets. Every few weeks we hear of another
group discovered by the government or another incident. Some are people who went
to Iraq to fight the Americans and then came back to Syria to continue with
their jihad, this time against local enemies - the secular Alawite regime in
Syria. The Alawites are still very secular, but the Sunni majority is becoming
more and more religious and this will become a challenge to the regime.
The Syrian regime had defeated the Muslim Brotherhood after its revolt in the
years 1976-82. But today there are much more radical groups, inspired by and
connected to al-Qaeda. The Syrian regime preferred to ignore these groups and
allowed them to operate against the Americans. They are very small groups and
most of the Syrian population doesn't support them yet, but clearly, in the long
run, Syria will have a problem because Bashar al-Assad and his regime are
totally secular, and Syrian society is much more secular than others in the Arab
world.
The Syrian-Israeli Balance of Power
During the years 2000-2007, Israel twice attacked Syrian positions in Lebanon in
April and July 2001 in retaliation for attacks on IDF positions by Hizbullah,
killing almost 20 Syrian soldiers. In October 2003, Israeli aircraft bombed a
Palestinian training camp seven kilometers north of Damascus. In 2002 and 2006,
Israeli aircraft flew over Bashar's palace.
In all these cases there was no Syrian response. The Syrians were fully aware of
the balance of power between them and the Israelis, and they were not interested
in engaging in total war with Israel. The Syrians are fully aware that Israel is
much stronger and there is no expectation among the Syrian public or in the
Syrian army for immediate retaliation. The Syrians prefer to try to take revenge
in indirect ways by using Hizbullah or the Palestinians.
Following the war in Lebanon, Bashar al-Assad made his famous speech in August
2006, telling the Israelis that after what happened in Lebanon, the status quo
was not going to continue. But Bashar was bluffing and Israel called his bluff
in the mysterious air attack in September 2007.
Prospects for the Future
When Israelis speak about normalization and peace, what they have in mind is a
marriage agreement - something warm with hugs and kisses. What Syrians have in
mind is a decent divorce agreement. There will be a settlement, but it doesn't
mean that we are going to be friends. The Syrians argue that they will have the
same kind of relations they have with Ukraine, with no need for an embassy, but
everyone knows the two countries are at peace.
We should be very realistic about what we can get from Syria. Syria is not about
to become a close ally of the United States and part of what we call the
moderate camp in the region. Syria is not Egypt, which is a big country with a
long history and tradition, and which feels secure and sure of itself. This is
why in the long run we can only get something very limited from Syria.
* * *
Prof. Eyal Zisser is the Head of the Department of Middle Eastern and African
History and the Director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and
African Studies at Tel Aviv University. Prof. Zisser is a leading expert on
Syria and has written extensively on the history and politics of modern Syria,
Lebanon, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Among his books are In the Name of the
Father: Bashar al-Assad's First Years in Power; Lebanon: The Challenge of
Independence; and Assad's Syria at a Crossroads. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is
based on his appearance at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem
on October 25, 2007.
Hezbollah Hints at Support
for Suleiman
Sunday December 2, 2007 12:46 AM
By BASSEM MROUE
Associated Press Writer
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - A senior Hezbollah official said Saturday that the
militant group holds army commander Michel Suleiman in high regard, further
improving his chances of becoming Lebanon's next president and averting a
political crisis.
Hezbollah deputy leader Sheik Naim Kassem's comments came two days after the
group's ally, Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun, said he will back
Suleiman as a compromise candidate for president.
The parliamentary majority also expressed its support for Suleiman this week,
setting up a potential resolution to months of conflict with the Hezbollah-led
opposition over choosing President Emile Lahoud's successor
``We, in Hezbollah, ... have a positive view of Gen. Michel Suleiman in addition
to our appreciation of Gen. Michel Aoun's stance and consider this alternative
as a serious one,'' the white-turbaned cleric said on Hezbollah's al-Manar TV.
``There is a major opportunity for discussion in order to reach an accord on
presidential elections,'' Kassem added.
Hezbollah officials have in recent days linked their support for any
presidential candidate to Aoun's stance. Now that Aoun has publicly supported
Suleiman, Kassem's comments were viewed as implicit support for the army
commander.
Parliament is scheduled to meet Friday to vote for a new president. For Suleiman
to be elected, the Parliament will have to amend the constitution, which
prevents senior state employees, including army commanders, from running for the
post while in office.
The army chief is seen as a neutral figure who can appeal to both the
Western-supported majority and the pro-Syrian opposition, which is backed by
Damascus.
The nation's top post has been vacant since pro-Syrian Lahoud left office
without a successor on Nov. 23 because the feuding groups could not agree on a
compromise candidate.
Failure to elect a president left Lebanon with a leadership vacuum not seen
since the civil war, when rival governments ran the country in 1988-89.
The United States, which backs the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora,
has in the past pressed to end Syria's influence in Lebanon. Syria's allies in
Lebanon, in turn, have accused Saniora of selling out the country to the
Americans. Meanwhile, some 5,000 opposition supporters held a rally in downtown
Beirut to mark the first anniversary of a sit-in near Saniora's headquarters.
The demonstration aimed to unseat Saniora's Western-backed government but has so
far failed to do so.
Hezbollah legislator Hussein Hajj Hassan said at the rally that the opposition
was ready for an agreement on a compromise president but would continue the
sit-in if no agreement was reached. ``The Lebanese national opposition is ready
for a political settlement through a compromise president and a partnership
government,'' said Hajj Hassan. ``It is also ready, as this rally shows, today
to continue with its (current) move.''
Significant Meeting
between Gemayel, Geagea, Suleiman
A significant meeting took place between Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces
Gen. Michel Suleiman, former President Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Forces leader
Samir Geagea in a bid to embrace the army chief. Sources said the atmosphere of
the meeting which took place Saturday at the Defense Ministry in Yarze was "very
satisfactory." The daily An Nahar said Sunday the meeting which lasted nearly
two hours also aimed at paving the way for a broader gathering of the ruling
March 14 coalition in order to take a unified stance toward Suleiman's
candidacy. Beirut, 02 Dec 07, 08:53
Lebanon - Overview
GlobalSecrity.org
The current president of Lebanon is Emile Lahoud who was recently granted
another term by the Lebanese parliment in September 2004 under great pressure
from Syria. Though Lahoud is President and exercises considerable influence due
to the backing of Syria, he is not the official commander-in-chief of the
Lebanese Armed Forces. Lebanon has a unique system of government that shares
power among the country's religious sects. The constitution of the country was
amended in 1991, under a plan for national reconciliation called the Ta'if
Accord. The accord established a new political order in which Muslims and
Christians share legislative power through a unicameral National Assembly.
Hizbollah, once a ragtag militia, is currently one of the most powerful parties
in the National Assembly, occupying 12 of the National Assembly's 128 seats. It
is a Shiite Muslim organization led by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah with 20,000 active
members. Founded in 1982, Hezbollah has twin objectives -- the destruction of
Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Lebanon. The party runs
hospitals, television stations and newspapers and is widely supported by the
Lebanese. The Lebanese government regards Hizballah's mission as a legal
resistance against Israel and allows it to operate freely within the country so
long as the organization adheres to the law.
General Michel Sleiman is the current commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces. He
has been in the Army since 1976 and slowly climbed up the chain of command
finally being appointed as commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces in 1998. The
Lebanese Armed Forces underwent their last transformation in 1991 and currently
maintains a standing army of approximately 60,000 men. However, the miltary
branches are not a balanced for joint military operations. The Navy and Air
Force are vastly underfunded compared to the Ground Forces and lack the
resources and equipment of a capable modern military. The Navy relies on small
tracker boats and the Air Force mainstay are helicopters from the United States.
In practice, both the Navy and Air Force are components of the internal security
forces because their missions and operations are focused on domestic concerns.
The earlier incarnations of the Lebanese Armed Forces were marred by infighting,
internal upheaval and general ineffectiveness as a national army. After the 1982
Israeli invasion, President Amin Jumayyil was convinced that a strong and
unified army was necessary to rebuild the nation. He announced plans to create a
12-brigade 60,000-man army which would be equipped with French and American arms
and trained by French and American advisers. He also planned to increase The
Internal Security Forces to 20,000 men. Unfortunately weak recruiting could
muster only about 22,000 men and the government decided on November 24, 1982, to
impose a conscription law called the Law of Service to the Flag. The
conscription law mandated one year of military service for eligible males.
Additionally, other changes saw hundreds of new appointments were made on a
nonsectarian basis.
The United States was instrumental in helping the Lebanese government rebuild
the armed forces. In 1982 the United States proposed a Lebanese Army
Modernization Program to be implemented in four phases. The first three phases
entailed organization of seven full-strength, multiconfessional army brigades,
to be created from existing battalions. The fourth phase focused on rebuilding
the Navy and Air Force. The total cost of the first three phases was estimated
at US$500 million but the United States pledged to pay US$235 million of this
sum, with the Lebanese government paying the balance.
Initial progress was rapid. A new tank battalion equipped with M-48 tanks
donated by Jordan was established and a new supply depot was built at Kafr Shima.
About 1,000 vehicles, including hundreds of M-113 armored personnel carriers,
were also transferred from the United States to Lebanon.
Still, there was a lack of effective military leadership which remained the
Achilles heel. United States experts were aware of this problem and devoted
considerable resources to solving it. A cadre of Lebanese lieutenants was given
infantry officer basic training in the United States. Then a team of eighty
United States military advisers, including fifty-three Green Berets, provided
officer training in Lebanon. Lebanese officers were also attached to the United
States MNF contingent for training in military unit operations.
Despite all these changes, new training and new equipment the Lebanese Army was
routed in the 1983-84 battles in the Shuf Mountains and all suffered defeats by
militia forces in West Beirut. In 1988, General Aoun who was Interim Prime
Minister, declared a “War of Liberation” against the Syrians. Several months of
fierce fighting followed but General Aoun has temporarily defeated Syria and its
militia allies. The General's next campaign to absorb some of the remaining
Lebanese militias met with disaster and months of fighting brought enormous
losses and the destruction of Lebanese air and navla bases. Syria capitalized on
Aoun's weak position and launched an air strike at the Presidential palace and
the Ministry of Defence, followed by heavy artillery shelling. After he realized
he could not win, Aoun surrendered and went to exile in France.
Following Aoun's departure a new pro-Syrian government rebuilt the army again
into its current form.
The Lebanese Armed Forces are not the only military force in Lebanon which at
its height during the civil war was the battleground for 40 different armies.
Syria maintained approximately 20,000 troops in the country a visible reminder
of the power they have with the government. The Syrians originally had upwards
of 30,000 troops in Lebanon but lowered its troop numbers after Israel withdrew
from south Lebanon in 2000. Hizballah also has their own militia force of
approximately 3,000 mostly located near the southern border in the Bekaa valley.
The autonomy of Lebanese Armed Forces' officials was limited due to widespread
Syrian influence with government officials. Syria played a key role in Lebanese
affairs and makes sure that high-ranking government officials are sypathetic to
Damascus and Syrian interests. Consequently, international pressure on the
Lebanese government and military officials to take action against groups like
Hizballah that are operating in the country had little effect.
As of 2003 approximately 20,000 Syrian troops occupied the north of Lebanon
above Tripoli, the Beqaa Valley north of the town of Rashayah, and the
Beirut-Damascus highway. These numbers compare to 35,000 troops at the beginning
of Syria's occupation. Between May 1988 and June 2001, Syrian forces occupied
most of west Beirut. In October 1989, as part of the Taif agreements, Syria
agreed to begin discussions on possible Syrian troop withdrawals from Beirut to
the Beqaa Valley, two years after political reforms were implemented
(then-Lebanese President Hirawi signed the reforms in September 1990), and to
withdraw entirely from Lebanon after an Israeli withdrawal. While Israel has,
according to the United Nations, complied with its obligations, the Syrian
withdrawal discussions, which should have started in September 1992, had not
begun as of early 2004.
A September 2004 vote by the Chamber of Deputies to amend the constitution to
extend President Lahoud's term in office by 3 years amplified the question of
Lebanese sovereignty and the continuing Syrian presence. The vote was clearly
taken under Syrian pressure, exercised in part through Syria's military
intelligence service, whose chief in Lebanon had acted as a virtual proconsul
for many years. The UN Security Council expressed its concern over the situation
by passing Resolution 1559, also in September 2004, which called for withdrawal
of all remaining foreign forces from Lebanon, disbanding and disarmament of all
Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces
throughout the country, and a free and fair electoral process in the
presidential election.
Former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 19 others were assassinated in Beirut by
a car bomb on February 14, 2005. The assassination spurred massive protests in
Beirut and international pressure that led to the withdrawal of the remaining
Syrian military troops from Lebanon on April 26. In the months that followed
Hariri’s assassination, journalist Samir Qassir and Lebanese politician George
Hawi were both murdered by car bombs, and most recently, Defense Minister Elias
Murr narrowly avoided a similar fate when a car bomb exploded near his convoy.
The UN International Independent Investigative Commission (UNIIIC) headed by
Detlev Mehlis iinvestigated Hariri’s assassination and reported its findings to
the Security Council.
Parliamentary elections were held May 29-June 19, 2005 and the anti-Syrian
opposition led by Sa’ad Hariri, Rafiq Hariri’s son, won a majority of 72 seats
(out of 128). Hariri ally and former Finance Minister Fouad Siniora was named
Prime Minister and Nabih Berri was reelected as Speaker of Parliament.
Parliament approved the first “made-in-Lebanon” cabinet in almost 30 years on
July 30. The new cabinet’s ministerial statement, a summary of the new
government’s agenda and priorities, focuses on political and economic reform.
On July 12, 2006 members of Hizballah infiltrated the Lebanese-Israeli border
near Shtula, an Israeli farming village, and claimed responsibility for an
ambush conducted on two Israeli Army Hummvees. The attack resulted in the
capture of two Israeli soldiers and the deaths of three others. Five more
Israeli soldiers were killed in the ensuing pursuit of Hizballah members into
Lebanese territory. The combined capture of two soldiers and the deaths of 8
others; was considered the worst loss for Israeli military forces in more than
four years. Hizballah also claimed responsibility for two separate Katyusha
rocket attacks on Israeli towns resulting in the death of 1 civilian and the
injury of 25 others.
The 12 July 2006 attack resulted in immediate retaliation by the Israeli
military, which responded to the hostilities against their troops and citizens
by bombing roads, bridges, and power plants inside Lebanon. The specific
targeting of al-Manar, the Hizballah controlled television station, and the
Lebanese international airport as well as the blockading of Lebanon’s sea ports
was an attempt to force the return of the captured Israeli troops and place
greater pressure on Hizballah. These retaliatory actions by Israel resulted in
the deaths of dozens of Lebanese civilians and threats of further rocket attacks
by Hizballah. Additionally, on July 18, 2006 Israeli strikes killed 11 Lebanese
soldiers, while Hezbollah rockets killed an Israeli in Nahariya. The 11 Lebanese
soldiers were killed at a barracks east of Beirut.
Where Living in Fear Starts
at the Top
By JOHN KIFNER
Published: December 2, 2007
For more than a year, fearing assassination, the prime minister has lived in his
office in the ornate government building, surrounded by concentric circles of
barbed wire, soldiers and armored vehicles that separate him from antigovernment
demonstrators. Some 40 members of Parliament from the razor-thin majority are
holed up in the luxurious, gaudy Phoenicia Hotel a few blocks away, behind three
tiers of metal detectors, internal security police and drawn curtains. The two
majority leaders are in fortress-like family palaces, one high in the mountains,
the other with surrounding city streets sealed off for blocks.
Answer: Lebanon, where one good barometer of whether it is moving toward a
peaceful future is how safe — or threatened — the nominal leaders feel, living
in the shadow of Syria.
Assassination is, so to speak, a way of life in Lebanon; by one count there have
been at least 36 assassinations of major political figures in the country’s 64
years of independence. It is particularly dangerous to be president or prime
minister. And the last two years have been as dangerous a time as any.
It was the assassination of a former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005 that
set off demonstrations and international condemnation that forced the end of
nearly 30 years of domination by Syria. A United Nations investigation has
implicated Gen. Asef Shawket, the head of Syrian military intelligence and
brother-in-law of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Four top Lebanese security
officers have been arrested.
But even with its troops withdrawn, Syria retains allies and agents in Lebanon.
And Lebanese politics have been deadlocked between the Western-backed March 14
Coalition of Sunni Muslims, Druse and Christians on one side, against the
Syrian-backed Shiite Muslims of Hezbollah and some Christians.
France, once Lebanon’s ruler, left a system that favors the Christians: The
president is a Maronite Catholic, the prime minister a Sunni; Parliament’s
speaker is a Shiite and seats are allocated by sect. To keep the balance, there
has been no census since 1932.
Last week, the country seemed to be easing an impasse over finding a new
president whom all sides might trust. A consensus was reached on a
constitutional amendment that would allow a serving general, Michel Suleiman, to
be elected by Parliament.
But even if the deal holds, the lawmakers may stay barricaded — haunted by the
list of anti-Syrian figures assassinated since Mr. Hariri was: Antoine Ghanem,
Walid Eido and Pierre Gemayel, Parliament members; Samir Kassir and Gibran Tueni,
journalists; and George Hawi, the Communist Party leader.
Clear as
mud
By: Sami Moubayed
Al-Ahram Weekly-29/11/07
Last Christmas, the Maronite Patriarch Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir told Lebanese
Christians, "Do not be afraid." At first glance, the Lebanese did not seem
afraid, not a bit. Despite all the turmoil they were going through, they still
managed to put up their Christmas trees, go to nightclubs, dine at fancy
restaurants and attend Fayruz. At second glance, however, the Lebanese had every
reason to be afraid back then, and even more so today, one year later. Lebanon
continues to suffer from the Israeli war in 2006, and the continued
assassinations that have badly hit Lebanon's economy -- and tourism -- since
2005. Then came the massive sit-in launched by the Hizbullah-led opposition
starting 2 December 2006 which at the time of writing, continues, with the aim
of bringing down the cabinet of Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora. Now comes
vacancy at the Presidential Palace.
On 23-24 November 2007, Beirut seemed divided between those rejoicing at the
exodus of President Emile Lahoud and those paying homage to a man whom they
considered a great struggler, due to his nine-year alliance with Hizbullah and
the Syrians. Lahoud left a vacant post at Baabda Palace. After weeks of
negotiations, the Lebanese were unable to agree on a replacement. Neighbourhoods
loyal to parliamentary majority leader Saad Al-Hariri celebrated with fireworks
and young people dancing in the street. Those occupied by Hizbullah and the Amal
movement of Nabih Berri were quiet, filled with glowing images of the
ex-president. In nearby Damascus, the mood was strongly pro-Lahoud. Syrian
television aired a special documentary about him, saying that he was the man who
helped unite Lebanon, in his capacity as army commander, in the 1990s. He helped
liberate South Lebanon in 2000, and prevented Lebanon from becoming a satellite
state of the United States and Israel.
Very few in Lebanon remained as loyal to the Syrians as Lahoud. Other strong
examples are Maronite chief Suleiman Franjiyeh, former prime ministers Omar
Karameh and Najib Mikati, parliament speaker Berri, and Hizbullah leader Hassan
Nasrallah. All of them upheld Lahoud as a constitutional president, after the
Syrians departed in April 2005. Shortly before that, Nasrallah gave a memorable
speech, which was much appreciated in Damascus, saying, "Beirut was destroyed by
Sharon, rebuilt by Rafik Al-Hariri, and protected by Hafez Al-Assad!" Ever since
entering Lebanon in 1976 and unceremoniously leaving in 2005, Syria has had few
loyal friends. Former allies like Fouad Al-Siniora and Walid Jumblatt
immediately turned against Damascus when it became clear that the Syrians were
not staying long in Lebanon. They had actually been the ones, headed by Rafik
Al-Hariri, to support and legitimise the Syrian presence in Lebanon during the
1990s. All of them had supported the election of Lahoud in 1998, handpicked by
Hafez Al-Assad. Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV aired footage this weekend of Lahoud's
1998 inauguration speech, showing Nayla Mouawad, one of the figures of 14 March
who at the time was pro-Syrian, clapping with pleasure at the new pro-Syrian
president coming to power in Beirut. Mouawad and 14 March are now the strongest
anti-Syrian voices in Beirut, described by the world as "historically"
anti-Syrian statesmen who "struggled" for the liberation of their country from
Syrian "occupation." The Syrians know better, however, and so does Lahoud.
Lahoud was not like that and that is why the Syrians are sad to see him go,
remembering, too well, that they had brought him to power in 1998 and renewed
his mandate in 2004, at the expense of their friendship with Rafik Al-Hariri.
The former prime minister, however, had eventually said yes to renewing Lahoud's
mandate at Baabda Palace. Lahoud's friendship with the Syrians led to numerous
accusations against him, with 14 March claiming that he was responsible for the
murder of Al-Hariri in 2005, as reported in the first UN commission enquiry,
known as the Melhis report. At the time of his exodus from Baabda in 2005, his
top generals remain behind bars in connection to the Melhis report.
But as far as the world is concerned, all of that is now history. What matters
is the new president of Lebanon. Despite all the bickering, and French
heavy-handed diplomacy, the Lebanese have indeed created a power vacuum for
themselves. Saad Al-Hariri is frantic. For one reason, if chaos returns to
Lebanon his investments in Beirut will suffer. Setting politics aside and
speaking purely in business terms, he cannot sit back and watch civil war erupt
in Lebanon. Currently, the Maronite seat is vacant and the Shias, formerly
represented in government, are also now in opposition to Prime Minister Fouad
Al-Siniora. This leaves Saad Al-Hariri's Sunnis in temporary control of Lebanon.
That is alarming for the Syrians. Saad Al-Hariri has ambitions to become prime
minister of Lebanon after a Christian president is elected. Constitutionally he
can do that, although advisors are telling him that this would be political
suicide. Saad Al-Hariri cannot tolerate a strong Christian president who would
overshadow his Sunni prime minister. That is why he preferred keeping Lahoud
(although he detested the former General and accused him of conspiracy in the
killing of his father in 2005), rather than bringing somebody like Aoun to
Baabda.
Many wrongly believed that due to his alliance with Hizbullah, the Syrians
wanted Aoun for president. That was trumpeted by the 14 March coalition in an
attempt at tarnishing Aoun's image in the Christian streets. The truth is the
Syrians would be very uncomfortable with somebody like Aoun. They do not forget
his war of liberation against the Syrian army during the final stages of the
civil war, and that he had led the Lebanese opposition in exile in the 1990s,
calling for withdrawal of Syrian troops. Aoun also played a pivotal role in
getting the US to pass the Syria accountability law of 2003. He is only allied
to Hizbullah because he realises that he cannot rule Lebanon without the support
of the 40 per cent of its population who are Shias. True that would end his
reputation as a Christian leader -- something Aoun never strove to become -- and
establish him as a cross-confessional Lebanese leader. The Syrians have no idea
how he would act as president. He would certainly be better however, than either
of the 14 March candidates Boutros Harb or Robert Ghanem.
But if the Syrians are able to get their way, they would opt for Michel
Suleiman, the current army commander. Washington DC is not too enthusiastic
about him because he is politically independent; too independent for
Washington's taste. He is committed to combating Israel, supporting Hizbullah,
and friendship with Syria. His one slogan has been "Israel is the enemy",
something that greatly pleases Damascus but is frowned upon by 14 March. If
elected, he would certainly work for a greater role for Hizbullah in the
government, and might even turn a blind eye to their activities in south
Lebanon, as did Elias Hrawi in the early 1990s, and Lahoud in 1998-2006. Also to
the displeasure of 14 March was a recent remark by the army commander, "Fatah
Al-Islam is linked to Al-Qaeda not Syria."
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
The
Horses are Tied… in Lebanon
Zouheir Kseibati
Al-Hayat - 03/12/07//
It is ironic that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "reassured" the Lebanese
that US President George Bush "won't betray" their country for the sake of
normalization with Syria; normalization here involves Washington and Damascus,
not Damascus and Beirut. In any case, no Lebanese wants to buy Olmert's goods,
however great the campaigns of mutual doubt among their country's political
forces, which have sent political rhetoric to its lowest levels.
It's bitterly ironic that a fraternal state needs to normalize with the
foreigner; it insists on this and doesn't translate its understanding of the
needs of normalization with the smaller fraternal state, even if the price to be
paid shall be paid in installments. The revelation by the American press that
the Bush administration's strategic transformation covers "a readiness to reach
a settlement with Syria" is no surprise, except for those who thrust aside the
principle of the rule of interests in drafting state policies.
If this American transformation doesn't necessarily mean a readiness to "sell
out" the Lebanese once again and if we can say that Syria has agreed to buy, or
that its insistence on buying constitutes the protection of its interests or
against the damage to these interests, it is nonetheless the case that the
Lebanese, and all their groups, parties, sects and communities, still face a
huge predicament. A minister from the European troika commented on this in
Beirut, when he said by way of a challenge, "prove to us, at least once, that
you can decide your future by yourselves."
Part of the disappointing answer turns up in the fact that some of them have
returned to debating the gender of angels and are trying to be "too smart" in
addressing people with many questions, of the "which kind of Lebanon do we
want?" type, and discussing whether there is a consensus about the identity of
the country. Part of the answer is disappointing also, after we saw a window of
hope emerge regarding the possibility of salvation from the presidential vacuum;
the language of bickering and accusations has spread to the relationship among
the country's religious authorities. We assume they would rise above the
calculations of politics and politicians, to reduce the weight of the crisis,
when political leaders fall prey to the trap of issuing challenges to one
another.
If it is natural that any comments by any religious authority will not find
willing ears unless there is a commitment to the priority of citizenship over
sect and the superiority of the sect's "rights" over the rights of its
individual members, it is also natural that seeing these religious authorities
stoop to the level of political bickering will not cease the series of defeats
for Lebanon.
Perhaps the Higher Shiite Council discovered sufficient justification to become
totally biased toward Speaker Nabih Berri, who was criticized (not by name) by a
statement issue by Lebanon's Maronite Bishops, for "closing the doors of
Parliament." The statement also criticized MPs from his bloc and that of
Hizbullah for standing in the corridors of the legislature without electing a
president of the Republic, a process that is also stuck in some very difficult
corridors, regionally and internationally.
It is the Higher Shiite Council's duty to defend the role and status of the
sect. However, responding to the Maronite Patriarchate or any other religious
authority by defending the Shiite ministers gives the sect priority over any
policy. In fact, it renders the sect the leading policy in organizing
coexistence among the Lebanese, whether the rulers or the ruled.
In this same context, we find that any religious or sectarian authority is
subject to the binary classification: either pro-government or opposition, which
adds another black mark to the narrowness of Lebanon's political horizon these
days. The Higher Shiite Council blames Patriarch Sfeir; accusing him of bias
does not help erase the gulfs caused by doubt and suspicion, and doesn't help
with finding a solution. If the vice president of the Higher Shiite Council,
Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, can ask for God's forgiveness of Sfeir, after sending
an implicit message to the Maronites, when he refers at the Shiites being "the
people of Lebanon, before anyone came from Aleppo or Istanbul" appears closer to
a slip of the tongue, or a mistake by Sheikh Qabalan, recalling similar mistakes
committed by the leaders of other sects in the past. The proof that Qabalan
adopted the patriarch's call to save Lebanon "before it is too late" and rebuild
trust among all political and religious authorities, using one tool, namely
"unifying national political discourse."
It was a summer cloud between Patriarch Sfeir and Sheikh Qabalan, but one that
did not hide the aspects of the emergency conditions that are being experienced
by Lebanon: after the 180-degree turn by Walid Jumblatt, the head of the
Democratic Gathering parliamentary bloc, dropping his insistence on electing the
president of the Republic with a simple majority in Parliament, and after
Hizbullah saw no embarrassment in the Shiite ministers going back on their
resignations, to rejoin the "illegitimate government." It's not just a passing
matter that the party was unconcerned with gathering the masses in downtown
Beirut and did not have Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah address them to define the
course of the coming phase, on the first anniversary of the downtown sit-in
protest… and for Amal to not organize its rally.
Of course, this is insufficient to justify the absence of Amal and the speech by
saying that Amal and Hizbullah need to prepare in order to strike the tents, as
long as General Michel Suleiman is elected president, or by saying that the time
hasn't come to complete an inventory of what the opposition has achieved, a full
year after going down to the Riad Solh area of downtown Beirut. As for
predicting changes in alliances and surprises, and the absence of Berri from
this picture, after the bitterness he reaped in the patriarch's declaration,
this remains an exercise in predictions: until we uncloak the "mystery" of the
sudden transformations that turned something that was rejected into a place to
tie the horses of every "positive"' person who will help save the country