LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
NOVEMBER 4/06
Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 5,1-11.
While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. After he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch." Simon said in reply, "Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing, but at your command I will lower the nets." When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come to help them. They came and filled both boats so that they were in danger of sinking. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man." For astonishment at the catch of fish they had made seized him and all those with him, and likewise James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners of Simon. Jesus said to Simon, "Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men." When they brought their boats to the shore, they left everything and followed him.
Free Opinions & Studies
Is Lebanon's Government in Danger?TIME - USA 04.11.06
Talk of 'Deals' between Washington, Damascus and Tehran -Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 04/11/06
After a ruinous war, a troublesome peace-Lebanon is again in crisis -- torn, as ever, over Hezbollah.
By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer 04.11.06
Latest News from The Daily Star for November 04/06
US stands behind Siniora Cabinet
Hizbullah has 'a price' for information on prisoners
Germany expects no more 'incidents' off Lebanese coast
UNIFIL reaches 'initial operating capacity,' with more reinforcements on the way
UN Security Council splits over particulars of Hariri tribunal
French analyst warns of lasting trouble in Lebanon 'if problem of Iran is not resolved'
Top Shiite clerics urge politicians to take united stand
Feltman says Berri and government have gained international confidence
Aoun meets Sfeir, vows steps to unseat CabinetLebanon secures $71 million grant from World Bank
Orange TV boasts hot response to public offering
Grenade attack complicatesarmy deployment in Taamir
Downtown Beirut bookstore puts its money where its owner's mouth isBush faces moment of truth in directing Iraq policy-By Rami G. Khouri
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for November 04/06Feltman Warns Aoun of "Grave Consequences over Alliance with HezbollahNaharnet
Aoun Indicates Street Protests Could Be Called Off-Naharnet
London: Hizbullah has Set a Price for Information About Seized Soldiers-Naharnet
Hizbullah: U.S. Using Lebanon to Wage War Against Syria, Iran-NaharnetGermany Expects No More Shooting Incidents with Israel-Naharnet
Spain Completes South Lebanon Deployment-Naharnet
Bulgaria Bans Arms Sale to Lebanon in Accordance With 1701-Naharnet
Israeli Army Document: Overflights Aimed to Pressure International Community-Naharnet
Israel Says US Dissatisfied with Lebanon Overflights-Naharnet-NaharnetAfter a ruinous war, a troublesome peace-Los Angeles Times
Syria's interests-Times Online - UK
Lebanese President shuns court draft-Alarab online
Syria denies it is trying to oust Lebanese gov't-Jerusalem Post
Lebanese President shuns court draft-Alarab online
Lebanese Scientist: Southern Lebanon Radiation-Free-Arutz Sheva
Lebanese politicians hail Kuwaiti relief aid to Lebanon-Kuwait News Agency
Eight days in Lebanon-Political Affairs Magazine
UN to approve Hariri tribunal in days: Lebanese minister-People's Daily Online
Syria opponents slam threat on govt-United Press International
Syria, Jordan Takes 100,000 Iraqi Refugees Each Month-Zaman Online
Feltman Warns Aoun of "Grave Consequences" Over Alliance with Hizbullah
U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Feltman has allegedly warned General Michel Aoun of "grave consequences" over his alliance with Hizbullah, accusing the Shiite group of plotting to obliterate Lebanon. "Hizbullah is constantly working on destroying and obliterating Lebanon as well as sowing chaos," the Lebanese daily As-Safir quoted Feltman as saying. It said his remarks were made during a visit to Aoun at his house in Rabieh on Thursday.
The paper quoted leading sources in Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) as saying that Feltman also slammed the so-called "political understanding" between Aoun and Hizbullah. But Aoun has reiterated his adherence to the "political understanding," the sources said.
They said that Feltman has indirectly threatened Aoun that his alliance with Hizbullah would bear "grave consequences on his political future."
As-Safir said that this was a tortuous reference to the presidency issue, in which Aoun, a Maronite, is eligible for under the Lebanese constitution.
The paper also said that the FPM has previously received similar threats from the American administration warning Aoun against establishing any "material or financial ties with Hizbullah, or be blacklisted" in assisting terrorists.The sources said Aoun handed over to Feltman a copy of the letter he had sent earlier on Thursday to President George Bush expressing his regret over the recent White House statement which accused Iran, Syria and Hizbullah of "preparing plans to topple" Premier Fouad Saniora's government. The sources said that Feltman had clarified to Aoun that the White House excluded the FPM from this accusation. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack also said on Thursday: "It's sort of interesting that an individual decided to -- singled himself out regarding a statement that didn't single out any particular individuals. So I'm not sure why he thought that was particularly directed at him.""We would expect that General Aoun as well as others would try to play a positive role in furthering efforts at democratic political reform as well as economic reform," McCormack added. Beirut, 03 Nov 06, 14:04
Aoun Indicates Street Protests Could Be Called Off
General Michel Aoun indicated Friday that Hizbullah advocated street protests in an attempt to push for the formation of a new government could be called off. While Aoun adhered to "our right" in protesting, he said "strides could precede going to the street." "It's our wish to change the cabinet," Aoun told reporters at the end of a meeting with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir at Bkirki. Aoun and Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah have been repeatedly calling for the resignation of Premier Fouad Saniora's cabinet and the formation of a national unity government.
Nasrallah threatened to take to the streets Nov. 13 if roundtable talks in parliament failed to meet his demands on the formation of a national unity government. Aoun's visit came a day after U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Feltman allegedly warned the Christian general of "grave consequences" over his alliance with Hizbullah. Lebanon's Maronite Bishops expressed concern on Wednesday about growing divisions among Lebanese over demands for the formation of a national unity government. Beirut, 03 Nov 06, 16:02
Germany Expects No More Shooting Incidents with Israel
Germany's Defense Minister said on Friday that he expected no more shooting incidents between the Israeli army and German forces backing up a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. "I assure you that no more incidents of this kind are going to happen," Franz Josef Jung told reporters following talks in Beirut with Prime Minister Fouad Saniora. "I would like to stress here that we are here to secure the ceasefire which will also be a precondition for finding a political solution," Jung said. "We are currently implementing our mandate ... and I assure that there'll be no more incidents of this kind, so we are able to fulfill our mission here," he said before flying to Israel. The German defense ministry said last week that in two separate incidents, Israeli warplanes fired shots over a helicopter and an unarmed German vessel backing up the U.N. mission off the Lebanese coast.
The confrontations came just days after Germany assumed command of the marine component of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) on October 18, in its first military foray into the Middle East since World War II.Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday apologized for "misunderstandings" following the shooting incidents.(AFP) Beirut, 03 Nov 06, 16:37
Geagea Urges March 14 Forces to Get Ready for Peaceful Rally, Saudi Intervention to Resolve Crisis
The March 14 coalition has allegedly stressed that it will not succumb to Hizbullah demands to replace or expand Premier Fouad Saniora's cabinet, as Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea urged the anti-Syrian camp to rally peacefully. In the meantime, Saudi diplomats were secretly negotiating with political forces to agree on a unity government. Saudi Arabia "is making discreet contacts and holding talks, primarily though its ambassador in Lebanon Abdel Aziz Khuja, to placate the political situation in Lebanon," Arab diplomatic sources in Bahrain said Thursday. The sources said that the kingdom was also working to "remove barriers to holding national dialogue talks" as called for by Speaker Nabih Berri. The leading An-Nahar daily said Friday that the March 14 Forces will "no way agree to any expansion or replacement of the government … the consultation session will only tackle a package deal starting with the replacement of the president."
The anti-Syrian majority demands the departure of President Emile Lahoud whose mandate was controversially extended for another three years in 2004, in accordance with Damascus's wishes. Berri has set November 6 for the resumption of the stalled national dialogue across Lebanon's rival leaders in a bid to drag the country out of its political impasse. "The replacement or the expansion of the government means the power will be turned in to Syria and Iran; and this is something utterly rejected by the majority forces," An-Nahar quoted a source close to the March 14 camp as saying.
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has warned of street protests if Saniora did not accept his group's demands and a national unity government, in which Hizbullah and its allies would have a veto on key decisions. Nasrallah set a deadline of Nov. 13.
In a Thursday night interview with the Lebanese New TV channel, Geagea called on the March 14 Forces to "get ready for a new quiet, peaceful and arrogant rally to prove that we are the majority."
Geagea also ruled out the formation of a national unity government. But he said the inclusion of Gen. Michel Aoun's bloc in the cabinet was "negotiable … but (the demand) to activate the paralyzed one-third (of the cabinet) is totally rejected." Nasrallah has said that Hizbullah and its allies should comprise one-third of the 24-member cabinet. That effectively means the Shiite party and allies could veto key decisions. A two-thirds vote in the cabinet is needed to pass decisions that are not made by consensus. A resignation of one-third of the cabinet automatically brings down the government. Geagea warned that if street protests turn into riots "we will be there to back up the (Lebanese) security forces anywhere and we put ourselves under their command." He refused to elaborate.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 03 Nov 06, 10:45
Spain Completes South Lebanon Deployment
One hundred and sixty Spanish soldiers have arrived in Beirut to join their compatriots serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The group flew into Rafik Hariri international airport Thursday afternoon. Spain has been gradually rolling out its force since mid-September, when 170 members of an engineering unit left to prepare the infrastructure for the contingent in southern Lebanon.
Madrid agreed to send up to 1,100 troops to Lebanon as part of UNIFIL. They will operate out of the Miguel de Cervantes base in the Marjayoun region in the southeast of the country between the Litani river and the border with Israel. The Spanish contingent will command a multinational brigade tasked with helping the Lebanese government supervise the south of the country, a Hizbullah stronghold. The force will also undertake reconstruction work to provide local people with water and power. With Thursday's arrivals the Spanish justice ministry said the brigade had reached "initial operative capacity," though some troops from other contributing nations including Indonesia and Nepal have yet to be incorporated. In all, 15,000 troops are to deploy in the region in line with United Nations resolution 1701 which ended hostilities between Israel and Hizbullah on August 14.(AFP-Naharnet) (AP photo shows a Spanish U.N. peacekeeper monitoring the unloading of vehicles and heavy machinery from a navy ship at the Beirut port) Beirut, 03 Nov 06, 12:04
Israel Says U.S. Dissatisfied with Lebanon Overflights
The United States has expressed its discontent about continued Israeli flights over Beirut, a senior government official in Jerusalem revealed Friday.
U.S. officials "expressed their dissatisfaction on Thursday," during telephone conversations with senior Israeli officials, the source said.
It was the first time Israel publicly revealed U.S. criticism about its flights into Lebanese airspace since this summer's war between the Jewish State and Hizbullah ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire. Israel has drawn intense international criticism by continuing the overflights despite Security Council Resolution 1701 that brought an end to the July-August war. Last month, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said the overflights were necessary to monitor what he charged was continuing arms smuggling to Hizbullah from Syria.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 03 Nov 06, 12:41
Bulgaria Bans Arms Sale to Lebanon in Accordance With 1701
Bulgaria's government said Thursday it had introduced an embargo on arms and ammunition sales to Lebanon following similar measures taken by the U.N. Security Council and the European Union. "(The ban on) the sale and supply of arms, ammunition, military vehicles and equipment was introduced in line with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted on August 11, which is mandatory for all U.N. member states and corresponds to the European Union's Common Position," it said in a statement. The foreign, the interior, and the economy and energy ministries as well as customs were in charge of controlling the execution of the ban, it added. Bulgaria, which is to join the EU on January 1, exported about 120 million euros (153 million dollars) worth of arms in 2005, economy ministry data show. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which put an end to a month of devastating fighting between Israel and Hizbullah in July and August, required all states to take measures to prevent "the sale and supply to Lebanon of arms and related material of all types including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment."It also banned any assistance or training related to "provision, manufacturing, maintenance or use" of such material. In line with the resolution, the EU also put an embargo on the sale and supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon in mid-September.Bulgaria, which strongly condemned the violence in Lebanon in July, also sent in mid-October a frigate with 160 crew and a mandate of up to two months to bolster the larger United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL).(AFP) Beirut, 02 Nov 06, 13:53
Hizbullah: U.S. Using Lebanon to Wage War Against Syria, Iran
Hizbullah on Thursday rejected U.S. accusations that it was seeking to topple Premier Fouad Saniora's government and accused Washington of using Lebanon to wage "war" against Syrian and Iranian allies. "The latest American position is a blatant interference in a Lebanese internal affair concerning the Lebanese people's choices over their government and policies," a Hizbullah statement said. The White House on Wednesday sounded the alarm over what it called "mounting evidence" that Hizbullah was "preparing plans to topple" the Lebanese government in collaboration with Iranian and Syrian allies. Hizbullah said "the American position is meant to obstruct the internal settlement sought by parties attempting to reach a comprehensive national solution." "It is also meant to throw Lebanon into Washington's battle against forces and states that are friendly and brotherly to Lebanon and its people, including Iran and Syria," it said. Hizbullah accused Washington of seeking to "turn Lebanon into a tool of the war of the Bush administration against those considered enemies," it said in an apparent reference to Iran and Syria.
Hizbullah advised Saniora's Western-backed government to "listen to the opinion of the (Lebanese) people, and not to Bush's opinion, and follow the pulse of the Lebanese street and not the pulse of the White House.
"This American violation of our national sovereignty will not scare our people or prevent them from practicing all their constitutional rights, including the right to demonstrate, vote and select the government," it said. Earlier Thursday, a Syrian foreign ministry statement also said "the rumors put about by the U.S. administration according to which Syria, Iran and Hizbullah are seeking to destabilize the situation in Lebanon are wrong."
The statement insisted the Assad regime remained committed to the national dialogue process. "Ever since it withdrew its forces from Lebanon (in April 2005), Syria has said repeatedly that it is ready to back any agreement reached by the Lebanese through their national dialogue," it said.
"Lebanon can only be governed through a national consensus." White House spokesman Tony Snow refused to provide details on the Bush administration's information, saying it was classified and that keeping the charge vague "serves a diplomatic purpose and an important one."
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has demanded that Prime Minister Saniora agree to a national unity government and threatened to take his case to the streets if upcoming (national dialogue) talks between the country's top rival leaders fail.(AFP-Naharnet)Beirut, 02 Nov 06, 16:38
Talk of 'Deals' between Washington, Damascus and Tehran
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 03/11/06//
New York - Many in several Arab localities are gripped by fear and terror for a number of radically different reasons and on account of scenarios, some of which are real, while some are of a more mythical nature, or are being used as munitions in the psychological warfare now ablaze in Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and in the Palestinian ranks.
Meanwhile, nerves in Tehran are less inflamed, because the Islamic Republic is completely confident that the US will not clash with it militarily, and that Israel will not strike at its reactor, because it considers itself a winner in the outcome of the war in Iraq, whether the US troops depart in retreat, or gradually pull out, or even remain stuck in the Iraqi quagmire.
A similar situation applies to Damascus, which is highly content, not only because signals emerging from Washington imply the possibility that both the Republican and Democratic parties might need its assistance in Iraq, but, most important, because the American-Jewish lobby, as well as Israel, have made it clear that they desire that the Syrian regime remain at the helm in Damascus as the most dependable safety valve for the interest of Israel in the face of any surprises that might result from a democratic process.
Therefore, a Syrian-Israeli military confrontation may be safely ruled out for a long time to come. This does not mean, however, that the regime in Damascus is completely out of harm's way. Rather, the opposite is true. Mobilizing and streamlining the clout of Damascus and its allies toward toppling or curtailing the authority and jurisdiction of the international tribunal's trial of those implicated in terrorist assassinations in Lebanon points to deep-rooted concern within the ranks of the Syrian leadership, as well as among some of the Lebanese leadership. This will lead to an escalation of the psychological war that is shattering the nerves of those who are waging it.
In this context, those that are promoting theories and rumors suggesting the US administration has already decided to abandon Lebanon and sacrifice it in exchange for Syrian favors to the US in Iraq are jumping to conclusions, and may even be deliberately misleading.
For it is not true that George Bush is now prepared for the rehabilitation of Syria or is set to dispose of the international tribunal in a bargain to secure Syrian co-operation across the Syrian-Iraqi border and inside Iraq. Even if leading figures in the US administration had the desire to abandon the tribunal in exchange for a deal, the investigation has progressed to an extent that makes it virtually impossible for the US to risk throwing a lifeline to Syria or anyone else.
Similar deals have been on the table in the past. According to these deals, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad would sacrifice any governmental or military Syrian figures involved in the assassination of the former head of the Lebanese government, Rafik Hariri, in exchange for immunity for the Syrian regime. These deals never materialized, and more assassinations even followed, some closely connected to that of Hariri's and his companions', suggesting that terrorist assassinations are methodical.
Furthermore, it would be very difficult for Washington or any other party to throw a lifeline to Damascus only two months away from the release of a critical report on the international probe led by Serge Brammertz into these terrorist acts.
Negotiations between the members of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly were manifested this week in meetings rich with the flavor of trade-offs. Until now, Russia has been adopting the Syrian stances toward the tribunal, the majority of which have been made clear by Syria's ally at Baabda Palace, the President of the Republic of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud. These Syrian demands are being floated, one by one, by the Russian diplomatic apparatus in a manner suggesting that Russia is working toward stalling the formation of the international tribunal and reducing it to the extent of eliminating its authority to try any Syrian official proven to be involved in the Hariri assassination, or other assassinations.
In other words, the objective of Russian diplomacy inside the UN is to secure immunity for the Syrian leadership and regime by rejecting the classification of the assassinations as 'crimes against humanity', as well as linking the 14 other assassinations with those of PM Hariri and his fellow companions.
Nonetheless, even after Russia managed to secure compromises, striking out the reference to 'crimes against humanity' and limiting the tribunal's jurisdiction to take legal action in Hariri's assassination and other assassinations proven to be linked to it, Syria has asked Russia to float more, old and new, demands on its behalf. Syria's aim is to strip the tribunal of the international dimension that gives it jurisdiction that extends beyond the Lebanese borders.
UN circles are now teeming with remarks on the stance of Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, that contradict Russian President Vladimir Putin's pledges to his French counterpart, Jacques Chirac.
Sources within these circles indicate that frustration with Lavrov came from Chirac himself. This might be difficult to comprehend, particularly when taking into account Russia's disposition. It suggests that Putin's pledges to Chirac may not have been as conclusive as Chirac understood, or wanted to understand, them to be.
While it is true that a varying degree of adherence to agreements does exist, and that the Russian delegation to the UN has within its ranks experts on Syrian-Lebanese affairs, some of whom are aggressive in accepting and presenting the Syrian perspectives, the Russian delegation's proposals at the UN are, nevertheless, those of the Russian government, not Sergei Lavrov's. The issue in question goes far beyond the personalities involved, and is rather concerned with the fate of an entire regime in a country that is in itself anything but marginal, and whose significance is increasing because of its alliance with Iran, a fundamental State in international calculations.
However, despite Syria's realization that it is at the center of a wrangling and polarization row between Russia and the US due to its strategic weight, whether on the Iraqi or the Iranian level, Damascus is well aware that its history and current actions in Lebanon are its 'Achille's heel'. No matter what impact the balances of exchanges between the world's major powers have on political and strategic interactions, assassination crimes have been classified by the Security Council as 'terrorist' in nature, and an international tribunal has been approved by the Security Council to try those implicated in these crimes, with the murder of PM Hariri and his fellow companions as the starting point. This deprives many of those linked to these crimes in Lebanon and Syria of sleep and pounds on their nerves like the ticking of a clock.
Certainly, there are those betting on bullying, intimidation, overstatement and misleading. Toward these ends, they breathe life into rumors suggesting that the US administration has decided that Lebanon may be disposed of and handed back to Syria by completely absolving it from any trials or accountability. In a nutshell, this is nonsense.
There may be trade-offs in strategic deals, and even acceptance of 'de facto' situations that dictate turning a blind eye on violations and ambitions. But neither the US administration, nor the Republican Party (hungry for another term at the helm), nor the Democratic Party (which is aspiring to power) can afford to sidestep the conclusions of the international tribunal or prevent the trial of those implicated in the assassinations.
Some disagree, convinced that the US is returning to an era of placing 'stability' at the top of its priorities in a way that puts an end to illusions of democratization and making anything disposable or capable of being covered. The advocates of this view perceive Lebanon as the least complex of all complexes and the least valuable of strategic possessions, particularly in light of the ongoing lull between Israel and Syria on one hand, and Iran and the US, on the other.
According to this point of view, Iraq will be the US' first and last obsession, and as long there is a need for Iran and Syria in the Iraqi issue, then both countries can obtain whatever they want, including a country here or hegemony there. Those advocating this point of view stress that the sole drive behind the policies of the US and both the Republican and Democratic parties at this particular juncture is finding an exit strategy out of Iraq and identifying those that could facilitate such an exit, so that it would not look like an escape.
The other opinion points to a lack of knowledge of the character of George W. Bush, and an unjustified jumping to conclusions concerning the findings and proposals to be presented by former Secretary of State, James Baker, who heads the 'Iraq Study Team'.
Those who hold this point of view warn against yielding to the influence of overreacting and all its consequences. They say that what was leaked from Baker's conclusions does not have any relation to what is being made public, or to the debate on the essence of these conclusions.
The call for talks and dialogue with Iran and Syria will probably be among the basics of Baker's recommendations, in the same way as they are in the proposals of the Democratic leadership, including Senator Hillary Clinton, who turned her address before the Council of Foreign Relations this week into a plea for dialogue. However, she did not specify the nature of the dialogue with Iran and Syria on Iraq, and nor did she mention its goal. And she did not explain the basis of the dialogue or the limits of any consequent deal.
Some in the American political circles believe that Iran only wants the US to hold dialogue with it, as if this is the 'gift', 'reward' or 'return' within the context of a strategic give-and-take game with regard to Iraq and beyond. This, in fact, is nonsense. Iran is not in need of American recognition through dialogue. Its demands are greater, and its strategic relations with Russia and China are more valuable than mere dialogue with the US. Syria is different in terms of importance, but it has an important dimension in the give-and-take game, because of the importance of Iran to it. Both are important due to their role in Iraq, according the indicators of US policy, which are being prepared by the Bush administration and the Republican and Democratic parties. But there are differences in the evaluation. There are personal factors. At the current stage, George W. Bush's personality is still very influential in the US relations with Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Bush's intransigence is an important element that should be taken into account. The US President looks at Iran and Syria as two neighbors of Iraq that used their borders to leak fighters, weapons and equipment to be used against the US forces there. He is of the view that the two countries have played a key role in strengthening the 'enemy' in the war on terror that makes the Iraqi scene today the most important. Because Bush is oriented by this war, he refuses to admit defeat. He is also opposed to any formula or equation to get him out in return for defeatist deals. Bush considers proposals for rehabilitating Iran and Syria to be friends for helping the US to get out of Iraq as a reward for blackmail, support of terrorism, and using it as a means to subjugate the US. This is why he rejects recommendations for embracing Iran and Syria and concluding deals with them to get out of Iraq. He is completely unconvinced of this advice.
Electoral pressure and the bad conditions in Iraq have started to push Bush to retreat from making headway and approve of other options. The traditional Republicans in the ruling party, and the Democrats, who are after power, agree that there is a need for an exit strategy from Iraq. Both are speaking a 'realistic' language, stressing the need to abandon the illusion of 'democracy' in the Arab region, and to return to the traditional requirements of 'stability', including supporting the regimes that serve US interests, rather than taking adventures that caused chaos and wars to create a different regional system. In this regard, both have deep hatred toward the neo-conservatives, considering them advocates of freedom and democracy in the Arab region, and not an extremist gang that deliberately involved the region in the Iraq war in favor of Israel and Iran. This is also a discourse for an election period, including speculations, not necessarily a political program for the US strategic relationship with the Middle East and the Gulf.
The common denominator in the talk of these camps, the Republicans and the Democrats, implies some racism against Arabs. Both argue openly and realistically that the Arab peoples are not eligible for democracy. Both want a new policy toward the region, but none is willing to take necessary decisions to reform the US-Arab deteriorating relations, just as the treatment of the Palestinian Cause, because Israel is an issue that is taken into consideration in US elections. Both talk about a phased withdrawal from Iraq in the name of realism. In fact, US interests require either immediate withdrawal from Iraq and redeployment on board ships and aircraft carriers in nearby bases to restore the US' ability to exercise power, instead of seeking help from Iran or others, or, doubling the number of the US forces to win the war in Iraq. This necessitates a clear and sincere call for compulsory conscription and raising taxes in the US.
In the effervescence of the election campaign, promises and ambitions stir up. Deception is disguised in unrest, not only within the US, but in many capitals around the world. Some time is needed before jumping to conclusions. The great powers are in the midst of exchange on many files. Yet, this does not automatically mean that the transactions are ready for signature, quite the contrary. This is the outcome that damages the sinews of those who fight to conclude deals capable of sparing them forthcoming commitments.
After a ruinous war, a troublesome peace
Lebanon is again in crisis -- torn, as ever, over Hezbollah.
By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer
November 3, 2006
BEIRUT — The elected government stands in danger of collapse. Hezbollah chief Sheik Hassan Nasrallah vows to lead his masses into the streets and force early elections. The United States warns that Syria and Iran, through Hezbollah, are plotting to seize control of this fractious country.
If this summer's war between Hezbollah militants and Israel drew Lebanese together in crisis, the fragile peace that came after has forced them to confront the depths of their divisions and dysfunctions, and has pitched the country back into severe turmoil.
The government is bogging down just as Lebanon faces tough choices on war reconstruction, the prosecution of suspects in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and calls to disarm Hezbollah.
Many Lebanese fear that the militant group's growing power will provoke another war with Israel, or that increasingly bitter political disputes could slowly steer their nation back toward the communal bloodshed that racked the country during the 15 years of civil war that ended in 1990.
Two Lebanons have long fought to exist within the same, compact borders. They are instinctively opposed, mutually distrustful and struggling for supremacy. And their divisions are on constant display.
The Lebanese economy has been shattered by war, but you'd never guess it from spending a few hours in the trendy heart of the Achrafieh neighborhood of East Beirut. Lebanese sit in bistros sipping Bordeaux, trading bons mots in French and cutting into $30 steaks. Dance music and half-dressed women spill out of smoky bars. Hummers and Porsches idle bumper to bumper in standstill traffic.
You don't have to drive far to find another Lebanon: It's rural and mostly Shiite Muslim, poverty-soaked, anxious and ardently supportive of Hezbollah. Southern Lebanon is rife with grim faces, cluster bomblets and shops abandoned to rubble by people still hoping that somebody will come along and compensate them. Little boys at the sides of roads pocked with bomb craters wave plastic guns at passing cars. Women in veils shuffle past, their formless robes brushing over the dust.
Lionized throughout the Arab world for a perceived victory against Israel, Hezbollah has seized the moment to demand a greater stake in the government, setting off alarms in other factions.
"They attack us and say we are Iranian and Syrian," Nawar Sahili, a Hezbollah lawmaker from the Bekaa Valley, said of his group's domestic critics. "Maybe 20% of our speech is similar to Iran or Syria, but 100% of their speech is similar to the Americans."
It's not just a question of appearances. The stark differences in dress, wealth and neighborhoods overlie a fierce political battle. On one side a coalition of Sunni Muslims, Druze and some Christians controls a majority stake in the government after pitching themselves to voters as the "anti-Syria" bloc.
On the other side are Hezbollah, representing the bulk of the majority Shiite population, and Christian followers of popular Gen. Michele Aoun, who has struck a political alliance with the Islamist group.
"These two groups are parallel," Sahili said. "They will never meet."
The war seems to have made each side more intransigent than ever. Fresh from what it has dubbed a "divine victory," Hezbollah is more certain that Lebanon should continue to be a front in an Arab struggle with the Jewish state.
But Lebanon's more secular, Europeanized citizenry is keen to see Lebanon extricate itself from regional politics and focus on business.
Perhaps more than any other issue, the recent war hardened the two prevailing attitudes toward Hezbollah's weaponry. The heavy civilian death toll and major economic damage stand either as proof that the group's guns dragged Lebanon into carnage, or that Lebanon needs Hezbollah's fighters to defend the country against Israel.
"For many, the war showed that having an independent military force — a separate army — did not protect the country," said Mohammed Shattah, an advisor to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
This is the often silent question driving all current political maneuvering, as both Hezbollah's backers and its enemies fortify themselves for an inevitable crisis over disarmament.
"People are more at odds than previously. I don't see clearly how this is going to work out," said Judith Palmer Harik, a scholar from the U.S. who has spent decades in Lebanon, studying and writing about Hezbollah. "It looks to me that this is a replay of the hardening up of sides that we saw during the civil war."
Lebanon, she argued, is a country that has been repeatedly dragged into political and military clashes by a long-standing identity crisis, stemming from independence six decades ago, when Lebanese fought over whether the country should be a part of neighboring Syria.
"I'm not sure that original problem has ever been settled," Harik said. "It just keeps coming up. It's amazing to look at it."
These days, each side claims to represent the Lebanese majority. Each also accuses the other of fronting for foreign interests. And each seems determined to get and keep the lion's share of political power.
"We remain the only front open in the war against Israel. Why should it be Lebanon, a country so fragile, a country so potentially open?" said Marwan Hamadeh, the telecommunications minister and the survivor of an assassination attempt that many ascribe to Syria. "Should we be put in the front because of Syria and Iran? … We don't believe the majority of Lebanese want the army to be a satellite of Syria and Iran."
Hezbollah and its Shiite followers accuse the anti-Syria bloc of discreetly rooting for Israel to crush the troublesome militia. The group that controls the government, they say, has sold Lebanon out to U.S. interests.
Meanwhile, this fractious government is grappling with the creation of an international tribunal to try suspects in Hariri's assassination in February 2005. Such a tribunal is widely expected to blame Syria, which has consistently denied any role in the car bombing. At every turn, Hezbollah has remained loyal to Syria, its longtime patron, dutifully obstructing the creation of such a court.
The halls of government have been fraught with anxiety and suspicion ever since the war ended in August.
"We shake hands and discuss, but politically there is a big tension now because there are two ways of seeing the future of Lebanon," Sahili said. "And they are totally antagonistic."
Faced with the hardened views of compatriots, Hezbollah has mounted a fresh political push. The Shiite party linked with the militant group is maneuvering to reshape the Cabinet to include more of its allies; its demand for a "national unity government" is a bid to secure veto power and stake out a greater say in government decisions.
The play for a greater role in government marks a departure for Hezbollah, which has long thrived as an opposition group. Presenting itself as immune to the corruption of government, Hezbollah shunned parliament until 1992 and didn't join the Cabinet until last year.
It's no mystery why Hezbollah is seeking to beef up its political stake. Having controlled southern Lebanon for years, its leaders were noticeably nervous about the arrival of new international peacekeeping forces, warning the United Nations against interfering with the "resistance." And it is staking out a strong position ahead of political negotiations over its disarmament as part of the U.N. cease-fire accord.
"They are trying to topple the government or at least get control of it so that when the time comes to give up their weapons, they give them up to themselves," Telecommunications Minister Hamadeh said. megan.stack@latimes.com
Is Lebanon's Government in Danger?
Analysis: The White House has warned that Iran and Syria are working to topple Siniora's government. But it's part of a power struggle that the U.S. best stay out of
By ANDREW LEE BUTTERS
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHORRebuilding: The War for Hearts and Minds
Lebanon: From Powerless to Power Broker?
Posted Friday, Nov. 03, 2006
The White House warning sounded ominous: Iran and Syria are trying to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government with the help of Hizballah, said Presidential spokesman Tony Snow at a press conference on Wednesday. The U.S. may paint Hizballah as nothing more than a terrorist pawn of Syria and Iran, but it remains the largest political party in Lebanon's democratic system. And attempts to topple the current government — led by pro-U.S. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora — are hardly new or secret. Ever since the end of this summer's war between Israel and Hizballah, both Lebanon's opposition and leaders of Hizballah have been demanding that Siniora's cabinet be replaced by a government of "national unity." The power struggle has as much to do with internal Lebanese politics as it does with the regional confrontation between the United States and it's rivals Iran and Syria.
The war that began on July 12 has dramatically altered Lebanese politics. Siniora's allies — an anti-Syria coalition of Sunni and Druze Muslims along with some Christians — blame Hizballah for provoking the conflict by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers, and accuse it of being a pawn in Iran's regional power game. But, Hizballah, the country's largest Shia Muslim party, suspects Siniora of collaborating with the United States and Israel in pursuit of their regional ambitions.
Siniora supporters see the national unity government call as a pretext for a Hizballah power-grab. "The Taif Accord [which brokered an end to Lebanon's civil war] divides power among religious groups, regardless of demographic changes," said Rami Rayess, a spokesman for the Progressive Socialist Party, the leading Druze faction of Siniora's coalition. According to Rayess, Shi'ite parties, who represent the fastest growing part of Lebanon's population, want to flex their muscles after what they see as Hizballah's "Divine Victory" over Israel this summer. "We have the fear that national unity is a cover for undermining Taif."
But Hizballah allies say that a unified government is necessary precisely because the country is divided and angry, and because of fear that the hostility between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq could spread to Lebanon. "This is a critical moment in Lebanese history, and in a region that is boiling from Baghdad to Gaza," said Ali Hamdan, a spokesman for the Amal Movement, a Shi'ite party allied with Hizballah. "It would be helpful for Lebanon to face these challenges with one heart."
Regardless of the state of the Lebanese debate, public support from the White House is unlikely to do the Siniora government much good. America's reputation in Lebanon plummeted as a result of what many Lebanese saw as the U.S.'s one-sided support for Israel during the summer's fighting. While Lebanon suffered five times as many casualties as Israel did, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the carnage the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" and actively slowed the international diplomatic push for a cease-fire, hoping that given more time Israel could do destroy Hizballah's military infrastructure.
"The war damaged the U.S. reputation in Lebanon even among those who have historically been favorable to the U.S., like myself," said Ahmad Moussalli, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. "And U.S. support is unlikely to help this government. It has been unable to deliver on internal issues. The government has done nothing so far to start the process of reconstruction, though a lot of funds have been channeled to Lebanon."
With the next election still three years away, the Siniora government is in no danger of losing its majority in parliament. But it will face extra-parliamentary challenges such as demonstrations, strikes and civil strife, according to Moussalli. "The government can sustain itself legally, but its parliamentary majority doesn't represent opinion on the street. [Without a compromise] it's going to collapse."
Moussalli suggests that the best thing the U.S. could do for Lebanon (and for it's own reputation) is to stay out of internal Lebanese politics. "The U.S. should support Lebanon, not one particular group in Lebanon," he said. U.S. involvement only encourages Iranian and Syrian involvement, and Lebanon will once again move closer to crisis. "Things take on a momentum that is hard to stop," he warned.