LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
December  10/06

Bible Reading For the Day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 9,35-38.10,1.6-8.
Jesus went around to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness. At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd.
Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest."Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, make this proclamation: 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.

Latest News from miscellaneous sources for Decembe 10/06
Lebanese president rejects Hariri tribunal plan-Reuters
Sharp Sunni-Shiite Attacks Deepen Sectarian Strife-Naharnet
Olmert slams German Foreign Minister for visiting Syria-International Middle East Media Center -
Lebanon prepares for anti-government protests-Monsters and Critics.com,
Qabbani: Toppling Saniora is 'Red Line'-Naharnet
Saniora Snubs Nasrallah-Naharnet
Hizbullah Delegation Meets Sfeir-Naharnet
Hizbullah Responds to Lebanese Army-Naharnet
Mubarak Warns Protests Could Split Lebanon-Naharnet
Top Iran Cleric Hopes Hizbullah Will Win 'Political Conflict'-Naharnet
UN: Iranian arms still flowing to Hezbollah via Syria-Ya Libnan,
Breaking the rules in Lebanon-Gulf News, United Arab Emirates 
Bush: Iraq Study Group Agrees With Me-CBS News 
Iran's mullahs agent: Protests will continue in Lebanon-Persian Journal, Iran

Lebanese president rejects Hariri tribunal plan
Sat 9 Dec 2006 11:50 AM ET-Naharnet
BEIRUT, Dec 9 (Reuters) - Lebanon's pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud refused on Saturday to endorse government plans for an international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.
The planned court is a major bone of contention between the Western-backed government and the opposition, spearheaded by Hezbollah, which is staging a round-the-clock vigil in Beirut to try to oust Lebanon's anti-Syrian prime minister.
Six pro-Syrian ministers, including five Shi'ite Muslims, quit the cabinet last month to press their demands for a government of national unity.
The remaining ministers subsequently approved proposals for the tribunal, but Lahoud said in a statement on Saturday that the depleted cabinet was unconstitutional and therefore did not have the authority to pass the court project.
"The president ... calls on the cabinet to reconsider (the plan) when there is a legitimate and constitutional government," a statement from his office said.
The move had been widely expected and leaves the court project hanging in the balance.
Hariri was killed by a massive truck bomb in February 2005 -- an assassination many government supporters blame on neighbouring Syria, a charge Damascus denies. Plans for the international tribunal were drafted by the United Nations and Beirut after Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Lebanon's judiciary could not handle the case alone. Siniora's allies say Hezbollah is trying to sink the government in order to scupper the tribunal.
Shi'ite Hezbollah is supported by both Damascus and Tehran. The government is now expected to refer the court plans to parliament, where it has a Sunni-led majority, in a bid to bypass the president. However parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri, who is allied to Hezbollah, has indicated he will not convene parliament to debate the court. Hundreds of thousands of opposition protesters are expected to stage a mass rally in downtown Beirut on Sunday as part of their ongoing campaign to unseat Siniora.Commentators have warned that the increasingly acrimonious stand-off, which broadly speaking has pitted the Sunni Muslim community against Shi'ites, could degenerate into violence in a country that has suffered two civil wars in 50 years. (Additional reporting by Laila Bassam)
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

A diagram for defeat: assessing the Iraq Study Group's report
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 09, 2006
It doesn't take long to see that the Iraq Study Group report, released on Wednesday by a bipartisan band of old Washington sages, reads like a poor newspaper editorial. Truffled with hopeful "shoulds and "musts," redolent with high Establishment piousness, it sets ambitious aims, but offers relatively few practicable means to implement them.
However, this is not the whole story. The ISG members have long marinated in political craftiness. By the end of the 100-odd page report, you will wonder if we've all been had for taking the document so literally. In fact, co-chairmen James Baker and Lee Hamilton have handed us two things: an awkward map out of the current mess in Iraq; but also a barrage of covering fire to justify why the United States need not linger there for much longer. The report sets myriad benchmarks that the Bush administration, or any successor, might readily point to as not having been implemented when explaining why it is time to go.
The report opens on the low side. "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved." The authors call "for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of US forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." In parallel to this, the Iraqi government is told that it must advance national reconciliation, guarantee basic security, and deliver essential services. Lying in ambush is a threat: "If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."
This switches on one of many warning lights in the ISG report. The Bush administration has recently done what anyone who screws up does: It has shifted the blame elsewhere, onto the Iraqi government. It takes considerable imagination to overstate the merits of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, however the new American tactic of treating Iraq as dead weight the US could really do without is a bit thick after more than three years of occupation and the administration's mismanagement of the reconstruction process. The ISG fails to rectify this. It blackmails the Iraqis by giving them a choice between implementing ISG guidelines and being abandoned - with the likelihood that civil war will ensue.
But if that's Baker's and Hamilton's gambit, it does not square with this passage in the report: "Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability, and is critical to US interests. It runs along the sectarian fault lines of [Shiite] and Sunni Islam, and of Kurdish and Arab populations. It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves. It is now a base of operations for international terrorism, including [Al-] Qaeda. Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of Iraq's condition and the country's vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades."
If Iraq is all this, then does it make sense for the US to abandon the country if its leaders don't play ball? Does the Bush administration have that luxury? The answer is no, which points to a fundamental flaw in the report: It prepares the exits in Iraq, but also convinces us why getting out might be a disaster. Worse, the US depends on the Iraqis to create the successful context for its departure. Success isn't much of an option, as the ISG authors have already informed us, so what we're left with is a cornucopia of vague thoughts, where it's unclear who or what defines the destiny of US forces in Iraq. Is it the Iraqis? Is it the possible backlash of an "irresponsible" American withdrawal? Is it American morale, handicapped by a realization that the US is caught in a losing war?
This fuzziness is reinforced by a contradiction when the authors discuss a timetable for a pullout. They insist, "The point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose." Yet that is precisely what the report later does, albeit surrounded by a bodyguard of caveats: "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." This is classic bureaucratic hedging, handing ammunition to both sides in the debate. The administration will highlight the conditionality of the ISG's 2008 deadline in order to buy itself some wiggling room; the "get out of Iraq quick" crowd will emphasize the date. Baker and Hamilton will stress one or the other depending on their audience. That's safe, but it doesn't bring the US any closer to a comprehensible strategy.
The deadline issue runs hand in hand with another crucial ISG recommendation, namely that the US military effort be turned toward enhancing training and support for the Iraqi Army and security forces, among whom more US soldiers should be embedded. That's hardly an original idea, however, being a variation on President George W. Bush's promise that "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." The twist is that while "Iraqization" will suck in more US soldiers, the payoff is that more soldiers will leave, even if the report, pointedly, avoids addressing troop levels.
This leads to another slapdash segment in the text - on the disarming of militias. If the Americans are in a mindset of drawing down their forces, how easy will it be for the Iraqi government to disband the country's militias - which requires national reconciliation? By now, the authors have told us that both Kurds and Shiites are uneager to engage in such reconciliation, and that "there are many armed groups in Iraq, and very little will to lay down arms." What they have not told us, however, is that the possibility of the militias' changing their minds will only be diminished by the prospect of an American departure, which could leave behind a dangerous vacuum that Iraqis would need weapons to fill. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is to be held accountable for this failure.
Another cornerstone of Baker's and Hamilton's strategy is the creation of a regional Iraq Support Group as part of a so-called New Diplomatic Offensive. "The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors."
Much gnashing of teeth was provoked before the report's publication because Baker, in a television interview, advocated talking with Iran and Syria on Iraq. The premise of the ISG report, as the above passage makes clear, is that none of Iraq's neighbors wants to see the country dissolve into sectarian war. The authors err, however, in giving this hypothesis absolute merit, with little appreciation for the complexity of Iranian and Syrian interests in Iraq. If a civil war is so frightening, then it doesn't explain why Syria has systematically destabilized Iraq by funneling foreign Sunni jihadists into the country to murder Shiites - increasing the chances for full-scale sectarian warfare. The same can be said of Iran, which continues to arm both of the main Shiite militias, despite the fact that they have been involved in countless rampages of sectarian killing.
Something is plainly lacking in the ISG's rational reckoning of Iranian and Syrian intentions. For one thing, Baker and Hamilton ignore that Iran's stated goal in Iraq is to get the Americans out of the country - and perhaps the region. In an embarrassing understatement, the authors describe the US-Iranian relationship as "problematic," and virtually undercut their own argument for engagement by admitting that the Iranians are "likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq." Tehran would be amenable to chatting up the US all the way to Iraq's door, but that's different than what the ISG members have in mind. They're not looking for an American rout in the Middle East; Iran is.
Similarly, the report's passage on Syria is so anemic, so unpersuasive, so shaky for being loaded down with an ancillary recommendation that the US help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict as a possible incentive to Damascus, that nothing will come of it, at least for now. In truth, the battle was always going to be tough. Bush rejected the idea of dealing with Syria some weeks ago, and the recent death of Lebanese Minister Pierre Gemayel, probably the work of the Syrians or their allies, further damaged what little legs the initiative had. What those who want to engage Syria cannot comprehend is that its regime thrives on exporting instability. For President Bashar Assad, normalcy in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon would deny Syria a role as regional playmaker, while also forcing the Syrian leader to dismantle the vast security edifice that keeps him in power.
Some will defend the ISG report as a reservoir of new ideas. If you can't stomach the whole, look at its parts. There are two problems with this. First, the authors see their proposals as interconnected, not to be picked at selectively, which is why their plan is so tremendously rigid. And second, few of the ideas are original, even if some are rather good. Other than a final sequence of detailed administrative and judicial recommendations, too much of the ISG's advice is conventional generalization. That's because all Baker and Hamilton ever intended to give Bush was a diagram for defeat, a device for him to go down without losing face.
***Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Will Lebanon again become a casualty of American expediency?
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Editorial-Daily Star
The report by Washington's Iraq Study Group is a sweeping document that may lead to profound change in the Middle East - or to nothing at all. Whatever the case, governments in this part of the world would do well to recognize that the report is not about Iraq: It is about how to protect America's interests as it gets out of Iraq. Only by appreciating this distinction can indigenous players hope to safeguard their own interests as the executive and legislative branches of the US government decide what, if anything, to do about the report's recommendations.
This will mean different things to different state and non-state actors. For many, Washington's desire to keep Iraq from falling apart, and so to improve stability across the region, will mesh perfectly with their own goals. For others, the particular mechanisms by which the Americans seek to accomplish these tasks might constitute a threat that is nothing less than existential. One of these potential casualties is Lebanon, whose chronic instability makes it a prime candidate for a "solution" that looks expedient from the US perspective but condemns the Lebanese people to yet another era of foreign domination. Both the government headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and the opposition led by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah need not just to be aware of this peril but also to guard against it, and actively so. Ending the current impasse would go some way to reducing Lebanon's vulnerability to the charge that it is incurably dysfunctional and therefore in need of a "steady hand" from abroad. In order to install a longer-lasting and more impermeable prophylactic, however, it will be necessary to transform the political system that has made the Lebanese so susceptible to both domestic feuding and foreign meddling. Like all governments in the region, it could benefit handsomely by adopting a new culture of institutionalized self-criticism like that which made the Iraq Study Group possible.
Be they internal, external or both, the workings of politics in Lebanon are such that "Lebanese" could easily replace "Byzantine" as an indicator of complexity and opacity. If even the Lebanese cannot fully understand the intricacies of their formal and informal political methods, how can a distant power like America be expected to fathom any of them? A solid dose of self-examination is a minimum requirement if Lebanon is to demonstrate its ability - indeed its willingness - to stand on its own two feet. If none is forthcoming, no one should be surprised at the return of a foreign yoke.

Will the region become 'Davos vs. the militias?'
By Rami G. Khouri -Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 09, 2006
It was raining hard when I arrived in Dubai last week to participate in the Arab Strategy Forum that brings together hundreds of Arab and international business, government, civil society and media professionals for high-quality and frank exchanges on issues of common concern.
My first thought upon experiencing a fierce Emirates rainstorm was that the snow-making machines in the artificial indoor ski slope inside a massive shopping mall had gone haywire and were generating rain outside instead of snow inside. My second, more accurate, impression was that we should not give much credence to superficial impressions - for my previous one-dimensional image of Dubai as a hot, humid, uncomfortable place was suddenly and irrevocably shattered by the cool autumn rain.
Inside the Arab Strategy Forum, discussions over three days similarly must have changed some participants' perceptions of the Arab world and its many problems, challenges and achievements. We heard useful analysis of the constraints that hold us back and the human assets and dynamics that drive us forward to modernity, capturing the variety of forces that define the Middle East and its interactions with the world.
Perhaps the most significant trend that emerged throughout the meetings was that the Middle East's external world was, in fact, expanding and changing. Most importantly, China, India, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Japan, Korea and other Asian powers slowly encroach upon the West's former stranglehold on the region's people, politics and resources.
The Middle East will remain the world's leading energy exporter well into the middle of this century, though its strategic relations have already started to shift eastward toward its major commercial, energy and labor partners in Asia. Political relations are also shifting, as the era of Anglo-American dominance starts to recede in the wake of the Iraq debacle and Arabs come to terms more realistically with the power of Iran, Turkey and Israel in their neighborhood.
The West seems unable to impose its strategic views or values on the Middle East, but governments in the area also have failed to develop stable systems or coherent regional security regimes. Perhaps the search for a new, more stable, productive order in the Middle East was launched this week, symbolized by several simultaneous developments.
The Baker-Hamilton committee's recommendations on a new American policy to stabilize and leave Iraq - and to push hard for an Arab-Israeli settlement - coincide with the death-knell of two critical American policy trends: the resignation of the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, and the confirmation of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary are good signs of the impending end of the neoconservative era in Washington, and its parallel, a Defense Department global strategy based on interventions by more mobile American forces.
This sign of change in American policies - the British will follow like kittens - coincides with Iranian ideas on how an Anglo-American withdrawal from Iraq could spark cooperation by Tehran. Lebanon and Palestine remain hostage to these wider regional rivalries, and also to their own local struggles over political power, national identity and regional and global alliances.
Most certainly, we are passing through a moment of historic adjustment in the Middle East, but where we are heading is not clear, because rival narratives and ideologies continue to define the region. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius aptly put it, wider gaps between elites and masses in the Middle East who are moving in different directions risk seeing our societies turn into "Davos versus the militias."
The most optimistic scenario, we heard repeatedly, could see the region taking advantage of expanding global trade linkages. This would be fueled by the Middle East's massive youth population (60 percent of the region's inhabitants are under the age of 20) taking advantage of improved education, higher Internet connectivity, liberalized political systems, diversified and entrepreneurial economies, and a mindset of assertive empowerment instead of corrosive victimization.
This occurs, however, simultaneously with a wide range of negatives, including sectarian cleavages and clashes; loss of authority and control by some governments; the legitimization of indiscriminate violence by the state, the opposition and foreign powers alike; the ripples of the Iranian nuclear standoff while many Arabs fear Iranian hegemonic aims in the region; increased intolerance locally and globally; continued exclusion of some communities, parties or states; and the effective end of collective Arab action, as individual states look out for their own interests.
One of the important dynamics at work, I sensed in the Dubai gathering and elsewhere in the region, is the growing realization that we can no longer speak of Arab, American, European or Asian problems or concerns. The last decade has woven together Middle Eastern and global interests, along with their common fears and their reactive forms of militancy. We all share the same problems and their consequences now, along with our individual traumas and distress. Therefore we must seek common solutions through a quest for joint analysis and better answers than we have received to date from Rumsfeld or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who, with their ilk, thankfully are no longer on the scene.
**Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Hizbullah MP pays rare visit to Maronite patriarch
By Maroun Khoury -Daily Star correspondent
Saturday, December 09, 2006
BKIRKI, Lebanon: Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad said on Friday that the solution to the sit-in and demonstrations in central Beirut was a proposal that corresponds with the democratic system upon which Lebanon's political structure is based. Speaking after a rare meeting with Lebanon's influential Maronite patriarch, the head of the resistance group's bloc in Parliament said any solution "should be based on the principle of true partnership provided by the blocking minority, which each government normally includes."
The Council of Maronite Bishops, headed by Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, issued a conciliatory statement Wednesday in which it provided a "declaration of principles" for the divided Lebanese groups to follow to end the political crisis. In his speech Thursday, Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah hailed the bishops' initiative as "positive elements that are worth considering." Raad said the delegation's meeting with Sfeir at his residence in Bkirki "very beneficial and important."The Loyalty to the Resistance bloc delegation included MP Hassan Fadlallah and Hizbullah politburo member Ghaleb Abu Zeinab.
Addressing reporters, Raad said Hizbullah had never said "the solution lies in the streets ... Streets merely exert pressure on the ruling class so it stops monopolizing power.""The Lebanese opposition was seeking the salvation of the Lebanese people by calling for the creation of a national unity government, which guarantees true participation of all of the country's parties," he added. The bishops' declaration included the implementation of "a code of honor" that would apply to all parties, the creation of an international tribunal to try former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's killers, a new electoral law, and the formation of a "reconciliation" government that would hold early presidential elections. Sfeir also met with a delegation from March 14 Forces MP Walid Jumblatt's parliamentary bloc, who came to show support for the prelate's "declaration of principles."
The Democratic Gathering delegation included MPs Henri Helou, Antoine Andraos and Fouad Saad. "Our priority is to elect a new president, and then the establishment of a national unity government can follow," Saad said. "Then, parliamentary elections can be held on the basis of a new electoral law agreed upon by all parties," he added. Speaking of the opposition's call for early parliamentary elections, Saad asked: "Why do they want to go to the polls early?"
"Hizbullah agreed to conduct the 2005 elections on the basis of the 2000 electoral law ... Why ask for new elections?" he asked. "Does the party's ally, MP Michel Aoun, believe that he will once again get the number of MPs that he has today? ... I personally doubt it."The prelate later met with MP Wael Bou Faour, also a member of Jumblatt's Democratic Gathering bloc. "The visit was aimed at showing our full support for the patriarch's stands," Bou Faour told reporters following the meeting.
"I hope that the agreement over Bkirki's declaration will be practical rather than theoretical," he added. The March 14 Forces MP stressed the need to return to the national dialogue, calling on politicians to stop insulting and accusing each other of betrayal. "If they describe each other as traitors and criminals, how can they be partners in the country or in a national unity government?" he asked. The March 14 Forces issued a statement on Thursday hailing Bkirki's declaration.
"The agreement over the declaration needs an honest dialogue among all of the country's parties," the statement said. The statement also called on the March 8 coalition to leave the streets and stop delivering inflammatory speeches and return to dialogue within Parliament and government.

Pro-opposition Sunni sheikh leads prayers for protesters in Beirut
Cleric denies ministers resigned to block Hariri tribunal
Daily Star staff-Saturday, December 09, 2006
BEIRUT: Prominent Sunni cleric Fathi Yakan urged Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on Friday to take a "historic stand that extinguishes the fire of strife and helps Lebanon emerge from the dark tunnel it is going through." Yakan's comments came during a Friday sermon in Downtown Beirut, where thousands of anti-government protesters were gathering in a show of Muslim unity designed to dispel fears of sectarian strife.
"The resignation of Shiite ministers [last month] does not aim at undermining the establishment of an international tribunal to try former Premier Rafik Hariri's killers," Yakan said. "But the opposition is keen on limiting the mission of the tribunal to look into Hariri's assassination only."
He also said that the head of the legal team charged by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to study the creation of the international court was Jewish.
"One can wonder how the decisions of a Jewish-led tribunal will be," he said. The cleric also urged the court to reveal what he said was the responsibility that "the White House bears regarding Hariri's killing." Rejecting claims that members of the opposition were agents of Syria and Iran, Yakan said: "This is not true ... The opposition members are allies of the national path of Damascus and Tehran."
"Everyone knows who the true agents are," he added. Regarding Hizbullah's weapons, Yakan said they "are only meant to defy the Israeli enemy and every enemy that threatens the nation."
Addressing worshippers from behind bullet-proof glass, the Sunni cleric warned against the dangers of sectarian strife. "Fellow Lebanese, Sunnis and Shiites, Druze and Christians, beware of sliding toward the hell of strife," he said. "We, the opposition, will not get involved in disputes," he added.
Shiites and Sunnis were praying together on Friday in front of the Mohammed al-Amin Mosque in Downtown Beirut, on the eighth day of an open-ended protest to force the resignation of Siniora's government. "Do the March 14 Forces want to disregard this huge gathering, which is not for the Shiites or Sunnis or any other sect but for all of Lebanon?" Yakan asked. "This sit-in will foil the American project in Lebanon as the resistance broke the myth of the invincible Israel during the July-August war," he said. "This massive protest can last not only for one more week or month but for years until it defeats the American plot. Lebanon will be the cemetery of the new Middle East plan." Yakan also hailed a proposal for a solution issued by the Council of Maronite Bishops on Wednesday, which called for the formation of a "reconciliation government" that would hold early parliamentary and presidential elections. - The Daily Star, with agencies

Siniora accuses Hizbullah of plotting coup d'etat
Premier rejects 'unnecessary fit of anger and rudeness' from nasrallah
By Rym Ghazal -Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 09, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon's prime minister lashed out Hizbullah and its leader on Friday, accusing the group of plotting a coup d'etat against his government. Speaking during a news conference in the Grand Serail in response to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speech on Thursday, Siniora said the Hizbullah chief's "position yesterday has shown that he is attempting a coup, or at least he is threatening to carry one out."
The prime minister's comments came as the UN Security Council was preparing to meet on Monday to discuss Resolution 1701 - which brokered a cease-fire on August 14 between Israel and Lebanon - as well as a French-sponsored draft resolution expressing support for Siniora's government and warning against outside attempts to destabilize it. Siniora, in his speech Friday which lasted over an hour, refuted almost all of the accusations and claims Nasrallah made via video link to tens of thousands of opposition demonstrators in the heart of Beirut. "Last night was an unnecessary fit of anger and rudeness that we don't accept," said Siniora, occasionally smiling and joking with a cheering delegation of supporters from his hometown of Sidon.
In his highly charged speech on Thursday, Nasrallah accused Siniora of having ordered the Lebanese Army to confiscate some of Hizbullah's weapons during the July-August war with Israel. "The army responded to that accusation," said the premier, "and I will not speak any further on this, as Nasrallah knows who Fouad Siniora is... Siniora is the one who did everything he could to protect the resistance during and after the war." He rebuked Nasrallah for "erasing" the thousands of Lebanese who "opened their homes and lives to the displaced and hurt in the war.""Where are they?" he asked Nasrallah. "Have we forgotten them all? They don't count as support to the resistance?"
"Who made you a judge over us to decide who is a traitor or a nationalist or who is right and who is wrong?" asked Siniora, engaging in an unprecedented personal attack against Nasrallah a day after the Shiite leader made several personal jabs against the premier and his government. Siniora said that Nasrallah and his party "are losing popularity across Lebanon and the Arab world by hampering the work of the state.""How can [Nasrallah] talk about openness, dialogue, democracy and peaceful actions? All this is sloganeering because his speech contains threats and the seeds of discord," the prime minister said. Siniora also repeatedly pleaded for calm from Nasrallah and his supporters. He also called on his supporters to refrain from insulting the demonstrators in Downtown Beirut in order to prevent any strife in the country. "We never launch any attacks against the demonstrators as I always expressed respect for the demonstrators' right to express themselves," said Siniora. He then held a prayer for Ahmad Mahmoud, 20, who was killed during clashes between Shiite and Sunnis in Tariq al-Jdideh last Sunday.
Regarding early parliamentary elections, which the opposition is calling for, and Nasrallah's claims that the "majority will change" if early elections are held, Siniora asked: "How is Nasrallah forecasting the results of the election? Can he tell the future by reading palms or coffee grains?"
Siniora also said Syria is "dear to me, after Lebanon" and that his government "is working hard at assisting in issues of concern to Hizbullah and all the Lebanese, such as the liberation of Shebaa Farms."
He added that he doesn't "appreciate accusations of outside influence" on his Cabinet. "We all know Iran is donating money to a part of Lebanon, but why not do it in a transparent and direct way via the government's bank?" asked Siniora, dismissing allegations that his government is a puppet government for the US.
However, despite the sharp words from both leaders, both have said the door is still open for dialogue."Our hand and heart is open and we will continue," said Siniora. "We won't dig trenches in Beirut streets; we will build bridges of love among the Lebanese, Christian and Muslim."
"There is no such thing as victory for Lebanon by one team winning over another," he said. "It's only a victory when all sides win together.""The Lebanese have had enough, they want to live," the prime minister shouted at the end of his speech. Siniora's ally, Future Movement leader Saad Hariri, also responded to Nasrallah's speech, saying: "Threats and accusations do not leave room for dialogue and discussions.""Nasrallah's speech made the Israeli and Syrian leaders happy, as it could lead to strife and was uncalled for," Hariri said in a television interview with Egypt's Al-Nile channel on Friday. "We need calm ... and we need to return to dialogue and get Lebanon out of this crisis."

UNIFIL says Lebanese, Israeli officers will meet Monday to discuss Ghajar handover
By Mohammed Zaatari -Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 09, 2006
KHIAM: An acting force commander with UN peacekeepers in South Lebanon, Brigadier General J.P. Nehra, told The Daily Star Friday that a Lebanese-Israeli military meeting is expected to be held Monday in Naqoura to discuss the issue of control of the town of Ghajar.
Nehra said that the United Nations, in collaboration with both the Lebanese and Israeli armies, was finalizing a list of measures to be undertaken to ensure that the Israeli withdrawal from the northern sector of Ghajar proceeds "smoothly and quickly."
The Israeli Army was expected to hand over the Lebanese portion of the town of Ghajar to the UN Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) last week, but the Jewish state has failed to do so until now."The UN forces will help the Lebanese Army take full control over the northern sector of the town," said Nehra.
Nehra said the situation in Southern Lebanon was "stable and calm," adding that UNIFIL had not faced any difficulties in performing its mission.
Nehra was speaking during a reception organized by the Spanish contingent operating as part of an expanded UN peacekeeping force on the occasion of Spain's Infantry Day. The reception was held at Spanish headquarters in the town of Blat in South Lebanon, near the towns of Khiam and Marjayoun, and was attended by UNIFIL officials, Lebanese Army officials, and the heads of a number of municipalities in the South. The Spanish contingent's mascot, a sheep, was paraded during the ceremony.At least 10,480 peacekeepers from 22 countries have been working with about 15,000 Lebanese soldiers since September 2006 in managing the zone that stretches from the Southern bank of the Litani River to the Israeli-Lebanese border.
Israel has warned the UN force in Lebanon that Al-Qaeda is planning an attack on international peacekeepers, Israeli television reported Friday.
The report said Israel had received intelligence that Al-Qaeda's deputy chief, Ayman al-Zawahri, had issued an order to attack the peacekeepers. It did not give details on the source of the information or when the attack might take place. In a video released this year marking the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Zawahri denounced the beefed-up peacekeeping force. - With agencies

Jumblatt appeals to socialist leaders for pressure on Syria to change its ways
Daily Star staff-Saturday, December 09, 2006
PORTO, Portugal: The head of the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), MP Walid Jumblatt, called on the leaders of socialist parties Friday to gather efforts to change Syria's policy concerning Lebanon and end Iranian interference in Lebanese affairs. Speaking at the annual Convention of Socialist Parties held in Porto, Portugal, Jumblatt held Syria's allies in Lebanon responsible for the series of political murders that occurred over the past two years.
Jumblatt added that demonstrations currently taking place outside the Grand Serail, "were not peaceful, nor innocent."
Jumblatt said that the protesters were "so zealous" and are "backed by around 30,000 missiles," in reference to Hizbullah's large rocket stock.
Jumblatt said he hoped the UN Security Council would take an immediate decision to establish an international court to try those responsible for the murder of former Premier Rafik Hariri, "even if this has to be done in accordance with Chapter 7 of the UN Charter."
Chapter 7 states military action with respect to enforcing resolutions pertaining to threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression.
"Not only do they want to jeopardize the formation of an international court, they want to impede the way for the implementation of Resolution 1701 and they are planning to drive away the UNIFIL forces; two essential factors preventing the renewal of conflicts," he said.
Jumblatt advised the socialist leaders not to resort to Syria or Iran to solve the crisis in Iran "because the Syrian regime has always been a disruptive element in the Middle East region." "We promote the culture of optimism and joy, while the opposition promotes the culture of death and distress, so typical of Syria and Iran," Jumblatt added. Socialist International prsident Georges Papandreou announced that an extraordinary socialist meeting will be held in Beirut before the winter holidays, in support of Lebanon, "and the Lebanese democratic forces." - The Daily Star

Draft Security Council resolution in reaction to Annan letter
'Important progress has been made toward the implementation of Resolution 1701'
Saturday, December 09, 2006
FRENCH MISSION TO THE UN DRAFT UNSC PRST IN REACTION TO UNSG LETTER ON 1701
The Security Council recalls all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 1701 (2006), 425 and 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), as well as the statement of the president on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of October 30, 2006 (S/PRST/2006/43) and of November 21, 2006 (S/PRST/2006/xx).
The Security Council reiterates its full support for the legitimate and democratically elected government of Lebanon and condemns any unlawful efforts to destabilize it or intervene in Lebanon's internal affairs.
It reaffirms its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty, unity and political independence of Lebanon within internationally recognized borders and under the sole and exclusive authority of the government of Lebanon. The Council reiterates its call upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon. The Security Council welcomes the letter of the secretary general to the President of the Council of December 1, 2006 (5/2006/933), as well as his previous reports of August 18, 2006 (S/2006/670) and of September 12, 2006 (S/2006/730) on the implementation of Resolution 1701 (2006) The Security Council calls for the full implementation of Resolution 1701 (2006) and urges all concerned parties to cooperate fully with the Security Council and the secretary general to achieve this goal.
The Security Council welcomes the continuing commitment of the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel to all aspects of the implementation of Resolution 1701 (2006). It urges both governments to strictly abide by their commitment and to pursue their efforts to achieve a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution as envisioned by the resolution. The Security Council notes that important progress has been made toward the implementation of Resolution 1701 (2006), in particular through the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon and the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces in the South of the country for the first time in three decades, together with the deployment so far of more than 10,000 troops from the reinforced UNIFIL.
The Security Council welcomes the maintenance of the cessation of hostilities since August 14, 2006, supports the work done by UNIFIL, together with other parties to finalize the Israeli withdrawal from the remaining area inside Lebanon and set up temporary security arrangements for the part of the village of Ghajar inside Lebanese territory, welcomes the decision of the Israeli Cabinet in this regard, and looks forward to its early implementation.
The Security Council comments the Lebanese government for extending it authority throughout its territory, particularly in the South, and encourages it to continue its efforts in this regard, including through the reinforcement of its capacities along its borders and the exercise of its monopoly of the use of force all over its territory in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
The Security Council reaffirms the urgent need for the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers. The Security Council further encourages efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel. The Security Council commends the efforts of the secretary general and his facilitator to this end and calls upon all parties concerned to support those efforts.
Bearing in mind the relevant provisions of resolutions 1559 (2004), 1680 (2006) and 1701 (2006), in particular the delineation of the Syrian-Lebanese border, the Security Council takes note with interest of the appointment by the secretary general of a senior cartographer to review the relevant material and develop an accurate territorial definition of the Shebaa Farms area.
The Security Council notes with appreciation the process launched by the secretary general to investigate the cartographic, legal and political implications of the proposal contained in the seven-point plan of the government of Lebanon and looks forward to its fur-ther recommendation on this issue early next year.
The Security Council calls upon the international community urgently to provide the government of Lebanon with financial assistance in support of the national early recovery and reconstruction process. It expresses its appreciation to the member states, United Nations bodies and intergovernmental, regional and non-governmental organizations that have provided and continue to provide assistance to the Lebanese people and government, and looks forward to the success of the international conference which will be held in Paris, on January 25 2007, in support of Lebanon.
The Security Council reaffirms its full support to the secretary general in his efforts and dedication to facilitate and assist in the fulfilment of all provisions of Resolution 1701 (2006) and requests the secretary general to report on a quarterly basis on the implementation of this resolution, notably on further progress made towards the achievement of a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution.

Friday sermons tackle mounting political crisis
By Mirella Hodeib -Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 09, 2006
BEIRUT: The escalating political crisis and the variety of views on the Lebanese scene were reflected in religious sermons on Friday. Grand Mufti Mohammad Rashid Qabbani said Friday he would never allow Premier Fouad Siniora's government to be overthrown in the streets. "We fully support Premier Siniora," he vowed. "However," Qabbani added, "if anyone is unsatisfied with the current Cabinet, they ought to resort to institutions such as the Parliament, rather than taking to the streets." Qabbani, who led Friday prayers at the Imam Ali Mosque in the Tariq al-Jdideh neighborhood in Beirut, said the voice of reason will prevail. "The Lebanese cannot fight endlessly since they are bound to reach an agreement in the end."
Qabbani said that some of the Lebanese political figures "are closing their eyes to issues concerning national accord, yet these will realize sooner or later they were mistaken."During a meeting Friday, Qabbani and Saudi Ambassador Abdel-Aziz Khoja discussed developments in the Lebanese arena, as well as the outcomes of Qabbani's visit to Saudi Arabia last week.
Following the meeting, Khoja said all initiatives are being put forth to resolve the current political crisis in Lebanon, "because in Saudi Arabia we are sure that the Lebanese will know how to solve their difficulties on their own." Khoja added that he considered dialogue and negotiations, "to be the only way out."
Separately, Senior shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah said dialogue becomes ineffective "when contenders keep a closed mind."
In his weekly sermon at the Imamein Hassanein Mosque in Haret Hreik, he said conflicting Lebanese groups do not trust one another, "and this is the main source of conflict."Fadlallah said openness and tolerance were the essential components to any constructive dialogue, "but these are nonexistent among a number of Lebanese politicians," adding that he was afraid Lebanon would be led to a state of chaos, "if serious concerns are treated with constant negligence."
The vice president of the Higher Shiite Council, Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, said Lebanon could only be governed through "genuine partnership."
Qabalan also warned against attempts that aim at stirring Sunni-Shiite strife. "The current crisis is purely political," he added "and should in no way be converted into a sectarian one."Qabalan was speaking during the Friday sermon at the headquarters of the Shiite Council. He said the Lebanese were in need of neither Syria nor the US to influence each their issues. "We can manage our business on our own," he added.
Qabalan said the Lebanese reject all attempts to stir sectarian discords. "Shiites do not want to take over the role of the Sunnis or Christians; each sect is satisfied with its own position within the Lebanese web," he added.

Olmert slams German Foreign Minister for visiting Syria
Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies - Saturday, 09 December 2006, 12:50
Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, who plans to visit Germany in the the coming days, slammed the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier for visiting Syria and considered the move as a “mistake”.  The statements of Olmert came during an interview with the German TV N24, Sat. 1.
Olmert said that Syria has close ties with Iran and that both countries support Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas movement in Palestine.
Olmert also claimed that Syria is supporting Iraqi insurgents who are responsible for the death of Iraqi civilians.
“I never heard Mr. Steinmeier slamming the conducts of the Syrian government”, Olmert stated, “Syrian is not a good platform for him to visit”.
Israeli online daily, Haaretz, reported that Steinmeier urged Syrian officials to moderate the demands of Hezbollah which calls on the US-backed Iraqi government to resign. Steinmeier said that his trip is an attempt to “at least to test whether difficult partners such as Syria can be brought onto a constructive path in the Middle East peace process", Haaretz added. Steinmeier also asked Syria to practice pressure on Hamas leadership in Damascus in order to facilitate peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Olmert will begin his trip on Monday, and will stop in Germany, Italy and intends to meet the Pope.

Breaking the rules in Lebanon
By Tony Badran, Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service
If you're lucky enough not to be obsessed with Middle East politics, you may be surprised to learn that the keynote speaker at Hezbollah's massive Beirut demonstration recently was not a Shiite Muslim but a Maronite Christian.
Michel Aoun, the army general who was driven into exile by Syria in 1990 but has been oddly friendly with Syria and its local allies since his return to Lebanon last year, addressed an overwhelmingly Shiite crowd and called for the resignation of Sunni Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Aoun's primary objective is to become president. To achieve this goal, he concluded a political alliance with Hezbollah in February, hoping to build a strong enough coalition to win the presidency.
With one year remaining in Syrian-installed President Emile Lahoud's term, time is running out for Aoun. Even with Hezbollah's support, he lacks the seats to be elected by parliament. Toppling the current government, however, might be a first step towards a full shift in the country's internal political balance.
Aoun's personal ambitions are quixotic at best. But his drive to be president has been a great gift to Hezbollah, allowing the party to disguise its current attempt at a sectarian coup against one of the Arab world's few democracies as a broad national movement.
Aoun has chosen the Shiite option. His soft policy towards Syria is aimed at securing Syrian acceptance of his presidential bid. Is it likely that the same regime the general fought in a bloody 1990 war will be interested in making him president of Lebanon? Aoun's newfound ally, Sulaiman Franjieh, a longtime Syrian loyalist and a fellow Maronite, seems to think so. Franjieh may envision a new alliance among Maronites, Shiites and the ruling Alawites in Syria.
But Aoun's calculations fail to take in some dangerous regional realities. Syria is more than pleased to see Aoun attacking the anti-Syrian government. So is Iran. Wittingly or not, Aoun is serving these foreign masters for free.
Unacceptable
There's a cardinal rule in Lebanese politics that the president must be acceptable both to his own community and to the others. Aoun is neither. His positions have been antithetical to the Maronite patriarchate. Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah and Syria's puppets has infuriated the anti-Syrian Christian community, which aimed much of its anger at him after the assassination of Maronite cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel last month. Now, by agreeing to be the vanguard of a Shiite-led coup attempt against a Sunni prime minister, he has broken an unwritten rule against getting his community involved in a Sunni-Shiite conflict.
At the same time, there is strong opposition to his candidacy from the main Sunni and Druze leaderships. Their lack of trust in him is exacerbated by his vague position on the international tribunal in the Hariri assassination.
It's not even clear that the Shiite parties Amal and Hezbollah would back him for president. Although they have been happy to use Aoun as a club to beat the majority coalition, the Shiites have never made any public endorsement of him.
In the end, the fact that the various communities are opposed to him will make Aoun's gambit a long shot.
For all the chaos that plagues Lebanon, the country's sectarian balance imposes a complex and durable structure of protocols, restrictions and unwritten rules on the various communities. When these boundaries are transgressed, the result is often conflict. The region has a similar set of unwritten rules, and Aoun's support for a possible (Syrian- and Iranian-backed) Shiite coup against the Sunni prime minister has sent the Sunni Arab powerhouses strongly backing Siniora and warning against Iranian interference.
As such, Aoun is but the latest in a line of challengers of Lebanon's unwritten codes. He will fail like all the others; the question is how much damage he causes in the meantime.
- Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, focusing on Syria and Lebanon.