LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 14/09
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
according to Saint Matthew 18:21-35.19:1. Then Peter approaching asked him,
"Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as
seven times?"Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven
times. That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to
settle accounts with his servants. When he began the accounting, a debtor
was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. Since he had no way of paying
it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children,
and all his property, in payment of the debt. At that, the servant fell
down, did him homage, and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in
full.' Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave
him the loan. When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants
who owed him a much smaller amount. He seized him and started to choke him,
demanding, 'Pay back what you owe.' Falling to his knees, his fellow servant
begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' But he refused.
Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt. Now when his
fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to
their master and reported the whole affair. His master summoned him and said to
him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me
to. Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?'
Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay
back the whole debt. So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you
forgives his brother from his heart." When Jesus finished these words, he left
Galilee and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
All in the family. By: Michael
Young, Now Lebanon 12/08/09
Lebanon’s emancipation: an obituary?By:
Michael Young
12/08/09. Daily Star
State-to-state. By: Hussain
Abdul-Hussain, Now Lebanon 12/08/09
Analysis: The end of the Cedar Revolution?By
ZVI MAZEL, Jerusalem
Post 12/08/09
Israelis Distrust Summer of Calm-By ETHAN
BRONNER/New York
Times 12/08/09
Mideast Peace Starts With Respect-By RONALD S.
LAUDER/Wall
Street Journal 12/08/09
We need a script for a fruitful
Lebanese-Syrian bilateral relationship. Daily Star 12/08/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August
13/09
Hariri: I Chose Not to Make Public
Statements; There Is a Need for 'Calm Dialogue-Naharnet
President Calls for Rising
Above Personal Interests to Form Government-Naharnet
Fadlallah: Lebanon Ruled
by Foreign Countries, Cabinet Crisis to Continue-Naharnet
Gemayel: Those Who Were
Defeated in the Polls are Acting as Winners under the Logic of May 7-Naharnet
Williams: United Nations
Read to Give Lebanon Necessary Support-Naharnet
People, Including Child,
Injured in Jabal Mohsen Explosion-Naharnet
Hitting Impasse Again:
Aoun Insists on Bassil or No Government-Naharnet
Sfeir: Obstacles must be removed
-Future News
Khoja: Syria’s openness toward
Jumblatt due to Saudi request
-Future News
Najjar: FPM demand, decisive in
complicating or facilitating cabinet formation
-Future News
Gemayel calls for equal
distribution of ministerial shares between Christians and Muslims. Now Lebanon
Hitting Impasse Again: Aoun
Insists on Bassil or No Government-Naharnet
Hariri says progress
made in Lebanon-The National
Bassil: Law is Not Against Giving Cabinet Seats to those Who Lost Elections-Naharnet
Report: Susan Rice Seeking
to Improve Lebanese Army's Capabilities to Guarantee Arms Free South-Naharnet
Zahra: No Dispute between LF and
PSP over Cabinet Portfolios-Naharnet
Jumblat: PSP Delegation in
Friday's Hizbullah Rally-Naharnet
Jumblatt: PSP to attend Hezbollah
Victory Festival -Future
News
Berri-Hariri meeting ‘excellent,’
but no progress on cabinet-Daily
Star
Cluster bomb wounds two young
siblings-Daily
Star
Fears arise of new Lebanon-Israel
conflict amid escalating war of words-Daily
Star
Is
the latest Israel-Lebanon war of words aggravated by the media?-Daily
Star
Seven men accused of involvement in
Aisha Bakkar clashes released on bail-Daily
Star
Cluster-bomb clearing group to
reduce scale of efforts over lack of funding-Daily
Star
Bank Audi says Solidere’s shares
are undervalued-Daily
Star
Hariri: I Chose Not to Make Public Statements; There Is a Need for 'Calm
Dialogue'
Naharnet/Premier-designate Saad Hariri said Thursday after talks with President
Michel Suleiman said the distribution of cabinet portfolios and ministerial
nominations required "clam dialogue" adding he had avoided making statements in
order not to complicate matters further. "I have adopted two approaches since
the start of the government formation process," Hariri said after the meeting at
Baabda Palace. "The first is not to allow the ongoing disputes to impact the
economy and tourism; and the second is to avoid making statements in order not
to be dragged to situations from which there is no turning back," he told
reporters. Hariri described as "natural" ongoing arguments over cabinet
portfolios. "The distribution of portfolios and ministerial nominations require
calm dialogue, which is the way that will help eliminate obstacles," he said.
"We want a homogeneous government, even among the ministers themselves," he
said, adding that it was "the right of each team to request the portfolios it
wants." "We are keen on forming a government. The process is advancing, although
not at the pace that we want, but we will have a government eventually," he
said, pointing to the constant cooperation with Suleiman and Speaker Nabih Berri
for that purpose. Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 17:28
President Calls for Rising Above Personal Interests to Form Government
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman called all parties in Lebanon on Thursday to
rise above their personal interests and sacrifice in helping form a national
unity government the soonest possible.Suleiman added that current good economic
stance in Lebanon paves the way for a period of wide incoming investments that
need to be accompanied by a new political leadership represented in a new
national unity government. Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 15:57
Fadlallah: Lebanon Ruled by Foreign Countries, Cabinet Crisis to Continue
Naharnet/Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon's senior-most
Shiite cleric, said the country's crisis will continue as long as it is ruled by
foreign countries.
"Lebanon is still ruled by the outside. That's why the crisis will continue,"
Fadlallah told the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper in an interview that will be
published Friday. "Despite what we've heard from officials that this government
is made in Lebanon, we find that everyone is talking about a Syrian-Saudi
agreement," he said, adding U.S. and Europe are also trying to play a role in
the country. He said he was surprised by the statements "about majority and
minority rule by some religious figures and politicians who had in the past
condemned pluralist democracy." "Why doesn't the issue become a matter of the
majority and minority of the Lebanese people through a referendum that places
each Lebanese and each side in its place?" Fadlallah wondered. He told al-Rai
that efforts by different Lebanese parties to achieve personal gains are
becoming a stumbling block for cabinet formation. "I think it would be difficult
to achieve a national unity cabinet." Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 13:50
Williams: United Nations Ready to Give Lebanon Necessary Support
Naharnet/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams met Thursday with
PM-designate Saad Hariri at Center House, and renewed the United Nations
commitment "to offer the support that Lebanon needs." Williams told reporters
the talks covered "the challenges that Lebanon is currently facing and will be
facing in the future." He expressed hope a government can be formed "soon in
order to address the economic, social and political difficulties."The meeting
also covered the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, three years
after its adoption, he said. "The Lebanese authorities and various political
groupings have reiterated their commitment to Resolution 1701," Williams said.
"Today I also expressed hope, during my talks with the premier-designate, for
the next government, once formed, to work effectively to renew its commitment to
the resolution and to work on its full implementation," he added. Beirut, 13 Aug
09, 17:04
All in the family
Michael Young, Now Lebanon
August 13, 2009
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=108776
Telecommunications Minister Gebran Bassil, the son-in-law of his party’s leader.
So, Michel Aoun’s campaign to improve Lebanon can now be distilled down to one
overriding concern: the appointment of his son-in-law, Gebran Bassil, as
minister. Aoun insists that Bassil will be named, even though this contradicts
an agreement reached between prime minister-designate Saad Hariri and President
Michel Sleiman to bar from the cabinet candidates who failed to win a
parliamentary seat.
The disagreement has been poorly framed. To lose an election should not prevent
someone from becoming a minister, particularly in Lebanon. Nor does the
constitution say anything about this matter. How does one win a seat in
Lebanon’s parliament? Generally, by riding the coattails of a powerful
politician who sponsors or heads a candidate list. Very rarely are
parliamentarians chosen for their intrinsic merits. Therefore, the notion that a
minister must have, first, won an election, or quite simply not participated in
an election at all, means that he or she generally must either be beholden to
one of the more powerful political leaders or avoided the risk of competing for
a parliamentary seat.
What makes Ziad Baroud, otherwise an excellent minister, more legitimate in the
cabinet than, let’s say, Misbah al-Ahdab? Baroud didn’t seek popular legitimacy
(nor did he have to), while Ahdab, several times elected to parliament, lost
last June because he stood as an independent. Why should Ahdab be penalized even
as a petition is circulating to bring Baroud back? One can be a fine minister
but a poor parliamentarian; one can be superlative at both; or one can be
abysmal at both. There is no correlation between the roles of minister and
parliamentarian, and popular approval certainly does not qualify one to sit in
the cabinet, where many good decisions may necessitate being unpopular.
Which brings us back to Gebran Bassil. His defeat in Batroun is not enough to
deny him a cabinet portfolio. If we need to judge him, then let’s do so
according to different benchmarks. How did he fare as Telecommunications
minister? As a layman all I can say is that while I may be paying less for my
mobile telephone communications, rarely has service been as bad. Conversations
are routinely cut off and most of the time it’s very difficult to hear what a
correspondent is saying. The cellular system has crashed several times this
summer from the overload, which is undoubtedly a black mark against the
minister.
But is that enough to say that Bassil should not return to the cabinet? Yes and
no. Yes, in the sense that if you’re not going to evaluate ministers by their
performance, then what will you evaluate them by? But no, in that unless
parliament and the cabinet introduce a systematic method of assessing
ministerial performance, it makes no sense to pick and choose who deserves to be
removed from office or denied a cabinet seat.
That leaves us with the single valid measuring stick to determine whether Bassil
should again be a minister: the principles the Aounists themselves espouse,
which in fact concern no one but the Aounists. For a movement that has often
insisted, and very loudly, that it represents change and reform, nepotism is
something to steer away from. Michel Aoun doesn’t have a son, so he’s advancing
the career of his son-in-law, whom he wishes to see take over the leadership of
his movement. With greater reluctance, Aoun also gave his nephew Alain a helpful
push prior to the June elections, by asking Shakib Qortbawi to withdraw from the
Baabda list on his behalf. Ironically, Alain Aoun, among the most sensible
people around his uncle, is on bad terms with Gebran Bassil, and would like
nothing more than for Hariri and Sleiman to have their way.
It must be demoralizing for the Aounist faithful to watch as their movement
turns into a family affair. That’s not to say that Alain Aoun or Gebran Bassil
are unpopular among their followers; quite the contrary. However, they are also
emerging as major rivals for leadership, which means that the Free Patriotic
Movement is beginning to look little different than other family-based political
organizations in Lebanon.
Does that exclude Bassil from a ministry, or for that matter Alain Aoun? No. The
question is whether other deserving Aounists, like the handful of voiceless
parliamentarians who crave a reward for having stuck by Michel Aoun through
thick and thin, can continue to stomach their secondary status. Instead of
making such a fuss over Bassil, for example, shouldn’t Aoun be promoting more
credible people like Qortbawi?
Of course that’s for the Aounists to thrash out. If Michel Aoun insists on
Gebran Bassil, fine. Let the Aounists clean up their internal mess, but without
trying to assure us that they represent something different.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
Lebanon’s emancipation: an obituary?
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Allow me, despairing reader, to cite from Bashar Assad’s speech of March 5,
2005, before the Syrian Parliament. You may remember it as the one in which he
mocked the allegedly few Lebanese at Martyrs Square condemning him for Rafik
Hariri’s murder – before March 14 proved how mistaken Syria’ president was. But
Assad also said this about Lebanon’s politicians: “Some declared they were
Syrian allies and used its name, and some were merchants of political positions
– they bought and sold these positions depending on their personal interests.
Trading in merchandise is respectable, but trading in political positions is
like the slave trade.”
What a pity that four years later, Assad, so wrong about the Lebanese in
general, proved right about many of their leaders. After watching Walid Jumblatt
take his community a significant distance back into the Syrian fold, we can now
pick from lesser instances of buying and selling – most recently former minister
Michel Murr’s announcement that he too would be calling Damascus to get an
appointment. Murr was alarmed when Wi’am Wahhab, Syria’s ventriloquist dummy in
Lebanon, hinted that the Assad regime had a problem with Elias Murr, which might
hinder his ministerial ambitions. So even though the Syrians once tried to kill
Elias, his interests now require that his father pick up that phone.
What a sordid irony that the Syrians are making a comeback in Lebanon, even
though the June 7 elections confirmed how politically weak they were in the
country. What brought about this state of affairs – the sudden Lebanese sprint
to be on Syria’s good side, the abandonment of the consensus that took shape in
2004 and 2005 and that endured during the years of assassinations by Syria and
its allies, and the nauseating mortification of Walid Jumblatt, who finds
himself having to deal as an equal with Wahhab, a sub-product of Syria’s
intelligence agencies?
Doubtless, threats were part of it. The Saudis have been willing to cut a deal
with Damascus to contain Iran, while the US has been engaged elsewhere, so Syria
saw that it could take advantage of this absence of political cover to bully
Jumblatt and others who don’t have the luxury, they or their sons, of the
protection afforded Saad Hariri. Samir Geagea, by his nature and past, is a
tougher nut to crack, which is why Syria and its local peons are preparing to
isolate him. How Geagea emerges from this campaign will determine the safeguards
he enjoys.
But beyond the threats there is politics. In a situation as volatile as the one
in Lebanon today, no leader wants to be marginalized. Take Jumblatt’s
turnaround. For him the real danger is that if Syria does not manage to restore
a measure of its past hegemony, then his opening to its regime and his desire to
play an axial role in a Syrian-dominated Lebanese order will have all been for
nothing. Jumblatt will have placed himself and the Druze community at Syria’s
mercy without any palpable political gains in return. So, far from being a mere
victim of Syria’s newfound power, Jumblatt may become one of its promoters.
The Syrians always understood that there was much to be derived in Lebanon from
those who believed that Syria could be “broken off” from Iran. Assad realized
that he could sell a Syrian revival to the Arabs and the West as the best way to
contain Hizbullah, and through it Iran. Not that Syria has any intention of
severing its close relationship with the Islamic Republic, or for that matter
putting an end to Hizbullah’s rearmament. What Assad wants, quite simply, is to
call the shots in Lebanon himself instead of Iran, albeit in the context of
continued cooperation.
One reason for this is that the Syrians want to gain the Lebanese card before
the possible resumption of US-sponsored peace negotiations between Syria and
Israel on the one hand and Lebanon and Israel on the other. The reality is that
Damascus is politically vulnerable today, much too vulnerable to enter peace
talks without fortifiers. For starters, it has largely lost its influence over
the United States in Iraq, and the prospect of sectarian warfare there can only
alarm the Assad regime if the outcome is the radicalization of Sunnis throughout
the region.
On the Palestinian front Syria, with Iran, has influence over Hamas, but if
Palestinian-Israeli negotiations resume seriously, as the Obama administration
would like, Assad could be caught between two contrary logics: He would have to
square Syria’s participation in such negotiations with Iran’s desire to derail
them, while Hamas would be caught somewhere in the middle. Even if the Syrians
were to encourage Hamas to place obstacles before the negotiations in order to
increase their own leverage over Israel, there are no guarantees they could
later persuade the movement to compromise if the Iranians insisted that Hamas
stand tough. After all Iran, not Syria, helps finance the movement.
And in Lebanon, Syria’s political power rests on shaky institutional
foundations. The Syrians can kill, they have influence over officers in the army
and intelligence services, but they no longer have a vast military and security
network in place – while the elections showed that their sway over Lebanese
society is negligible. What the Syrians have done successfully, however, is fill
the spaces intentionally or unintentionally opened to them by the Saudis, the
Americans, and the Lebanese themselves.
On top of that, the Syrians have a friend in Israel, which would like nothing
more than to push Lebanon back to the predictable days of Syrian rule. Those
were the days when the party began arming massively and killed more Israelis
than ever before, and yet the Israelis feel they can intimidate Syria better
than they can Iran, whose influence expanded in Lebanon after the Syrian
withdrawal in 2005. It hasn’t occurred to Israeli leaders that a resurgent Syria
would have a great interest in reopening the southern Lebanese border militarily
to strengthen their bargaining position when it comes to a final settlement over
the Golan Heights.
These are the dynamics of the Syrian return to Lebanon. Do they mean that Assad
will drive his tanks back into the country? The president would love to, but for
now that seems unlikely. However, he is compensating through Lebanon’s leaders,
who, in pursuing their personal and political survival, have succumbed to Syrian
blackmail while disregarding all those assassinated in recent years for refusing
to do so.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.
Gemayel: Lebanon
Faces Crisis of Governance, Hariri Should Reach Cabinet Deal Fast
Naharnet/Phalange party leader Amin Gemayel cautioned Thursday that Lebanon is
facing a crisis of governance and said Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri
should "quickly propose Cabinet formation." "We are not only facing a
constitutional crisis, but also a political, financial and economic crisis,"
Gemayel told a news conference.
Gemayel had hinted in remarks published earlier by the daily An-Nahar on
Thursday that a Cabinet deal was not far from being reached provided March 14
Christian shares in the new government are respected. He expressed objection
against the proposed number of ministers in the new government, pointing that
"if need be the Opposition shares should be divided equally among Muslims and
Christians and Muslims as well as March 14" forces. "We want half the Christian
seats," Gemayel demanded, adding that the new Cabinet is not far from being
reached "provided that the shares of March 14 Christians are respected." He
stressed that Druze leader Walid Jumblat's "departure" from the majority March
14 coalition has "caused a setback" to the alliance. Gemayel confirmed, however,
that the remaining parties within March 14 "have the ability to carry on and
embrace the principles of the Cedar Revolution." "It would be a mistake to
believe that Syria is completely out of Lebanon," the Phalange party chief
added. Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 09:21
Gemayel
calls for equal distribution of ministerial shares between Christians and
Muslims
August 13, 2009 /-NOW
Staff
Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel told An-Nahar newspaper on Thursday that his party
has “objections to the proposed distribution of shares” in the new government.
“If need be, the opposition and the March 14 forces’ shares should be equally
divided between Christians and Muslims.” “We want half of the seats” allotted to
the Christians within the cabinet, Gemayel said, stressing that he was referring
to the Kataeb, the Lebanese Forces and the independent Christian figures, all of
whom he said have proved their success and popular support in the 2009
parliamentary elections. Gemayel did not respond to recent reports that there is
communication between his party and the Syrian leadership and that he may visit
Damascus, saying that “the Kataeb will not take any steps in this regard unless
all the March 14 alliance parties agree on it.” Gemayel also commented on
Lebanese-Syrian relations, saying that the Kataeb wants to foster good ties with
Syria, noting that “a balanced relationship” could only occur if it fell within
the framework of diplomacy. “Lebanon has to discuss unresolved matters with
Syria, and our role is to support the Lebanese state and not override it.”
Khoja: Syria’s openness toward Jumblatt due to Saudi request
Date: August 13th, 2009
Source: Al-Anbaa /Future News
Saudi Information Minister Abdulaziz Khoja has told Democratic Gathering leader
Walid Jumblatt that Syria’s openness toward him and its readiness to welcome him
in Damascus were due to a request by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King
|Abdullah |Bin Abdulaziz and not as a result of his recent Beau |Rivage speech.
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said during the party’s
general assembly on August 2 at the Beau Rivage Hotel that his alliance with the
March 14 coalition was out of “necessity” and should not continue. “The
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques has requested Syrian President Bashar Assad to
close the chapter of Syrian-Lebanese tense relations after Jumblatt asked him to
during his latest visit to Saudi Arabia,” the envoy of King Abdullah told the
Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anbaa.
“Saudi Arabia supports any inter-Arab dialogue, rapprochement and reconciliation
for the sake of serving Arab interests and instilling stability in the Arab
world,” he said.
Jumblatt told Khoja that he fears the Syrian-Saudi rapprochement could come at
his expense by marginalizing his role, but Khoja replied that the Druze leader’s
“status will be preserved.”
State-to-state
Hussain Abdul-Hussain, Now Lebanon, August 12, 2009 /Future News
A view of Shebaa Farms, located at a crossroads between Lebanon, Israel and
Syria. The disputed territory is one of the principle issues of the
Lebanese-Israeli conflict. AFP/Joseph Barrak
March 14’s quest for independence has been proven insincere by the coalition’s
failure to foster a policy for peace talks with Israel. It has instead tied the
fate of negotiations to a toothless Arab Peace Initiative. If other Arab
countries are to decide Lebanon’s foreign policy, then we can kiss goodbye
genuine independence.
As Lebanon will never defeat Israel militarily, its “conflict” with the Jewish
state can only be resolved by diplomacy, despite the failure of successive
Lebanese governments to endorse such a track. They have instead delegated the
business of war to Hezbollah and peace to the Arab League. Such governmental
behavior has proven detrimental to the principle of Lebanese independence.
Throughout the 1990s, the world grew accustomed to a Lebanese government
unwilling or unable to deal with relations with its neighbor; delegations have
either discussed Lebanese-Israeli peace in Damascus or arrived at truces with
Hezbollah. None of these agreements have gone through a sovereign Lebanese
state, except in August 2006, when Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s cabinet served
as a conduit between Hezbollah and the United Nations to end the July War.
Now we hear that US President Barak Obama’s peace team, led by former Senator
George Mitchell, has decided to turn a new page. Mitchell argues that peace can
only come by talking to all parties, but does he know that, since May 17, 1983,
when Beirut inked a peace treaty with Tel Aviv, the Lebanese state has taken a
back seat in dealings with Israel?
Yet Mitchell’s approach might finally offer Lebanon a chance to change the game.
According to the Mitchell team, finding solutions for the Lebanese-Israeli
conflict is easiest if pared down to Lebanon’s two pending issues with its
southern neighbor: the disputed Shebaa Farms area and the roughly 400,000
Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon.
Both Hezbollah and Syria have used the Shebaa farms to undermine peace between
Lebanon and Israel and to keep Damascus in the driving seat when it comes to
negotiations. The area is widely believed to be part of the occupied Syrian
Golan Heights, therefore part of Israeli talks with Syria. Damascus, for its
part, has repeatedly said this barren sliver of land belongs to Lebanon, but
refused to provide the United Nations with any documentation to this effect.
A number of Lebanese officials have suggested that the easiest way to neutralize
the situation is a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the area, which would
remove all debate (the area is Lebanese after all) and deny Hezbollah its raison
d’être.
Tel Aviv has refused, believing – based on past experience – that any unilateral
withdrawal from Arab territory will always be interpreted as a military victory
for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. To avoid such a scenario, Israel proposed
that Lebanon regain Shebaa Farms through diplomacy, even if it is backroom
diplomacy. After all, Hezbollah has negotiated with Israel – indirectly – for a
prisoner swap deal in the past. Why can’t such an arrangement work for the
Lebanese government?
Then there are Lebanon’s 400,000 Palestinian refugees. It is understood that 10%
of them will be offered the right of return to their villages inside Israel. The
rest will be given the right of return to the Palestinian State in the West Bank
and Gaza. All of them will be also given the choice to immigrate to Western
countries.
With Shebaa and the refugees out of the way, Lebanon and Israel can sign a peace
treaty, during which they draw their common borders and agree on the allocation
of water resources, as per international agreements.
The outgoing March 14-led government did little to advance this cause. In fact,
since the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, both governments have failed
to produce a policy on Israel. The Mitchell team is determined to change all
this, but they need the help of Lebanon’s leaders, who must not be shy about
talking peace with Israel, just like their Syrian and Palestinian brethren. The
rest will become details.
Fadlallah:
Lebanon Ruled by Foreign Countries, Cabinet Crisis to Continue
Naharnet/Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon's senior-most
Shiite cleric, said the country's crisis will continue as long as it is ruled by
foreign countries.
"Lebanon is still ruled by the outside. That's why the crisis will continue,"
Fadlallah told the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper in an interview that will be
published Friday.
"Despite what we've heard from officials that this government is made in
Lebanon, we find that everyone is talking about a Syrian-Saudi agreement," he
said, adding U.S. and Europe are also trying to play a role in the country. He
said he was surprised by the statements "about majority and minority rule by
some religious figures and politicians who had in the past condemned pluralist
democracy." "Why doesn't the issue become a matter of the majority and minority
of the Lebanese people through a referendum that places each Lebanese and each
side in its place?" Fadlallah wondered. He told al-Rai that efforts by different
Lebanese parties to achieve personal gains are becoming a stumbling block for
cabinet formation. "I think it would be difficult to achieve a national unity
cabinet." Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 13:50
Hitting
Impasse Again: Aoun Insists on Bassil or No Government
Naharnet/After six weeks of strenuous efforts to form a national unity
government, Cabinet lineup once again stalled as Free Patriotic Movement leader
Michel Aoun insisted on the appointment of his son-in-law Jebran Bassil in the
new Cabinet. Even many in the majority and the Opposition have only been united
Wednesday on the feeling that Cabinet formation is at a near-standstill. On
Wednesday, Aoun said he believed there is no deal on a government formation, at
least in the time being.
He insisted that Bassil be given a portfolio in the new government "since the
(March 14) stance taken from this issue has become a challenge, and if I abandon
this demand, they would say I gave up under pressure." Not only that, Aoun
is also adamant about getting a key Cabinet seat in addition to services
portfolios.
Amidst the worsening situation, both Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime
Minister-designate Saad Hariri have refrained from making any statements.
Sources from the majority March 14 coalition told An-Nahar newspaper in remarks
published Thursday that Hariri and President Michel Suleiman insist on not
appointing losers in the 2009 parliamentary elections. Hizbullah, however,
appears to be backing Aoun in his demand to appoint Bassil, An-Nahar reported.
March 14 circles said Suleiman deemed the escalation was against him in the wake
of Aoun's greediness for the interior ministry and the appointment of election
losers, Bassil one of them. Aoun circles, meanwhile, believed that the majority
was "concealing its inner crisis" by throwing the problem on the FPM leader.
Senior al-Mustaqbal Movement sources held Aoun responsible for the continued
delay in government formation. In turn, the Opposition blames Hariri for not
presenting a "clear and comprehensive outlook for the distribution of
portfolios." As-Safir daily said Hariri has asked Berri to identify the names of
ministers who will represent his Development and Liberation bloc. Al-Akhbar
newspaper, for its part, said Hariri has leaked a "tentative outlook for a
Cabinet lineup," which grants Druze leader Walid Jumblat the ministry of public
works in addition to a secondary portfolio, while Aoun gets a state ministry and
four other seats, including the education ministry instead of telecommunications
"with a negative stance on Bassil."As-Safir said Jumblat was acting on grounds
that the public works portfolio is definitely his share and that giving it to
the Lebanese Forces was impossible. Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 08:29
Bassil: Law
is Not Against Giving Cabinet Seats to those Who Lost Elections
Naharnet/Caretaker Telecommunications Minister Jebran Bassil accused the
parliamentary majority of instigating a problem by refusing to give him a
cabinet portfolio due to his defeat in the June 7 elections. "It is natural for
us (the Free Patriotic Movement) to name our ministers. We don't put conditions
on any team and we can't accept that any side puts conditions on us," Bassil
said in remarks to Lebanese press on Thursday. "The opposition has agreed that
each side names its own ministers," Bassil stressed. The March 14 forces are
accusing FPM leader Gen. Michel Aoun of obstructing formation of the cabinet as
a result of his insistence to give a cabinet seat to his son-in-law Bassil. The
caretaker minister told the newspapers that the law or constitution do not
prevent giving portfolios to those who have lost the parliamentary elections.
"The premier-designate did not make direct contacts with us since his return
(from his vacation). If they want to form the government then they have to
immediately move to the issue of portfolios," Bassil added. Beirut, 13 Aug 09,
09:44
Report: Susan
Rice Seeking to Improve Lebanese Army's Capabilities to Guarantee Arms Free
South
Naharnet/U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is expected to
introduce amendments to the draft resolution calling for the extension of
UNIFIL's mandate, al-Akhbar daily said Thursday. The newspaper said Rice will
call during a Security Council session on Thursday for more Lebanese efforts to
guarantee that the area south of the Litani river is free from arms that could
threaten Israel. Therefore, she will ask the Council's permanent members to
offer the necessary technical and military assistance to improve the Lebanese
army's capabilities. According to al-Akhbar, Rice will also ask U.N. chief Ban
Ki-moon to present a report within three months on difficulties facing
implementation of the resolution and suggest ways to solve the problems. On
Monday, Ban recommended that UNIFIL's mission be extended for another year
without any amendment to their mandate. In a letter to the Security Council
president for this month, British Representative Sir John Sawers, Ban said the
situation in south Lebanon will remain "fragile" until a permanent ceasefire is
reached. The U.N. chief also described the explosion of an alleged arms cache in
Khirbet Selm a violation of Security Council resolution 1701. He said until now
there is no proof that the weapons were smuggled to the area of UNIFIL's
operations after the adoption of 1701 in the summer of 2006. The Council is
expected to extend the U.N. peacekeepers' mandate for another year on August 27.
Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 08:51
Zahra: No
Dispute between LF and PSP over Cabinet Portfolios
Naharnet/MP Antoine Zahra denied Thursday there was a dispute between the
Lebanese Forces and Walid Jumblat's Progressive Socialist Party over Cabinet
portfolios.
"There is no problem between us and the PSP over portfolios," Zahra said in an
interview with Future News television. Zahra pointed that Phalange Party leader
Amin Gemayel was "trying to create a balance in the wake of Gen. Michel Aoun's
impossible-to-implement demands." Zahra said the LF agreed with Prime
Minister-designate Saad Hariri on getting a services portfolio, among them is
the public works. Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 12:36
Jumblat: PSP Delegation in Friday's Hizbullah Rally
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat said that a PSP
delegation will attend a rally organized by Hizbullah on Friday to mark the
third anniversary of the end of the 2006 war. Jumblat told As Safir newspaper
that the delegation will be present at the rally in Beirut's southern suburbs.
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is expected to address the gathering
through a video link and respond to Israeli warnings. Asked if he would attend
the rally, Jumblat said: "I am studying the matter." Beirut, 13 Aug 09, 10:20
Analysis: The end of the Cedar Revolution?
By ZVI MAZEL
Jerusalem
Post
Aug 12, 2009
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418590059&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&ct=ga&cd=MVqcQ1bMexw&usg=AFQjCNFv-fk5rz94lZO86ONTnwQ68AhrFQ
Months after the parliamentary elections in Lebanon there is still no
government.
Outrage at the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri led
to the formation in 2005 of an unlikely anti-Syrian coalition of more than a
dozen political parties and movements - Sunnis, Druse and Christians, which came
to be known as the Cedar Revolution or the "March 14" movement, led by the son
of the slain leader, Sa'ad Hariri.
The coalition won the June 7 elections handily and Hariri was poised to form a
stable government so badly needed to tackle the many problems besetting the
country. Negotiations were under way, portfolios were being discussed... and
then Walid Jumblat, the Druse leader announced that he was withdrawing his
Progressive Socialist Party from the coalition, arguing that its main objective,
getting Syria out of Lebanon, had been achieved.
Now that the country was fully independent, he said, it was time to plan for the
future. His party intended to go back to its leftist platform and to fight for
"Arab Palestine" while trying to mend fences with Syria.
It would position itself in the middle, together with Lebanese President Michel
Suleiman, generally considered as neutral who will have five ministers in the
new government. Suleiman is known to enjoy warm relations with Syria, which had
given its agreement to his nomination after months of constitutional crisis.
Though Jumblat's intentions were not immediately clear, his declaration threw
the country into turmoil. The clear-cut anti-Syrian majority 71 representatives
in the parliament out of 128 lost the 10 members of Jumblat's party.
Opposition protesters wave Lebanese flags during a demonstration against Syria
in the Martyrs square in Beirut, March 7, 2005.
They now may or may not vote with the 57 representatives of Hizbullah and his
allies, the Shi'ite Amal movement and the Christian followers of Michel Aoun.
A disappointed Sa'ad Hariri, who had seen victory slip out of his grasp decided
to take a short vacation in France "until he sees his way out."
The political system is in a state of chaos. Members of the newly elected
parliament keep repeating that there is an urgent need for a government, but no
one seems to know how this can be achieved. Jumblat's former allies, Sunni and
Christians, are keeping a low profile in order not to further damage their
relations with his party since they need it to form a stable government.
The only one to venture a concrete suggestion was Samir Geagea, head of the
Christian Lebanese Forces Party. He suggested the establishment of a technocrat
government not linked to political parties.
An excellent idea with little chances of success.
Having thrown his bombshell, Jumblat met with the Lebanese president, and
promptly declared he had been misunderstood. Though he is leaving the March 14
movement, he told journalists, he does not intend to hinder Hariri's efforts to
form a government and indeed is ready to support such a government.
How, and under what conditions, he did not say. If his words had been meant to
clarify the situation, they failed miserably.
Some commentators were quick to note that the Druse leader was known to change
his mind frequently and that it was only a matter of time before he quit the
coalition in the hope of reaping some real or imaginary benefits.
His had been the most vociferous voice raised against Syria; he had called to
forcibly topple the Damascus regime. But in Lebanon nothing is ever as it seems.
Jumblat had also enjoyed good relations with Syria in the past, though his own
father Kamal had been assassinated by the Syrians.
Immediately after the June elections he had met with Hassan Nasrallah and had
stated that it was time to give the Shi'ite majority the representation in the
government it deserved.
Did he do so because he felt threatened by Hizbullah? Last year his troops
failed in their fight against that organization and had to lay down their arms.
Renowned commentator Abdel Rahman Alrashad, director of the Al-Arabia Saudi
satellite television channel and a liberal thinker, does not agree. In an
article published on August 5 in the London daily A-Shark Al-Awsat, he argued
that Jumblat's move was logical.
The March 14 coalition was only temporary and its purpose was to get the Syrians
out of Lebanon; that purpose was achieved. The Syrian army has left the country;
an international court has been set up to investigate Rafik Hariri's
assassination and diplomatic relations have been established between Syria and
Lebanon.
Jumblat must now turn his attention to his responsibilities as head of the Druse
community.
Alrashad believes that other members of the coalition will follow suit and start
thinking of their own sectorial interests. Alrashed's analysis came as a
surprise and many believed that he was voicing Saudi Arabia's aim, which is to
mend its relations with Syria and sees the demise of the anti-Syrian coalition
as an important piece in its policy.
But how true is all that? Did Syria really relinquish its grip on Lebanon? Can
the country pursue its own path with no interference from Syria, Iran (and
Iran-affiliated Hizbullah) and start addressing its pressing social and economic
problems?
This is highly doubtful. Yes, Hizbullah was weakened by its poor electoral
showing, and its Iranian patron is not doing so well following its own
elections; yes, recent events such as the explosion in a munition cache in south
Lebanon in direct violation of Resolution 1701 put Hizbullah on the defensive.
Nevertheless Syria is still smuggling arms to the organization, which now boasts
of three times the number of rockets it had before the Second Lebanon War and is
making an all out effort to get surface-to-air missiles with the capability of
downing IAF planes.
This has led Israel to warn not only Hizbullah but also the Lebanese government
- since the movement is part of the present government, and will be part of the
new government when it is finally set up - not to plan attacks on Israeli
targets from Lebanon.
Regarding Syria-Lebanon relations, not all issues have been resolved. The border
between the two countries is yet to be delineated; there are an unspecified
number of Lebanese prisoners in Syrian gaols and Damascus is still strongly
supporting Hizbullah.
Syria is inciting Lebanon to demand an Israeli withdrawal from the Shaba farms
area, which was taken from Syria in the 1967 war but which is now touted as
Lebanese. This issue was first raised by Hizbullah after the Israeli withdrawal
in 2000 in order to justify the movement's refusal to lay down its weapons, on
the ground that not all Lebanese territory had been liberated.
It was eagerly embraced by the pro-Syria head of Lebanese intelligence general
Jamil Elsayyed, who coined the word "occupation" and is wont to boast he dealt a
shrewd blow to the Israelis.
What part did Syria play in the recent turmoil? Last week a former cabinet
minister from a small pro-Syrian party came back from Damascus bearing a message
from Syria affirming the readiness of that country to help all Lebanese fight
the dangers facing their country.
In an interview with A-Shark Alawsat on August 9 he said that "Syria was ready
to assist the Lebanese to defuse the crisis and form a government," adding that
the leaders of all parties, Hariri included, were invited to Damascus. He stated
that it had been demonstrated that Syria did not assassinate Rafik Hariri,
quoting the findings of an article of Der Spiegel a few months back.
In the meantime Hariri the son came back from France and met on Tuesday with
Jumblat, who told him he would not put obstacles in the way of the formation of
the government. The Druse leader went on to meet with a Hizbullah delegation.
In another development, the Lebanese president, the outgoing Prime Minister
Fouad Seniora and Jumblat all declared in separate statements that "Israeli
threats" made it urgent to form a government - a common enough Arab reaction
when the situation has reached an impasse: Attack Israel and you have a
consensus.
Opposition protesters wave Lebanese flags during a demonstration against Syria
in the Martyrs square in Beirut, March 7, 2005.
It seems as if Lebanon is back to square one. Hizbullah is bouncing back from
its electoral defeat. The anti-Syrian coalition, which was supposed to bring
stability and to present a united front against Syria, is disintegrating, and
with it the hopes of the US for the formation of a pro-Western government in
Beirut.
Thus could the official Syrian daily Tishrin announce on Tuesday that Jumblat's
declaration had erased four black years and proved that people had been wrong to
believe that America would produce miracle solutions.
Syria is no longer isolated, it concluded, and indeed all the world - Europe and
the US included - were eagerly seeking cooperation with Damascus.
Israel Is Wary of Calm Days That May End in Turmoil
By ETHAN BRONNER
The News York Times
Published: August 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/world/middleeast/12mideast.html?hp
JERUSALEM — Rocket fire from Gaza has markedly declined. The Lebanese border is
quiet. Terrorist attacks from the West Bank are rare. The national airport
processed a record number of travelers in the first week of August. The currency
is so strong that the central bank has bought billions of dollars to keep the
exchange rate down.
Times Topics: IsraelIsrael is flourishing this summer, and one might imagine its
people and leaders to be breathing a sigh of relief after nearly a decade of
violence and unease. That, however, is far from the case. On every front, Israel
is worried that it is living a false calm that could explode at any moment. Its
airwaves and public discourse are filled with menace and concern.
“This is a deceptive quiet,” said Daniel Ayalon, the deputy foreign minister.
“When a sunny day turns cloudy, it can happen very quickly.”
This week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that if, as expected,
Hezbollah joined the government being formed in Lebanon, any attack on Israel
from Lebanon would be seen as the responsibility of the Beirut government. “It
cannot hide and say, ‘It’s Hezbollah, we don’t control them,’ ” he said.
Dan Meridor, the minister of intelligence, told Israel Radio that Hezbollah “is
purchasing and installing — with Iranian influence and assistance — ballistic
systems and other systems of all kinds.”
Those warnings followed a mid-July explosion of a Hezbollah arms cache in
southern Lebanon that Israel said pointed to the group’s continuing military
buildup, now reaching 40,000 rockets, in violation of United Nations
resolutions. Three years ago, Israel and Hezbollah fought a monthlong war after
the Lebanese group staged a cross-border raid aimed at killing and kidnapping
Israeli soldiers.
Israeli officials say there are credible reports that Hezbollah tried to kill
the Israeli ambassador in Cairo recently and was planning attacks on Israeli
tourists overseas — although they have declined to elaborate on the nature of
the reports to journalists or even to their own diplomats. They have, however,
issued harsh warnings.
Hezbollah, like Hamas in Gaza, is a client of Israel’s overwhelming strategic
concern, Iran. Israel believes that Iran is hurtling toward nuclear weapons
capacity amid a campaign to delegitimize Israel. If Iran develops nuclear arms,
officials here say, the result will be a dangerous regional arms race and a
sense of immunity for Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Obama administration also believes that Iran has nuclear ambitions, but
hopes to curb them through diplomacy or sanctions. The Israelis, dismissive of
the diplomacy and skeptical of the prospects for the success of sanctions, have
focused on how Iran’s program can be halted militarily.
In recent years, Israel has used its military to end the violent Palestinian
uprising, stop rocket fire from Hezbollah and Hamas, and destroy what American
and Israeli officials believe to be a Syrian nuclear site. The actions were
severely criticized as being inappropriate and ineffective, but most Israelis
now believe they were successful, while regarding diplomacy as far less
effective.
American officials have discouraged Israel from thinking along such lines,
saying that diplomacy with Iran must be given a chance. Israeli officials are
worried that the window to stop Iran will close over the next year as it
enriches more uranium and acquires the means to stop an attack. At the same
time, carrying out an attack without American approval could damage Israel’s
vital relationship with Washington.
Tensions with Washington are already higher than they had been in two decades
because of an American demand that Israel stop building settlements in the West
Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel says this places undue emphasis on something
that is less central to Middle East peace than many abroad assert. It remains
unclear how this dispute can end happily for all sides, especially the
Palestinians, who consider an end to settlement construction vital to any future
peace deal.
Meanwhile, the debates inside the Fatah movement’s congress in Bethlehem over
the past week — partly about resistance to occupation and the possibility of
reviving military struggle — stirred concerns in Israel. It was a balancing act
for a movement that backs negotiations but keeps an eye on its street. Many
Israelis tended to see the debate as further evidence that an agreement was not
imminent.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, for example, that the positions taken
by Fatah put off by some years any possibility of a peace deal.
Israel’s critics and opponents argue that its problems are mostly self-imposed,
the result of paranoid aggression and a failure to grasp the impact of its own
words and actions. The concern on the streets in Beirut this summer, for
example, is that Israel is planning another war there, and that is the reason
for the frequent warnings aimed at Lebanon.
Most Palestinians say they believe that Israel wants tight security and slightly
increased prosperity in the West Bank as a substitute for real progress toward
an independent Palestinian state. They complain that when Israel feels
threatened it refuses to negotiate, yet when it feels calm it sees no need to.
Israel continues a tight embargo on goods entering Gaza, partly as pressure to
get back a kidnapped soldier held there for three years and partly to increase
the gap in living standards with the West Bank. The idea is that once the
Fatah-run West Bank is secure and better off and Gaza remains stagnated and
mired in poverty, Palestinians in both places will support Fatah and its
negotiated approach.
And while some Fatah leaders are not unhappy with this policy, West Bank leaders
are wary of cooperating — or being seen to cooperate.
“We don’t want to make it seem like we are helping to make the occupation work
better,” said Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, in an interview. “We
want an end to Israeli incursions in our cities as well.”
Critics on the left in Israel say they fear that the current calm is leading
Israelis away from focusing on how to solve their conflict with the
Palestinians.
Aluf Benn, a senior journalist for the leftist newspaper Haaretz, expressed his
concern last weekend in an article, saying that the country had lost interest in
coming to terms with its neighbors, a process that entails painful sacrifices in
the name of coexistence.
“The most important ramification of the present quiet is the fact that it
reinforces Israelis’ indifference toward any kind of peace process,” he wrote.
“Israelis want peace and quiet. And that’s what they have — and without
negotiations or peace accords.”
Mideast Peace Starts With Respect
Note to Obama: The Palestinians still haven’t recognized the Jewish
state.Article Comments (48) more in
By RONALD S. LAUDER
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334912175685516.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
More than one American president has tried to bring peace to the Middle East,
and more than one has failed. So as the Obama administration outlines its own
prospectus for a comprehensive settlement to Israel’s conflict with the
Palestinians and the wider Arab world, it would do well to take note of some
potential pitfalls.
Rule No. 1: Respect the sovereignty of democratic allies. When free people in a
democracy express their preferences, the United States should respect their
opinions. The current administration should not try to impose ideas on allies
like Israel.
The administration would also do well to take heed of the Palestinian
Authority’s continued refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the
Jewish people. This is not a trivial matter. A long-term settlement can only be
forged on the basis of mutual recognition and respect. To deny the essence of
the Zionist project—to rebuild the Jewish people’s ancient homeland—is to call
into question the seriousness of one’s commitment to peace.
It is a sad statement of the Palestinians’ approach to peace-making that denial
of the Jewish homeland is not simply contained in the openly anti-Semitic
leadership of Hamas. It is a widespread belief across the spectrum of
Palestinian opinion. This reality must be confronted.
Today’s leadership must never forget that the core historic reason for the
conflict is the Arab world’s longstanding rejection of Israel’s existence. The
two-state solution was accepted by Israel’s pre-state leadership led by David
Ben-Gurion in 1947 when it agreed to the partition plan contained in United
Nation’s General Assembly Resolution 181. The Arabs flatly rejected it. As
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows all too well, President Bill Clinton’s
peace plans in 2000 foundered due to Palestinian rejection of the Jewish state,
even as Israel, once again, accepted their right to statehood.
More recent experience in Europe also offers lessons about the dangers of
negotiating with terrorists. Over the past year, officials from Britain, France
and the European Union all held talks with officials from the “political wing”
of Hezbollah in a bid to get the terrorist group to moderate its behavior.
Hezbollah is undoubtedly grateful for the legitimacy that these meetings have
conferred, but it is not laying down its arms. Indeed, according to a recent
report from the Times of London, the group has now stockpiled 40,000 rockets
close to the Israeli border.
To be sure, we must have hope. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are useful
models. Nonetheless, the recent rebuffs by Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia of
efforts by the Obama administration to promote a more conciliatory attitude to
Israel offer a salient reminder that those who started this conflict may not yet
be in a mood to end it, whatever their rhetoric to the contrary.
And then there are the settlements. Undoubtedly, this is a complex matter. Yet
the administration must beware of overemphasizing it. Compromises between people
of goodwill can be made on the settlements, as Israel has demonstrated in the
recent past. But no compromise can be made on Israel’s right to exist inside
secure borders unmolested by terrorist groups or threatened by belligerent
states.
That’s why an unambiguous strategy explaining precisely how Hamas and Hezbollah
can be disarmed and how Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons is
of central importance to any peace plan.
The administration must also be wary of letting Israel’s opponents use the
settlement issue as a convenient excuse for failing to make moves of their own.
The settlements matter, but they do not go to the core of this decades-old
conflict.
Making peace in the Middle East is an unenviable task. It is also a noble
calling. To be successful, it will require patience and fortitude. It will also
require an ability to stand above the fray, to see the problems for what they
are, and the courage to confront them at their source.
**Mr. Lauder is president of the World Jewish Congress.