LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
JANUARY 5/2006

Below News From the Daily Star 5.1.06
Israel scraps plan to divide Ghajar with wall
Straw urges Syria to recognize Lebanon's sovereignty
Cabinet to meet despite continued boycott by ministers
Bishops Council: Khaddam proved strong Syrian influence
UN resolutions ... and Syria's 'cooperation'
Hawi's family demand Houssam be questioned
Politicians welcome Tueni's decision to run in by-elections
Fuel tankers arrive to put an end red-diesel shortage
Siniora's economic program a hard sell
Syria to allow UN interview of Sharaa
An open letter to Jack Straw
Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Maktoum passes away
A philanthropist with the gift to lead
Below News From Miscellaneous Sources for 5.1.06
Mothers remember, Lebanon tries to forget-By Anthony Shadid-The Washington Post 5.1.06
Syria ready for UN team to meet minister-Reuters 5.1.06
Illusions and delusions. By: Moshe Arens -Haaretz 5.1.06
Below News From Naharnet for 5.1.06
Straw Will Snub Lahoud During His Lebanon Visit
U.S. Tells Syria to Bow to U.N. Request for Interviewing Assad
Israel Scraps Plans to Build Wall Dividing Border Town of Ghajar
Berri Urges Lebanon, Syria to Exchange Embassies
Tueni to Run for Murdered Son's Parliamentary Seat
Ghazaleh Denies Death Rumors, Pledges Allegiance to Assad
Saudis, Egyptians Rush to Save Syria from a Diplomatic Onslaught

Mothers remember, Lebanon tries to forget
January 3, 2006 By Anthony Shadid - The Washington Post
BEIRUT -- On this morning, as on every morning since Oct. 17, 1985, Audette Salem cleaned the rooms of her son and daughter. She left his razor, toothbrush and comb as they were on the day her children were abducted from the streets of Beirut during Lebanon's civil war.
She fiddled with her daughter's makeup and straightened her bed. She dusted the three guitars, the papers still on their desks and the pack that holds a 20-year-old cigarette, the artifacts of two lives interrupted.
"Everything is there as they left it," she said. "I haven't changed a thing, nothing at all. It's all still there."
At 70, quiet but determined, Salem clings to memories in a country that prefers to forget.
In the heart of downtown Beirut, ravaged by a brutal 15-year civil war, then rebuilt into a graceful, if somewhat soulless, urban hub, Salem joins other women every day in a protest demanding to know the fate of their children. Many believe they languish in jails in neighboring Syria. Others are not sure. Behind them, their children's faces stare from pictures tacked to billboards, faces with generation-old haircuts, the dates of their disappearances reading like a war memorial yet to be built.
The protest by Salem and dozens of other mothers serves as a stark reminder, organizers say, that Lebanese society has yet to confront, much less resolve, the legacy of the most cataclysmic event in its modern history--the 1975-90 civil war. Fifteen years later, that conflict is still shrouded in silence. Under a 1991 amnesty law, all but a handful of killings were placed beyond prosecution. History textbooks address nothing more recent than 1975. And many factional warlords serve in government, their portraits staring down on streets they once wrecked.
"When you discuss the truth and you know the truth--who was responsible, who prolonged the war--then you can have true reconciliation. The door to bring in a new generation is to find out what happened in Lebanon," said Ghazi Aad, who heads Solide, an acronym for Support of Lebanese in Detention and Exile, the group that has led the protest since April 11 in downtown Beirut. "Without that, you're just sweeping the dust under the rug. You cannot reconcile when you don't know what happened."
A sign of new transparency
The protest's longevity reflects the changes unleashed by the departure of Syrian troops last spring after a 29-year presence. It is a sign of new transparency in public discourse as Lebanon--still deeply fractured along the lines of its Christian and Muslim sects--struggles to craft an alternative to the old Syrian order. Under the former system, Syria exercised the last word on virtually everything in the country, and its security services, along with their Lebanese allies, enforced compliance through arrests, intimidation and patronage. But now, long-discouraged subjects--including the perhaps more than 600 Lebanese taken to Syrian jails--are now being aired as calls for accountability have mounted.
At the protest in Gibran Khalil Gibran Park, staffed 24 hours a day, women wear name tags with their relatives' pictures, next to the words "How long?"
"It's in us to hope," Salem said, sitting next to the tent, sipping bitter coffee. "That is what a mother does."
Her children, Richard and Christine, were abducted on a road in west Beirut, probably at a checkpoint, as they drove home for lunch. Their mother had prepared rice and a stew of peas, carrots and potatoes. She waited, then contacted friends, who visited hospitals, restaurants, political parties and others with connections. She kept waiting.
Last spring a former Iraqi intelligence officer released from a Syrian prison visited the Beirut protest. He gazed at the pictures, Salem said, then stopped at a photo of Richard. He said he saw him in 1992 in Tadmur, one of Syria's worst jails.
"Hope is durable," Aad said. "It's so durable because they don't have an answer." `It's a matter of the living'
At the start of the protest, Aad had the names of 280 people who had disappeared and were perhaps in Syrian jails. Since then, more families have come forward, bringing the number to 643. Hundreds of other cases remain unresolved by families who believe their relatives were detained by Israeli or allied forces in southern Lebanon during its occupation, which ended in 2000. Both numbers pale before the 17,000 still unaccounted for from the civil war. But for Aad and others, the detainees in Syria -- mostly unacknowledged by its government--remain the most pressing.
"There are people who are still alive in Syria," he said. "It's a matter of the living."
Some of the answers may rest beneath the deep brown soil of Majdal Anjar, where Syria once maintained a de facto headquarters for its presence in eastern Lebanon. There, last month, a shallow grave was unearthed on a hill overlooking the Bekaa Valley, holding up to 30 corpses.
The town's mayor, Shaaban Ajami, said he had known about the grave since 1999, "but they told me, `Don't say a word.'"
"There are still more bodies," Ajami said.
Fear of a `Pandora's box'
Amnesty International criticized the exhumation as unprofessional. On a visit after the search was finished, a reporter for the Daily Star, an English-language newspaper here, found bones strewn across the hilltop. Some activists suspect the government is wary of making too large an issue of it, willing to unearth the grave to perhaps put more pressure on Syria but not to risk more demands by victims' families to unearth civil war-era mass graves that litter the country.
"You can't just open this mass grave and say that's it," said Habib Nassar, a human-rights lawyer in Beirut. "Are you ready to open all the mass graves? You can't make a distinction between the Syrians and all the other factions involved in the war."
"I think now they'll even forget Anjar," he added. "They're afraid they'll open a Pandora's box."
Legacy remains in flux
Lebanon's civil war exacted a breathtaking toll. Official figures put the dead at more than 144,000 and the wounded at more than 184,000. Nearly 13,000 were abducted, and more than 17,000 remain missing. The task of addressing the war's legacy has fallen to a handful of intellectuals. A conference, "Memory for the Future," was organized in 2001. But its proposals--a war memorial, for instance--are overshadowed by what some activists call official amnesia. One committee formed in 2001 to look into the missing never released a report; its chairman said he was pressured by pro-Syrian officials. A Syrian-Lebanese committee was formed last year, charged with resolving the fate of missing in each country's jails, but has yet to issue any findings.
"The reason why the problem was never solved was precisely because the perpetrators have been in power since the war and Syria was in control of the country," Nassar said. "It was not in their interest to find a solution."

Syria ready for UN team to meet minister
Reuters 4.1.06: Syria has agreed to allow United Nations (UN) to interview its foreign minister over the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, diplomats say.
Syria is still considering a request by the UN team probing the February killing to meet President Bashar al-Assad, but an interview with Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara was acceptable, the diplomats say.
"The request is being considered while other capitals are in contact with Syria on the same subject," a diplomatic source said. "As announced before there is no objection that the committee meets Mr Shara, that position did not change."
Asked to comment on the report, a Syrian Foreign Ministry official told Reuters in Damascus: "Syria has not informed the (UN) committee of any decision since the request has been made". A senior Saudi official is expected to discuss in Damascus the issue of Syria's cooperation with the investigation. The leaders of Saudi Arabia and Egypt held talks on the matter in Saudi on Tuesday.
The United States has warned Syria that its top officials should submit to the interviews in line with a UN Security Council resolution that called for it to comply fully with the inquiry or face unspecified "further action".
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, on a visit to Lebanon, also urged Syria to cooperate with the inquiry and hinted at further action if it did not. "We urge and continue to urge Syria to cooperate fully with those (UN) resolutions in particular with the United Nations investigation into the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri," he said.
"I am not going to anticipate any event but I think Syria is clear about its obligations and the international community will be looking to Syria to meet those obligations and it knows as any other (UN) member, which is named in such a resolution, what the consequences will be."
Syria has denied any role in the killing and has not commented on the request for an interview with its president, although it previously invited US chief investigator Detlev Mehlis to meet Mr Shara. The diplomatic sources gave no details on the possible date or venue of any meeting with Mr Shara but said it would be outside Syria. The investigation team had no comment on the report. Investigators questioned five Syrian officers in Vienna last month. Mr Mehlis said in a report to the Council later in December that the five were among 20 Lebanese and Syrian suspects in the murder.
- Reuters

Security Council awaits Syria''s next move before deciding what to do
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 4 (KUNA) -- The Security Council is awaiting Syria's response to a request by Detlev Mehlis, the chief prosecutor probing Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination, to interview President Bashar Al-Assad and his foreign minister Farouk Al-Shara.
British envoy Emyr Jones Parry told reporters on Wednesday that the whole position of the council on the inquiry to the Hariri case "depends crucially" on what the prosecutor has to report.
"The resolution has been quite specific on that and if we get subsequent reports which show that there is full compliance with what the investigator wants, then good. If there is a clear sign to the council of non cooperation, the council has to react to that and if that happens the UK will join others in pressing for action," he said without elaborating.
Mehlis' request came after Syrian former Vice-President Abdulhalim Khaddam told Al-Arabiya TV from Paris that President Assad himself threatened Hariri months before he was assassinated.
Russian envoy Andrey Denisov told reporters "we have a basic resolution and it should be implemented".
Syrian envoy Faysal Mekdad told reporters he did not know whether Assad has agreed to be interviewed by Mehlis."I don't know. I really don't know. I am not aware," he said.

Bishops Council: Khaddam proved strong Syrian influence
Daily Star staff -Thursday, January 05, 2006
BEIRUT: The Maronite Bishops Council described the comments made by former Syrian Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam as "resonant" adding they "show the strong influence the Syrian intelligence and military had in Lebanon."
Following their monthly meeting held Wednesday in Bkirki, the Bishops Council, which is chaired by Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, issued a statement saying: "Khaddam's interview should inspire officials in Lebanon and Syria to set good relations for the benefit of the two peoples."
Regarding the series of bombings, assassinations and assassination attempts in Lebanon last year, the council said: "The Lebanese authorities should deploy their utmost efforts to resolve the situation that has greatly affected the country on all levels especially the economic level." Commenting on the political situation in the Cabinet, the statement said: "The ongoing bickering in the Cabinet and the abstention of some members is not allowing governmental institutions from really fulfilling their duties and obligations."The council also urged officials to "seriously address the dire economic situation, the living conditions and the scarcity of job opportunities, and rely on competence instead of nepotism."It welcomed the new bishops in the council and called for "strengthening internal unity."- The Daily Star

Straw urges Syria to recognize Lebanon's sovereignty
By Nada Bakri -Special to The Daily Star
Thursday, January 05, 2006
BEIRUT: A top British politician urged Syria Wednesday to "recognize Lebanon as a sovereign independent state and to set up diplomatic relations with it," stressing the necessity that it fully cooperate with the UN probe into former Premier Rafik Hariri's murder. British Foreign Secretary Jack straw was speaking during his two-day visit to Lebanon, the first by a British official since Syria was forced to withdraw its troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon last April following the assassination of Hariri, for which Syria and its Lebanese allies were blamed.
"I urge Syria to fully cooperate with the Security Council resolutions, in particular with the UN investigation into the assassination of Hariri," Straw told reporters following a meeting with Premier Fouad Siniora.
Straw strongly denied any intentions, be they international or British, to change the regime in Syria. "We have no policy whatsoever of regime change in Syria and any change of government in Syria must be a matter of the Syria people."
"Again let me say, I urge Syria to do what it has done
with so many countries around the world which is to exchange ambassadors, to recognize Lebanon as an independent sovereign neighbor of Damascus," he added. Commenting on the implementation of 1559, Straw said: "Resolution 1559 does not lay down a specific time frame, it is important that all groups like Hizbullah are disarmed."
However Straw said: "What the international community wants to see is the government of Syria, whoever that is, meeting its international obligations especially those laid down in a series of Security Council resolutions as well as cooperating with the Hariri investigations."Straw is the third top British official to visit Beirut since the end of the 1975-1990 war.
He promised the Lebanese during his visit "the full support of the international community in seeking to emerge from these terrible events to build a stable democracy."He was referring to the string of bombings and assassinations that targeted prominent anti-Syrian officials and journalists over the last year. He said: "I bring the strong backing of the U.K. for Siniora's approach to reform based on democracy, good governance, the rule of law and respect for all religious groups."
Britain is one of the major donor countries to participate in the "Beirut 1" aid conference, expected to be held in the next couple of months in the city.
Straw's meeting with Siniora was attended by British Ambassador to Beirut James Watt and Lebanese Foreign Affairs minister Fawzi Salloukh and other Lebanese and British officials.
Straw stressed that the international community is clear about its responsibilities toward Lebanon and that it has passed resolution 1559 - which partially calls for the disarmament of Hizbullah and Palestinian factions - to ensure that Lebanon "is fully able to become sovereign in practice and theory."He said: "We will not stand by and allow that sovereignty to be compromised."Straw has excluded Lebanese President Emile Lahoud from his agenda, saying the arrangements made by Premier Siniora were "satisfactory."Straw also met with the committees of families of those detained in Israeli and Syrian jails, who gave him a letter urging him to look into the cases of their "loved ones, who continue to be held in jails or are missing."

Cabinet to meet despite continued boycott by ministers
By Adnan El-Ghoul -Daily Star staff
Thursday, January 05, 2006
BEIRUT: The Lebanese Cabinet will meet Thursday despite the continued suspension of the five Shiite ministers, irritating the Higher Shiite Council that considered the meeting a "true violation of the national accord." The Higher Islamic Shiite Council met Wednesday in the presence of vice president Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan and issued a statement regarding the government crisis and recent political developments.
The statement said the government's decisions taken without the five ministers "lack the legitimacy of the co-existence formula," stressing the importance of working on a "serious and responsible dialogue to end the governmental crisis."
Premier Fouad Siniora will preside over the Cabinet Session that will take place at the Grand Serail as President Emile Lahoud reaffirmed his earlier stance of not presiding over any session without the return of the boycotting ministers.
On the eve of the Cabinet session - which will not be headed by President Emile Lahoud - Siniora consulted with ministers and MPs regarding the items on the agenda and the latest developments concerning the talks with Hizbullah and Amal officials.
In addition, Siniora discussed the government crisis with the vice president of the Executive Committee of the Lebanese Forces MP George Adwan. Meanwhile, the leader of the Democratic Gathering Walid Jumblatt met with MPs from the March 14 Forces including Samir Franjieh, former MP Fares Soueid and Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. The meeting discussed the majority's position regarding the latest developments and its steps to implement the Bristol declaration - mainly calling for Lahoud's resignation.Following the meeting, Soueid said: "Our dispute with (MP Michel) Aoun is that he refuses to admit that the Syrians are responsible for the killings in Lebanon."
Ramzi Kanj of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) lashed out at former MP Fares Soueid's statements saying Michel Aoun's differences with the March 14 forces are based on his perception of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese scene.
"The beneficiaries of the Syrian epoch who have only recently been divorced from the Syria have no right to assess the FPM's policies," Kanj said. "The forgers, like Soueid and company, keep circulating false statements and refer them to Aoun."
The head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Mohammad Raad, who attended the Shiite Council meeting along other MPs and Hizbullah officials, said the negotiating parties agreed on one thing, which is to ease the tension and cease the exchange of accusations. "However," he added, "we still have to wait and see where Berri's initiative take us in implementing the initial agreement with (the Future bloc leader Saad) Hariri."
Government sources affirmed the ministers would be discussing 56 items strictly of ordinary-type laws and decisions during the session, refraining from raising any issues of national concern that need consensus.
Despite the calm, the government crisis will endure until Speaker Nabih Berri, who is currently on his Hajj pilgrimage, returns next week after Eid al-Adha holiday.
The Shiite council backed Berri's initiative to organize a "national dialogue", appealing to politicians to "respond positively to the initiative."The Council also stressed the need to support the Resistance and refrain from considering it a militia, thus defying UN Security Council Resolution 1559. The Maronite Bishops Council convened on Wednesday and commented, in its statement, on the government crisis, saying: "It is not a healthy signal when some ministers suspend their participation in the Cabinet and prevent any attempts to replace them" leaving government institutions unable to fulfill their daily duties.
Most parties do not have an issue with Berri's initiative in principle, except in what concerns ties with Syria, whose shape will depend on the outcome of the ongoing regional and international talks in Riyadh, Cairo and Paris.
Calls for enhancing internal dialogue resemble political bickering more than any serious attempt to organize dialogue, which must accompany the efforts to solve the Cabinet crisis.
Many politicians urge the concerned parties not to use the dialogue as a tactic to "win time before eliminating it altogether."
In a statement, the Lebanese Democratic Party called on Premier Fouad Siniora and his allies in the majority to organize "a sincere dialogue not through the media and television screens."
The statement added: "All parties must be part of the national dialogue to confront the challenges facing the country."

UN resolutions ... and Syria's 'cooperation'
By Philip Abi akl -Daily Star
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The televised interview with former Syrian Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam embarrassed the Syrian regime, its members and symbols. It has also given a much-needed boost to the UN probe into former Premier Rafik Hariri's killing.
It also reopened the files for investigations with top Syrian officials after political circles close to Syria said that the investigations file was closed when the five Syrian officers agreed to appear before the investigating committee in Vienna. That location was chosen by Syria and after Damascus cooperated with the committee in a domineering way imposing its conditions. Proof of that behavior was when it (Damascus) did not allow its officers to stay longer.
Despite Syria's cooperation with the committee according to its conditions, the international community, and through UN Security Council Resolution 1644 passed in mid-December 2005, was keen on being lenient with Syria, giving it a grace period and calling on it to cooperate with the investigating committee. Between UNSC Resolutions 1636 and 1644, Syria held the former chief of the international investigating committee Magistrate Detlev Mehlis responsible for "not cooperating with Syria," politicizing the file of the assassination Hariri, and working under the influence of the parliamentary majority.
Some figures close to this majority gave Mehlis information that appeared to be inaccurate. To confirm that, Damascus resorted to making public Houssam Houssam, the masked witness, who held a press conference in Damascus and refuted all his previous statements. He said that there were some who tried to "employ" him in the case and "teach" him the statement he should give.
According to political sources close to Syria, "it (Syria) tried to discredit Mehlis' report that basically relied on the masked witness; knowing that recently, Houssam Houssam appeared in photographs taken in the crime scene of George Hawi's assassination. He was caught in a suspicious position, and the Syrians, protective of Houssam, did not give any "masked explanation" for his being there.
The political campaign was accompanied by leaks about Syrian-U.S. deals and the return of Syria's domination again over Lebanon following the launch of Katyusha rockets from Lebanon to northern Israel.
Syria tried to benefit from the six-month grace period it was given, but the international community asserted in UNSC Resolution 1644 Syria's cooperation with the investigating committee "without conditions." That was done after the location to question the Syrian officials was changed from Monteverde to Vienna, and after amendments were made to the list of Syrian officials and removing the names of Maher Assad and Assef Shawkat, and after UN Secretary General Kofi Annan approved of Mehlis rejecting the extension of his term after relations became tense between him and the Syrians.
Head of the Syrian delegation to the UN Faisal al-Daoudi asserted that Syria's decision is to cooperate with the investigating committee. He added "there was nothing that the committee asked us to do that we did not fulfill."
Will Syria face the international community by refusing to cooperate with the investigating committee and refuse the committee's request to take statements from Assad, Sharaa and other Syrian officials? Or will it cooperate in its own way?
Sources say that Syria could cooperate in its own way by sending Sharaa and the Syrian officials including Maher Assad and Shawkat to Vienna as a preliminary step hoping that would delay the committee in listening to Assad.
But well-informed sources assert that following the latest developments there is no Syrian-U.S. deal being made in the investigation of Hariri's assassination.
Some people fear that Syria's refusal to cooperate could lead the UNSC to pass a resolution to impose sanctions on Syria that could affect the regime. In this context, a political observer says that Khaddam's interview was the relieving bullet for the Syrian regime and accused it of being adamant and not wanting to change. The observer also considered that any reform is impossible if the regime remains captive by a group of security officers and accused the regime of terrorism and corruption.
Khaddam's televised interview turned him into a "king witness" in the international investigation. Will Khaddam reveal all his cards, files, and expose everything? Or will he stop at what he said? Will the former Syrian Army chief of staff Major General Hikmat al-Chehabi also speak about everything in a televised interview after knowing the Syrian reactions to Khaddam?
The ball is now in the court of the Syrian regime. But the question is how will it face and respond to the accusations and how will it come out of this embarrassing position it got itself in?

Syria to allow UN interview of Sharaa
International community escalates demands for full cooperation
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, January 05, 2006
As international calls for Syria to cooperate "more fully" with the UN probe into the murder of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri intensifed on Wednesday from French President Jacques Chirac, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the Saudi King Abdullah, Syria confirmed it had agreed to the probe's request to interview its Foreign Minister Farouq al-Sharaa."Syria must answer the demands" of the international inquiry into Hariri's killing, Chirac was quoted by a spokesman as saying during talks with his visiting Egyptian counterpart Mubarak on Wednesday over the Syrian issue.
The latest UN commission demands include requests to interview Syrian President Bashar Assad and Sharaa, and Syria was given a 10-day deadline, ending on January 10, to respond. "Everything that destabilizes Lebanon will end up turning back against Syria," warned the president, who was a personal friend of the slain Hariri. The French president also described Syria's situation as "very serious" while speaking on the sidelines of a New Year's press conference.
Syria, as it undergoes greater international pressure, agreed to an interview with Sharaa, while the request for an interview with Assad is expected to be more difficult, given that an earlier request in July to interview him was refused, stated diplomats close to the case.
"The request is being considered while other capitals are in contact with Syria on the same subject," a diplomatic source said. "As announced before there is no objection that the committee meets Sharaa. That position did not change."
Mubarak met with the Saudi king on Tuesday over the Syrian crisis, whereby they urged Syria to act now "to prevent any harm" coming to Damascus, said Soleiman Awad, the Egyptian president's spokesperson .
Awad, quoted by Al-Ahram daily, said Mubarak and King Abdullah agreed at a meeting Tuesday that the probe should work "to unveil the truth on the assassination ... in keeping with international law."They also agreed during their talks in Jeddah that "the cooperation of Damascus with the international commission of inquiry is necessary to avoid any harm" to Syria, he said.
The two leaders also underlined "the need to preserve the historic links between Lebanon and Syria."
Al-Ahram said Mubarak's consultations with King Abdullah and Chirac were part of his "regional and international actions to save the situation in Syria and Lebanon."
At the same time, reports have circulated that a Saudi official, allegedly Prince Bandar bin Sultan, will be meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday to assist Syria and relay the Saudi king's message. The U.S. stepped up its pressure on Syria, with the U.S. ambassador at the UN accusing Syria of "obstructing the UN probe."
"Syria's record to date has been one of obstructing the investigation, of tampering with the evidence and not making witnesses available in a timely fashion," said Bolton, speaking at the UN headquarters in New York.
"The Security Council has made it clear that it expects full and unconditional compliance and said expressly in its resolutions that additional measures could be taken if need be," Bolton said. "We're trying to get the government of Syria to cooperate as it's required to do. The ball is in their court," he said.
In response, the Syrian envoy to the UN, Faysal Mekdad, criticized Bolton, saying "Bolton is known for his stances against the UN, the international community and the Arab causes."
Bolton's comments came after Syria confirmed it had received the UN commission's request to interview Assad and Sharaa.
The requests for interviews have been launched after the former Syrian Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam, who is based in Paris, charged last week that Assad had threatened the slain Hariri several months before his assassination.
Al-Jazeera was set to broadcast an interview with Khaddam on Wednesday, but Khaddam requested it be postponed until Thursday at 8:30 p.m. local Lebanese time. Meanwhile, Elaph Web site published that Khaddam and the Egyptian president may meet in "in secret," after Mubarak's meeting with Chirac.At the same time, U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Jeffery Feltman stressed the importance of Khaddam's statements to the investigation. "His words speak for themselves. What is important is the position that he occupied in the Syrian government for many years. He speaks with a certain authority and so what he says is important," said Feltman to the reporters after a meeting with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on Wednesday.
"His words reveal how the Syrian occupation in Lebanon worked," he added.
- Additional reporting by Rym Ghazal, with agencies

Illusions and delusions
By Moshe Arens -Haaretz 4.1.06
Only the guilt feelings prevalent among some victims of violence can explain the delusion of those Israelis who blame Israel for acts of aggression committed against Israel.
For them, acts of violence by Hizbollah or Palestinian terrorist groups against Israel seem no more than legitimate reactions to injuries inflicted on them by Israel, and the appropriate response, as far as they are concerned, is to give in to at least some of the demands of the perpetrators of violence, in the expectation that such concessions would put an end to their intentions to commit further acts of violence against Israel.
That presumably was the logic of those demonstrating for a withdrawal of the IDF from the southern Lebanon security zone. Despite Hizbollah's virulent declarations against Israel, they preferred to view Hizbollah as Lebanese patriots whose sole objective was to free Lebanese territory from Israeli occupation, whose attacks against Israel would cease as soon as the IDF withdrew from Lebanon, turning the Hizbollah into just another Lebanese political party.
This simpleminded logic was partially adopted by Ehud Barak as prime minister, when he decided on the withdrawal of the IDF from the south Lebanon security zone and the abandonment of the South Lebanese Army, Israel's long-time ally. To this illusion he added a delusion: now that Israel had withdrawn behind the internationally recognized Israel-Lebanese border, Israel would be free to impose on Lebanon the harshest retribution if there were to be any further acts of violence against Israel coming from Lebanon. This threat was to serve as an adequate deterrent and bring peace to our northern border. As if Israel had not been fully justified to respond to Hizbollah attacks against Israeli towns and villages while the IDF and SLA were deployed in the south Lebanon security zone, as if Israel had not been fully justified in holding the Lebanese government responsible for these attacks and attacking targets in Lebanon in order to get the Lebanese army to rein in the Hizbollah.
Reality turned out to be different. The Hizbollah militia did not disband and continued its attacks against Israel, the Lebanese army was not deployed along the Israeli border, international pressure was not applied on Lebanon to put a stop to Hizbollah's activities, and Israel did not respond forcefully to Hizbollah attacks along the northern border, not even after the kidnapping of three Israel soldiers there.
The Hizbollah claim that the Shaba area was Lebanese territory that had remained under Israeli control, and that they were therefore justified in continuing their attacks against Israel even led some Israelis to conclude that the IDF should withdraw from there as well. But that delusion was going a little too far. When Katyushas fell on Kiryat Shmona and Shlomi the other week, the illusions that led to the abandonment of the security zone were suddenly dispelled.
In the meantime, a clone of the Lebanese illusion had taken hold of Ariel Sharon. If Israel were to dismantle the Israeli settlement blocs in Gush Katif and south of Ashkalon, this presumably was likely to assuage at least some Palestinian ambitions and put an end to Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel. But in case they were to continue, Israel would now be justified in responding in full force to put an end to them. As if there had not been sufficient justification for Israel's battle against Palestinian terrorism prior to the disengagement.
But this illusion was quickly shattered. Kassam attacks against Israeli towns and villages that occurred before the disengagement continued after the disengagement. The withdrawal from Nisanit, Elei Sinai, and Dugit now put the southern outskirts of Ashkalon into Kassam range, and Kassams began falling in that area. The Chelm-like Israeli response now to attempt to prevent the entry of Palestinians into the area from which the Israeli settlers had been evacuated is not likely to solve the problem.
The decision to dismantle the Israeli settlements in that area served no useful purpose, while it endangered the inhabitants of Ashkalon, and was a most serious error of judgment by those responsible for Israel's defense policy. That was followed by another error, when it was decided that Israel's response to the Katyusha attacks from Lebanon would be no more than symbolic. It was reminiscent of Sharon's vacuous slogan that "restraint is strength" in the first months of the second intifada, when Israel failed to respond to Palestinian suicide attacks. That, plus the scandalous decision for a massive release of Palestinian terrorists - some of whom quickly returned to their terrorist vocation - as part of the Tennenbaum exchange raises doubts regarding the judgment of Sharon and Mofaz presently at the helm of Israel's defense establishment, who are seeking the approval of the Israeli electorate in the next election.

An open letter to Jack Straw
Thursday, January 05, 2006
From Patrick Seale
Dear Foreign Secretary,
Late last month, in the dying days of the U.K. presidency of the EU, you did something which puzzled and angered a great many people. On 12 December, you quashed a report by EU diplomats in Jerusalem and Ramallah which sharply criticised Israel for completing the seizure of East Jerusalem and cutting it off from its Arab hinterland.
You were reported as saying that it was not "appropriate" to publish the report. I call on you to explain your decision in the columns of this newspaper.
I am not alone in believing that, by your decision, you betrayed the Palestinian people, so often betrayed by Britain in the past; you betrayed the EU diplomats who wrote the report; and you betrayed all those who still believe in a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
You must surely know that there can be no resolution of the conflict if Israel insists on retaining East Jerusalem. No Palestinian or Arab or Muslim will ever accept the loss of a city that belongs to all three monotheisms. Israel's expansionist policies are a recipe, not for peace, but for continued violence. Every day brings fresh proof of this.
What about your own convictions? You seem to have betrayed them as well, because I recall your saying that you were "100 percent" in favor of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem.
Israel's seizure of Jerusalem
The report by the EU diplomats states that Israeli policies "demonstrate a clear Israeli intention to turn the annexation of East Jerusalem into a concrete fact." It lists the near-completion of the barrier around East Jerusalem, far from the Green Line; the construction and expansion of illegal settlements; the demolition of Palestinian homes; the strict enforcement of rules separating Palestinians in East Jerusalem from Palestinians in the West Bank; and discriminatory policies by the Jerusalem municipality on matters like taxation, expenditure and building permits.
The report warns that these policies risk radicalising Jerusalem's Palestinian population, which has so far been a relatively peaceful one. For there comes a point when an oppressed population has no option but to resort to violence and terror.
Israel's activities in Jerusalem, the report declares, "are in violation of both the road map and its obligations under international law."
In particular, the Israeli settlement of Maaleh Adumim threatens to complete the encircling of East Jerusalem, dividing the West Bank into two separate geographic areas. When the barrier Israel is building across the West Bank is complete, Israel will control access to and from East Jerusalem, cutting it off from Bethlehem, Ramallah and the rest of the West Bank.
"This will have serious economic, social and humanitarian consequences for the Palestinians," the report says.
It recommends that the EU and the Quartet state clearly that Jerusalem remains an issue for negotiation by the two sides and that Israel should desist from all measures designed to pre-empt such negotiations.
It calls for reopening Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem and urges the EU to hold meetings there with the Palestinian Authority, including at ministerial level.
What is the British position on these important matters? Where do you stand, Mr Straw? Are you waiting for the barrier to be completed and the city lost before speaking out? The EU has not recognized Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem under the 1980 Basic Law which made Jerusalem the 'complete and united' capital of Israel. By quashing the report, are you now, personally, seeking to dilute this position?
You were reported as saying that you did not wish to interfere in Israel's electoral
process. Why not? This is not an issue of importance to Israelis alone. At stake is the peace of the Middle East and the security of many countries - including Britain. Is it not your duty to bring home to the Israeli electorate that it cannot have both peace and East Jerusalem? That the seizure of East Jerusalem is an illegal act which is not in their best long-term interests and for which they are likely to pay dearly in the future?
You had a chance to mobilize the EU's full weight behind this vital message, to help Europe carry weight in world affairs. Were you obeying orders from the Prime Minister? Or were you frightened of taking a stand?
The Israeli press is full of reports that Ariel Sharon is preparing to ditch the road map once and for all and to call on President George W. Bush to recognise Israel's annexation of the large settlement blocks on the West Bank, including Maaleh Adumim.
He has threatened not to allow the Palestinians of East Jerusalem to vote in the upcoming Palestinian elections. As a result, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has said he would have to delay or cancel this important vote.What is your position on this matter? Is this also an issue on which it is not "appropriate" to speak?
And what are your views on terrorism? Surely you have grasped that Israel's harsh treatment of the Palestinians - its targeted assassinations, seizure of territory, collective punishments, home demolitions, and all the other horrors of its cruel occupation - has fueled anger in the whole Arab and Muslim world and is a major cause of anti-Western terrorism?
To many observers, the British foreign policy over which you preside is a mass of contradictions. You claim to be in favour of a Palestinian state yet, in waging war against Iraq, you allied yourself with the Washington neoconservatives - Likudnicks to a man - who totally oppose the creation of such a state.
As recently as last November, you declared that you "fully supported military action in Iraq" and would, you were rash enough to add, "have come to the same conclusion" even on the basis of what we all now know - namely that the war was waged on the basis of lies and forgeries.
As a result of the military action which you claim to support, Iraq has become a "failed state" on the brink of civil war, a victim of daily slaughter, a prey to vengeful ethnic militias. As the hideous costs of this criminal adventure mount, the United States is facing a strategic catastrophe and Britain a national humiliation.
It is often said that Britain cleaves to America through thick or thin, because this gives Britain influence over American policy, especially regarding Palestine. Can you point to any visible result of this influence?
By deciding not to give full publicity to the crucial Jerusalem question - by killing the EU diplomats' report and suppressing its findings - you have contributed to instability and violence in the region. You have fed the fires of terrorism. You have certainly not brought credit to your office.
Britain would do better to publish the report, add muscle to its recommendations and, in so doing, seek to save its battered international reputation.