LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
MARCH 31/2006
Below news from miscellaneous
sources for 31/03/06
UN gives green light to international court for Hariri's
murder-AsiaNews.it - Italy
Syria's Assad Calls for Better US Ties-Washington
Post
Lebanese President Praises Syria, Hizbullah-Arutz
Sheva
Syria's Assad calls for better ties with US but says Bush doesn't-CBS
47
Talking with the 'terrorists-Asia
Times Online
18 charged in smuggling case-DetNews.com
Urgent: Assad Shakes Hands with Siniora-BY:Daoud Shirian
-Al-Hayat
Nasrallah stresses right of armed resistance-Al-Bawaba
Hariri: Deal near on Lebanon president-Middle East
Online
Below news from the Daily Star for 31/03/06
Hariri laments lost Arab initiative
Berri blasts Siniora over summit remarks
Nasrallah and Meshaal make defiant pledge to keep
their weapons
Lebanese president clashes with Cabinet ministers
Earthquake measuring 4.7 on Richter scale hits North
of country
Nineteen charged in U.S. with racketeering to fund
Hizbullah
Bush expects Damascus to let Lebanese go their own
way
Military Tribunal changes tune over Fatah boss
Farmers now able to certify as 'organic'
Military court drops charges against Al-Qaeda
suspects
Hariri insists president does not represent Lebanese,
backs Siniora's trip to summit
Pro-Syrian MPs line up behind Lahoud
Facing funding crisis, Hamas decries aid cuts
Iran rejects call to halt enrichment
Covered: Lebanon's insurance sector grows
Casino hits turbulence in management handover
Winning hearts and minds: Hizbullah shows how.By:
IRIN News.org
Lebanese ought to prepare themselves now for the
fruits of dialogue
Security
council requests establishment of international tribunal for killing of former
prime minister Hariri/Resolution 1664 (2006) Adopted Unanimously
March 30, 2006 UN
The Security Council today requested Secretary-General Kofi Annan to negotiate
an agreement with the Lebanese Government aimed at establishing a tribunal of an
international character to try those found responsible for the February 2005
killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others.
Unanimously adopting resolution 1664 (2006), the Council welcomed the
Secretary-General’s report of 21 March, in which he suggested the best outcome
would be a mixed tribunal with both international and Lebanese participation.
The Secretary-General added that it would be extremely difficult for the
tribunal to be located on Lebanese territory, due to concerns of security,
perceptions of objectivity and other factors.
In addition, the Council acknowledged that the adoption of the legal basis of,
and framework for, the tribunal would not prejudice the gradual phasing in of
its various components, and would not predetermine the timing of the
commencement of its operations, which would depend on the progress of the United
Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC), set up to
probe the 14 February 2005 killing.
Boutros Assaker, Acting Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Emigrants of Lebanon, welcomed the adoption of the resolution as a clear
indication of the international community’s strong commitment and determination
to punish all those involved in the killing. That, in turn, would deter
criminals and promote security and stability in Lebanon and throughout the
region. He expressed his Government’s readiness to use all available means to
arrive at a clear and solid text for the agreement defining the form and working
methods of the tribunal, adding that uncovering the truth and trying those
involved
would strongly contribute to the consolidation of democracy in Lebanon.
Resolution
The full text of resolution 1664 (2006) reads as follows:
“Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 1595
(2005) of 7 April 2005, 1636 (2005) of 31 October 2005 and 1644 (2005) of 15
December 2005,
“Reiterating its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and
exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon,
“Mindful of the demand of the Lebanese people that all those responsible for the
terrorist bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and
others be identified and brought to justice,
“Recalling the letter of the Prime Minister of Lebanon to the Secretary-General
of 13 December 2005 (S/2005/783) requesting inter alia the establishment of a
tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found
responsible for this terrorist crime and recalling its request to the
Secretary-General in its resolution 1644 (2005) to help the Government of
Lebanon identify the nature and scope of the international assistance needed in
this regard,
“Having examined the report of 21 March 2006 submitted by the Secretary-General
pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1644 (2005) (S/2006/176), and welcoming
the common understanding reached between the Secretariat and the Lebanese
authorities on the key issues regarding the establishment and the main features
of a possible tribunal,
“Willing to continue to assist Lebanon in the search for the truth and in
holding all those involved in this terrorist attack accountable,
“1. Welcomes the report of the Secretary-General, and requests him to negotiate
an agreement with the Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal of
an international character based on the highest international standards of
criminal justice, taking into account the recommendations of his report and the
views that have been expressed by Council members;
“2. Acknowledges that the adoption of the legal basis of, and framework for, the
tribunal, would not prejudice the gradual phasing-in of its various components
and would not predetermine the timing of the commencement of its operations,
which will depend on the progress of the investigation;
“3. Requests the Secretary-General to update the Council on the progress of the
negotiation as he deems appropriate and to submit in a timely manner for the
consideration of the Council a report on the implementation of this resolution,
in particular on the draft agreement negotiated with the Lebanese Government,
including options for a funding mechanism appropriate to ensure the continued
and effective functioning of the tribunal;
“4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
Lebanese
ought to prepare themselves now for the fruits of dialogue
Friday, March 31, 2006
Editorial-Daily Star
Over the past few days, the Lebanese have watched television footage of their
leaders' disputes at home and abroad, in Cabinet and in the Arab League summit
in Khartoum. Having been subjected to this humiliating display of division, the
Lebanese are no doubt anxiously awaiting the resumption of the national dialogue
on Monday, in the hopes that the talks will give their leaders another chance to
resolve their differences.
In the best-case scenario, the dialogue will be conducted in a professional
manner, its participants will be successful in formulating agreements, and the
process will provide closure to the traumas that the Lebanese have recently
endured. In their deliberations, leaders will consider their citizens' interests
first, and the resulting accord will embody the hopes and aspirations of the
Lebanese people. With any luck, leaders will propose measures that will propel
the country out of economic misery, and an electoral law that reflects the need
of diverse communities to be represented in government.
In this best-case scenario, leaders will choose to allow for the sharing of
power beyond the traditional troika system. The end-result of this dispersing of
power would be for civil society to enjoy the fruits and the responsibilities of
greater participation in governance. Professional associations and
non-governmental organizations would enjoy a new position of influence and
become more involved in shaping public policy.
Admittedly, this best-case scenario is probably little more than a utopian dream
of what could result from the dialogue. But nonetheless, citizens ought to
prepare themselves for this possible outcome. Just as a runner must exercise and
train for a marathon, the Lebanese must prepare for the possibility that they
will be given a greater role in governance.
Lebanon already enjoys one of the most vibrant civil societies in the Arab world
and there are currently signs of civic activism aimed at improving the country.
A campaign recently launched by the Industrialist Association encourages
citizens to buy products made in their home country, with the aim of
invigorating a stagnant economy. Such activities are a good start, but the
Lebanese could do more to prepare themselves for the improbable success of their
leaders. By doing so, they will also be preparing themselves for the worst-case
scenario, in which their leaders fail to meet their aspirations, and they will
need to apply more pressure on their government to deliver.
Berri blasts Siniora over summit remarks
By Majdoline Hatoum
Daily Star staff
Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon's Speaker Nabih Berri scolded Premier Fouad Siniora Thursday
over his statement about the country's resistance during the Arab summit,
calling the premier's position "akin to a sin.""I thought that the zest for
resistance was present here in Lebanon more than in the Arab world, but you
proved the opposite during the Arab summit in Khartoum, Mr. Premier, and what
you did was almost a sin and I thank you for those words," Berri told Siniora
during a question and answer session in Parliament.
Siniora had demanded at the Arab summit Tuesday that an expression voicing
support for "Lebanon's resistance" be changed to read "support for Lebanon's
right to resistance."
Siniora's demand sparked an argument with President Emile Lahoud, who was
heading the official Lebanese delegation, but the final statement adopted the
draft by Lahoud, which many observers saw as an easy win for the president.
Defending his position, Siniora answered the question of Amal Movement MP Ali
Hassan Khalil, who demanded an explanation for what happened in Khartoum, by
saying that he was "misunderstood."
Siniora added that his demand that the expression be changed came because he did
not want to "jump the gun of the national dialogue's results," and because he
wanted "the country's national dialogue, that is dealing with specific issues
related to the resistance's arms, to succeed."
"What I said was very basic, and that is Lebanon's right to resistance ... based
on the fact that the resistance is not a right that is restricted to a certain
group in the country," Siniora said.
"But some tried to use my suggestion for his own ends, and I hope the real
reasons behind my request be understood," the premier added.
But Siniora's explanation did not convince Berri, who said the premier had made
three main mistakes. Berri said Siniora's first mistake was his participation in
the Arab summit in a delegation separate from the official Lebanese delegation,
"despite the fact that you told us you would go with the official delegation to
the summit ... we don't want to be represented in two delegations."
Berri also said the issue of the Lebanese resistance was not subject to
negotiations.
"We are discussing the issue of the resistance's arms on the dialogue table, but
the issue of Lebanon's resistance is not a matter of discussion ... I have said
before, speaking to reporters and sitting in your seat, that the resistance is
staying, staying, staying," Berri stressed.
"What is left, Mr. premier, is discussing the resistance's weapons within a
defensive plan to protect Lebanon," he added. Berri said Siniora had no right to
change the government's Ministerial Statement, which vowed support for the
resistance.
"You are not ruling according to a Ministerial Statement, Mr. premier, and
neither you, nor your Cabinet, can change it unless they go through the
Parliament first," Berri said. Siniora asked for the right to speak again
following Berri's lecture, but Berri dismissed his request and announced the
adjournment of the session. This came as Free Patriotic Movement leader MP
Michel Aoun said following a visit to Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir
that he will wait until Monday's national dialogue session to comment on what
happened in Khartoum. "It is regrettable that this argument took place before
our Arab brothers, but we will discuss it during the national dialogue," Aoun
said. The FPM leader, who is also a presidential candidate, said his visit to
Sfeir came to discuss current Lebanese issues, and not to garner the prelate's
support for his candidacy.
Hariri laments lost Arab initiative
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, March 31, 2006
The leader of Lebanon's Parliament majority, Saad Hariri, said Thursday that
talks aimed at breaking a long-running political deadlock were close to
resolving one of the most contentious issues - the fate of President Emile
Lahoud. "Solutions have actually been found to certain issues and there will
soon be a solution to the issue of the Lebanese presidency," Hariri told
reporters in Cairo after talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The
anti-Syrian majority in Parliament has been pushing for the ouster of Lahoud
since his Syrian-orchestrated mandate took place September 2004.
Hariri's meeting with the Egyptian president came only days after Mubarak met
separately with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Syrian Vice President
Farouk al-Sharaa.
Mubarak, who has long played a mediating role in the Middle East conflict, has
been trying to ease tensions between Lebanon and Syria following the
assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri, Saad's father. Lebanon, however,
remains in deep political crisis, with the national dialogue in danger of
failing following a rift between Siniora and Lahoud during the Arab summit in
Khartoum on Tuesday over a statement in support of Lebanon's resistance party,
Hizbullah.
In an interview with the Qatar-based Arab television station Al-Jazeera late
Wednesday, Hariri said that after Siniora visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia - where
the latter briefed the Arab leaders on the progress of the national dialogue -
the Lebanese premier decided to take part in the Arab Summit.
"I don't know whose advice he followed, but Egypt and Saudi Arabia support
Lebanon unconditionally," Saad said.
As the country waits patiently for the results of the "presidential argument,"
Hariri said he regretted that the Saudi peace initiative proposed two months ago
was ruled out by Lebanon's anti-Syrian bloc. Hariri said: "That was huge mistake
... but today we welcome any effort made by our Arab brothers. Lebanon today
needs every Arab initiative to end its crisis."
This came as Saudi Ambassador Adbel Aziz Khoja announced Thursday "there is no
Saudi initiative at the moment."Speaking following a visit to Grand Mufti
Mohammed Qabbani, Khoja said: "But the Kingdom supports the dialogue the
Lebanese are holding right now, and we are very optimistic about this
dialogue."When asked about Hariri's regret over refusing the earlier Arab
initiative, Khoja described him as a "brave man who stands up to his
responsibilities."
Nasrallah and Meshaal make defiant
pledge to keep their weapons
By Adnan El-Ghoul -Daily Star staff
Friday, March 31, 2006
The leaders of Hizbullah and Hamas, both under international pressure to disarm,
pledged Thursday in Beirut to keep their weapons and continue armed resistance
against Israel, threatening to "cut off the hand and the head" of any who try to
take the resistance's weapons, and to "rip out their soul."
Hizbullah's renewed pledge to keep its weapons came as rival Lebanese leaders
are locked in a national dialogue on the fate of pro-Syrian President Emile
Lahoud and a U.N. resolution calling for Hizbullah and Palestinian militias in
Lebanon to disarm.
Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed his party will keep its weapons,
reiterating that the resistance "will cut the hand and head of those who attempt
to disarm it by force and rip their souls out; however, we are ready to discuss
the issue on the table."
Nasrallah was speaking during the opening session of the Fourth General Arab
Conference to Back the Lebanese and Palestinian Resistance, held in Beirut at
Bristol Hotel, which was unexpectedly attended by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.
"Meshaal came to Lebanon only to attend the conference," according to a Hamas
spokesperson in Beirut. "This is not an official visit. He is expected to head
an official delegation and visit officials here towards the end of
April."Nasrallah said he believes the resistance is the destiny of the Arab and
Muslim nations and that it will prevail in the end. "Even if Hizbullah stopped
its resistance movement, other groups will emerge and continue the struggle."
Nasrallah said: "We went along with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, even
though it is a Zionist resolution and wants nothing more than to disarm the
resistance."
"However, the U.S.-Israeli plot against Lebanon and the resistance, and the
series of events that began by assassinating late Premier Rafik Hariri a year
ago, have been foiled by our unswerving dedication to our country and
principles," he said. Nasrallah added: "Before liberating the greater part of
the occupied land in the south, Israel and the U.S. tried to destroy the
resistance by force but failed. After the liberation in 2000, when they tried to
bribe us by offering to return Shebaa Farms, without demanding proof of its
Lebanese identity, and free the prisoners in return for giving up our weapons,
we refused to do so and they failed to seduce us."
He added that none can doubt, even inside the national dialogue, the legitimacy
and the solid reasoning of the resistance. Nasrallah also spoke of the founder
of the Amal Movement, Imam Moussa Sadr, who went missing during a visit to Libya
in 1978, saying: "We demand the release of Imam Sadr, who is imprisoned in
Libya." Libya claims the Imam left Libya and went missing in Italy.
A Libyan delegate attending the conference interrupted Nasrallah as the latter
spoke of Sadr, saying: "This is not true. This is misleading and has no proof
whatsoever."
Nasrallah responded by calling on the participants to discuss the issue and try
to see the truth. "We should always disagree within the limits of mutual
respect," he said. Meshaal also spoke during the conference, saying: "The
Islamist movement, which heads the new Palestinian government, will continue to
lead its armed struggle against Israel while in power." Meshaal argued
that Arab leaders and the political movement must change its tactics after
failing to achieve anything through the peaceful approach. "The resistance is a
main factor of strength that is needed even when the Arabs go to the negotiating
table or try peaceful means to restore their rights," he said. - With agencies
Lebanese president clashes with Cabinet ministers
Meeting aborted as March 14 loyalists walk out over heated
exchange
By Nafez Qawas -Daily Star correspondent
Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon's political elite became the country's laughing stock Thursday,
after a weekly Cabinet meeting erupted into the latest dispute in a long-running
political deadlock, with March 14 Forces' ministers and President Emile Lahoud
trading insults and ridiculing each other. The March 14 ministers walked out
shortly after the session commenced, following a verbal clash between
Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamade and the president. Hamade wished to
announce a political stand in the name of the parliamentary majority, whereas
Lahoud refused to listen to any issues in the presence of photographers.
When Hamade insisted on talking, Lahoud reiterated that the session hat not
started yet, asking the attendants: "Is this the scenario of a play? Do you
claim you represent the majority? You are a majority of actors."Acting Interior
Minister Ahmad Fatfat responded, saying: "[Egyptian actor] Adel Imam once asked
'who acts in Lebanon?'"
Lahoud ordered him to shut up, using an Arabic word based on the minister's
family name Fatfat, which in colloquial Arabic means "tear to pieces" or "make
minced meat of."
"Shut up before I Fateftak [tear you to pieces]," to which Fatfat replied: "You
already tore the country apart." Speaking to reporters, Fatfat announced that he
will file a lawsuit against Lahoud, adding that he had contacted the UN
international investigation committee chief Serge Brammertz and informed him
that Lahoud had threatened him.
The Cabinet session was scheduled at the Socioeconomic Council in the absence of
ministers Joe Sarkis and Elias Murr.Speaking to reporters upon his departure,
Hamade lashed out at the president, refusing to "turn back the hands of time to
the days of hegemony, tyranny and the intelligence regime under the alibi of the
resistance."
Responding to Lahoud's accusations that the majority was trying to disarm the
resistance, Hamade added: "We know how to defend the resistance, no one can
outbid us in the issue, especially those who traded with the
resistance."President Lahoud described what happened as "shameful, because we
attended the session in a bid to raise issues concerning the citizens and
instead of having ministers tackle such issues, they preferred to tackle issues
concerning them."
Lahoud added that the "illusive" majority apparently had planned to undermine
the session, adding that according to the law no one is allowed to make a
statement before the session starts.
Lahoud said the session was intended to discuss issues such as insurance for the
elderly, "but it seems that they have changed their priorities." "They used to
ask for the truth but now they want the head of the resistance and to put their
grip on Lebanon."
"This illusive majority will fail because there is no power greater than
justice," Lahoud added.
Asked about his remark, Lahoud said: "Apparently, Fatfat's preoccupation is now
to take the lead of offenders and started trading insults before leaving the
room and my reply was a political metaphor to politically bring him back to his
size."
Labor Minister Tarrad Hamade criticized the incident as "unacceptable."In an
attempt to ease the impact of the quarrel, Siniora moderately concluded that
"what happened today proves we should reach an agreement through dialogue and by
understanding the other and acknowledging that no one is more of a patriot than
the other."Siniora said: "It is shameful and disgraceful to bargain over the
blood of the late Premier Rafik Hariri ... and use it as a launching pad for
accusations against others."Siniora was expected to visit Switzerland on Friday,
but cancelled his trip at the last minute due to the recent development.A
statement released from the presidential information office described the
incident in Cabinet as "the insistence of the temporary ministerial majority to
create comedies to compensate their political failure and save face after losing
credibility before citizens." - With agencies
Earthquake
measuring 4.7 on Richter scale hits North of country
Daily Star staff-Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: "An earthquake measuring 4.7 on the Richter scale hit Lebanon Thursday
at 1.05 a.m., 100 kilometers from the Lebanese northern borders," according to
the chief of Seismography and Scientific Research Center in Bhannis, Mouin
Hamzeh. Speaking to Voice of Lebanon radio station on Thursday, Hamzeh added:
"The region's seismological stations, except Turkey, have not yet issued any
information but Bhannis center, which is part of the National Council for
Scientific Research, gave me this information Thursday morning."
He also said that people living near the area struck by the earthquake could
feel it, adding that earthquakes occurring at night can be felt more than those
that happen during the day.
Hamzeh said this earthquake is not the first occurring this month. Last week
"three earthquakes measuring between 3.2 and 3.5 Richter scale hit the country,
last of which was on Tuesday afternoon."He stressed there is not any relation
between this earthquake and the previous ones, adding these earthquakes are not
"dangerous" and people should not be afraid.
"The center does not reveal to the public the earthquakes that occur monthly
since they are considered as normal activity of the Earth's layers." amzeh
stated that "the current earthquake will not be followed by another quakes and
Bhannis center is so far confirming that the situation is calm."When asked if
there was any relation between the solar eclipse which happened Wednesday and
the earthquake, Hamzeh replied: "According to scientists, there is no scientific
relation between the two phenomena, it was merely by accident." He added: "If
there was any relation, the earthquakes recorded every month, which might
sometimes reach 40 per month and with a magnitude of less than 4, would be
caused by an eclipse." - The Daily Star
Bush expects Damascus to let Lebanese go their own way
By Leila Hatoum -Daily Star staff
Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: The U.S. "expects the Syrians to allow the Lebanese democracy to evolve"
and that Damascus extend full cooperation with the UN probe investigating the
assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri, U.S. President George W. Bush said
late Wednesday. "We spent a lot of time working with particularly France in
making it abundantly clear that we expect the Syrians to allow the Lebanese
democracy to evolve," Bush told Freedom House, an independent pro-democracy
group.
"I guess it's kind of hard to give up on a country in which you've had a
stranglehold," he added.
"There was a troop withdrawal, as you know. My main concern is to whether or not
they withdraw more than just troops; whether they withdraw intelligence services
and people that were in a position to influence the future of the country," said
Bush. He also added that it was "very important that there be full cooperation
in the [UN] investigation of the death of Mr. Hariri."
Syria has been accused by many Lebanese politicians and several members of the
international community of having a hand in assassinating Hariri, a thing which
Damascus has continuously denied.
Meanwhile, Lebanese politicians praised the UN Security Council Resolution 1664
regarding an international tribunal to try those accused of killing Hariri,
which was unanimously approved by the council's members.The resolution calls
upon UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to contact the Lebanese authorities
regarding the formation of the special tribunal.
Justice Minister Charles Rizk told AFP that Lebanon welcomed the move "which
reflects the excellent relations between Lebanon and the UN."He added: "We can
proceed very quickly ... The reputation of the slowness of the UN has been
contradicted in our case. We have been working fast because Lebanon is eager to
see the prompt creation of such a tribunal."
In an interview with French newspaper Le Monde published Friday, Rizk said
Lebanese law "will be applied by the tribunal" with one major exception that
"the tribunal will not apply the death penalty," which is forbidden under
international law. Rizk also said that the majority of the judges in the
tribunal "will be foreign, with the remainder being Lebanese to ensure the
independence of the tribunal."He added that Lebanon "will hold the financial
burden of the tribunal" because it is a Lebanese case.Future MP Atef Majdalani
considered the resolution as "another important step which confirms the interest
of the international community in Lebanon.""We are sure that revealing the truth
is near, and that the perpetrators will be tried and justice will prevail," he
said.Hariri's sister, Sidon MP Bahia Hariri said Thursday "the UN has issued a
decision calling for the forming of a tribunal of an international character...
this is a very critical phase and it needs much wisdom." - With agencies
Military Tribunal changes tune over Fatah boss
Abu al-aynain found not guilty after swift trial
By Hadi Tawil and Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff-Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: A Lebanese military court Thursday dropped a death penalty against the
head of Fatah here. Lebanon had sentenced Sultan Abu al-Aynain to death in
absentia in 1999 on charges of forming an armed gang and the illegal possession
of weapons. Abu al-Aynain was proven not guilty following a swift trial after he
handed himself over to the Lebanese authorities. Fatah's chief in Lebanon has
been living in Rashidieh refugee camp in Tyre. PLO official Khaled Aref told The
Daily Star that: "He turned himself in to the Lebanese authorities earlier
Thursday after receiving a promise from the government that the verdict would be
reviewed.""He met with several ministers who assured him the case against him
would be dropped."
In an interview with The Daily Star earlier in the week, Abu al-Aynain said:
"The ministerial delegations that visited the refugee camps assured me that my
case will be resolved soon.""I have full confidence in the Lebanese judiciary
system and I'm ready to present myself to be tried in front of the military
tribunal because I'm sure of my innocence," he added.Meanwhile Abu al-Aynain's
lawyer Hitaf Wehbe thanked the Lebanese government and said: "The Lebanese
government and judicial system has proven to be transparent and considerate
toward Abu al Aynain's and for that my client is thankful."Thursday's court
decision triggered armed militants to fire shots in the air at Rashidieh and Ain
al-Hilweh in celebration of what they considered a fair and long-awaited
decision. Lebanese leaders meeting at national dialogue talks, agreed earlier
this month to disarm Palestinian militants based outside the country's 12
squalid refugee camps and pledged to improve the living conditions of
Palestinians in Lebanon.
Farmers now able to certify as 'organic'
By Raed El Rafei -Daily Star staff
Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: With the worldwide expansion of organic agriculture, Lebanese farmers
have growing opportunities to find a niche in the international organic market,
according to speakers at a conference held on Thursday for the launching of
LibanCert, a Lebanese organic certification company. Although Lebanese farmers
could profit from the growth of the organic market in the world, only certified
farmers who meet strict standards can access these markets, said Beate Huber,
representative of FiBL, a Swiss institute for organic farming acting as adviser
to LibanCert. This is where LibanCert, operating under the umbrella of the
American University of Beirut, has a role to play. Following a process of
inspection and surveillance, the company grants certificates to operators
proving that their production farms and processing units are in conformity with
international organic standards, said the manager of LibanCert Roula Fares.
Organic farming is a production system that avoids or largely excludes the use
of synthetically compounded fertilizers and pesticides and conforms to strict
production standards.
Fares said that certification fees will be very competitive compared to those of
international certification bodies in order to encourage farmers to go
organic.While there are 420 certification bodies all over the world, very few
offer their services in Lebanon. Their disadvantage is that they charge high
prices and are not very knowledgeable about local conditions, Huber said.
For the moment, farmers certified by LibanCert will also automatically receive
the stamp of bio.inspecta, a Swiss body whose certifications are recognized
internationally. "It's just a transition until the company is stronger," said
Fares, adding that LibanCert is going to apply by the end of 2006 for an
accreditation by the International Standards Organization (ISO).LibanCert is
supported by the Swiss government. Swiss Ambassador Francois Barras said his
government's backing was part of "a program of technical assistance to support a
better access of Lebanese products to world markets."He added that the program
is in the framework of the free trade agreement signed in 2004 between Lebanon
and the European Free Trade Association. Part of the Swiss program is to help
the Association of Lebanese Organic Agriculture (ALOA) to market organic
products and improve access to local and international markets, Barras said.
Founded in 2005, ALOA aims at creating a national platform for the Lebanese
organic movement in order to enhance interaction among all organic stakeholders
in Lebanon and facilitate export of local organic products, Nada Omeira,
promotion coordinator at ALOA, said."We noticed that there was a lot of interest
in Lebanese organic products during our participation in the Middle East Natural
and Organic Products Exhibition in Dubai last year," Omeira added.
With a total market volume for organic products worth around $42 billion
worldwide in 2004, Lebanese farmers can profit from the international search for
new products and suppliers, Huber said. "Lebanon will not be able to compete
with cheap mass production but it will be able to compete with premium quality
products on the upper price-level required by the organic market," she
said.Economy and Trade Minister Sami Haddad assured that the Lebanese government
was fully supporting organic farming in Lebanon.
LibanCert is not the only Lebanese certification body. IMC Lebanon has been
working in affiliation with the Italian organic certification body IMC for the
past three years, said Wajdi Khater, agricultural coordinator at World Vision,
an international association supporting more than 200 local farmers working in
organic agriculture with a budget of around $8 million.
Currently, several associations such as Healthy Basket and World Vision support
organic farming in Lebanon. Their products are sold in a number of stores in
Lebanon but also in Souk al-Tayeb, which is Lebanon's first farmers' market of
organic and natural food products held every Saturday in Saifi village, Beirut.
Military court drops charges against Al-Qaeda suspects
By Karine Raad -Daily Star staff
Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon's Military Tribunal dropped legal charges against six Lebanese
and one Syrian accused of being part of an Al-Qaeda Organization, forming a
network that plans terrorist acts and holding suspicious meetings in preparation
for the purpose. The suspects will not be prosecuted for lack of evidence
against them, judicial sources said Thursday. In his verdict, the Investigating
Magistrate handling the case, Samih Hajj, ordered the release of Lebanese
defendants Mirza A., Fadi M., Ahmad Kh., soldier Jihad A., Haitham S., Nadim Kh.,
and Syrian Hussein F. two months after their arrest. The suspects had confessed
to going to Iraq and fighting the U.S. Army after Iraq's invasion. They were
arrested for 10 months in one U.S. detention camp there.
In his verdict, Hajj said the Lebanese defendants, who come from Akkar, decided
to enroll in a campaign organized in the wake of the U.S. war in Iraq and joined
the Arab fighters after they were armed by Iraqi Army prior to the collapse of
Saddam Hussein's regime with the help of Bashmarka Kurds. Upon their arrest,
they met the Syrian national, who was already arrested and imprisoned in the
same detention camp.
Known as Abu Qatada, the Syrian assumed the role of Imam in camp.
During the clean-up of the camp, a land mine exploded, amputating the legs of
Nadim, who was rushed to the British Hospital in Basra where he underwent
treatment for four months before he was deported to Lebanon through the
International Red Cross. Meanwhile, the others were released from prison.Hajj's
verdict indicated that early this year, Abu Qatada visited Lebanon to celebrate
Eid al-Adha with the Lebanese former inmates. They all held meetings during
which they discussed the circumstances of their arrest, and the oppression and
tyranny of the U.S. forces. During these meetings, the Syrian asked for the sum
$500 to support the Iraqi resistance. The Lebanese agreed to try to collect the
money but the security bodies, which monitored the meetings, apprehended the
defendants and seized CDs, including speeches by Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin
Laden. During the interrogation, Abu Qatada confessed that despite his
devoutness to religion, he is not member of any political or religious party and
does not support Al-Qaeda's activities.The rest of the suspects also denied
their intention to participate in any terrorist act, arguing that they bought
the CDs from the market where they are available for whoever wishes to purchase
them.The verdict said there was no evidence against the defendants, who did not
commit any act punishable by the law and therefore were set free.
Hariri insists president does not represent Lebanese,
backs Siniora's trip to summit
Daily Star staff-Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: The head of the Future parliamentary bloc, MP Saad Hariri, insisted on
Wednesday that President Emile Lahoud does not represent the Lebanese because
the extension of his mandate was imposed. Hariri added that Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora represented the Parliament majority at the Arab summit in Khartoum,
Sudan.
Speaking during an interview with Al-Jazeera television channel, Hariri
mentioned the ongoing national dialogue, where the Lebanese are trying to solve
their own problems by themselves, suggesting that Arab countries could play a
role in breaking the ice between and Lebanon and Syria.
The MP said it is Lebanon's democratic right to ask its president to resign,
adding that "Arabs are supporting Lebanon and its stability, not a person,
party, group or movement only."
Asked whether a demonstration of one million people in Lebanon would threaten
the ruling classes in Arab countries where a dozen demonstrators don't dare
protest, Hariri replied: "Every Arab country has its own system that regulates
relations with the people, as for Lebanon it is a country where democracy was
established 65 years ago."
Hariri said Lebanon does not want violence, adding: "we want the president to
step down without taking to the street."
Commenting on Lahoud's claim that the March 14 forces are manipulated by U.S.
and Israel against the resistance, Hariri said that his bloc has always
supported the resistance, adding that Lahoud's accusations are aimed at
"outbidding" the March 14 forces and "keeping the [presidential] chair."
On Siniora's response to Lahoud in Khartoum, Hariri emphasized that the premier
was trying to reach a Lebanese consensus by protecting the resistance, while
Lahoud tried to play an internal political game. "All participants in the
national dialogue pledged support for the resistance, but support is not
expressed by casting doubt on the other and what Lahoud did was cast doubt
Siniora's stands, which is completely unacceptable."
Asked why national forces would not hold a round table with Lahoud, the MP said:
"If we had a president like the others, and one who is rational as he should be,
he would have taken part in the national dialogue; but unfortunately our
president does not enjoy these qualities."
"I believe we will be done with the presidency issue within a month; all
countries support this dialogue and want it to succeed," he added. Hariri
objected to the logic of the overwhelming sectarian support for any candidate,
stressing that any premier, speaker or president serves all the Lebanese, not
just one category, with the agreement of all.
Asked what could Siniora and Syrian President Bashar Assad possibly raise in
their future meetings after they were seen in Khartoum shaking hands and
organizing a schedule for a series of meetings, Hariri said he still has not met
with Siniora since the premier's return from Sudan, but stressed the importance
of equal ties and diplomatic relations and demarcating the border between
Lebanon and Syria. Hariri added that the full implementation of Security Council
Resolution 1559 will serve Lebanon's interest because it stipulates the
withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.
"Syria already pulled out, so if the Shebaa Farms are proved to be Lebanese, two
resolutions, 425 and 1559, will help us free our territories from Israeli
occupation," Hariri said, adding that Lebanon will be the last country to sign a
peace treaty with Israel. - The Daily Star
Pro-Syrian MPs line up behind Lahoud
Nasrallah sends delegation to Baabda in show of solidarity
By Nada Bakri -Daily Star staff
Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: Pro-Syrian parties praised Thursday President Emile Lahoud's stance at
the Arab summit where he protested Premier Fouad Siniora's position on a draft
resolution in support of Hizbullah, with the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc
heading to Baabda Palace to show their appreciation. This position widened the
gap between Lebanon's ruling elite amid long-running political deadlock which
leaders have been trying to break through a series of national talks.
The strongest supporting position was that of Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah who called Lahoud directly to thank him for the firm position he took
against Siniora's stance, and then dispatched a delegation - the first in
several months - to the presidential palace to emphasize his solidarity.Siniora
asked, during a closed session of Arab leaders Tuesday, to change a sentence
calling for support for the "Lebanese resistance," to "support for the
resistance of the Lebanese people." His demand was refused by Lahoud, whose
position was unanimously backed by the summit's final statement.
"President Lahoud's stance reflected the position of the Lebanese people which
supports the resistance and its right to liberate our land which is still under
occupation," said Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad."The resistance will always be
loyal to those who have defended it and its accomplishments," added Raad.
Commenting on the possible resignation of Siniora's Cabinet in the wake of the
row that erupted in Khartoum, Raad said: "We are keen to continue the national
dialogue to reach a consensus that would protect Lebanon and preserve the
resistance."
Later in the day, anti-Syrian ministers stormed out of a Cabinet session headed
by Lahoud in protest at the president's criticism of Siniora. Asked whether
Siniora's position would affect the course of the national dialogue, Raad said:
"We are trying ... to absorb any negative resonance from Siniora's position and
seeking Lebanon's best interest."
Lahoud said his position is in line with his national convictions and reflects
the position of the majority of Lebanese. "The Lebanese will never give up such
a right as long as Israel continues its aggression against Lebanon and breaches
its sovereignty," Lahoud told Hizbullah MPs.
"All that has been said during the summit and afterwards does not eliminate the
constitutional and legal fact that I, as president, represent Lebanon
internationally ... this is why Arab leaders unanimously supported my stance,"
Lahoud said. Earlier Wednesday Hizbullah's leadership issued a statement in
which it praised Lahoud and described Siniora's stance as "illogical and
unacceptable by national standards."
"The president's position is a reflection of his national line and his
commitment to defend national principles," read the statement. "But what was
surprising was Siniora's position and its justification which is unacceptable
and illogical according to national standards." The statement further added that
Siniora had contradicted the ministerial statement and the speech he delivered
before Parliament to end the Shiite ministers boycott two months ago. "Hizbullah
believes this behavior will harm the Lebanese people and their accomplishments
let alone those of the resistance," the statement added.
Siniora responded to the statement by reiterating his support for the resistance
and its role in liberating South Lebanon. "This is my position on the
resistance. It has never, and will never change," sources close to Siniora
quoted him as saying.
Commenting on the presidents' dispute, the Free Patriotic Movement said the
incident proves the Lebanese are incapable of solving their problems. It also
urged politicians to admit the existence of a crisis that can only be resolved
through dialogue and consensus.
Nineteen charged in U.S. with racketeering to fund
Hizbullah
Friday, March 31, 2006
Prosecutors in Detroit charged 19 individuals with operating a smuggling ring
that helped fund Hizbullah with profits generated from smuggled cigarettes,
phony tax stamps, counterfeit Viagra pills and stolen rolling paper, according
to an indictment issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office Wednesday. U.S. Attorney
Stephen J. Murphy announced the indictment that alleges that portions of the
profits made from the illegal enterprise were given to Hizbullah. Nine of the
individuals were arrested Wednesday morning.
The indictment charges that between 1996 and 2004, a group of individuals worked
together in a criminal enterprise to traffic in contraband cigarettes,
counterfeit Zig Zag rolling papers and counterfeit Viagra, to produce
counterfeit cigarette tax stamps, to transport stolen property, and to launder
money. The enterprise operated from Lebanon, Canada, China, Brazil, Paraguay and
the United States. The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury on April 14,
2004, was sealed pursuant to a court order until Wednesday.
The alleged ring members who were arrested Wednesday and were operating from
Michigan are Fadi Mohammad-Mosbah Hammoud, 33, of Dearborn; Majid Mohammad
Hammoud, 39, of Dearborn Heights; Jihad Hammoud, 47, of Dearborn; Youssef Aoun
Bakri, 36, of Dearborn Heights; Imad Majed Hamadeh, 51, of Dearborn Heights;
Adel Isak, 37, of Sterling Heights; and Ali Najib Berjaoui, 39, of Dearborn.
Also arrested were Mohammad Fawzi Zeidan, 41, of Canton in Ohio and Karim Hassan
Nasser, 37, of Ontario in Canada.
Also named in the indictment, but not arrested because they currently reside
outside of the U.S. were: Imad Mohammad-Mosbah Hammoud, 37 of Lebanon, formerly
of Dearborn; Hassan Ali al-Mosawi, 49, of Lebanon; Hassan Hassan Nasser, 36, of
Ontario; Ali Ahmad Hammoud, 64, of Lebanon; Karim Hassan Abbas, 37, formerly of
Dearborn; Hassan Mohammad Srour, 30, of Montreal, Quebec; Naji Hassan Alawie,
44, of Ontario; and Abdel-Hamid Sinno, 52, of Montreal.
The indictment alleges that Imad Hammoud, along with his partner, Hassan Makki,
ran a multi-million dollar a year contraband cigarette trafficking organization
headquartered in the Dearborn, Michigan, area between 1996 and 2002. Makki
pleaded guilty in 2003 in federal district court in Detroit to racketeering and
providing material support to Hizbullah.
Some of the cigarettes were supplied to the organization by Mohammad Hammoud,
who was convicted in 2002 in federal district court in Charlotte, North
Carolina, of, among other crimes, racketeering and providing material support to
Hizbullah. Makki and Mohammad Hammoud, who were not charged in the indictment,
were identified as un-indicted co-conspirators. They are both currently serving
prison sentences relating to their activities in this matter.
The indictment charges that the group would obtain low-taxed or untaxed
cigarettes in North Carolina and the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation in New York
and bring them into Michigan and the State of New York for the purpose of
evading tens of millions in state cigarette taxes. The enterprise obtained large
profits by reselling the cigarettes at market prices in Michigan and New York.
The enterprise sometimes used counterfeit tax stamps to make it appear that the
state taxes had been paid. The indictment states that some ring members charged
a "Resistance Tax," being a set amount over black market price per carton of
contraband cigarettes, which their customers were told would be going to
Hizbullah. Some members of the enterprise also solicited money from cigarette
customers for the orphans of martyrs program run by Hizbullah in Southern
Lebanon to support the families of persons killed in Hizbullah military attacks
against Israeli troops. - Naharnet
Winning hearts and minds: Hizbullah shows how
Party of god runs extensive social program in marginalized
areas of the country
By IRIN News.org
Friday, March 31, 2006
BEIRUT: "The hand that fights, the hand that builds" is the Hizbullah slogan
that sums up the essence of Lebanon's "party of God": one hand to protect the
party's mainly Shiite following - with arms, if necessary; the other to improve
its living conditions. The two hands come together around the party's blue and
yellow collection tins that stand on every corner of south Beirut and throughout
South Lebanon.
The world generally focuses on only one aspect of Hizbullah: the hand holding up
a Kalashnikov rifle, as featured on the party flag. Countries such as the United
States, Israel and U.K. classify Hizbullah as a terrorist organization.
Earlier this week, Washington froze the U.S.-based assets of the Al-Manar
satellite television station and the Al-Nour radio station, along with those of
parent company Lebanese Media Group, said to be closely linked to Hizbullah.
The U.S. blames the group for a 1983 truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. marines
in Beirut. It also accuses Hizbullah of being behind a series of kidnappings of
U.S. nationals in Lebanon in the late 1980s.
UN Resolution 1559, adopted on September 2, 2004, calls for "the disbanding and
disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." So far, however,
Hizbullah - along with armed Palestinian groups present in Lebanon - have
refused to comply.
Founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hizbullah argues
that its armed wing is not a militia, but a legitimate resistance. According to
its 1985 manifesto, the group's aim was first to expel Israeli troops from
Lebanon and then to establish an Islamic state, not unlike Iran's ruling
theocracy.
"In the 1980s, Hizbullah didn't accept the Lebanese political system," said Amal
Saad-Ghorayeb, author of "Hizbullah: Politics and religion." "It truly believed
it could create an Islamic state in multi-confessional Lebanon. Today, however,
though it still believes in the establishment of an Islamic state, Hizbullah
operates fully as a political party within the Lebanese system. It is even part
of the government."
In elections last May, Hizbullah won 23 out of 128 parliamentary seats and
became a member of the current coalition government.
Hizbullah not only has armed and political wings - it also boasts an extensive
social development program. The group currently operates at least four
hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 schools and two agricultural centers that provide
farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental
department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also
cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hizbullah
members.
Most of these institutions are located in the country's more marginalized areas,
such as Beirut's southern suburbs, in South Lebanon and in the Bekaa Valley. "We
have special sections all over the country that provide financial and food
assistance to the poor," said Hizbullah spokesman Hussein Naboulsi. "We also run
an emergency fund for instant care in case of immediate hospitalization."
One beneficiary of Hizbullah financial aid is 35-year-old Alia. She and her
three children live in a one-room apartment 15 kilometers east of Beirut.
Originally Druze, Alia converted to Shiite Islam after marrying an Egyptian
Shiite, which led to her being ostracized by her family.
Life did not get any easier after her husband was sent to jail three years ago,
for reasons Alia prefers not to disclose. While she now works part-time as a
cleaning lady, Alia hardly has enough money to put food on the table.
"Fortunately, Hizbullah supports us with $100 month," she said. "It's still not
enough, but it keeps us alive."
According to the UNDP Living Conditions Index, 35.2 percent of the Lebanese
population lives below the satisfaction threshold. These are divided between
households with a very low degree of satisfaction (7.1 percent) and those having
a low degree of satisfaction (25 percent). Households having an intermediate
satisfaction represent 41.6 percent of households, which leaves 26.4 percent of
households with a high degree of satisfaction.
Geographically, the districts of Akkar, Baalbek, Nabatieh and South Lebanon
register the lowest annual average incomes. Hizbullah is strongly represented in
all these areas except for northern Akkar. "Last week, I visited a widow with
three daughters in Nabatieh," said Naboulsi. "We gave them a refrigerator, a
washing machine and a stove. Still, the poverty in which they live is shocking."
The group's social work is strongly rooted in the Shiite faith. Naboulsi cited
the example of the fourth Imam, Ali Zein al-Abedine (680 AD - 712 AD), who used
to anonymously leave food and money at the doors of the poor.
"For years, no one knew who the mysterious benefactor was," explained Naboulsi.
"But after Zein al-Abedine's death, the bags stopped coming and only then did
people realize it was him." According to Naboulsi, the Imam's example is one
reason Hizbullah prefers not to reveal the extent and value of its
socio-economic activities.
Another reason for secrecy, though, is that the party says it does not want to
give its enemies the chance to establish its social and financial strength. Most
experts believe that Hizbullah's social and health programs are worth hundreds
of millions of dollars annually.
Hizbullah mainly gets its money from donations. Lebanese Shiites often make
contributions directly after prayers, leaving change in the two-handed Hizbullah
collection tins. According to frequent accounts in the western press, the group
also receives considerable support from Iran and Syria.
"It's no secret that Hizbullah receives financial help from Iran, but not from
Syria," said Naboulsi. "Syria's too poor. People always point to the fact that
we get money from Iran, but don't mention the fact that the United States gives
$3 billion a year to Israel."
According to Naboulsi, donating money on a yearly basis, known as zakat is the
duty of any good Muslim. The Islamic holy book, the Koran, states that all those
who have the means should donate 2.5 percent of their wealth to the needy.
Despite increasing pressure from the United Nations and countries such as the
United States, the U.K. and France, Hizbullah refuses to give up its weapons.
This is mainly because it defines itself as "a resistance movement" rather than
a "militia," to which UN Resolution 1559 refers. According to Hizbullah, the
group will maintain its arms as long as Israel continues to occupy the Shebaa
Farms area in the extreme south of the country. The United Nations, however,
maintains that the Shebaa Farms are Syrian.
Most importantly, perhaps, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah has repeatedly
stated that the group is willing to disarm when presented with "a viable
alternative to resistance." "But as long as Israel remains a threat to Lebanon,
we have the right to bear arms," he maintains.
While most of Lebanon's parties continue to pressure Hizbullah to give up its
arms, Hizbullah - with the support of rival Shiite party Amal - categorically
refuses to do so. Consequently, the Cabinet, of which both are part, has been
paralyzed for months. - IRIN
Syria's
Assad Calls for Better U.S. Ties
By ALBERT AJI-The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; 8:48 PM
DAMASCUS, Syria -- Syrian President Bashar Assad has renewed his call for better
relations with the United States but at the same time criticized President
Bush's government, saying it does not care about peace.
In an interview with PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," Assad also warned that civil
war in Iraq would reverberate throughout Central Asia and the Middle East. The
fear that sectarian strife in Iraq could spread to neighboring states is shared
by many others in the Arab world. Syrian President Bashar Assad at the opening
of the 4th General Conference of Arab Parties in Damascus in theis March 4,
2006, file photo. Syria wants to have good relations with the United States
based on full cooperation in various areas, President Bashar Assad said in an
interview with a U.S. television network Wednesday March 29, 2006. He said Syria
has an interest in a stable Iraq but warned that a civil war in the war-ravaged
Arab country might spread to the Middle East and the oil-rich Gulf region. (AP
Photo/Bassem Tellawi) (Bassem Tellawi - AP)
"No one in the region wants bad relations with the United States. It is a great
power and the most advanced country in the world," Assad said in the interview
broadcast Monday, which he gave in English.
Assad indicated he felt that Washington had not given Syria enough credit for
sharing intelligence on terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York
and Washington. He said Syria had helped Washington "because what happened in
New York may happen in Syria."
Relations soured when the United States accused Syria of supporting Hezbollah
and Palestinian radical groups and allowing militants to cross into Iraq to
fight the U.S.-led multinational force there. The United States has placed
limited economic sanctions on Syria.
After the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in
February 2005, the United States recalled its ambassador from Damascus and has
repeatedly accused the country of interfering in Lebanon and failing to
cooperate with the U.N. investigation into Hariri's killing. Syria denies the
charges.
"You cannot have the good, normal and sophisticated kind of cooperation between
the intelligence (services) and at the same time you have animosity in the
political field," Assad said. "So, we either have normal relations across the
board as a package, or let us stop this cooperation."
Asked what he expected from the United States in return for Syrian intelligence
on terrorism, Assad said: "At least do not be against us. We don't want anything
from them. But not to be against Syria."
Assad has often called for a resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks, which
broke down in early 2000 during his late father's presidency. Israel has
rebuffed the call, saying Syria must first clamp down on Hezbollah and the
Palestinian radicals.
Syria would like Washington to use its influence with Israel to revive the
talks.
"We need peace," Assad said. "But (President Bush's) administration does not
care about peace or the peace process."
Syria denies enabling militants to go to Iraq to join the insurgency, and says
it is doing its best to maintain security along its 380-mile border with Iraq.
Assad's government does not regard groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as
terrorist, but as legitimate resistance movements against Israeli occupation.
Assad said the United States had walked into a quagmire in Iraq. He said he had
warned of this when he met U.S. officials and Congress members before the 2003
invasion.
Syrian President Bashar Assad at the opening of the 4th General Conference of
Arab Parties in Damascus in theis March 4, 2006, file photo. Syria wants to have
good relations with the United States based on full cooperation in various
areas, President Bashar Assad said in an interview with a U.S. television
network Wednesday March 29, 2006. He said Syria has an interest in a stable Iraq
but warned that a civil war in the war-ravaged Arab country might spread to the
Middle East and the oil-rich Gulf region. (AP Photo/Bassem Tellawi) (Bassem
Tellawi - AP)
He said he had told the Americans: "After you occupy Iraq, you will have chaos,
resistance, and you will have a swamp. You are going to sink in the swamp. And
what I said is happening everyday."
Assad voiced a general fear in the Arab world, saying he was concerned if civil
war broke out in Iraq, it could have a contagion effect spreading sectarian
violence to other countries including Syria.
"Central Asia, and the Gulf and the Middle East," Assad said. "We have the same
mosaic of society (as Iraq), and part of this chaos will be based on the matrix
of our society. So this will have an effect all over the region."
Like Iraq under ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, the longtime rulers of Syria
come from a minority sect which controls a majority from another sect.
The Assad family comes from the Alawite religious sect, a minority offshoot of
Shiite Islam which controls a majority Sunni population. Under Saddam, the Sunni
minority dominated the Shiite majority and Sunnis are now the driving force
behind a bloody insurgency.
The Syrian leader did not call for the United States to withdraw its forces from
Iraq. But if they remain in the country, he said the current situation would
continue.
Talk-show host Charlie Rose was scheduled to undergo heart surgery in Paris on
Wednesday after experiencing shortness of breath last week while in Syria, a
spokesman said.
Nasrallah stresses right of armed resistance
Posted: 30-03-2006
Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Thursday said that the
only way to face the occupation is through the armed resistance. Nasrallah added
during his speech at the General Arab Conference to back the resistance that the
Lebanese do not want to solve Israel's problems in Lebanon, and therefore, the
Palestinian refugee should return to their lands.
On Iraq, Nasrallah said that the resistance is the real and right choice to end
the occupation, adding that this should be strengthened through avoiding any
internal conflict.
Nasrallah also assured the conferees that the resistance in Lebanon is strong
and backed by the people.
the forth General Arab Conference to back the resistance was held at the Bristol
Hotel in Beirut. More than 350 Arab figures attended the gathering.
According to Manar TV, Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal said that the Oslo
accord is practically over and the so called road map is abandoned by its makers
and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and acting premier Ehud Olmert
completely destroyed it. Meshaal added that the struggle in Palestine has
reached a level of complete contradiction.
"If the resistance had failed to unconditionally liberate south Lebanon and the
Gaza strip, if the method of settlement succeeded in gaining back some esteem,
if Israel and the United States offered us with a project that deserves to be
considered, then imagine how hard the resistance would be rebuked and
criticized. With everything the resistance achieved, this confusion remains and
with all this failure of the method of settlement, they keep on attacking and
criticizing the resistance."
© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Hariri: Deal near on Lebanon president
Middle East On Line 30.3.06: Lebanon's parliamentary majority
leader says solutions have been found to certain issues about fate of Lahoud.
CAIRO - Lebanon's parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri said Thursday that
talks aimed at breaking a long-running political deadlock were close to
resolving one of the most contentious issues - the fate of pro-Syrian President
Emile Lahoud.
"Solutions have actually been found to certain issues and there will soon be a
solution to the issue of the Lebanese presidency," Hariri told reporters in
Cairo after meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The anti-Syrian majority in parliament has been pushing for the ouster of Lahoud
particularly over the murder of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri, whose
killing in a Beirut bomb blast in February 2005 has been blamed by many on
Damascus and its allies in Beirut.
The meeting came only days after Mubarak met separately with Lebanese Prime
Minister Fuad Siniora, one of Lahoud's top political rivals, and Syrian Vice
President Faruq al-Shara.
Mubarak, who has long played a mediating role in the Middle East conflict, has
been trying to ease tensions between Lebanon and Syria over assassination of
Hariri, the father of Saad Hariri.
UN reports have suggested top-level Syrian involvement in the murder, which
triggered a wave of domestic and international pressure that forced Damascus to
pull out its troops from its smaller neighbour in April last year.
Lebanon however remains in deep political crisis, with roundtable talks underway
aimed at breaking the deadlock over Lahoud's fate and the disarming of the
Shiite Muslim militia Hezbollah.
Reporters without borders/ Press release
IRAQ-RELEASE OF JILL CARROLL A "HUGE RELIEF"
30.03.06/Reporters Without Borders hailed the news of the release of US hostage
in Iraq, Jill Carroll, as a "huge relief", saying that the campaign on her
behalf had not been in vain.
The international press freedom organisation also praised the "exemplary"
courage and determination of her family.
"We thank all those throughout the world, particularly the major Arabic media,
who campaigned for the release of this young journalist," the organisation said.
But it added, "Our campaign will not be over until the three Iraqi reporters,
Rim Zeid, Marwan Khazaal and Ali Abdullah Fayad have been released in their
turn".
Reporters Without Borders expressed its extreme anxiety about a surge in
kidnapping and murders of journalists in Iraq. "To date, at least 86 journalists
and media assistants have been killed and 39 others have been kidnapped in the
country since the start of the conflict, on 20 March 2003. This targeted
brutality is repugnant and threatens the existence of independent news and
information in Iraq," the organisation added.
Head of the Islamic Party in Iraq, Tariq al Hashimi, told Agence France-Presse (AFP)
on 30 March 2006 that Jill Carroll had been released in the morning. A few hours
later a source at the Iraqi interior ministry said that the journalist was in
good health and had been taken to Baghdad's heavily-defended "Green Zone". Jill
Carroll's family and her newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, confirmed her
release.
Carroll, who worked for the US daily as well as for Italian and Jordanian media,
was abducted on 7 January 2006 in the Adel district, west of Baghdad. Her
interpreter, Allan Enwiyah was shot dead during the kidnapping.
Yesterday, the journalist's twin sister, Katie Carroll, made an appeal to the
kidnappers on Arabic television channels. In the past weeks, several Sunni
religious figures in Iraq and elsewhere in the world had called for her release.
Journalists Rim Zeid and Marwan Khazaal of the TV channel al-Sumariya were
kidnapped in Baghdad, on 1st February 2006. Ali Abdullah Fayad, journalist on
the tri-weekly al-Safir was abducted in Kut, south-east of the capital on 21
March 2006.
**Maghreb & Middle-East Desk
Lynn TEHINI
Reporters Without Borders
5 rue Geoffroy-Marie
F - 75009 Paris
33 1 44 83 84 84
33 1 45 23 11 51 (fax)
middle-east@rsf.org
www.rsf.org
Lebanon: UN adopts resolution 1664 for International
Tribunal
Thursday, 30 March, 2006 @ 6:54 AM
Beirut & New York -The Security Council today requested Secretary-General Kofi
Annan to negotiate an agreement with the Lebanese Government aimed at
establishing a tribunal of an international character to
try those found responsible for the February 2005 killing of former Lebanon's
Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others.
Unanimously adopting resolution 1664 (2006), the Council welcomed the
Secretary-General’s report of 21 March, in which he suggested the best outcome
would be a mixed tribunal with both international and Lebanese participation.
The Secretary-General added that it would be extremely difficult for the
tribunal to be located on Lebanese territory, due to concerns of security,
perceptions of objectivity and other factors.
In addition, the Council acknowledged that the adoption of the legal basis of,
and framework for, the tribunal would not prejudice the gradual phasing in of
its various components, and would not predetermine the timing of the
commencement of its operations, which would depend on the progress of the United
Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC), set up to
probe the 14 February 2005 killing.
Boutros Assaker, Acting Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Emigrants of Lebanon, welcomed the adoption of the resolution as a clear
indication of the international community’s strong commitment and determination
to punish all those involved in the killing. That, in turn, would deter
criminals and promote security and stability in Lebanon and throughout the
region. He expressed his Government’s readiness to use all available means to
arrive at a clear and solid text for the agreement defining the form and working
methods of the tribunal, adding that uncovering the truth and trying those
involved would strongly contribute to the consolidation of democracy in Lebanon.
"My government considers the unanimous vote on this resolution, coupled with
Lebanese consensus on the subject, as a clear indication of the international
community's strong commitment and determination to punish all those involved in
this terrorist crime," he told the Security Council.
By following up on the investigation of Hariri's murder, the tribunal will
"deter criminals and will promote security and stability in Lebanon and
throughout the region," he added.
Mr. Assaker pledged that his Government “will spare no effort” to conclude
negotiations on the matter as quickly as possible.
The resolution, sponsored by the United Kingdom and the United States, also
acknowledges that the adoption of a legal basis for the tribunal “would not
prejudice the gradual phasing-in of its various components and would not
predetermine the timing of the commencement of its operations, which will depend
on the progress of the investigation.”
In a preliminary report to the Security Council released a week ago, the
Secretary-General recommended that a mixed tribunal, with both Lebanese and
international participation, would best serve justice.
"That balance would be determined by such important characteristics as the
tribunal's founding instrument, applicable law, location, composition and
financial arrangements," it added.
Among the issues that must be considered, he said, is whether or not all
terrorist attacks in Lebanon since 1 October 2004 should fall into the
jurisdiction of the tribunal, since the Council has raised the possibility that
the UNIIIC could expand its scope.It noted that Lebanese authorities believe
that for security reasons the court should be established outside Lebanon.
Belgian prosecutor Serge Brammertz, who is currently leading a six-month U.N.
probe of the Feb. 14, 2005 slaying, earlier this month cited progress in the
investigation but stressed that Syrian cooperation would be crucial to make
further headway.
Two previous reports by Brammertz's predecessor, German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis,
had suggested top-level Syrian involvement in the assassination, and blasted
Damascus for failing to cooperate and actively seeking to mislead the
investigation.Syria, the longtime powerbroker in Lebanon, has denied any
involvement in Hariri's murder and accused the U.N. panel of political bias.
The full text of resolution 1664 (2006) reads as follows:
“Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 1595
(2005) of 7 April 2005, 1636 (2005) of 31 October 2005 and 1644 (2005) of 15
December 2005,
“Reiterating its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and
exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon,
“Mindful of the demand of the Lebanese people that all those responsible for the
terrorist bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and
others be identified and brought to justice,
“Recalling the letter of the Prime Minister of Lebanon to the Secretary-General
of 13 December 2005 (S/2005/783) requesting inter alia the establishment of a
tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found
responsible for this terrorist crime and recalling its request to the
Secretary-General in its resolution 1644 (2005) to help the Government of
Lebanon identify the nature and scope of the international assistance needed in
this regard,
“Having examined the report of 21 March 2006 submitted by the Secretary-General
pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1644 (2005) (S/2006/176), and welcoming
the common understanding reached between the Secretariat and the Lebanese
authorities on the key issues regarding the establishment and the main features
of a possible tribunal,
“Willing to continue to assist Lebanon in the search for the truth and in
holding all those involved in this terrorist attack accountable, “1. Welcomes
the report of the Secretary-General, and requests him to negotiate an agreement
with the Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal of an
international character based on the highest international standards of criminal
justice, taking into account the recommendations of his report and the views
that have been expressed by Council members;
“2. Acknowledges that the adoption of the legal basis of, and framework for, the
tribunal, would not prejudice the gradual phasing-in of its various components
and would not predetermine the timing of the commencement of its operations,
which will depend on the progress of the investigation;
“3. Requests the Secretary-General to update the Council on the progress of the
negotiation as he deems appropriate and to submit in a timely manner for the
consideration of the Council a report on the implementation of this resolution,
in particular on the draft agreement negotiated with the Lebanese Government,
including options for a funding mechanism appropriate to ensure the continued
and effective functioning of the tribunal;
“4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
Sources: UN, Ya Libnan
18 charged in smuggling case
U.S. attorney says group illegally brought in cigarettes, fake Viagra to raise
funds for Hezbollah.
DETROIT -- The U.S. Attorney's Office on Wednesday indicted 18 people it alleged
took part in a multimillion-dollar international conspiracy to smuggle
cigarettes, counterfeit Viagra and other goods to raise money for the Mideast
terrorist group Hezbollah.
The tobacco-smuggling operation was based in Dearborn and shipped up to $500,000
a week worth of untaxed and low-tax cigarettes, according to a grand jury
indictment unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Detroit. Part of the
fundraising effort also involved the sale of counterfeit Viagra shipped from
China and Eastern Europe, the indictment alleges.
"The enterprise operated from Lebanon, Canada, Brazil, Paraguay, China, North
Carolina, Florida and the Dearborn, Mich., area, perpetrating crimes in the
states of Michigan, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina and
West Virginia (and points in between)," the indictment alleges.
The federal government estimates the state of Michigan lost $20 million in taxes
as a result of the smuggling. There is no estimate of how much money went to
Hezbollah, officials said.
Some smuggled cigarettes were supplied by Cattaraugus Indian Reservation
residents near Irving, N.Y., the indictment alleges. Also, thousands of cartons
were bought after they were stolen from the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company in
Kentucky, the indictment alleges.
Tens of thousands of generic virility tablets were sold as if they were
name-brand Viagra manufactured by Pfizer, the indictment alleges.
The alleged scheme, operated from 1996 to 2004, also involved the manufacture
and purchase of counterfeit stamps placed on cigarette packages to show taxes
had been paid on them.
"This indictment represents a major effort of our office," U.S. Attorney Stephen
Murphy said.
Though no specific terrorism counts were part of the indictment, Murphy said the
case is a key one in his agency's fight against what has become its No. 1
priority. Hezbollah, a group founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli occupation in
southern Lebanon, is seen as a legitimate resistance force by many in Lebanon
and elsewhere, but is deemed a foreign terrorist organization by the State
Department.
The smuggled cigarettes were sometimes subject to a "resistance tax," which
customers said would be sent to Hezbollah, the indictment alleges.
Imad Hamad, Michigan regional director of the American Anti-Discrimination
Committee, said he objects to the stamp of terrorism being routinely placed on
criminal cases involving Arab-Americans or people of Muslim faith.
"An indictment does not mean a conviction," Hamad said.
Nine men were arraigned in U.S. District Court in Detroit on racketeering
charges Wednesday. The charges could bring up 20 years in prison and fines of up
to $250,000 for each accused. All but two were released on unsecured bonds and
ordered to surrender their passports. A 10th man, Theodore Schenk, 73, of Miami
Beach, Fla., is to be arraigned on April 10. The other eight men indicted are
fugitives now living in Canada, Lebanon or elsewhere outside the country, Murphy
said.
"The family is denying everything," said Maurice Herskovic, a lawyer for Imad
Majed Hamadeh, 51, of Dearborn Heights, one of the men accused in the alleged
conspiracy and arrested Wednesday. Friends and relatives of the men who attended
the arraignment declined to comment.
Among those arraigned were three Hammoud brothers: Fadi Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud,
also known as Fadi Musbah Hammoud, 33, of Dearborn; Majid Mohamad Hammoud, also
known as Mike Hammoud, 39, of Dearborn Heights; and Jihad Hammoud, also known as
Jay Hammoud, 47, of Dearborn. A fourth brother, Imad Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud,
also known as Jacob Hammoud, 37, formerly of Dearborn, is a key figure in the
conspiracy and a fugitive now believed to be living in Lebanon, assistant U.S.
Attorney Kenneth Chadwell told the court.
Also arraigned Wednesday were Karim Hassan Nasser, 37, of Windsor; Youssef Aoun
Bakri, 36, of Dearborn Heights; Ali Najib Berjaoui, 39, of Dearborn; Mohamad
Fawzi Zeidan, 41, of Canton Township; and Adel Isak, 37, of Sterling Heights.
Indicted, but not yet arraigned, in addition to Imad Hammoud, were Hassan Ali
Al-Mosawi, 49, of Lebanon; Hassan Hassan Nasser, 36, of Windsor; Ali Ahmad
Hammoud, 64, of Lebanon, who is an uncle of the Hammoud brothers; Karim Hassan
Abbas, 37, formerly of Dearborn; Hassan Mohamad Srour, 30, of Montreal; Naji
Hassan Alawie, 44, of Windsor; and Abdel-Hamid Sinno, 52, of Montreal.
You can reach Paul Egan at (313) 222-2069 or pegan@detnews.com.
Urgent: Assad Shakes Hands with Siniora
Daoud Shirian Al-Hayat - 30/03/06//
The low-level representation in Khartoum summit is not the first of its kind.
The previous Arab summits witnessed a minimal representation and non-attendance
that outstripped what happened in the current summit. In fact, in Oman summit,
held in 1980, half of the Arab countries refrained from attending. Moreover, the
minimal representation was and still is the most important characteristic of
Arabs summits. Securing this representation has become part of the Arab
political culture. Moreover, the reluctance of leaders in representing their
countries does not convey political orientations as much as it reflects the very
special circumstances of leaders and their relations with one another. Pondering
over the names that were absent during the summit, we find that every leader has
known circumstances that impeded him from attending. Thus, the problem of
Khartoum summit does not lie in the low-level representation but in the failure
of the Arabs to face the pressing issues put forth therein.
Khartoum's summit is tackling three basic issues that represent a challenge for
the common Arab action and threaten, once again, the solidarity of the Arab
consensus and its inability to take a unified stance thereto. The first one is
the US-Iranian dialogue with respect to Iraq and its ensuing marginalization of
the Arab role, and the growing power of Iran in this country. The second one is
taking a clear stance vis-à-vis Hamas government and upholding the choice of the
Palestinian people, with the subsequent confrontation of the US and European
orientations. The final issue is the Arab confusion with respect to dealing with
the problematic relationship between Syria and Lebanon. All these three files
lack the minimum level of reconciliation thereon. The Arabs do not agree on a
mechanism to face the US-Iranian dialogue project since rebuffing it means
confronting Washington and endorsing it stands for a voluntary surrendering of a
potential Arab role in Iraq. When it comes to this issue, the Arabs are divided
into two parties. The first one identifies with the US will and considers that
the Arab role will be asserted through the Iraqi participation in this dialogue.
The second believes that the Iraqi presence in this dialogue does not represent
all the specters of Iraq and may take place at the expense of the Sunnis of
Iraq. Thus, it does not convey the Arab interests. But this party is reluctant
to promulgate and express this will. The proclamation of this vision in this
manner may be mistaken for the fact that the Arab interest does not heed the
interests of the Sunnis in particular or that the official Arab policy is Sunni-
biased and oriented.
The stance vis-à-vis the government of Hamas was the least complicated and
delicate during this summit, since most of the Arab are inclined not to uphold
the political agenda of Hamas movement, fearing of being accused of backing
terrorism. They consider that their consent to support the PA and secure the
needs of the Palestinian people exempts them from taking a political stance,
though neutral, towards Hamas' orientations. Moreover, everyone in this summit
agrees on readdressing the Arab peace initiative and the political orientations
of Hamas do not comply with this initiative. As such, reluctance to support
Hamas is in conformity with the Arab "consensus" on the peace issue and exempts
the participants from upholding the choice of the Palestinian people before
their people and the Palestinian people. Moreover, the political regimes in the
Arab world are almost completely convinced that the Palestinian people did not
vote for Hamas for political motives related to peace or resistance, but rather
in an eager drive to halt corruption and change the current administration.
As for the Arab stance towards the Syrian-Lebanese relations, it is ambiguous.
Siding with Syria to face the US and international pressures may lead, according
to some governments, to rebuff international resolution 1559 and even to
"support terrorism" according to the US interpretation. Siding with Lebanon will
be interpreted as upholding the campaign against Syria. This is why everyone
avoided raising this issue on the summit's agenda in order to fend off
international and Arab embarrassment. This is despite the fact that the standoff
between Syria and Lebanon, with its repercussions, has overstepped the brethren
conflicts the Arab summits are used to dealing with in lobbies and during
nocturnal visits between delegations. The standoff between Syria and Lebanon
became, or was about to become, a gateway for a regional crisis that goes beyond
the Syrians and the Lebanese. This is probably why the Arab media outlets were
pleased with the handshake between Bashar Assad and the Lebanese Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora as if being a handshake between the Syrian President and the
Israeli President, reflecting the extend of the relations break up between the
two countries.
It is indubitable that Khartoum's summit deserves to be an Arab summit par
excellence, since it disregarded the crucial issues and failed even to assume a
role in reconciliation and confrontation. It conveyed to us the extent of
change, weakness, disintegration that afflicted the Arab policy. The comparison
between the last summit held in Khartoum in 1967 and the latest summit clearly
reveals that the so-called common Arab action is breathing its last throes. The
Arabs' lack of interest in the position of Secretary General and their
abstaining to propose their candidates to compete with Amro Moussa for the
position, as it was previously the case, is an undisputable indication that the
Arabs have excluded collective action from their calculations, thus, excluding
the Arab League from their field of interest.
UN gives green light to international court for Hariri’s
murder
The decision was taken unanimously by the Security Council.
Lebanese and international judges will sit in the court. Beirut said the
resolution will lead to peace in the region.
30 March, 2006 Beirut (AsiaNews/Agencies) – An international court will judge
those charged with the murder of the former Lebanese premier Rafic Hariri. The
United Nations Security Council yesterday unanimously approved a resolution
submitted by France, Great Britain and the United States, calling on the UN
Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to negotiate with Beirut to launch a court of
Lebanese and international judges. For security reasons, the court will not be
based in the country of the Cedars. A while ago, the Lebanese government
officially submitted a request for the setting up of a court “of international
nature” to try people linked to Hariri’s murder, which could expand its brief to
cover also political assassinations of anti-Syrian personalities committed after
October 2004.
The last request is not mentioned in the UN decision that follows a report by
Annan issued last week. Annan’s report was based on the conclusions of the
United Nations Legal Counsel, Nicolas Michel that maintained the need for “more
in-depth research” into the matter. The positive effect that the unanimity of
the Security Council’s vote could have on developments in the Lebanese scenario
was stressed by Beirut’s representative at the UN, Boutros Assaker. “The strong
commitment and determination” of the international community manifested in the
vote will, in his view, “deter criminals and will promote security and stability
in Lebanon and throughout the region”.
In Resolution 1664, adopted yesterday, the Security Council also renewed its
appeal for “rigorous respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity
and political independence of Lebanon, under the unique and exclusive authority
of its government”.
Lebanese President Praises Syria, Hizbullah
20:03 Mar 29, '06 / 29 Adar 5766
(IsraelNN.com) In his address to the Arab League summit in Khartoum today,
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud praised the former military occupiers of his
country, the Syrians, and called for protecting and preserving the terrorist
Hizbullah organization, which he called "a symbol for steadfastness and
dignity."
"The summit affirmed Lebanon's right to maintain the resistance against Israeli
occupation, using all means," he said, referring to Hizbullah's armed attacks on
Israel's northern border. As for Syria, Lahoud called the Ba'athist
dictatorship, "the country that has always stood by [Lebanon's] side."
Most Lebanese consider Lahoud a puppet of the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria,
particularly in light of his mandate to rule having been extended by Syria and
against local wishes. The divide was given expression in the fact that the Arab
League meeting was attended by the Lebanese prime minister, as well, but he
arrived in a separate delegation from Lahoud.
Syria's Assad calls for better ties with US but says Bush doesn't
Posted: 3/30/2006 6:17:35 AM
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Syrian President Bashar Assad has renewed his call for
better relations with the U-S. But Assad says the Bush administration doesn't
care about peace. In an interview with P-B-S' "The Charlie Rose Show," Assad
also warned that civil war in Iraq would have repercussions throughout Central
Asia and the Middle East. Speaking in English, Assad said "No one in the region
wants bad relations with the United States. He said Washington hasn't given
Syria enough credit for sharing intelligence on terrorists after Nine-Eleven.
Assad said Syria cooperated because "what happened in New York may happen in
Syria." After the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri
last year, the U-S recalled its ambassador from Damascus and has repeatedly
accused the country of interference. Syria denies the charges.
©2006 Associated Press.
HOW TO LOSE THE WAR ON TERROR
PART 1: Talking with the 'terrorists'
By Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke
Seventy-two hours before the Iraqi people voted on a new parliament, on December
12, 2005, we were told by a senior US administration official that "detailed
data received by the White House" pointed to a "decisive win" for Ayad Allawi's
Iraqi National List. "Allawi's victory turns the tables on the insurgents," this
official said gleefully. "Sectarianism will be the big loser."
Allawi's prospective triumph was trumpeted repeatedly over the next two days by
US news networks quoting administration officials. Weeks later, after the
results of the election became known, it was clear that the White House had
overestimated Allawi's popularity: his party received just over 5% of the vote.
On the eve of the Palestinian parliamentary elections in late January, US-funded
Palestinian polls suggested that while the mainstream Fatah movement had lost
much of its popular support, Hamas was expected to win no more than "a third of
the legislature's 132 seats". [1] On January 27, when the results of the polling
were complete, it was clear not only that Fatah had been defeated, but that
Hamas had swept into office in a landslide. A prominent front-page article in
the Washington Post stated that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was
"stunned" by the results, as the Hamas victory contradicted everything the
administration of President George W Bush believed about Palestinian society.
[2]
Just two weeks after the Hamas victory, on February 6, Lebanese Maronite leader
Michel Aoun and Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah appeared together in Beirut to sign a
memorandum of understanding between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah.
The Aoun-Nasrallah agreement shook the State Department, which had worked for
years to isolate Hezbollah.
The US had underscored its anti-Hezbollah strategy as recently as November 23,
when Aoun met with State Department officials in Washington. The State
Department blithely discounted the importance of the talks that Aoun's movement
had been having with Hezbollah and reassured the press that Aoun would remain a
staunch supporter of the United States' Lebanon policy. Certainly, it was
believed, the leader of Lebanon's Maronite Christians would never tie the future
of his own movement to that of a group allied with Damascus and Tehran.
In the aftermath of the Aoun-Nasrallah agreement, however, all of that changed:
not only was Aoun's support for the US-led program against Syria in question,
his agreement with Hezbollah meant that he was justifying Hezbollah's alleged
kidnapping of Americans in Lebanon during the 1980s. [3] Overnight, it seemed,
Aoun had gone from being a friend of the US to a man allied with terrorists.
Allawi's failure, Hamas' success, the Aoun-Nasrallah agreement - and the
inability of the West to predict, shape or even understand these seminal events
- have been variously interpreted: as a signal that the US intelligence
community needs increased resources, that the West has not been doing enough to
sell its "program" in the region, that the US and its allies have not been harsh
enough in their condemnation of "radicalism", that the West has underestimated
the amount of support its secular allies need, and (in the case of the
Palestinian elections) that Hamas didn't really win at all - "Fatah lost."
We have reached a much more fundamental and alarming conclusion: Western
governments are frighteningly out of touch with the principal political currents
in the Middle East. The US and its allies overestimated Ayad Allawi's strength,
were "stunned" by Hamas' win, and were surprised by the Aoun-Nasrallah agreement
because they don't have a clue about what's really going on in the region.
But why?
With the exception of Israel (where a US and European appreciation of realities
is critical to the formulation of policy), there are, inter alia, five political
movements and governments in the Middle East of undeniable importance: Iran,
Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The governments of the West
don't talk to any of them.
They do talk to the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Persian
Gulf region; but the net result of most of these contacts is that Western
governments are dependent for information about the region on a set of clients
who, as often as not, are mere reflections of what Westerners want the Middle
East to be, rather than what it actually is: Ayad Allawi, who was wrong when he
reassured US officials that Iraq's voters would reject sectarianism, Fatah,
which was wrong when it told us that their acceptance of US funding for their
campaign would enhance their legitimacy among Palestinian voters, and Lebanese
leader Saad Hariri, who was wrong when he told the US government that its
program for isolating Hezbollah would work.
This clientism is not new; rather, it is a continuation of the misreading that
led US and British officials to believe their soldiers would ride to Baghdad
along flower-paved highways.
Once again, we're being "Chalabied". [4]
First encounter
In August 2004 - in an attempt to provide an opening to political Islam - a
delegation including the writers of this article traveled to Beirut for
discussions with the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. We were accompanied by
Bobby Muller, a well-known American veterans advocate and a political activist
recognized for his leadership of the anti-landmines campaign, and Dr Beverley
Milton-Edwards, a professor at Queens College, Belfast, and an expert on Hamas.
Our purpose was to begin a process that, we hoped, would eventually persuade
Western governments to recognize and open up to political movements whose
political legitimacy was derived from a broad base of popular support in their
own communities. We knew our meetings would be controversial: both Hamas and
Hezbollah were on the US and European Union lists of proscribed terrorist
organizations, both had either been accused of participating in or had actually
participated in the targeting of civilians, and both had vowed continued enmity
to Israel - which enjoyed the strong support of the United States and its
European allies.
Even so, the public statements of Hamas and Hezbollah reflected a desire to
reinforce their political legitimacy by espousing elections - Hamas was then
considering entering candidates in prospective Palestinian parliamentary
elections, while Hezbollah was engaged in a national parliamentary campaign in
which its candidates were gaining increasing support. Then too, and
notwithstanding Bush administration statements linking both groups with al-Qaeda
"and related groups", both had condemned the events of September 11, 2001, both
had publicly stated their willingness to open contacts with the United States
and Europe, and both had maintained that their conflict with Israel was
legitimate and had nothing to do with the West.
Ours was one of the first organizations to seek such an opening, although
various church organizations and one US think tank had engaged in discussions
with the groups. But nothing had come of these meetings. In one case, during a
conference in the Gulf region with officials of the Brookings Institute's Saban
Center, the leaders of both Hezbollah and Hamas left the discussions in anger
"after we were harangued about 'terrorism'.
We thought little could be gained by an exchange of accusations, so we worked to
reassure our interlocutors that it was not our intention to engage in lectures,
or to present ultimatums in advance of our discussions. As a further
reassurance, we told the leaders of both movements that it was our intention to
listen - and not just talk. We proposed that we not call our meetings a
"dialogue" but "an exercise in mutual listening".
After several more private preliminary meetings, we convened two larger
engagements, bringing a group that included former senior US and British
diplomats and retired officers of Western intelligence services to Beirut in
March and July last year. By then, our "exercise in mutual listening" had been
expanded to include the Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan's Jamaat e-Islami.
Even so, our focus remained on Hezbollah and Hamas.
We asked each group to begin the sessions by making a presentation on "where you
see the Middle East now, how you view your role in it, and where you see it
going". Our discussions were blunt, touching on nearly all the subjects
sensitive to the groups and to the West: suicide bombings, attacks on Israel,
the compatibility of democracy and Islamic law, philosophies of governance, the
compatibility of Islamic economics and globalization, their views on al-Qaeda
and radical Islam - as well as issues of particular interest to them.
We knew there would be difficult moments in our discussions, and our delegation
came prepared: every delegate had served in the Middle East, often in conflict
situations. All of our team, without exception, knew the history of the groups
we would be speaking with and all were familiar with their personalities,
leaders and political goals. Many had served in high-level positions - as
ambassadors, military officers, or as senior officials in Western intelligence
services.
While our meetings with the leaders of political Islam were not a secret, the
meetings themselves were private. Because of the sensitivity of the topics we
covered, a number of our delegates preferred that their participation not be
highlighted and that statements made during the more informal sessions that
occurred between sessions not be used at all. Finally, we confirmed that -
unless explicitly agreed to by individual delegates - we could characterize what
was said only in general terms.
This said, our delegations (the members of which varied through two meetings
over a period of five months) included the original four Conflicts Forum
delegates, plus three former officers of the US Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA), a well-known television producer, a former member of the Mitchell
Commission, [5] a former ambassador, two Middle East activists, and the head of
a US foundation focused on the Middle East.
A number of delegates were anxious to confront our interlocutors - and
particularly Hamas and Hezbollah - over their use of violence, a number of
others were skeptical of any of the groups' claims for engagement with the US,
and nearly all of our delegates had suffered the loss of close friends in the
region's conflicts. In no sense could it be said that any member of our
delegation arrived in Beirut sympathetic to the groups to whom we were speaking.
Sympathy was not what was required, but a hard-headed and unsentimental
appreciation that US and other Western interests require that we look at facts
as they are.
Hezbollah: 'Not a threat to America'
Our Hezbollah interlocutor, Nawaf Mousawi (the chief of the group's foreign
relations department), was pressed repeatedly to explain Hezbollah's reputed
attacks on Americans during the 1980s in the midst of the Lebanese Civil War. He
was closely questioned on his movement's role in the bombing of the US Marine
Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983, on the torture and death of marine Colonel
Rich Higgins, and his organization's ties to terrorist mastermind Imad Mugniyah,
who is thought to be the head of the movement's external security apparatus.
Mousawi's response was forceful and blunt: "We have no American blood on our
hands." He repeated this statement several times to the point of insistence.
When pressed again to explain Hezbollah's ties with Imad Mugniyah, Mousawi
refused to mention his name, shook his head, and confronted his questioners: "If
we open every file on the civil war, then the Americans would not be able to set
foot in the office of any political party in Lebanon.
"Everyone in the US administration knows we are not a terrorist organization or
a threat to America," he said. "This is about politics and Israel's
psychological headache of Hezbollah. We are not raising our children to hate
America. Israel is our enemy; but not the Jewish people - this is not a
religious war against the Jews. Our war is against occupation - that is it."
In later, private, discussions with a number of our delegates, Mousawi repeated
his claim that Hezbollah was not affiliated with Mugniyah and that the
organization "does not have American blood on our hands".
The exchange with Mousawi, and his insistence and unwavering tone, spurred
several of our delegates to return to the US to reinvestigate the period of the
Lebanese Civil War. Former and current US officials were closely questioned on
the source of their information on Hezbollah activities in the 1980s and on the
organization's ties to Mugniyah.
The exchanges in Washington cast doubt on Mugniyah's current ties to the
organization and on the movement's role during the era of hostage-taking in the
early 1980s. In short, these reports suggested that information on Hezbollah's
participation in past terrorist actions against US institutions and individuals
may well have been based on informants with an ax to grind. Charges of
Hezbollah's responsibility for anti-American terrorism may well have been
reported to US intelligence services to undermine Hezbollah's growing influence
in South Lebanon at the expense of other parties.
But even if these past incidents ("the baggage they bring to the table", in the
words of one delegate) were somehow to be cleared up, there is little hope for a
direct US-Hezbollah engagement. "This will take a lot of time and a lot of work.
It won't happen easily and it won't happen fast - and it might not happen at
all," a former CIA officer said in the wake of our discussions. "There is just
too much distrust."
Hezbollah leaders maintained during the course of our discussions that their
actions were and are justified and can be defended as legitimate resistance. "We
do not target civilians," Mousawi said in our March 2005 meetings. "Even when
Israel was occupying southern Lebanon we were absolutely diligent in making
certain that our actions did not endanger Israeli civilians, and we even stopped
operations where Israeli families of military personnel would have been
endangered by our actions. You cannot say the same for Israel."
Hezbollah's claims that its use of arms was simply a matter of self-defense was
met with widespread skepticism, as was its attempt to play down its support for
Syria and Iran and its dependence on both for political and (in the case of
Iran) financial support. Despite this, Mousawi emphasized the Lebanese character
of his movement: "We are Lebanese," he said. "We were born here. We will die
here. We did not come from somewhere else."
Mousawi was adamant in responding to US demands that the movement disarm and
renounce violence. "I believe that to have a fruitful policy in the region
Israel must be confronted," he said.
"Political settlement demands equity of power. Israel holds all the cards. So
why is there a demand for our surrender? As far as we are concerned it is not in
anyone's interest, including that of the US, to leave the Arabs weak. Also in
the past four years there has been stability in Lebanon and even on the border
to a certain extent. Hezbollah's arms have delivered this."
But perhaps Mousawi's most interesting, and most detailed, presentation was on
Hezbollah's view of its political role in Lebanon, then besieged both by
demonstrations marking the assassination of Rafiq Hariri and an intense campaign
for seats in the Lebanese parliament. "We are prepared to work hard to maintain
Muslim unity and avoid fitna [division]. We wish to avoid turning the protests
and demonstrations into a sectarian division, which is why we are prepared to
make such overtures."
In fact, Hezbollah and Maronite Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement were then,
in March 2005, engaged in a delicate series of private exchanges on forging a
national consensus - one that both parties vowed would eventually include Saad
Hariri's Sunni following (the "Future Bloc") and Walid Jumblaat's Druse party.
The results of these first, tentative, exchanges have now become public, with
the leaders all of Lebanon's major sectarian political groups meeting in an
attempt to forge a common understanding.
After the end of the dialogue session that concluded in early March last year,
the leaders of the various movements and factions agreed to the disarmament of
Palestinian militias operating outside of Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps
and agreed that relations with Syria would be conducted on "mutual understanding
and non-interference". The February 2006 Maronite-Hezbollah understanding formed
the foundation of these talks, though a full agreement on all the issues facing
Lebanon has proved elusive. After a third round of talks, which concluded this
March 20, two difficult political questions remain unresolved: the status of
Hezbollah's arms and the future of Lebanon's presidency, which is currently in
the hands of Emile Lahoud, who is viewed as pro-Syrian.
At our delegation's second meeting, last July, Nawaf Mousawi's personal
political capabilities were on full display - as he presented a seat-by-seat
analysis of the parliamentary election, Hezbollah's success in winning a large
portion of the contested seats, and the movement's political maneuvers to build
political alliances across sectarian lines. Mousawi's impressively detailed
disquisition, his obvious openness to any initiative by the United States to
establish a serious relationship, and his repeated claims that Hezbollah is
"first, a Lebanese party" were stated with such conviction that a number of our
delegation's most skeptical members were convinced that Hezbollah "is not that
interested in the Syrians remaining in Lebanon. Rather, their mass
demonstrations of solidarity with Syria seemed more a parting wave of thanks
before they set about the tricky process of defining their own autonomy, and
balancing the elements in the complex political process."
Others were not so sure: "It is going to be difficult, if not impossible, for
the United States to talk to a group that is so outwardly allied to Iran," one
of the participants reflected.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mousawi's presentation reflected his
personal and his movement's pessimistic views on the region's future and on the
US campaign against terrorism. Most prominently, while he was "quite careful and
even cagey" (in the words of one delegate) on his movement's ties with Iran, he
was less so on Hezbollah's vulnerabilities to "the Khawarij trend". Noting that
prominent "Salafist and takfiri websites" had "actually marked Hezbollah leaders
for assassination", Mousawi said these "jihadist movements", including al-Qaeda,
"actually represent a greater threat to my people and to the Palestinian
population than they do to Western interests. [6] This is the real danger, and
the United States needs to recognize it." The reason for such targeting, Mousawi
explained, is that "the jihadists think we are too moderate, too willing to
participate in democratic processes - which they view as just another
colonialist plot promoted by the Americans to dominate our region".
Hamas: A warning to the West
The meetings with Hamas evinced even greater interest among our delegates than
those with Hezbollah, in large part because - as the Hamas leaders with whom we
met readily admitted - US and European officials had shunned any contacts with
the movement after the start of the second intifada. The Hamas leaders with whom
we spoke claimed not to have met an American "since the late 1990s", while
another said that his last meeting with an American had been in 1996.
Our primary contact viewed our meetings as "a chance to clear up misconceptions
about who we are and what we want". As in the case of our meeting with
Hezbollah, the exchanges were blunt and focused on areas of strong disagreement
over the conduct of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Hamas leadership
present for our first meeting in Beirut, which included Sami Khater, Musa Abu
Marzouk and Usamah Hamdan, began the exchange with a straightforward statement
on Hamas' political beliefs and goals. "We will continue the struggle to provide
national unity, to stop Israeli aggression, we will participate in Palestinian
elections, we will establish the framework for rebuilding the PLO [Palestine
Liberation Organization] to represent all Palestinians, we will offer a truce
with Israel, and we will continue our work to make certain that Israel abandons
the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. We do not endorse murder, but we do support
resistance."
Hamas' long period of targeting Israeli civilians in a series of bloody bombings
of cafes and buses during the second intifada engendered the most detailed
exchange during our first engagement in March 2005. Initially, Hamas leaders
defended their actions by citing their right to lawful resistance and the
religious foundation for their decision to target civilians. But as the
discussion progressed, the Hamas leaders propounded an increasingly assertive
defense of their tactics, noting at one point that their decision was not made
lightly or without reflection and that it was only undertaken after it became
clear that Israel refused to reciprocate a Hamas offer to end the targeting of
civilians.
"We are against targeting civilians," Mousa Abu Marzouk said. "And we did not do
so until 1994 - after the Hebron Mosque massacre [of settler Baruch Goldstein].
And they built a shrine to him in Hebron. And at that point, since we were never
attacked in that way before, we determined that Israelis kill civilians. But no
one asks about Palestinian civilians. In the last five years, 347 Palestinian
civilians have been killed. The numbers you see are exactly reversed for Israeli
and Palestinian deaths. What about the targeting of civilians who are
Palestinian? And the homes and the farms of Palestinians that are destroyed? The
Israelis have rejected our offer, and we have made the offer, that both sides
should stop killing civilians. But they rejected that offer."
When pressed on their targeting of civilians, Hamas leaders seemed to contradict
their earlier statements by expressing their conviction that there is no
distinction between Israeli civilians and soldiers. "Every Israeli is a solder,"
one of them said. "Settlers are armed."
When asked whether, in their view, terrorism "worked", they answered that it
served to unite their people and to gain support for their political program.
This claim was not a surprise: Hamas began their bombing campaign not simply as
a means of fighting what they viewed as Israeli aggression, but to seize the
political initiative from Fatah. (In fact, Hamas' radicalism in the first days
and months of the second intifada forced Fatah leaders to follow the Hamas
example, and adopt suicide bombing as a tactic.) "Their description of
terrorism," one of the delegates noted, "convinced me that we are not dealing
with genetically encoded monsters, but hard-headed - albeit brutal - political
actors who carefully choose their tactics and attempt to manage the effects of
their actions."
At the time of our first exchange with Hamas, there had been no suicide bombings
in Israel since August 2004. Hamas leaders signaled that this unofficial calm
would be maintained, so long as the calm was reciprocated by Israel. Even so,
Hamas leaders said that they retained the right to respond to "Israeli
aggression" just as (as they pointed out) Israel said that it had the right to
continue targeting Palestinians it viewed as ticking bombs.
"It wasn't so easy losing our founders, our people, our leaders, and our
friends," one of their leaders said. "When all channels are closed to us, we use
violence. We don't have jets, we don't have tanks. So we made the decision. It
is one of the ways we resist, it is not the only way."
In July, with the unofficial period of calm nearing the one-year mark, Hamas
officials reiterated their commitment to "maintaining a hudna [truce] with
Israel, even though Israel does not respond and continues to target out
leaders".
In both meetings, Hamas officials stridently objected to US proscriptions
against any contact between American and Hamas officials, arguing that "we
didn't wage war on the US, even verbally. We have never expressed a link with
Osama bin Laden and we don't support him."
Usamah Hamdan was outspoken in his criticism of the US decision to add Hamas to
the State Department's list of proscribed organizations: "We knew it was going
to happen and in 1996 we tried to communicate with [then secretary of state]
Madeleine Albright to find a way to object - to talk with her about the
decision," he remembered. "We were told that she was unavailable to talk with us
and that we should call back. We were then put on the list and we made our
second call, and we were told, 'We're sorry, but secretary Albright doesn't talk
to terrorists.'"
Hamas leaders were also particularly intent on promoting their decision to
participate in the Palestinian Authority's scheduled parliamentary elections -
even after they were postponed from last July until this March. At times, their
leaders even seemed prescient, focusing on their organizational skills, their
ability to appeal to a broad base of Palestinians, and their continuing
commitment to provide constituent services, all of which they cited as evidence
for their belief that they would likely win a majority in the Palestinian
parliament. [7]
"The Palestinians decide their leaders and the international community must
accept that," one of them noted in March 2005. "And when we win those elections
it will be a great problems for the Americans, I am sure. Is the international
community going to ignore the results of the elections?"
Hamas' leaders also denied that they would impose strict Islamic forms on
Palestinian social life, using the Koran as an example of "respecting diversity"
among peoples, a claim they have repeated in the wake of their recent
parliamentary victory.
"Islam is comprehensive and we understand that, but the Palestinian people are
diverse," one of their leaders said last March. "The people will decide who will
lead them and what kind of government they will have and we must respect those
difference and will respect those differences."
Usamah Hamdan gave a more detailed answer during our July meetings,
acknowledging Western fears about what impact the election of an Islamist party
would have on an otherwise secular society: "There is a fear that is based on
historical baggage," he said, "that Hamas will be the next Taliban. We are not.
We have always insisted that our people should be allowed to make choices - not
just on who to vote for, but on how to live. We do not recruiting forcibly, but
by persuasion. For us, Islam is the answer, but that is not true for everyone.
We believe that there should be the launch of a democratic process in the whole
region."
Once again (as was the case with Hezbollah), Hamas leaders were outspoken in
their condemnation of America's "inability to differentiate" between Islamist
movements, of the United States' and Europe's willingness to list Hamas as a
"terrorist" organization - alongside al-Qaeda.
One Hamas leader was explicit in setting out the differences and in explaining
how the West's lack of sophistication and political nuance could be fatal for
America's standing in the region. "We have been warned by the Salafists that
what we are doing in accepting democracy is playing into our enemy's hands,"
this leader said.
"The message was a warning. One of them, I remember, said to me: 'Listen, my
brother, we wish you well in your elections. But you should know that whether
you win or lose, the Americans will never, ever accept you are equal partners.
And you will learn this. And when you do, you will come back to us, and together
we will make a beginning. And together we will finish them here. Together we
will burn it. That is the only solution. Burn it. And we will begin in Mecca and
Medina."
Notes
1. "Palestinians' risky elections", Washington, Post, Editorial, January 22.
2. "Hamas sweeps Palestinian elections, complicating peace efforts in Mideast",
Scott Wilson, Washington Post, January 27.
3. US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs David Welch played
down the Aoun-Nasrallah agreement during a press conference on February 9,
saying that the State Department view was that "this is a discussion between two
political currents and not a governmental discussion". Welch was then asked:
"Now, obliquely, you referred to somebody justifying taking American hostages.
You're talking about Aoun? Can you say that on the record?" To which Welch
responded: "Yes."
4. Ahmad Chalabi was an Iraqi exile who fed the US government "intelligence"
about the Saddam Hussein regime ahead of the US invasion, much of which turned
out to be wrong or self-serving. See Chalabi: From White House to dog house, May
22, 2004.
5. The Mitchell Commission, chaired by former US senator George Mitchell, was
convened by then US president Bill Clinton to investigate the causes of the
"second intifada", the violence in Israel and Palestine that followed the visit
by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in
September 2000.
6. The Khawarij - or Kharijites - were separatists from the army of Ali ibn Abi
Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of Mohammed. Ibn Muljam, a Kharijite, is blamed
for his murder. The Kharijites believe that being a Muslim is equivalent to
salvation, that there is no salvation for sin, that all non-Kharijites are
sinners, that all sinners are apostates, and that all apostates should be put to
death. Takfiris are Muslims who view all Westerners as kafirs (infidels).
7. Claims from American Hamas experts that the result of this month's
parliamentary vote was as much of a surprise to Hamas as it was to the US are
simply wrong. In more recent meetings (held in Beirut in the immediate aftermath
of the parliamentary vote), Hamas leaders confirmed, however, that they
purposely played down their expectations of a clear parliamentary victory over
fears that the US and Israel would press Palestinian President Abu Mazen to
cancel the elections until Fatah could gain more strength.
Tomorrow: Handing victory to the extremists
***Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry are the co-directors of Conflicts Forum, a
London-based group dedicated to providing an opening to political Islam. Crooke
is the former Middle East adviser to European Union High Representative Javier
Solana and served as a staff member of the Mitchell Commission investigating the
causes of the second intifada. Perry is a Washington, DC-based political
consultant, author of six books on US history, and a former personal adviser to
Yasser Arafat.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
about sales, syndication and republishing .)