LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
NOVEMBER 16/06
Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 17,11-19.
As he continued his journey to Jerusalem, he traveled through Samaria and Galilee. As he was entering a village, ten lepers met (him). They stood at a distance from him and raised their voice, saying, "Jesus, Master! Have pity on us!" And when he saw them, he said, "Go show yourselves to the priests." As they were going they were cleansed. And one of them, realizing he had been healed, returned, glorifying God in a loud voice; and he fell at the feet of Jesus and thanked him. He was a Samaritan. Jesus said in reply, "Ten were cleansed, were they not? Where are the other nine? Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God?" Then he said to him, "Stand up and go; your faith has saved you."
Free Opinions & Studies
Around The Horn on Lebanon-Threatswatch. 16.11.06
Lebanon's Vigilance-By: Randa Takieddin Al-Hayat - 16/11/06
The Shiite 'Train' Rolls in Lebanon.By: Daoud Shirian Al Hayat 16.11.06
Initiative Required from March 14 Forces.By: Abdullah Iskanda 16.11.06
We Are Suffering a Surplus of Enlightenment! Hazem Saghieh 16.11.06Latest New from the Daily Star for November 16/06
Kiss goodbye to a liberal Middle East.By Michael Young
US, France 'are acting the same way Syria used to'
Rizk prods Salameh in Al-Madina case
Lahoud calls approval of tribunal 'invalid, null and non-existent'
Chehayeb: Washington and Paris should butt out
Hizbullah, Somali Islamists deny UN report alleging cooperation
Media experts look at how coverage varies by region
Epidemiological Association to address effects of war
Egyptian envoy urges Lebanese leaders to beware of 'negative repercussions'
Has Lebanon been shut out from the corridors of power in Washington?
Halutz denies plans to resign if found responsible for Lebanon debacleAzour says summer war caused budget deficit to balloon
AUB delays student vote count for fear of clashes
Washington sends mixed signals to Damascus, Tehran
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for November 16/06Maronite patriarch criticizes leaders for sinking Lebanon. Catholic News Service
Prospects of Breakthrough Thin as Berri's Return to Lebanon Seemed Put Off -Naharnet 16.11.06U.N. Report: Hizbullah Training Somalia's Islamic Forces -Naharnet 16.11.06
U.N. Deals Blow to Lahoud, Says Tribunal Approval 'Important Step' -Naharnet 16.11.06
Lebanese cleric: Nasrallah eyeing presidency-Ynetnews
Khamenei Tells Berri US, Israel Will be Defeated in Lebanon-Naharnet
Don't forget Lebanon-Jerusalem Post
Syria accuses US and Israel of torpedoing chances for peace in the ...International Herald Tribune
Hezbollah vows change in Lebanon-Chicago Tribune
The Lebanon war undermined Israelis´ faith in their armed forces ...Jewish Telegraphic Agency
A strange calm prevails in bombed-out south LebanonJerusalem PostIs UNIFIL fulfilling its mandate and who does it protect?Canada Free Press - Canada
Syria says stretching 'sincere hand' to US for negotiations-Ha'aretz
Views from Iran, Syria and Iraq-BBC News
Syria renews call to lift blockade on Palestinians-People's Daily Online
British politicians flag Syria, Iran help in Iraq-ABC Online
Canada issued 2,430 passports during last summer's Lebanon ...Canada.com
The US has a stake in the outcome of Lebanon's political turmoil-San Jose Mercury News
Israel army chief refuses to quit over Lebanon war-Middle East Online
Prospects of Breakthrough Thin as Berri's Return to Lebanon Seemed Put Off
Naharnet: Without help from the outside world, prospects for a peaceful breakthrough in Lebanon's critical political deadlock seemed thin Wednesday as the traveling organizer of the national talks had no intention of coming back soon. The leading daily An Nahar said Speaker Nabih Berri, who flew to London Tuesday night ending a four-day official visit to Tehran, was "not in a hurry" to come back, a sign of a "political cry" to prompt rival Lebanese leaders to "present new criteria" that could help bring the stalled talks back in motion.
Sources close to Berri told An Nahar that the situation in Lebanon has reached a point where an "in-depth political solution" is required, adding that "it is no longer a matter of formalities that can be resolved by yelling and roaring." "There will absolutely be a solution," one source said. "But there is a political crisis that has got to be settled." Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's cabinet faced a deep crisis Tuesday as pro-Syrian opponents called for a change of government after it adopted a U.N. tribunal plan to try suspects in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's murder.
Despite the resignations of six pro-Syrian ministers, the cabinet on Monday approved the U.N. draft to set up an international tribunal for the February 2005 assassination of the five-time prime minister. However, Syrian protégé President Emile Lahoud and some opposition figures said the cabinet's approval was illegal because none of the five Shiite ministers were present -- having resigned on Saturday.
Lahoud issued a statement saying Saniora's government was not legitimate because the constitution states "all sects should be justly represented in the cabinet." An Nahar said on Wednesday that Lahoud sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan explaining his case, saying cabinet's approval of the draft document was "non-binding to the Lebanese republic in any way because it had not been approved by the president" and because the current cabinet was unconstitutional. The resignations of the five Hizbullah and Amal ministers as well as the government's approval of the U.N. draft text have prompted Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to boycott Saniora's cabinet on Tuesday. The constitution recognizes 18 religion-based communities and most of them are represented in a full cabinet by at least one minister.(Naharnet-AP) Beirut, 15 Nov 06, 09:14
Khamenei Tells Berri U.S., Israel Will be Defeated in Lebanon
Naharnet: Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said the United States and Israel would be defeated in Lebanon, in talks with speaker Nabih Berri, Iranian media reported Wednesday. Khamenei praised Berri for his "excellent role" in the July-August war between Hizbullah and Israel, and for the "victory" against the Jewish state, in their meeting on Tuesday. "What led to this great victory was the unity and harmony between Hizbullah and Amal brothers which must go on in future more strongly than before," said Khamenei.
Berri is the head of the Amal movement that is allied with Hizbullah. Lebanon "will be the defeat point for Israel and America," the two-arch enemies of the Islamic republic, Khamenei said. Iran, along with Syria, is accused of arming and financing Hizbullah. Tehran denies the allegation, insisting it only gives "moral" support to the Shiite group. "Today it is (America's) policies in the world and the region that are bound to fail. These opportunities must be exploited with determination and action," said Khamenei. "The situation of Iran is better and stronger than before. The future will be much more promising." Berri ended his four-day official visit to Tehran on Tuesday and reportedly flew to London rather than returning to Lebanon.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 15 Nov 06, 12:56
Poll: U.S. 'Big Loser' in Eyes of Lebanese after Isarel's War
Naharnet: Israel's summer war with Hizbullah cost the United States dearly in the good will of the Lebanese, a poll taken just over a month after the violence found. Part of the Gallup World Poll project, the survey released in Washington Tuesday, compared findings from its latest canvass, in August, 2005. In almost every category, the United States was the big loser. Nearly two-thirds of the Lebanese -- 64 percent -- who said their opinions of the United States were worse after the July-August fighting than before. Almost half those polled described their opinions as "much worse" after the war in which Israel's mainly U.S-equipped military did substantial damage to Lebanese villages, roads, bridges and other infrastructure.
The fighting that ended Aug. 14 was sparked by the killing of three Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others in a cross-border Hizbullah attack. More than 1,200 people died in the war, mainly Lebanese civilians. In the 2005 Gallup poll, Lebanese attitudes toward the United States were 39 percent favorable and 42 percent unfavorable, roughly and even split given the poll's 3 percentage point margin of sampling error.
The postwar poll released Tuesday showed Lebanese twice as likely to hold unfavorable opinions of the United Stats, 59 percent unfavorable to 28 percent favorable. Almost half the unfavorable described their views of the United States as "very negative."
Lebanese even took their dismay over the Americans to the extent that the United States was blamed as the country with the single greatest level of responsibility for the Israeli-Hizbullah war by 24 percent of the respondents. No country except Israel itself was judged more at fault: the Israelis were blamed by 40 percent of Lebanese.
The poll also looked at countries the Lebanese admired. Rated on a 5-point scale from "very favorable" as 5 to "very unfavorable" as 1, France, once Lebanon's colonial ruler, was the most admired among 13 nations with a 3.6, with Canada at 3.5. The only countries below the midpoint 2.5 were the United States at 2.3, Britain 2.2 and Pakistan 2.0. The poll taken nationwide of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over was conducted between Sept. 18 and Oct. 12 in all parts of the country except some war-torn southern regions. The sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent.(AP) Beirut, 15 Nov 06, 10:59
U.N. Deals Blow to Lahoud, Says Tribunal Approval 'Important Step'
Naharnet: The United Nations has called Lebanon's approval of an international tribunal for the suspected killers of former Premier Rafik Hariri "an important step" toward fulfilling the requirements of a Security Council resolution. Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's government approved the U.N. plan for the court in an extraordinary session on Monday despite the objections of Pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and the resignation of six ministers, five of them Shiites. U.N. Chief Kofi Annan must now report to the Security Council about the government's decision, and the council must then decide whether to approve the final draft for the tribunal. "The secretary-general believes that the decision of the Lebanese council of ministers, approving the draft agreement and draft statute regarding the establishment of a tribunal of an international character, is an important step in fulfilling the Security Council's mandate in resolution 1664," U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said on Tuesday. The resolution, adopted on March 29, asked Annan to negotiate an agreement with the Lebanese government aimed at establishing a tribunal "of an international character based on the highest international standards of criminal justice" to assist Lebanon "in the search for the truth and in holding all those involved in this terrorist attack accountable."
The U.N. move was a blow to Lahoud who on Tuesday said in a letter to Annan that the cabinet decision was not binding on the Lebanese state because it was taken by an illegitimate body in breach of the constitution. Hariri was killed along with 22 others in a bombing in February 2005. The assassination sparked huge protests against Syria, which was widely seen as culpable. Syria denied involvement, but was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, ending a 29-year hegemony. The anti-Syrian camp in Lebanon has charged that Damascus is behind the opposition to the tribunal because it seeks to avoid the prosecution of the Syrians implicated in Hariri's killing by a U.N. inquiry. Saniora indicated Monday that the tribunal was a top priority and he would press for its creation. "We tell the criminals that we will not give up our rights, no matter what the difficulties and obstacles are," he said. "Our only aim is to achieve justice and only justice. Without it and without knowing the truth, the Lebanese will not rest and we cannot protect our democratic system and political freedom now and in the future."(AP-Naharnet) (AP photo shows Saniora praying at Hariri's grave following Monday's cabinet meeting) Beirut, 15 Nov 06, 07:30
Initiative Required from March 14 Forces
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 14/11/06//
All the political pretexts and justifications used by the two conflicting parties in Lebanon have not been much help in finding a solution to the crisis. This failure has to do with the fact that every party believed that their priorities were crucial. Therefore, they have now become hostage to these priorities, regardless of the motives and reasons, whether subjective, local or regional ones, which lie behind their stances. No one has been able to convince the others that conciliating these priorities is possible. The dialogue sessions and consultations, which were held before and after the war respectively, have demonstrated that co-existing inside the government has become costly for both parties.
Hezbollah and Amal have chosen to leave the government and turn into open opposition. For its part, the March 14 forces has dealt with this withdrawal by refusing the resignations, in an attempt to maintain a constitutional formalism. At the same time, though, this force is unable to find alternatives for this withdrawal for this formalism to be in line with the constitution.
In theory, the government's legitimacy comes from the parliamentary majority's vote, and in practice, Siniora is still enjoying this majority. The paradox, however, is that the legitimacy of both the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and the Head of State also comes from Parliament, even though they are in the opposition. Nevertheless, this impasse does not rely on the fact that the majority no longer has the same amount of capability to change the Head of State in preparation for the new elections, in which the Constitution would correspond to every party's real weight. Indeed, the standstill consists of the fact that the parliamentary 'minority' includes the representatives of an entire sect (the Shiites) and of others, as well. And now, the majority and the minority are unable to break this deadlock.
In this sense, the Constitution, which originated from the Taif Agreement, is now ineffective, since it can no longer fulfill its fundamental task, that is to say, to provide a way out from acute political crises. Those who enacted the Constitution thought that allocating the three presidencies (the Republic, the Parliament and the government) to the main sects, and working with a two-third majority in the Chamber and government would assure harmony and co-existence. In fact, they supposed that the two-thirds would be distributed in a trans-sectarian force, and did not expect an entire sect to withdraw from the government and possibly from Parliament, as well, later on. Likewise, they did not expect that the prime minister would be unable to choose alternatives, given the strong monopoly of sectarian representation, and they did not foresee that an entire sect would leave the political process.
It is not possible to compare the Shiite withdrawal from power with the so-called 'marginalization' of Christians since the application of the Taif Agreement till the last elections. On the one hand, the 'marginalization' only included the leaders who opposed the Syrian influence, while it was possible to polarize other Christian influential people in order to make them represent this religious group. On the other hand, the leaders who were not taking part in the political process were not able to influence, scare or threaten anyone, since they had no weapons.
Either way, the current government is facing an unprecedented situation. And the following theory cannot be ruled out: the Shiite leaders are not considering their withdrawal from the political process as something that will turn them into some constitutional opposition, whereas they do think that this will lead to a constitutional standstill that the government will have to think of how to handle. And this is true to a large extent.
In his latest TV appearance, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah very much focused on the regional situation, and concluded that Washington's defeat in the region will be a reflection of their allies' defeat in Lebanon. Afterward, he can wait to reap the fruits of this defeat.
For its part, Siniora's government has to face oppressing obligations, due to its responsibility and to the priorities it is working for, such as the recognition of the International Tribunal, the enforcement of international Resolution 1701 and economic advancement.
The other team has stepped down. This resignation may also be considered a maneuver to thwart the tribunal, to criticize the illegitimacy of the Head of State, whose mandate has been prolonged; and to complain about unilateral war decisions. But all this will not regain the country's balance. And now that the government has adopted the draft about the formation of the tribunal, the time has come for the March 14 forces to come up with a new political initiative. This should go beyond mere constitutional formality and calculations about the Chamber of Deputies, and should be marked by renewed openness toward the Shiites, and it ought to prevent this deadlock from turning into a sectarian confrontation. This confrontation, in turn, would put an end to the political program that this force is defending, and that this loss of balance would affect
Lebanese politicians need to speak plainly about what they want
Wednesday, November 15, 2006-Daily Star
Editorial
The international media has portrayed the current political crisis in Lebanon as a showdown over the creation of an international tribunal to prosecute the suspected assassins of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. While the concerns that have been aired by Lebanese leaders - particularly those worries expressed by the slain prime minister's son, MP Saad Hariri - over this sensitive issue are understandable, the expressed fears appear to have resulted in large part from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the issue at hand.
Neither Hizbullah nor the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) has voiced opposition to the formation of the aforementioned tribunal. In fact, both parties have in recent days repeatedly stated that they support the creation of the court and insist that their demands for a unity government stem from the need for broader participation in the political process, not a desire to obstruct justice. But in the absence of clearly stated positions by both sides on precisely what their priorities are or will be, it is only natural that many politicians and their supporters are concerned about the end-results.
This gap of uncertainty is where the Lebanese citizen, an innocent bystander to most brawls in the political arena, frequently gets squeezed by forces that are manifestly beyond his or her control. Worse, the citizen is actively misled because each side spends more time (mis-)characterizing the positions of the other than it does detailing its own.
In a similar vein, Hizbullah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has recently repeated his calls for a "clean government." But it is not enough to ask for a new Cabinet aimed at achieving this end; Hizbullah and its allies need also to define what it is that they will pursue - and how they will do so - once they are in office. The Lebanese are already enduring a lack of clarity from the current Cabinet, which since taking office over a year ago has failed to achieve noteworthy progress on any of the 18 promises made in its ministerial statement. The last thing the populace needs is another government at whose priorities it can only guess.
If Hizbullah and the FPM want the Lebanese people to accept a change in government, the least they can do is to release a concrete statement explaining what they intend to do if and when they control the Cabinet. If the existing Cabinet wants the Lebanese people to back its remaining in office, the least it can do is to explain why it has failed to achieve its objectives and put forward detailed plans on how to change this situation.
The need for clarity is all the more urgent in light of the turbulent political relations between America, Iran and Syria. Now is no time for the Lebanese to continue allowing their interests to be defined or mischaracterized by outside parties. The only way to break that decades-long pattern is for Lebanese parties to set a clear agenda of their own.
Qabbani insists Cabinet's move to adopt tribunal was 'legitimate'
Hoss lashes out at attempts to justify constitutionality of session
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
BEIRUT: Reactions poured in on Tuesday to Cabinet's approval of a UN draft to create an international tribunal to try former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassins, despite the resignation of six ministers. Education Minister Khaled Qabbani insisted that Monday's Cabinet session did not violate the Constitution, adding that "since the quorum was met, the session was legitimate."
"The ministers' resignation has not affected the constitutionality of the session because Prime Minister Fouad Siniora did not accept [the resignation]," Qabbani told Voice of Lebanon radio station on Tuesday.
On Monday the remaining Cabinet members unanimously approved the draft of the international tribunal, despite the resignation of six ministers, including those from Hizbullah and the Amal Movement and Yaacoub Sarraf, a key ally of President Emile Lahoud.
Siniora officially received the resignations on Monday but refused to accept them and called for the ministers to return to their posts.
Qabbani said the presence of the six ministers in Cabinet is "necessary and important," adding that "they had distinctive governmental performance, which made Siniora reject their resignations."
The sheikh also stressed the need to "reap the fruit of the international community's support for Lebanon so the situation can return to normal."
Praising Speaker Nabih Berri's efforts to ease the tension, Qabbani said, "doors are still open to reunite the Cabinet and go forward in order to restore confidence in our country."MP Robert Ghanem said Tuesday that the session was "100 percent constitutional."
Speaking to Voice of Lebanon, the head of Parliament's Administration and Justice Committee said that the session was held in a "legal way" since two thirds of the ministers were present.Ghanem also echoed Qabbani, saying that "the resignations are not valid if President Emile Lahoud and the premier do not sign them."Legal expert Shafik Masri told the radio station that the session was "legitimate" because two thirds of the ministers took part in it.
"According to the Constitution, when two thirds of the ministers participate in a session ... [it] is considered legitimate," Masri said.
Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Salim Hoss lashed out at attempts to justify the constitutionality of the session.
"The introduction of the Lebanese Constitution stipulates that any authority loses legitimacy when it contradicts the pact of coexistence," Hoss said in a statement. "Are the conditions of coexistence met in a government suffering from a national imbalance?" he asked.
Hoss also said that when conflicts in the country revolve around the government, the solution cannot be democratic unless the government is changed.
"Does the ministers' agreement have any meaning in the absence of an eminent part of Lebanon's political arena?" Hoss asked.
The former premier urged Berri to call for a national dialogue meeting in order to reach "a minimum agreement" over the country's pending issues.
For his part, Lahoud rejected claims that Monday's Cabinet session was legitimate, adding a complaint that "ministers did not give the country's president the time to look into the UN draft.""Article 52 of the Constitution gives the president the right to conclude international conventions in agreement with the prime minister ... I wonder how they [ministers] skipped legal points," former Minister Wadih Khazen quoted Lahoud as saying after meeting with him on Tuesday. According to Khazen, Lahoud insists on revealing the truth behind Hariri's assassination and creating an international tribunal.
"Everybody knows that majority, in terms of popular representation, lies in MP Michel Aoun's parliamentary bloc," Lahoud said, according to the former minister.
We Are Suffering a Surplus of Enlightenment!
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 14/11/06//
Some Arab writers and commentators have become professionals in attacking liberalism, enlightenment, progress and modernity. Their frequent attacks give the impression that concepts have the upper hand in the Arab world.
Sometimes these critics put the aforementioned terminology between parentheses, or describe them as 'alleged' or 'false'. This suggests that they are not completely opposed to them, but that they have other perceptions concerning them. These critics also infer political options other than those adopted by liberals and advocates of false enlightenment.
First, we must note the existence of alleged and false liberals who enthusiastically support all the actions of the US according to the Arab saying 'Defend your brother, right or wrong'. They even support the politics of the Bush administration represented by Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere. In fact, this attitude is only the happy marital home of the stupid follies, extreme class selfishness and cruelty hiding under the cloak of Christian religiousness and charity.
But these are not the target of the sharp criticism, rather those who oppose the policies adopted by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Chavez's Venezuela and Kim Jong Il's Korea. No matter how we extend the definitions of liberalism, modernity, enlightenment and progress, Iran, Syria and the rest remain as distant from them as the North and South poles.
Such criticism might have seemed acceptable if these circles had ever showed some interest in the conditions of law, the individual, liberties or religious reform. They could have left even a narrow margin to these concerns, besides focusing on the 'nation's' rights and liberties. But ignoring such bases for progress and enlightenment turns the critics' claims into pure allegations, and makes their critical role a mere polemical gesture.
One is tempted to interpret the continuous campaigns on scattered, helpless individuals, as a deeper crisis arising from the isolation of the instigators from the main stream cultural life.
The 'nation', which was capable, during the Nasserite era or even the time of Arafat, of mustering culture under its banner, has lost this ability during the time of Nejad. As for populism, the creed of campaigners, it requires a degree of anti intellectualism and communal fanaticism in order to be effective. The truth is that the excessive and abundant availability of these factors is what makes populists actually successful at all levels. Any sociologist with the least integrity can analyze the composition of the current 'masses'. He will only discover that a local form of anti-cultural fanatic fascism is being promoted and reinforced by those critics.
Hence, those who criticize progress and enlightenment without hiding behind parentheses are the most faithful, or at least uninhibited. They are fully supportive to 'Nejadism' and they know that when they serve its interests, they are serving their own. When 'Nejadism' is completely triumphant, these critics will be in charge of publicly whipping their current colleagues who have 'different' views in enlightenment and progress.
Around The Horn on Lebanon
Several recent writings provide excellent analysis and commentary on the situation in Lebanon pertaining to Hizballah’s political power grab which, as Dr. Walid Phares has been saying, was Hizballah’s reason for sparking the Israeli war over the summer. While excerpts are provided here, readers concerned about the situation in Lebanon would find it well worth their time investment to read each in full.
First among the notable efforts is from Rick Moran with Hezbollah’s End Game In Lebanon Taking Shape.
What it comes down to is what has always been the greatest threat to Lebanon’s democracy; Hezb’allah and their guns. Faling to disarm the militia as they were required to do under UN Security Council resolution 1559, the March 14th Forces paid for their inability to rally enough popular support to suppress Hezb’allah first with the Israeli War and now with an existential threat to the existence of a free and independent Lebanon. Perhaps it was inevitable given the enormous difficulty in governing a country so riven with factional and sectarian divisions. But history’s judgement will be no less severe if the small group of brave democrats cannot find a way to stop Nasrallah from carrying through with his plans.
As for the United States, there is very little we can do to assist. Siniora is already battling charges that he is Washington’s stooge – charges that ring true with many ordinary Lebanese thanks to effective Hezb’allah propaganda spewed forth from Al-Manar, the terrorist media organ in Lebanon. And as Dr. Phares points out, Nasrallah’s push for power has not taken place in a political vacuum; both he and his patrons in Tehran and Syria know how to read US election results.
Rick refers to Dr. Phares’ analysis at The Counterterrorism Blog titled Hezbollah’s offensive in Lebanon has begun. In his analysis, he details the likely steps Hizballah will take in relatively short order in order for the Islamists to wrest control of the government from the March 14 coalition.
5. The projected scenario is as follows: Hezbollah and Amal movement ministers will resign from the Government calling for the resignation of the Government. The next move is to have Hezbollah, Amal, and their allies in the Parliament also resign, thus creating “conditions” for what they will coin as new elections and a collapse of the cabinet. Most of these moves have already been accomplished or are on the eve of being implemented. The pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud will declare the Government and the Parliament as “illegitimate,” and call for early legislative elections. The latter, if they take place will be under the smashing influence of Hezbollah’s weapons (a show of force was performed in the summer) and of the cohorts of militias and security agencies. Result: a pro-Syrian-Iranian majority in parliament, followed by the formation of an “axis” government in Lebanon. The rest is easy to predict: A terrorism victory.
The question today is, how to stop this from happening?
No look at Lebanon would be complete without including Michael Totten, who possesses the inate ability to communicate his informed observations in a naturally flowing and readable style that is truly rare, especially considering the topics often discussed. In A Perfect Storm?, Totten draws upon his personal experiences and knowledge of both Lebanese society, Beirut politics, personal friends on the ground and his own face-to-face experiences with Hizballah.
The Lebanese government says Syria and Iran aim to overthrow the elected government in Beirut and reconquer the country. Whether they are actually trying to do this right now or not is unknown. There should be no doubt, though, that if they don’t have a plan to execute now it’s because they want to do it later instead.
Meanwhile, a group that calls itself “Al Qaeda in Lebanon” appeared from Lord-only-knows-where and directly threatened to destroy the March 14 government. “Al Qaeda in Lebanon” may or may not exist as a wing of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. If they do, they’re serious. If they don’t, they’re a Syrian proxy. Either way, it doesn’t look good. This is not a prank phone call.
These threats to Beirut’s elected government are concurrent with Hezbollah’s and Amal’s resignation from the Lebanese cabinet. Hezbollah and Amal quit for two reasons. The first is that the March 14 bloc refused to give Nasrallah and friends who lost last year’s election more power in a “national unity” government. The second is because it was time for the cabinet to move ahead on the Hariri tribunal. Hezbollah will not tolerate the prosecution of their patron in Damascus.
Both Rick Moran and Michael Totten refer to Charles Malik and his observation that the apparently coming Lebanese internal violence just may take place without much participation from the Christians, divided as they are in their support for the given factions. Malik asks at the Lebanese Political Journal, Will the Assassinations Prompt Sectarian Clashes This Time?
Rumors are running rampant that sectarian clashes began immediately after the Shia ministers resigned from the government. A friend in the Future Youth Organization said that young people no longer feel safe going out in the evening, and that the FYO was expecting bombs to go off the night the Shia ministers resigned. This, obviously, did not occur, but people are preparing themselves for the worst. Sadly, preparing oneself for violence, like stockpiling weapons, often makes one too quick to respond aggressively when violence is not necessary.
There has been much discussion (including on this blog) about the divisions within the Christian community. Interestingly, this division might make the Christians safer. The Christians proved last year that they would not respond to violence with violence. With the Lebanese Forces in 14 March and Michel Aoun aligned with 8 March, the Christian community will not be at the center of any sectarian clashes for, perhaps, the first time in modern Lebanese history.
While there is much to be considered, each of the above writers are a tremendous resource with their observations, comment and analysis…not to mention readable styles. I for one appreciate the way they reference each other’s ideas, considering and incorporating them into their own writing. Readers here would be well served by checking in on each of the above as they look to make sense of the Lebanese situation.
Lebanon's Vigilance
Randa Takieddin Al-Hayat - 15/11/06//
Since the Hezbollah ministers tendered their resignations from the government and threatened to take to the street, the Lebanese have been feeling afraid and insecure.
The Lebanese, who have been indulged in politics, wars and verbal duels, have become concerned only with their future and living in peace. After all the ordeals undergone by the country, including a civil war, an occupation and a series of assassinations, the Lebanese feel that they are unable to plan for a decent future amid tough circumstances.
Lebanon is a country for all, not for a certain sect. A divided Lebanon is not suitable for living in. And it is no longer able to endure wars. Wars, disputes, occupation, and foreign interventions have hindered the country. Every time Lebanon wants to recover, a war, chaos, or a new assassination wears it down. It is high time for the political elite to realize that differences, disorder, intimidating the Lebanese and foreign investors by taking to the street, al-Qaeda infiltrators, and bombing the government will only aggravate Lebanon's bankruptcy, not only at the economic level, but also as a result of the exodus of the youth, who want to emigrate to another homeland.
Responsibility here is collective, mainly borne by the March 14 forces, Hezbollah, General Michel Aoun, and everyone in the political arena in Lebanon.
The International Tribunal is crucial to the recovery of Lebanon. It is not possible for any citizen with a true sense of patriotism to do anything but rejoice at bringing to justice the murderers of late Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, late Minister Basil Fleihan, Samir Kassir, Gebran Tueni, Marwan Hamadeh, Mai Chidiac, and others. Now that the Lebanese government has approved of the tribunal's draft, it is crucial to prosecute the culprits.
All the Lebanese - the four of Christians, Shiites, Sunnites and Druze - should look to the future of their children. Lebanon is a democratic country based on co-existence, and it should continue to be so forever. Lebanon needs to recover economically, and the three of peace, co-existence and democracy and plus security are the only way out of the economic crisis.
How can the Arab or foreign investor come anywhere near Lebanon, when all the people are in conflict and the country's situation is fragile? How can the international community help Lebanon and raise funds to support it, if the conflict remains among the three plus the one, the four, the broken third side of the triangle, and the participating side of the triangle?
The sense of patriotism and responsibility requires everyone's vigilance to help the government of Fouad Siniora, who is known for his integrity, patriotism and his concern for the country's sovereignty. The return of the Shiite ministers to the dialogue table is necessary to save the country and the co-existence of its people. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who represented a symbol of victory for his community and the Arab public in face of Israel, should also show that he really wants a strong, recovered, Arab, democratic Lebanon. Everyone wants Lebanon for its citizens. Responsibility is borne by everyone, not just one party.
What is urgently needed now to achieve a decent life for the Lebanese is to reach a truce between all political parties and return to the negotiation table to live together in peaceful co-existence. Most of the Lebanese, who were displaced during the war, returned to their villages. The political elite should be keen to dissuade most of the Lebanese youth from emigrating, in order for the country to not fall prey to foreign ambitions.
No sect, whatever it may be, can take over the country, because this means its end. Those who are concerned with a democratic, sovereign and pluralistic Lebanon should be aware of their responsibilities to ensure their children's future
Divided Lebanon
Nov 14th 2006
From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire
Confrontation between rival political groups is likely
The Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, has called the bluff of his political opponents by mustering his resignation-depleted cabinet to approve a UN draft statute for the establishment of an international tribunal to try those accused of involvement in the February 2005 assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri. The decision takes Lebanon one step closer to an open confrontation between rival blocs, broadly defined by sect and external association. Mr Siniora has UN legitimacy, the US, Europe and a solid parliamentary majority behind him; his opponents' assets include the populist appeal of Hizbullah and of Michel Aoun (a former general, who won a sizeable chunk of the Christian vote in last year's election), and the political and military support of Syria and Iran. The speaker of parliament, Nabih Berri, who is also the leader of Amal, has indicated that he has not given up hope of a political compromise, but there appears to be little room left for manoeuvre.
The blocking third
The defection of the five ministers from the Shia bloc of Hizbullah and Amal, plus that of one minister loyal to the president, Emile Lahoud, was not enough to deprive Mr Siniora of the two-thirds majority he needed to pass the motion on the tribunal. These moves followed a series of national dialogue meetings at which Hizbullah, Amal and Mr Aoun had pressed for agreement on a government of national unity in which the opposition would hold the one-third of seats necessary for them to exercise a veto. The meetings finally broke down, with Hizbullah and Amal claiming that Mr Siniora had set impossible preconditions, while Saad al-Hariri, the head of the March 14th bloc that holds the parliamentary majority, said that the demand for a one-third stake in the government was a ploy to block the international tribunal at Syria's behest. (Mr Hariri did not mention Syria by name, but his meaning was clear in the phrase "a well-known murderous regime".)
Mohammed Raad, leading the Hizbullah delegation at the talks, acknowledged that the international tribunal was an important issue, but he insisted that it was not the fundamental one facing Lebanon. More important, in Hizbullah's estimation, is the danger of Lebanon falling under US and Israeli hegemony. Another prominent Lebanese political figure, the solidly pro-Syrian former interior minister, Suleiman Franjieh, went further, claiming that the international tribunal would open the way for Lebanon to be used a springboard for achieving regime-change in neighbouring states, with its airfields likely to be used as bases for NATO air strikes.
In the run-up to the national dialogue, Hizbullah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, had suggested that if persuasion were to fail he would consider calling for mass demonstrations to press the demand for fair representation in the government. Both Mr Berri and Mr Aoun have expressed reservations about taking such a step, but it could well come back on the agenda now that Mr Siniora has forced through the decision on the tribunal
Adding to the sense of foreboding was the release of a statement in the name of al-Qaida in Lebanon from a base in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp, close to Lebanon's northern border with Syria. The group vowed to destroy the "corrupt government, which takes its orders from the US administration". Lebanese officials have been quoted as saying that the threat is credible in light of information pointing to the infiltration of large numbers of Islamist militants into the north of the country from Syria.
Constructive Syria?
Despite these indications that Syria is mobilising its political and military allies with the apparent aim of subverting the operation of the Hariri tribunal, there have recently been signals from some Western governments that the time has come to recognise that Syria has a potentially positive contribution to make to regional stability. Following a visit to Damascus by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, a senior foreign policy adviser to the UK prime minister, Tony Blair, British officials suggested that some elements in the Syrian regime, presumably including the president, Bashar al-Assad, were anxious to improve relations with the West and move out of Iran's orbit. In light of this initiative and the ongoing deliberations of the Iraq Study Group, some kind of trade-off seems to be envisaged, with Syria being rewarded for co-operation with the West in Iraq by being included in a new initiative to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Another incentive for Syrian's co-operation could be to revive the EU Association Agreement, a trade and aid package that was initialled in 2004, but which remains frozen.
However, such an approach is hard to reconcile with any serious effort to allow the Hariri tribunal to accomplish its task, given the strong likelihood that some of the most powerful figures in the Syria regime, possibly including Mr Assad himself, would be called to appear before this court. This seems to have been recognised by the Bush administration, based on the recent White House statement referring to the threat of an Iranian- and Syrian-inspired coup in Lebanon and on the depiction by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, of Syria as a "dangerous state acting in a dangerous manner". And yet, if Syria were to prove its capacity to be useful to the US in Iraq it would come as no surprise to see the strength of Western support for the Siniora government fade.
Don't forget Lebanon
Jerusalem Post: Just before he left for America, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert congratulated his own administration for an achievement from the summer's Lebanese conflict. Hizbullah, he maintained, no longer threatens the border and its positions have been commandeered by the Lebanese army and UNIFIL. This claim to success is quickly being undercut. Only yesterday, Hassan Nasrallah predicted the downfall of the government in Beirut. He stands poised to either manipulate a new figurehead regime on behalf of his own masters in Damascus and Teheran, or to usurp power outright and openly turn his country into an Iranian-Syrian satellite.
Former Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash predicts a new war with Hizbullah by next summer, with Syrian involvement "regarded as highly likely." He warns that Lebanese premier Fuad Saniora's life is "in grave danger."
All Israeli intelligence agencies, moreover, agree that four months after the recent war, Hizbullah is back at the border, albeit in civilian garb and not quite with an in-your-face deployment. Not only did Hizbullah recoup its losses but, according to some reports, it's now extensively reinforced in comparison to its war-eve status. Hizbullah, it is said, is significantly stronger than on July 12 and possesses many thousands more rockets - a total of 20,000-30,000 according to some estimates.
The enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 obviously has not been a sterling success. UNIFIL has instead chosen to concentrate on IDF reconnaissance flights whose raison d'etre is to check on the extent of the gunrunning to Hizbullah. Israel might find itself in a weaker position than last July. Its deterrent has eroded sufficiently to potentially encourage Syria to enter the fray, Hizbullah has boosted its firepower and foreign forces on the frontier are seeking to impede Israel's freedom of action. In addition, the Lebanese army forces on the border could come under active Hizbullah control. There can be little doubt now that Nasrallah is out to topple Saniora, both to prevent the trial of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri's assassins and to exploit the hiatus in Washington until the new House and Senate find their footings.
Five Shi'ite ministers have already resigned from Saniora's coalition, as has a pro-Syrian Christian. President Emile Lahoud, solidly pro-Syrian, has branded the Saniora government "illegitimate," signaling the imminent unleashing of an offensive by Hizbullah and other pro-Syrian and Iranian puppets in Lebanon. Their aim is to replace the government most independent of Syria in decades with a pawn that will confer strategic control on the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbullah axis. This is not speculation. Hizbullah spokesmen make not pretense to the contrary. Nasrallah's deputy Na'im Kassem labeled the six ministers' resignation "the first step of moves to come, about which we will decide with our allies and which we will announce in due time... Our mobilization of the 'street' will not be a one-day protest this time around, but will give voice to a position with far-reaching political implications."
Little more need be added to this declaration of intent, whose ramifications could very adversely affect Israel. The question is what to do about it. Pretending that all is well on the northern border and that Hizbullah is being kept at bay is patently not the answer.
It is equally clear that the UN has failed to live up to its commitments to either disarm Hizbullah or to at least prevent its rearmament. It's high time Israel began shouting foul, loudly and unambiguously, with no cop-outs or cover-ups for the sake of prestige. Things have a habit of going horribly awry in Lebanon. In contrast to the period prior to this summer's war, the alarm must be sounded and notice served on all concerned that, if the international community hides its head in the sand, Israel will have no choice but to act. If the international community has its way, Resolution 1701, like previous resolutions, will be enforced as minimally as possible, and the scene will inevitably be set for more conflict.
Olmert was right when he said that if Israel had not acted this summer, the world would have done nothing. Israel's campaign, such as it was, proved the catalyst for international involvement. The situation is not very different four months after. In fact, it may be considerably more urgent.
Canada issued 2,430 passports during last summer's Lebanon evacuationRoss Marowits, Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 Article tools
Printer friendly
Font: * * * * MONTREAL (CP) - The number of emergency Canadian passports issued to Lebanese nationals during last summer's evacuation from the war-torn country represented more than one-half of the entire number of emergency passports handed out the previous year.
Some 3,200 emergency and temporary passports were distributed last year. A total of 1,817 were issued by the Beirut embassy between July 12 and Aug. 31, according to Foreign Affairs statistics obtained under the federal Access to Information Act.
An additional 613 regular passports were also issued, for a total of 2,430.
McGill University Prof. Rex Brynen said it's not unusual for residents of the Middle East to travel under different passports.
"People switch back and forth depending on what passport is more convenient," he said, noting that many long-term residents may have let their Canadian documents lapse.
Canada issued about three million passports last year, including almost 128,000 abroad.
Foreign Affairs said Canada spent about $76 million to evacuate nearly 15,000 Canadians from Lebanon.
The final tally won't be known until the new year. But current estimates include $66 million for Foreign Affairs and another $10 million shared by National Defence, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Citizenship and Immigration, Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP.
Violence erupted in July when Israel attempted to recover two soldiers seized by the militant group Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon.
Thousands of people arrived in Montreal on chartered flights after being carried by ships to Cyprus or Turkey.
The Quebec government is seeking about $3 million from Ottawa to offset its humanitarian operation. An agreement is expected to reached in the coming weeks, says a spokeswoman for Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis.
"It shouldn't be too much longer," said Marie-Josee Duhamel.
The agreement must still be approved by the federal cabinet, said a spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.
Nearly a quarter of evacuees who arrived in Montreal later travelled to other parts of Canada, mainly Ontario.
Some of those who fled their homeland with Canadian passports have since returned. They join many of the 40,000 registered Canadians who chose to remain in Lebanon or were unable to meet evacuation ships.
The evacuation prompted the Conservatives to review whether dual citizens living outside Canada should pay a tax or meet other conditions to keep their passports. But Brynen said the government risks an electoral mutiny if it tampers with the rights of dual citizens.
"If you look at Toronto and Vancouver, it's almost part of the Canadian character, certainly the urban Canadian character, to have massive populations that are dual nationals." © The Canadian Press 2006
The Shiite 'Train' Rolls in Lebanon
Daoud Shirian Al-Hayat - 15/11/06//
The collective resignation of the Shiite ministers from PM Siniora's government is believed to have been aimed at obstructing the resolution on the international tribunal investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minster Rafik al-Hariri, even if the Shiite opposition's claim that the rejection of a national unity government was the reason behind its sudden resignation.
The end result, however, was that this opposition did not achieve its declared or real target. And despite its momentary failure, its train is still moving forward and, as announced by MP Hassan Fadlallah, 'will not stop at anything before reaching its desired destination'.
The destination implied here goes far beyond the international tribunal, and is more important than the mere protection of an individual, a group of individuals, or even a regime or a State, since what took place last Sunday must be viewed from the perspective of 'rectifying the Shiite partnership' in the rule of Lebanon.
While the Shiite ministers' resignation should not be viewed as separate from the Hariri assassination file, its objective, however, goes beyond the Hariri case, for we are before a case of sectarian and ideological alignment, despite the difference between Hezbollah and the Amal movement.
In fact, we are before a serious undertaking to shape the Islamic role in the ruling of Lebanon, as Hezbollah seeks to capitalize on the Shiite domination in Iraq, with remarks on the large number of Shiites in Lebanon and, consequently, to create a similar political reality there.
So far, no one has spoken of the details of the 'outcome' of the Shiite ministers' move. No one from Hezbollah or its supporters has ever said, for example, that the Shiites have their eyes set on the premiership in Lebanon; especially since Hezbollah, and through the statements of all its leaders (Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah included), have refused any discussion of the possibility of exchanging the Party's arms for domestic gains or destabilizing the internal front.
Hezbollah's recent move, however, suggests otherwise. For, since the passing of international resolutions aimed at its curtailment and disarmament, it has been working in a pre-emptive way to create a political situation that would protect it from any potential losses after its disarmament.
If this political situation does not mount to a civil war - a possibility that has not completely been ruled out - then the Party will only be left with attempting to change the position of the Shiites within the ruling hierarchy. This desire to bring about changes in the ruling hierarchy stems from Hezbollah's feeling of its growing influence at the domestic level: an outcome that has been warned against by the majority of the Lebanese. This warning, however, was met with accusations of treason and collaboration.
But will Lebanon be forced to pay the price for Hezbollah's ambitions? Certainly not! For, despite the Party's strength and its monopoly of arms, no one in Lebanon would accept the logic of using force to bring about change, as this logic was previously resorted to in the 1970s, and the outcome was war. At the same time, if Hezbollah is considering changes within the Islamic sects in Lebanon, it is on a collision course with the Lebanese Sunnis, who will not yield to change as a result of the logic of using force, especially in light of Hezbollah's dubious stance toward the Hariri assassination file. Furthermore, other sects, such as the Lebanese Christians, are not expected to yield to the logic of using force, out of fear of being the next target for marginalization.
Hezbollah, however, appears disinterested in others' opinions of the destination of its 'train' that has departed and, until this moment, Hezbollah has been saying indirectly that there must be a price to pay for giving up its arms.
True, Hezbollah has not named a price or the nature of it, but it is acting accordingly. And unless it succeeds to secure a political price it deems satisfactory, the alternative for giving up its arms would be a civil war. It is, after all, Hezbollah, which dragged Lebanon into a devastating war for the sake of protecting its arms, and is ready to go into a civil war for the same reason.
There is little doubt that the grim situation in Lebanon is becoming bleaker. The reason for this is that the ongoing conflict does not abide by the rules of democracy, even if it appeared to be doing so in some of its previous stages. It is also a conflict, not only over the interest of Lebanon, but over the gains to be achieved by one side at the expense of others.
In conclusion, the only way out of this crisis is for Hezbollah to abandon the logic of force and arms.
The way out of this crisis lies in resorting to political means and granting people the opportunity to express their opinion on the ongoing developments, as continuing with this intransigence would mean that Lebanon is simply moving fast in the direction of the Iraq 'station'. Should Lebanon reach the same condition of Iraq, Syria will be the greatest looser.
Accordingly, Syria is required to produce a change in its polices toward Lebanon, abandon the vendetta doctrine, and try to play a role different than the role it played in the past. For, without a political approach from Hezbollah, and without Syria's support of this approach, Lebanon is edging closer toward a new civil war. And if Lebanon falls, Syria will reach the same end, only much quicker