LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 29/2007
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 4,21-30. He said to them, "Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing." And all spoke highly of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They also asked, "Isn't this the son of Joseph?" He said to them, "Surely you will quote me this proverb, 'Physician, cure yourself,' and say, 'Do here in your native place the things that we heard were done in Capernaum.'" And he said, "Amen, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own native place. Indeed, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was closed for three and a half years and a severe famine spread over the entire land. It was to none of these that Elijah was sent, but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of Sidon. Again, there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian." When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong. But he passed through the midst of them and went away.Free Opinions
President Bush's new plan: Redirecting Iraq's campaign -Dr. Walid Phares 29.01.07
Lebanon and the Logic of Fighting. By: Abdullah Iskandar 29.01.07
Why Fisk is wrong about Lebanon- By Mike Whitney 29.01.07
Latest News Reports From the Daily Star For 29/01/07
What the Cabinet actually does matters more than who gets to be in it
Schools to remain closed until February 1
Suleiman says army is trying to keep the peace - but facing heavy
Jund al-Sham challenges army road closures in Taamir
Siniora reaches out to Berri and Lahoud as Nasrallah urges all sides not to seek 'revenge on their own'
Israel faces mild rebuke over violation of US arms rules
In search of common ground
Halutz testimony expected to illuminate war woes
Balloons floating in from Israel have residents of South on edge
Ex-Hizbullah chief says Nasrallah guided by Iran
Sfeir praises international donors, says clashes cost Lebanon 'dignity and worth'
Zahra lashes out at Aoun for airing 'doctored documents'
IMF Statement distributed to donor countries and institutions at the Paris III conference on ThursdayLatest News Reports From miscellaneous sources For 29/01/07
Pope calls for end to violence in Lebanon, Gaza-Reuters
Israel Appoints First Arab Muslim Cabinet Minister-Naharnet
Saudi King: Attempts to Spread Shiite Faith Among Sunnis 'Will not Succeed'-Naharnet
Lebanese Leaders Take a Fresh Look at Crisis-Naharnet
Iran, Saudi Seeking Face-to-Face Meeting between Berri, Saniora-Naharnet
Siniora accuses Iran of waging proxy war on US in Lebanon-Ya Libnan
Political Stability Is A Must For Economic Reforms-Playfuls.com
Promotional Balloons Cause Panic in Southern Lebanon-Arutz Sheva
CSIS on alert over Lebanon: report-Edmonton Sun
US may censure Israel for misuse of cluster bombs in Lebanon-Ha'aretz
Cyprus Rejects Sharing Oil Wealth with Turkish Sector-NaharnetPope calls for end to violence in Lebanon, Gaza
28 Jan 2007 -Source: Reuters
Background
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
More ROME, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Pope Benedict called on Sunday for an end to violence in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, saying it was "unacceptable" to take up arms to promote political motives. In his weekly Angelus blessing, the Pope said he felt deep grief for the people of Lebanon, where seven people were killed and nearly 400 wounded last week in the latest clashes between pro- and anti-government activists. "In the past few days, bloody violence has returned to Lebanon. It is unacceptable to go down this path to push through one's political agenda," the Pope said. "I know many Lebanese are tempted to give up hope and feel disoriented by what is happening ... I invoke the help of God so that all the Lebanese, without exception, may work together to make their country a real home for everybody."The Pope said he was also praying for peace in the Gaza Strip, where infighting between rival Palestinian factions has killed 22 people in three days of violence.Sfeir praises international donors, says clashes cost Lebanon 'dignity and worth'
By Maroun Khoury and Maher Zeineddine -Daily Star correspondent
Monday, January 29, 2007
BKIRKI: Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir said Sunday that last week's clashes had cost the Lebanese and Lebanon "their dignity and worth." Speaking during his weekly Mass in Bkirki, Sfeir said that contrary to Tuesday and Thursday's "sad events," the Paris III donor conference was proof that the international community, and mainly France, "are more aware of the true value of Lebanon than the Lebanese themselves, who all seem to overlook it because of recklessness and ignorance."Sfeir said he hoped the Lebanese would return to the "right path" and avoid turning their country into a battlefield as opposed to an arena for freedom and respect of the other. Following the Mass, the patriarch met with Druze spiritual leader Sheikh Akl Naim Hassan, who headed a delegation from the Druze Spiritual Council's executive committee.After the meeting, Hassan said his visit to Bkirki was aimed at coordinating with Sfeir a Christian-Muslim spiritual summit to discuss means of remedying rising political tension in Lebanon. "When preparing for any kind of spiritual conferences, resorting to Patriarch Sfeir is a must," Hassan said. Hassan said that if Lebanon's pains were cured, "all the pains of the Middle Eastern region will be cured as a consequence."Hassan added that the prelate and he had agreed on the necessity of avoiding any kind of sectarian provocation. "We support democracy and equality, in Lebanon," he said. The sheikh akl said that the only solution to the current crisis was to resort back to dialogue and to avoid further street action. "University students are our only hope for a better Lebanon, they shouldn't be dragged to sectarian conflicts," he said.Zahra lashes out at Aoun for airing 'doctored documents'
Fpm leader appears to have touted altered photograph
Daily Star staff-Monday, January 29, 2007
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra criticized Free Patriotic Movement chief MP Michel Aoun on Sunday, urging the opposition leader "not to use any document before making sure it is credible." Addressing a news conference at LF leader Samir Geagea's residence in Bzummar, Zahra said that "doctored photos are being used to distort the LF's image in the public eye.""Aoun is being provided with doctored documents in a bid to incite people against the LF," Zahra said. In an interview with Al-Manar television late Friday, Aoun held up a picture, which he said was taken during Tuesday's riots, allegedly showing an LF member carrying an assault rifle and shooting at people. Zahra quoted a media specialist as saying that the picture was an Associated Press picture of a Hizbullah fighter taken in Kfar Shima during the summer 2006 war with Israel. The fighter was cut and copied to Nahr al-Kalb, where LF and FPM supporters clashed, and an LF cross was placed on his shirt sleeve.
Zahra then held up his own picture showing an FPM activist carrying a weapon. "We only aim at confirming that LF partisans were not the ones who took to the streets carrying weapons. Weapons were held by those trying to wage a coup," Zahra said. The FPM had published on its Web site pictures showing burned vehicles and people holding weapons, sticks and chains . "The FPM puts those pictures in the hands of judicial and security bodies," an FPM statement said on Saturday. In a Saturday statement, former Minister Suleiman Franjieh's Marada party criticized Geagea for having said during a news conference on Friday that LF supporters foiled an attempted coup by reopening roads closed during an opposition strike on Tuesday.
"Who has charged Geagea with maintaining the country's security and reopening roads?" the statement asked.
In response to that statement, Zahra asked why the Marada members had shut roads in the Northern qadas of Koura and Batroun. "If the Syrian occupation from 1978 to 2005 gave a certain political party the right to control the aforementioned regions, I say now that the Syrian occupation has ended and people gathering in regions to which they do not belong is considered an attack to be quelled by security forces," he said. Franjieh's movement responded to Zahra's news conference with a statement saying: "We remind Zahra, he who lost elections in his qada, that Zghorta and Batroun have a common history. "Instead of asking what the Marada supporters were doing in Batroun, he should have asked what the Future Movement militia was doing in [the Koura region of] Dahr al-Ain, Jbeil and Nahr al-Kalb."
Zahra, in his news conference, said the Marada set up an armed ambush in Koura and Batroun to shoot at civilians calling for reopening their roads.
"The LF does not intend to make any escalatory movements but is looking for unveiling the truth," he said. "Those who are trying to wage a coup should draw back because this country will not be handed to any party or occupying force." Zahra called on security forces to look into Tuesday's riots and take measures against people who bore weapons.Addressing reporters, Zahra underscored the Lebanese Forces' readiness to take to the streets "to defend Lebanon, should the need arise." "General Aoun, this is neither the track nor the speech that serves the interests of the Christians and the Lebanese," Zahra said at the end of his conference. - The Daily Star
Ex-Hizbullah chief says Nasrallah guided by Iran
Daily Star staff-Monday, January 29, 2007
BEIRUT: Hizbullah's former secretary general has accused Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah of implementing Iranian strategies in Lebanon. Speaking during a news conference on Saturday held at his residence in Baalbek, Sheikh Sobhi Tufeili argued that Hizbullah's current leader "is implementing [Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei's policy in Lebanon in a very precise way." "I am an ex-secretary general of Hizbullah and I know that Sayyed Hassan is in charge of carrying out Sayyed Khamenei's policy in Lebanon," Tufeili told reporters. He accused Hizbullah, from which he was fired more than eight years ago after disagreeing with the Iranian leadership, of forming a state of its own within Lebanon. "There cannot be two states and two armies, that of Hizbullah and that of the government. We need to unify the weapons under one command. Two states will lead to strife," he said.
Commenting on the opposition's protests, which he said "are paralyzing the country," Tufeili asked: "Does the demand for a government change deserve all this strife? Does a five- or six-month-old government deserve all that?"
"Even when it comes to the presidency, we can wait [for the election of a new president] until a new government is formed," he said.
Highlighting the danger of a Shiite-Sunni war, Tufeili called on all of the country's politicians to be calm and stay away from sectarian fanaticism.
"Parliamentary elections were held recently and the majority of seats were won by the March 14 Forces," Tufeili said.
Tufeili stressed the need to establish an international tribunal to try suspects in the February 2005 assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri and "all crimes committed in Lebanon." According to the sheikh, politics in Lebanon are linked to Iraq. "The issue is not that of America," he said. "Neither the Shiites in Iraq nor the Sunnis in Lebanon are benefiting from their alliance with the US. They are all losers and the only winner is the US itself."
He also urged the Shiites to mend ties with the Sunnis. "A Sunni should criticize the actions of another Sunni and a Shiite should criticize the bad deeds of another Shiite - not the other way around.""The Shiites are small minorities scattered in the vast sea of the Islamic world. Their interest consists of uniting stands with all Muslims and maintain good relations with Sunnis," Tufeili said. "Otherwise, we will destroy our future ... this is crazy ... we'll be slaughtered like sheep, even in Lebanon. This is a reality," he added. - The Daily Star, with NaharnetIran, Saudi Seeking Face-to-Face Meeting between Berri, Saniora
Iran and Saudi Arabia were seeking to establish a face-to-face meeting between Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in a fresh bid to settle the ongoing political impasse which has sparked fears of a return to civil war after bloody clashes left eight people killed.
The daily An Nahar on Sunday, citing ministerial sources, said Iranian and Saudi efforts were underway to bring together Saniora and Berri who have not met since November when six Opposition ministers quit the government, triggering the current crisis.
The sources said that the meeting-to-be aims at reactivating Parliament through an extraordinary session or at re-launching national dialogue.
However, the sources said the restart of roundtable talks is more likely achievable than an extraordinary Parliament session which requires President Emile Lahoud's approval. Political sources also said Berri had engaged in telephone talks with Saniora and Druze leader Walid Jumblat, a key government supporter. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Lebanon, Abdul Aziz Khoja, met separately Saturday with Saniora and Berri.
Berri told reporters after the one-hour meeting with Khoja that he was "more optimistic" toward finding an end to the political stalemate.
Khoja called on all Lebanese to resolve the crisis on their own. "We want our brethren Lebanese to get together. It's about time now that the situation has reached its peak," Khoja said. Beirut, 28 Jan 07, 09:10
Saudi King: Attempts to Spread Shiite Faith Among Sunnis 'Will not Succeed'
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has said that attempts to spread Shiite faith among predominantly Sunni Arab countries will not succeed, and that Sunnis would always make up the majority of the world Muslims. Although Abdullah did not mention Iran by name, his comments — rare for the Sunni monarch — appeared aimed at easing Arab concerns over the Persian Shiite nation's growing influence in the Middle East. Arab media have claimed that Iran seeks to spread Shiism among the region's mainly Sunni Arab states as a way of increasing Tehran's political power. "We are following up on this matter and we are aware of the dimensions of spreading Shiism and where it has reached," Abdullah said in an interview with the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassah daily published Saturday. "However, we believe that this process will not achieve its goal because the majority of Sunni Muslims will never change their faith," he added. Ultimately, "the majority of Muslims seem immune to any attempts by other sects to penetrate it (Sunnism) or diminish its historical power."
Abdullah does not frequently give interviews or speak of religious strife. His comments in Al-Siyassah were the first on the issue of Sunnis converting to Shiism. While there have been no specific examples of Iranians trying to convert Sunnis, Arabs fear such conversions would accompany Iran's growing powers. Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally and Arab political heavyweight, is a bastion of Sunni Islam and home to Islam's holiest shrines. Earlier this month, two senior Saudi clerics declared that Shiites were infidels and heretics, describing them as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."
Arabs also fear that Iran, locked in a dispute with the international community over its defiance to pursue a nuclear program, is using Shiite populations in Iraq and Lebanon for political leverage.
Iran wields considerable influence with Iraq's Shiite politicians and militias, and the ongoing crisis in Lebanon, which has pitted the government against the pro-Hizbullah Opposition, has been seen by many as a sign of Iran's meddling. "Iran is active in spreading Shiism even in the countries which don't have a Shiite minority ... to revive the dreams of the Safavid," wrote Osama Saraya, editor-in-chief of Egypt's leading pro-government newspaper, Al-Ahram.
He was referring to the Persian dynasty that ruled Iran from the late 1400s to the 1720s, and converted the country from the Sunni to Shiite Muslim sect.
"Iranian intentions are no longer hidden to anybody," Saraya said in his daily column on Friday. "It is not acceptable anymore to defend them or justify them."King Abdullah, however, said that there was no immediate risk of sectarian conflict in the region. But he said Saudi Arabia's authorities were being vigilant. Concerning attempts to 'exploit religion and fuel sectarian division between Sunnis and Shiites, we are alert but we don't see it as an (immediate) danger,' the monarch told Al-Siyassah.(Naharnet-AP-AFP)(AFP photo shows a picture released by the Saudi Press Agency of King Abdullah meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in Riyadh.) Beirut, 28 Jan 07, 14:53
Israel Reportedly Misused Cluster Bombs in Lebanon
The White House will inform Congress Monday that Israel may have violated U.S. arms export agreements by using U.S.-supplied cluster bombs during its summer war on Lebanon, The New York Times reported Sunday. Unless Congress takes legislative action, the newspaper said, President George Bush has discretion under U.S. law about whether to impose sanctions on Israel, which U.S. officials said would be unlikely. The preliminary report is based on a probe launched in August and on information Israel gave the State Department in late 2006 acknowledging it fired thousands of cluster munitions but denying it broke any agreement, the state department told the newspaper.
During its July 12-August 14 war against Lebanon, Israel dropped more than a million cluster bombs in southern Lebanon, according the United Nations, to counter Hizbullah rocket attacks that were killing Israelis. The cluster munitions, which spread bomblets over a wide area from a single container, included artillery shells, rockets and bombs dropped from aircraft, many of which the U.S. sold to Israel years ago, a U.S. official told the New York Times. The Arms Export Control Act bans the use of cluster munitions against populated areas. Israel says Lebanese civilians were not targeted but were warned ahead of the action by dropped leaflets.
Some State Department and Pentagon officials believe Israel used the cluster bombs in self-defense, while others contend they violated U.S. law because they were used on populated areas, officials familiar with the debate told the newspaper. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Congress would be notified of the report on Monday and that a final determination on whether Israel had violated the agreements was still being debated, the Times reported. "It is important to remember the kind of war Hizbullah waged," McCormack said. "They used innocent civilians as a way to shield their fighters."
The sanctions could include a ban on the sale of cluster weapons to Israel similar to the six-year ban imposed 25 years ago under then U.S. president Ronald Reagan, after Israel used cluster munitions in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Since Israel manufactures its own cluster munitions, the daily added, any sanctions would have mainly symbolic significance.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 28 Jan 07, 10:42
Lebanese Leaders Take a Fresh Look at Crisis
Lebanese leaders on Saturday took a fresh look at the ongoing political crisis which has sparked fears of a return to civil war after factional street clashes claimed eight lives and wounded more than 300 people. Political sources said that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri had engaged in telephone talks with Premier Fouad Saniora and Druze leader Walid Jumblat, a key government supporter. "We're at a crossroads," a close adviser to Berri told Agence France-Presse on Saturday. "If those in power continue to reject all solutions that would satisfy all sides, there will be a third round of violence, and then no one would be able to halt a slide to civil war." Meanwhile, parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri, a staunch opponent of Syrian involvement in Lebanon, said he was ready to meet Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who heads the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hizbullah.
"There is no other choice but to return to dialogue," Hariri said. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Lebanon, Abdul Aziz Khoja, meanwhile met separately Saturday with Saniora and Berri, who have not met face-to-face since November when six Opposition ministers quit Saniora's cabinet, triggering the current crisis. "It is time for the Lebanese to unite and save the country," the diplomat said afterwards.
Fears of a return to events seen during Lebanon's devastating 1975-90 civil war resurfaced when a general strike Tuesday -- called by Hizbullah to force Saniora's government to resign -- brought the nation to a standstill and, in some places, turned violent. An all-out confrontation flared anew Thursday when riots between pro- and anti-government supporters that started over a quarrel at the Beirut Arab University in the Cola district of Beirut spread to nearby neighborhoods, prompting the Lebanese army to impose an overnight curfew for the first time in a decade. Gunmen were seen on rooftops for the first time in years and masked men demanded identity papers at roadblocks, as hard-pressed government troops struggled to keep the rival camps apart.
Political analyst and law professor Sami Salhab said all-out war hinges on sectarian leaders taking the fateful decision to go that far -- which Hizbullah in particular is unlikely to do without Iran's green light. "This is the ideal moment for political leaders, especially those in the opposition who are unable to withdraw (their supporters) from the streets, to instruct their people to step back in favor of dialogue."(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 27 Jan 07, 19:52
8 Hospitalized after Inhaling Toxic Gases from Israeli-Dropped Balloons
Eight people were hospitalized Saturday after inhaling toxic gases from poisonous balloons dropped by Israeli warplanes over Upper Nabatiyeh in southern Lebanon, the National News Agency reported. NNA said among those who were rushed to hospital suffering from nausea and fatigue were a Lebanese staff sergeant, a recruit and An Nahar reporter Rana Jouni. The agency said Israeli warplanes dropped at least 10 poisonous balloons with Hebrew markings over Upper Nabatiyeh at about 9 am Saturday.NNA said contacts have been made between the Lebanese army command and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, which has instructed an Italian peacekeeping unit to take samples from the balloons for examination. The agency said the results are likely to come out on Sunday. NNA had earlier said that the Lebanese army's engineering unit headed to the area and destroyed the balloons by explosives.The army, in a communiqué issued Friday, warned civilians against messing with the balloons and urged them to report finding them to the closest army unit. Beirut, 27 Jan 07, 11:43
President Bush's new plan: Redirecting Iraq's campaign
Dr. Walid Phares
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: January 27, 2007
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=662902
In short, President George W. Bush's plan for "redirecting" the Iraq campaign is logical, in line with the war on terror and targets the correct enemies of Iraq, of democracies and of the United States. But the plan needs to fit within a global vision of winning the global conflict with the Jihadists, on a long term policy, winning the support of the new Congress, and it needs to be explained clearly to the American people by the various levels of the Administration. This is where the beef is.
On the other hand, the response by the Democrat-led Congress as stated by Senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) is also logical, touches sensitive issues of the Iraq battlefield, and lays out the normal outcome of a strategic success: that is, the return of the troops. So are the White House and Congress in harmony? We will see. Both have advanced what is essentially logical. The President’s challenge is to make sure his bureaucracy follows him thoroughly, and the Congress's challenge is to make sure the American public sees the big picture the legislators are not revealing yet for the future. Let's wait and see how Washington's new dual approach will fare in the very near future.
President Bush's renewed strategy
Following are quick comments on the main relevant points in the President's speech, immediately after he made his announcements.
1) The description of the foes: It has survived pressures put by overseas and domestic forces on the US to change the rhetoric: Yes the radical Islamists (which I still propose to coin Jihadists) on the one hand and the Iranian Mullahs regime are the combined adversary of both Iraqi democracy and the US, as well as of peace and security in the region.
2) The Baghdad Plan: The suggestion that saturating the capital with as much troops needed to clean up, maintain the strategic security and transfer to the Iraqi forces is by itself logical, if the global commitment is to strategically win the war and not to win a big battle so that troops can be quickly withdrawn regardless of future developments. But the new Baghdad Plan makes sense only if there is a new Iraq plan as a whole. If the so-called "surge" is only to satisfy American pride now, Americans will pay a higher price later in the process. But if the plan is to move the geopolitics of the War forward, the Baghdad step fits the wider puzzle of surging Iraq out of the current equation. So, if the plan is successful, and the city is somewhat transformed into a "security island" and a launching pad for wider circles of Government led offensives all the way to the border, this is a winning vision. And the "ifs" are very important
3) Embedding: Another commitment is very important and should have been implemented earlier: embedding US units in larger Iraqi forces. General Abizaid has recommended it. Many voices (including modestly myself during the invasion in 2003) have called desperately to perform the embedding at all stages. An Iraqi Army fighting its enemies with US and coalition forces at its core is a winning card in the conflict. But this supposes a strong support by Iraq's political establishment. Washington cannot immerse its forces within Iraq's new units and fight along with them, while Baghdad's politicians criticize the American ally on Arab TV networks. They cannot have it both ways. The President and the Democratic response seemed to have clarified this to the Iraqi Government.
4) al Qaeda's objectives: The President description of al Qaeda's objectives is drawn from reality. Indeed, the organization, its Salafi and Wahabi supporters wants to control the "triangle," and particularly the Anbar province to launch a "radical Islamic empire." The President shouldn't be afraid to give it the name al Qaeda uses: a Caliphate ÃáÎáÇÝÉ
5) Iran and Syria: Perhaps the most surprising to the political elite in this country (US) and in the region, was the clear position towards the Iranian and Syrian regimes and their policies regarding Iraq. While the anti-American camp was beating the drum during the past months, announcing that Washington has completely fallen to the reality of Tehran and Damascus' "wisdom," the White House's new plan shattered these fantasies: no, there won't be surrender to Ahmedinijad and Assad. Instead the President, naturally and calmly, reconfirmed what military, security and local observers have known all along: Iran and Syria are aiding and abetting the Terror war in Iraq and providing "material support" to the Jihadists. The President vowed the US and its allies would "interrupt and destroy these networks." This specific announcement is by far the single most important statement. I would even see it as higher strategically than the Baghdad's surge. For by deterring the two regimes from crumbling the young democracy in Iraq, America will begin seeing and also understanding the outcome of the conflict. The "other steps" announced by Mr. Bush are of the language understood by the Mullahs to the East and the Baathists to the West of Iraq: Deploying a strike force in the Persian Gulf, activating intelligence capacities and installing Patriot systems across from Iran is the only message that would reach the ears of the Pasdarans commanders and get back to Muqtada al Sadr in Karbala. But again, along with these "messages" Washington should be talking to the Iranian opposition as well and at the same time. This is the framework I referred to above: A surge in Baghdad makes sense only if it is part of a surge in Iraq.
6) Turkey: Another smart statement was to inform Ankara that a cooperation between Iraq and Turkey can reassure the “Kemalist” Republic that no chaos will enflame its south eastern provinces, while Iraq's Kurds will be part of security arrangements. Such a message could calm the concerns of both the Kurds in Northern Iraq and the Turkish secular establishment; however the Islamists elite may have other plans.
7) Tehran's Nukes and Threats: Pointing out that a nuclear Iran under a "hateful ideology" is not going to be accepted by the region, and by the international community, is another important point. This red line has to be reaffirmed, especially as Ahmedinijad and his HizbAllah's allies in Lebanon are waging a war of attrition against the moderates both Sunnis and Shiia in the region. Reminding Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf principalities that a collapse in Iraq and a defeat of the US in the region will be a prelude to an offensive by Iran's regime against them, is a must.
8) The big picture: Last but not least, reminding Americans and democracies around the world that the War on Terror will be decided by the outcome of an "ideological struggle" between "moderation and extremists" is needed. It is important that the President, Congress but also the intellectual establishment expands its condemnation of the "hateful ideology," names it and prescribes the medicine: freedom. It was crucial that the speech would indicate that the other candidates to democratic statehood in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are looking at Iraq's outcome. Equally important was to predict that Terrorism won't stop and that victory in the Arab world would occur when democracy will turn the tides, as I will make the case in my forthcoming book this spring.
Finally, by calling on Congress to form a bipartisan committee and by naming a seasoned leader such as Senator Joe Lieberman to work on a new consensus, Mr. Bush did the right thing that is to respond to the American public's message sent last fall, but also during the elections of 2004: Unity against the Jihadists.
The Democrat Party response
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Michigan) delivered the Democratic response. Here again, bypassing the traditional and natural partisan styles, many of the Senator's points were logical. Here is a summarized evaluation:
1) Escalation and "new direction": While it is true that the US needs a "new direction" in the War on Terror, the "direction" should be in line with a strategic and global response to the Jihadi plans. Hence, the measurement is not about escalation or de-escalation, it is about weakening the enemy and adapting to its mutation. Any strategic analyst would recommend that when the enemy escalates, you should find a solution to the escalation, not dodge it. For the next step of the enemy is to perform another escalation. Iran, Syria, HizbAllah and al Qaeda's constellation are doing just that.
2) The Abizaid doctrine: Senator Durbin referred to General John Abizaid's recommendation not to increase US forces unless Iraqis would increase their participation. The argument is not philosophical. General Abizaid didn't state that increasing the forces is a wrong principle, but suggested (and I agreed with him fully) that this surge has to be part of a clear "Iraqization." This equation seems to be a common point to the Administration and the new majority in Congress but both parties seem shy to admit that they have a significant analysis in common: that is to ask for an Iraqi commitment to the campaign.
3) The sacrifices: The Senator's response touched again the most sensitive cord: American lives are being lost and the price is heavy. No one would argue with this ethical, philosophical and human fact. Losing lives (pass 3,000) in any circumstances is painful, whatever the circumstances are. But again, in the wider perspective of a war with a determined enemy, the bigger question is this: Would ceasing the campaign in the region insure full security in New York, San Francisco and Midwest America on the medium and long run? The debate is still raging in the US and worldwide. Arguments are solid and powerful on all sides, but at the end of the day the party I would believe is the Jihadists themselves: They want to destroy America's national security and the region's hope for liberty. Until experts in Jihadism prove Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad wrong, the rational approach is to keep liberating, or at least trying to. Any alternative choice should provide us with a full plan as to the protection of the international community from the new menace of the century.
4) The Iraqis must move forward: Perhaps the most powerful statement made by the Senator was to strongly address the Iraqi Government. On this issue, Senator Durbin was right on target: Those who have been "liberated" from Saddam must rise and assume their responsibilities. Mr. Durbin's words cannot be brighter enough. Yes, America paid a dear price over the past four years: 3,000 lives and tens of billions of dollars to remove Saddam Hussein and allow the Iraqi new justice system to try him. The US helped the Iraqis vote three times, draft a constitution and form a new army. In this fourth year, it is time for Iraqis to stand. In many interviews in Arabic on Iraqi radios I challenged local intellectuals and leaders to move the front lines of the struggle to Iraqi hands. I have called on Iraqi academics and public figures to visit the United States and talk to its people. It was illogical to see the American debate taking place without Iraqi voices. Senator Durbin touched an important cord: The Iraqi Government must be courageous and disarm the militias. Iraqi leaders are ultimately the only ones "to lead their nation to freedom." And as the Democratic response underlined "they cannot be calling for 9/11" to secure neighborhoods and Mosques areas. That was the Abizaid vision: Iraqi soldiers fighting for their cities. I often argued that Iraqi sacrifices were being offered in the wrong places: waiting to be recruited in front of police centers; in front of schools, in buses, in the market place. Instead, if the Iraqi people is consenting to offer sacrifices, allow him to offer its martyrs in a battlefield against al Qaeda or the Iranian militias. But at the end of the day, this is an Iraqi decision, and again both the President and the Senators seemed to be united in this regard.
5) US commitment: The Senator's words were carefully chosen when speaking about US commitment. He clearly announced a strong bipartisan support to the troops: They will be equipped, backed up and well armed. That should go without any doubt. Also, there should not be an open ended commitment to the Iraqis for a continuous flow of men and women to fight for them, and instead of them. But at the same time, the new Congress must come to realize that the pendulum is not swinging between "fixing Iraq" and "coming back home." The world is not functioning like this. The US went to Iraq to face off with a "threat" not to repair a constitution or arrest a Noriega. Our legislators must hold all the hearings, briefings and meetings they can hold to see clearer in this War on Terror. True, it isn't about WMDs that weren't found yet but at the same time it is not also about quitting a conflict unilaterally at the timing of the enemy. Both parties need to sit down outside politics and prepare the country to face a threat which is not going away, just because we hope it will.
**FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America. Phares@walidphares.com. He is now a Fox News Contributor.
American Lebanese National Mission (ALNM)
Contact: Ms. Rita Sleiman-Public Information Officer- Beirut
Ph: 713.589-4440
Email: PIO_Beirut@alnm.net
01/26/2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RE: ALNM Condemns Riots and Uncivilized Demonstrations throughout Lebanon
Beirut, Lebanon- In light of the violence that erupted in Lebanon this week following the calls made by Opposition leaders for an “increase in force” of street demonstrations and strikes, the American Lebanese National Mission (ALNM) issues a response strongly condemning these hostile activities which are direct attack against the citizens of Lebanon and further exposes the society to danger and harm.
"We categorically rebuke any call by any group to overthrow the government and create further instability in our country," says Dr. Mazin Moufarij, ALNM Ambassador to Lebanon . “Intimidating and harassing innocent civilians who must work to provide for their families is a violation of their Civil Rights. At some point, we must respect those who choose not to be part of any political group. Forcing them to go home is not democracy; but a direct threat against Civil and Human Rights.”
“The freedom of one group to demonstrate ends, when the safety and security of another becomes at risk,” added Marianne Sawaya, Chairwoman of ALNM Los Angeles Chapter. “If a citizen chooses not to strike, their choice must be respected and honored. I applaud and admire the strength every Lebanese citizen who has chosen to exercise restraint throughout this ordeal so they can live their lives and support their families the best way they can under such strenuous circumstances.”
ALNM calls on the Lebanese community in Houston and worldwide to stand up and take notice of ongoing offensive measures and acts against our families in Lebanon . Apathy runs deep in our community; we call on the Few, the Good, and the Patriots. This is not about politics or religion; this is about our homes, our families, and our children's future. What will your legacy be? How will your children and grandchildren remember you?
**The American Lebanese National Mission is a civil, charitable and independent association with no political or religious character. For more information on our office in Lebanon , contact Dr. Moufarij at ambassador@alnm.net
Lebanon and the Logic of Fighting
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 28/01/07//
Lebanon has undergone a dangerous week that included all elements of civil strife. Many people considered it the beginning of another civil war: essential political disagreements, youth forced to the streets after they were incited that the war is a matter of life or death (death or victory), gunfire, victims, and official security forces trying to keep neutrality, but some places were out of their control and were reported to be bloody atrocities.
While all those concerned with the situation spoke about nipping the schism in the bud and the necessity of keeping away from entrapment and street or general fighting, the army undertook the security task. This help curbed the direct impact of the Beirut Arab University clashes, before which there were confrontations in the streets and districts last Tuesday.
After this bloody week, it may be said that the time for a Lebanese civil war has not come yet. This is not because the political players have instigated their youth, and that some of them are supported by the streets, but because they have to recognize an unconstitutional regulation, the curfew, which is part of the state of emergency. This measure requires a decision from the Cabinet under the President of the Republic. So long as it is an impossible session, in light of such circumstances, the measure was agreed on by everyone. This means that nobody considered this procedural (constitutional) part of the decision, perhaps for political calculations, and not for reluctance to get rid of opponents, even by force. All parties concerned found their interest in this measure, which if it had been taken in different circumstances, the situation would not have been cooled down, and clashes would not have stopped against the official bias. The parties have honestly been committed by the decision; otherwise, any separate patrol could be targeted, as fighting is in full swing. So far, Lebanon has not begun a civil war, but it entered into the logic of civil strife a long time ago, when all factors of clashing were available.
There was an internal and sectarian disagreement over the concept of an independent Lebanon and the role of the State and foreign policy. This division had been latent before the withdrawal of the Syrian forces. But the opposition to the Syrian presence had not had the tools of opposing. In the last parliamentary elections, these opponents won the majority and have become known as the March 14 Forces. This victory provided them with a constitutional tool, which they supposed to be sufficient for an essential peaceful change in Lebanon, especially regarding the nature of its relation with Syria. However, the subsequent events have blocked this tool, hence the resignations from the government and the shifting of the debate over the treatment of these resignations and their causes away from the constitutional framework: Parliament. The opposition (the Shiite alliance with the Aoun movement) moved the battle to the street to force the government to comply with their demands, which, in the end, is trying to take Lebanon back to the pre-election point in time.
These moves would have been a kind of a political dynamism distinguishing the Lebanese constitutional system. But they came at a time when the constitutional institutions were blocked: the Presidency of the Republic, due to the majority's opposition to the extension of the president's tenure; the House of Representatives, because of the desire of its speaker (who belongs to the opposition) not to shift differences to Parliament where the resolution will be for the majority; and the Cabinet, whose legitimacy is doubted by the President of the Republic and the allied opposition.
Therefore, the constitutional tools were blocked to resolve political differences between parties. The matter would have been just a political and constitutional crisis, which has reoccurred in the history of independent Lebanon more than once. However, blocking the resolution of the crisis is linked to the presence of arms in the hands of non-security forces. That is to say, the State recognizes the presence of legitimate arms outside its bodies, and that the use of these arms is not contingent upon its decision.
The Lebanese Civil War broke out in 1975, even though Lebanon entered into the logic of civil strife in 1969, when the arms of the Palestinian resistance in South Lebanon were recognized as legitimate, and when the legitimate armed forces were neutralized in the subsequent internal conflict. The Lebanese were divided over the reality of a State within the State. After that, demands for political participation, reforms, and urgent and social issues were added. Thus, the concept of the State and political authority mixed, leading to involving all the society elements in military fighting.
Today, the elements of civil strife, of which Lebanon has entered its circle, reoccurred when a contradiction surfaced over arms 'legitimatized' by the political hegemony and independent from the State, on the one hand, and the desire to restore the State's sovereignty, on the other. This was exactly what Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah expressed in his speeches, in which he spoke more than once about the negotiations that were held simultaneously with the July War until reaching the UN Resolution 1701, and then his accusations of conspiracy at the government. He exerted efforts to maintain the 'legitimacy' of his arms at a time when the State was trying to find a formula for the unjustifiable continuation of possessing these arms. Here the problem merges with demands for reform, participation, and issues concerning living conditions, thereby aggravating popular categorization, mobilization and incitement.
CSIS on alert over Lebanon: report
By FABRICE DE PIERREBOURG, SUN MEDIA
MONTREAL -- Canada's spy agency feared that last summer's conflict between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon might lead to violence in Canada, Sun Media has learned. Much of that concern centred on Montreal where the Shiite movement counts numerous partisans, according to documents acquired through Access to Information. "Threat assessment" reports produced by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) last summer note such concerns on a near-daily basis. One report - drafted on July 17, 2006, and titled Escalation of the Israeli-Arabic conflict - states that the "explosive nature" of the conflict could incite the members of the two camps to clash "in Canada." A CSIS agent notes that a Montreal Jewish school had already been burned in 2004 "in reprisals for the murder of the leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." Two years previous, then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been forced to cancel a speech at Montreal's Concordia University because of a "violent revolt" on the campus. The July 17 report was filed the day after eight members of a Montreal family - including four children - were killed when Israeli forces bombarded their house in Lebanon. CSIS concerns grew at the beginning of August after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah promised "surprises" for Israel. The hypothesis of a terrorist attack against "Western targets" in Lebanon is also studied in a highly censored document where the authors recall that Canada registered Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups in 2002. Several other reports also hint at Hezbollah activity in Canada. Although the movement - supported by Iran and Syria - is banned in Canada, the report states that Hezbollah partisans here would continue to collect money "through legitimate sources or by means of financial frauds, traffic counterfeit identity cards, contraband cigarettes, etc."
Political Stability Is A Must For Economic Reforms
January 27th 2007
by News Staff
After the success of Prime Minister Fouad Seniora's government in securing 7.6 billion dollars from an international donors' conference in Paris to revive Lebanon's ailing economy, experts fear that political instability will be an obstacle in achieving much-needed economic reforms.
"The Paris conference this week was a strong show of support by the world community, but our government has to work hard to make them materialize and not to let the issue be politicized," economic expert Nicolas Chamas said Saturday. "The success will be fully implemented when the government adopts economic reforms, not only raises money. If the political situation stays deteriorating, it will be difficult for the government to implement such reforms," he added. International donors in Paris pledged more than 7.6 billion dollars on Thursday to help Lebanon's economy, which was on the verge of collapse. Of the total, 730 million dollars is in the form of grants. Only 1.95 billion dollars will be given to the Lebanese government this year. Political analysts saw the conference as a "victory" for the Western-backed government headed by Seniora and a show of strong support for Lebanon's future. But economists like Chamas and others said the pledges are tied to conditions which require political stability and economic reforms. "The reforms will be great, but how would they be implemented if people are shooting at each other?" Chamas said.
Lebanon witnessed street violence this week between the opposition led by the radical Hezbollah movement and government followers which resulted in six dead and more than 220 wounded. Seniora's administration has prepared a five-year economic reform plan that includes a rise in value-added tax from 10 to 12 per cent and privatization of the electricity and mobile-telephone sectors.
In addition to privatization, the plan also proposes measures to curb corruption, such as anti-trust laws and the creation of a privatization regulator - all of which must be approved by cabinet. Critics of the Seniora government have faulted the plan for failing to include adequate social welfare provisions along with the economic reforms. Another point of criticism was the tax increase. "The results are positive, but how are the people going to cope with the hike in taxes?" economist Louis Hobeika said. "It is unjust for the government to think it can solve the public debt problem by increasing the taxes and making people pay more," labour union head Ghassan Ghosn said.
Lebanon is still reeling from a 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah last summer where material damage was estimated at 3.6 billion dollars.
Lebanon is still struggling with a public debt of 41 billion dollars, more than 180 per cent of the country's gross domestic product.
According to financial expert Ghazai Wazani, Thursday's pledges were medium term, and they cover the five-year government economic programme.
Sources close to Lebanese Finance Minister Jihad Azour said the minister had stayed in the French capital to discuss with representatives from the donor nations "the framework of paying the amount and conditions imposed to schedule the payments which Lebanon will start receiving in the first term of this year." According to economic experts, the private sector is ready to support the tax reforms to boost government revenues, but this all depends if the state can reassert its authority and meet its own reform goals.
"The political chaos has to stop or else the positive results of the Paris 3 conference will all be wasted," said Wazzani.
The so-called Paris 3 conference marks the third time the French capital has hosted a meeting to help Lebanon since 2001, when the Paris 1 conference raised 659 million dollars. More than 18 countries, in addition to international institutions, took part in the Paris 2 conference which raised 2.6 billion dollars in 2002. By Weedah Hamzah, Dpa © 2007 DPA
Lebanon and the Logic of Fighting
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 28/01/07//
Lebanon has undergone a dangerous week that included all elements of civil strife. Many people considered it the beginning of another civil war: essential political disagreements, youth forced to the streets after they were incited that the war is a matter of life or death (death or victory), gunfire, victims, and official security forces trying to keep neutrality, but some places were out of their control and were reported to be bloody atrocities.
While all those concerned with the situation spoke about nipping the schism in the bud and the necessity of keeping away from entrapment and street or general fighting, the army undertook the security task. This help curbed the direct impact of the Beirut Arab University clashes, before which there were confrontations in the streets and districts last Tuesday.
After this bloody week, it may be said that the time for a Lebanese civil war has not come yet. This is not because the political players have instigated their youth, and that some of them are supported by the streets, but because they have to recognize an unconstitutional regulation, the curfew, which is part of the state of emergency. This measure requires a decision from the Cabinet under the President of the Republic. So long as it is an impossible session, in light of such circumstances, the measure was agreed on by everyone. This means that nobody considered this procedural (constitutional) part of the decision, perhaps for political calculations, and not for reluctance to get rid of opponents, even by force. All parties concerned found their interest in this measure, which if it had been taken in different circumstances, the situation would not have been cooled down, and clashes would not have stopped against the official bias. The parties have honestly been committed by the decision; otherwise, any separate patrol could be targeted, as fighting is in full swing. So far, Lebanon has not begun a civil war, but it entered into the logic of civil strife a long time ago, when all factors of clashing were available.
There was an internal and sectarian disagreement over the concept of an independent Lebanon and the role of the State and foreign policy. This division had been latent before the withdrawal of the Syrian forces. But the opposition to the Syrian presence had not had the tools of opposing. In the last parliamentary elections, these opponents won the majority and have become known as the March 14 Forces. This victory provided them with a constitutional tool, which they supposed to be sufficient for an essential peaceful change in Lebanon, especially regarding the nature of its relation with Syria.
However, the subsequent events have blocked this tool, hence the resignations from the government and the shifting of the debate over the treatment of these resignations and their causes away from the constitutional framework: Parliament. The opposition (the Shiite alliance with the Aoun movement) moved the battle to the street to force the government to comply with their demands, which, in the end, is trying to take Lebanon back to the pre-election point in time.
These moves would have been a kind of a political dynamism distinguishing the Lebanese constitutional system. But they came at a time when the constitutional institutions were blocked: the Presidency of the Republic, due to the majority's opposition to the extension of the president's tenure; the House of Representatives, because of the desire of its speaker (who belongs to the opposition) not to shift differences to Parliament where the resolution will be for the majority; and the Cabinet, whose legitimacy is doubted by the President of the Republic and the allied opposition.
Therefore, the constitutional tools were blocked to resolve political differences between parties. The matter would have been just a political and constitutional crisis, which has reoccurred in the history of independent Lebanon more than once. However, blocking the resolution of the crisis is linked to the presence of arms in the hands of non-security forces. That is to say, the State recognizes the presence of legitimate arms outside its bodies, and that the use of these arms is not contingent upon its decision.
The Lebanese Civil War broke out in 1975, even though Lebanon entered into the logic of civil strife in 1969, when the arms of the Palestinian resistance in South Lebanon were recognized as legitimate, and when the legitimate armed forces were neutralized in the subsequent internal conflict. The Lebanese were divided over the reality of a State within the State. After that, demands for political participation, reforms, and urgent and social issues were added. Thus, the concept of the State and political authority mixed, leading to involving all the society elements in military fighting.
Today, the elements of civil strife, of which Lebanon has entered its circle, reoccurred when a contradiction surfaced over arms 'legitimatized' by the political hegemony and independent from the State, on the one hand, and the desire to restore the State's sovereignty, on the other. This was exactly what Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah expressed in his speeches, in which he spoke more than once about the negotiations that were held simultaneously with the July War until reaching the UN Resolution 1701, and then his accusations of conspiracy at the government. He exerted efforts to maintain the 'legitimacy' of his arms at a time when the State was trying to find a formula for the unjustifiable continuation of possessing these arms. Here the problem merges with demands for reform, participation, and issues concerning living conditions, thereby aggravating popular categorization, mobilization and incitement.
Why Fisk is wrong about Lebanon
By Mike Whitney
Al-Jazeerah, January 28, 2007
“This is how the 1975-90 conflict began in Lebanon. Outbreaks of sectarian hatred, appeals for restraint, promises of aid from Western and Arab nations and a total refusal to understand that this is how civil wars begin”. Robert Fisk, “World ignores Signs of Civil War in Lebanon” UK Independent 1-27-07
Robert Fisk is all wrong about Lebanon. The country is not on the brink of another “civil war”. It's been subsumed in an “imperial war” engineered in Tel Aviv and Washington. He’s also mistaken in thinking that the Paris 3 Conference is designed to “save” Lebanon from the mountain of debt which piled up after Israel’s destructive 34 day war. The real purpose of the $7.6 billion in loans is to shackle Lebanon to the international lending institutions that are demanding additional taxes on the poor, more privatization of state-run industries, and restructuring the economy to meet the requirements of the global banking elite.
According to a recent article by Chris Marsden in countercurrents:
“Only a fraction of the loans will be spent on reconstruction projects. Most will go towards servicing Lebanon’s short-term debt and therefore back into the coffers of the imperialist governments and financial institutions, while leaving Lebanon’s long-term debts to climb even higher. The rest will go into paying the Lebanese army (and security services) in order to suppress the opposition in the Shia areas in the south of the country. And, once again, any money given will be made conditional on the government implementing the reforms demanded by the IMF and World Bank.”
This is the real war--the class war-- that continues to be directed at the people in developing world.
How many times have we seen the World Bank and IMF swoop down on their prey after a nation has been savaged by war only to apply the vice-grips of massive debt and set up another corporate colony? The rise of sectarianism and the “clash of civilizations” bunkum is just the mask that conceals the real struggle; the ongoing war and exploitation of the people who have no voice in government.
Here’s a question for Fisk: Is there any doubt now that the US and Israel used the UN to push Syrian troops out of Lebanon just so they could execute their bloody plan to invade the country and set up a puppet regime in Beirut? Or was that merely a coincidence?
And, is there any doubt that World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, knew that he would be used in Phase 2 of the assault on Lebanese sovereignty by providing more economy-busting loans?
The US military is just the left hand of the banking establishment. One hand washes the other.
It’s the perfect system; the US-Israeli war machine flattens an entire country and then their buddies in the in the corporate-banking business rake in the profits from loans and reconstruction contracts. At the same time, they insist that the “New Lebanon” be rebuilt according to the neoliberal model; the same economic model that has kept Latin America and Africa in abject poverty for 2 decades.
Fisk is wrong; it’s not “sectarian hatred” that is driving the war, but outside powers that are using their proxies within Lebanon to achieve their geopolitical objectives. In other words, this not the beginning of civil war, but a continuation of the 34 Day war; the deliberate pulverizing of Lebanon to create an US-Israeli protectorate in a critical area of the Middle East. Future pipeline corridors and regional hegemony require a compliant pro-western government in Beirut. That’s why the Bush administration has armed and trained the massive security apparatus of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, so he could succeed where Israel failed, by crushing Hezbollah and the pro-democracy movement.
On the other hand, Hezbollah is demanding that the Siniora respect the constitution and step down to allow for the formation of a unity government. That is what is REQUIRED under the law (after six members of the Parliament walked out, it effectively disbanded the government) and that is why Hezbollah has been camped out in the center of the city since December 1.
If the Bush administration was serious about democracy, they’d throw their support behind the opposition. (Hezbollah and Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement) But then we know what happens when the will of the people clashes with the aims of the administration. (check the war against the democratically-elected government of Hamas)
Siniora’s political base is limited to Sunnis, some parts of the Christian community, and the Lebanese business elite (Hariri). Some of them like, Samir Geagea, “the ex-civil war militia killer” are connected to right-wing extremist organizations. These are the groups who stand to benefit the most from an open confrontation with Hezbollah. Washington needs them to conceal its dirty war; a war that Bush stepped up last week when he authorized the CIA “to take covert action against Hezbollah as part of a secret plan to help the Lebanese government prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Senators and congressmen have been briefed on the classified ‘non-lethal presidential finding’ that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support for Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora”. (UK Telegraph)
Consider this: Siniora is freely violating Lebanese sovereignty to conduct covert operations against the very people (Hezbollah) who stood alone in defending Lebanon from Israeli invasion. Additionally, he is accepting this “assistance” from the United States knowing that it was the Bush administration that provided the laser-guided munitions and cluster-bombs which were used to kill Lebanese nationals just months ago.
And one last thing; despite his promises, Siniora has made no effort to help the poor Shias in the South rebuilt their homes and communities. Much like the victims of Katrina, the Shia have been left to languish in the ruins created by Israel’s relentless bombing raids.
Is it any wonder why Nasrallah and Aoun want to get rid of Siniora?
It should be noted that the Bush administration sees no inconsistency in a policy that supports Sunnis in Lebanon, but Shias in Iraq. The rule of thumb appears to be: “If our actions create greater mayhem and suffering for Muslims, then we are on the right course.”
Hezbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, has wisely ordered his people to stop their acts of civil disobedience and to get off the streets to avoid further violence. Three Shias were reportedly killed by snipers at the university. Already we can see the familiar tactics which have been used in cities in Iraq.
Nasrallah, is portrayed in the western press as a provocateur, but he has kept the peace for the last 2 months and is committed to preventing another civil war. Just days ago, he told his people, “Even if they kill 1,000 of us, we will not use our weapons against them.”
He also added, “We have the political, popular and organizational strength to bring down the unconstitutional government at any time. What has prevented the fall of this government is not the support of the western powers but the opposition’s will to preserve civil peace in the country.”
But it’s likely that Nasrallah will not be able to stop the fighting; already events are beyond his control. Washington is preparing to open another front in its ongoing war on terror and is looking for a showdown with Hezbollah. The neoconservative ideal of “creative destruction” is now in full-flower and has extended the conflict from the northern tip of Afghanistan to the southern coast of Somalia swallowing up an immense swath of the Middle East and Central Asia. This is the “total war” the neocons promised when Bush took office. It isn’t civil war, but the calculated destruction of an entire region by the imperial powers.