LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 26/09
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
according to Saint Matthew 23:23-26. Woe to you,
scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and
cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy
and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others.
Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the
outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and
self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the
inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean. -Daily Star
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
The region imposes a Lebanese
stalemate. By: Michael Young/Now Lebanon 25.08.09
The Seven Villages, another
Lebanese-Israeli complication.By
Nicholas Blanford/ Daily Star 25.08.09
Lebanese MP. Wael Abu Faour/Now
Lebanon/August 25, 2009
Realism needed in approaching terror in Africa. By:
WAlid Fares 25/08/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August
25/09
U.S.: Normalization of
Relations with Syria Impossible if it Continues with Lebanese Allies to Cripple
Government-Naharnet
Hizbullah overpowers state… FPM
victimized/Future News
Raad: Hizbullah Won't Respond to Sfeir Comments-Naharnet
Future bloc calls for “peaceful
dialogue” to finalize cabinet formation. Now Lebanon
Aoun: Any Government that
Doesn't Address Our Rights Won't See Light-Naharnet
Draft Resolution on UNIFIL Creates Controversy-Naharnet
UAE
Prosecutor Claims U.S.-Lebanese Man Had Qaida Ties-Naharnet
Marouni: Aoun is Hizbullah’s
façade-Future News
Franjieh: Hariri must make
sacrifices to head a national-unity cabinet/Now Lebanon
Hariri Back in Beirut,
Denies Negligence in Cabinet Consultations-Naharnet
Masnaa
Security General Officer Beaten Up-Naharnet
German Peacekeepers
Attacked on Cyprus Night Out-Naharnet
El-Rayess: PSP supports Hariri and
Aoun leads obstruction-Future News
Syria's influence is on the rise-GulfNews
Make
compromises' to end deadlock
- Phalange, PSP-Daily
Star
Sectarian rivalry simmers beneath
calm Tripoli-Daily
Star
Oil
imports Lebanon's leading source of VAT collected at customs-Daily
Star
adlallah calls for end to fanaticism
-Daily Star
Mercury crater to be named after Khalil Gibran-Daily
Star
Masnaa General Security officer attacked-Daily
Star
Rights group confirms reports of discrimination at pools-Daily
Star
Siniora, Khalifeh to finalize key health care reforms-Daily
Star
Hizbullah overpowers state… FPM victimized
Date: August 25th, 2009
Future News
All eyes are awaiting the expected step of the Premier-designate Saad Hariri who
has returned on Monday from the Saudi Arabia, which will revive the disconnected
contact with the opposition’s Free Patriotic Movement and Hizbullah.
The “relative calm” established by Hariri’s statement prior to his departure to
the KSA, has rested a fertile soil for deliberations to form the new cabinet
soon. However all indications hint that the main “obstacle” hampering the
formation subsides in the “across the borders”, where someone is trying to boost
his gains in Lebanon, which is condemned by the countries concerned with the
Lebanese issue.
Sfeir: Hizbullah overpowers the State
Meanwhile as Lebanese counterparts continue to exchange accusations of hampering
the cabinet formation, however with a slower pace, the Maronite Patriarch said
“Hizbullah now overpowers the state itself”, calling the situation “odd and
abnormal,” In an interview published in Al-Massira magazine Monday Cardinal Mar
Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir wondered whether "the liberation is restricted to
Hizbullah only while the rest are unconcerned.”
Sfeir added that the situation in the country will definitely improve if the
majority ruled while the minority opposed.
“If the cabinet was formed on the basis of having a horse on the front and
another in the rear this means the cart will remain motionless and
dysfunctional,” he explained.
Calls for “facilitation”
In a related development, Lebanese Forces bloc MP Antoine Zahra said Monday
after the Hariri’s arrival to Beirut he will propose another vision for the new
cabinet in cooperation with President Michel Suleiman, based on the agreed
governmental formula 15-10-5.
For its part the, Progressive Socialist Party released a statement Monday,
calling political compatriots to facilitate the task of designated Premier Saad
Hariri of forming a government based on the 15+10+5 formula that insures proper
political representation and reflect voters’ will.
The party, headed by MP Walid Jumblatt, believes it necessary that the
government be formed far from family considerations to confront possible Israeli
aggressions, especially with the rising tone of statements Israeli officials are
recently making.
FPM...The victim!
On the other hand, the FPM continued to victimize itself as it has always done
to cover its gaps as MP Simon Abi Ramia said FPM leader MP Michel Aoun’s choices
have always been correct “and always in the country’s interest”. Abi Ramia added
that since PM-designate Hariri has been nominated to form the government there
has been a programmed campaign against the FPM.
For his part MP Alain Aoun said Gen. Aoun is not the initiator in the government
formation but that the PM-designate Hariri is the one who should take the
initiatives.
Aoun told the Future News TV the PM-designate should be positive and open to the
other sides. He added that the FPM is targeted pointing out that the movement
would be more flexible if it was treated with more compassion.
Marouni: Aoun is Hizbullah’s façade
Date: August 25th, 2009/Source: Future News
Outgoing Tourism Minister Elie Marouni said Tuesday that Free Patriotic Movement
leader Michel Aoun who blocked the cabinet formation was the façade of Hizbullah
which was the actual obstructer of the entitlement, the Future News television
reported. “National accord means partnership and democracy means the rule of the
majority. Unfortunately, Premier designate Saad Hariri and President Michel
Sleiman wanted to consecrate partnership in the cabinet,” he said. “Yet,
partnership was preconditioned. Aoun cannot base his cabinet representation on
the volume of his parliamentary bloc,” he said. Aoun had demanded previously
that proportionality be adopted in the formation of the upcoming cabinet. This
gives him, from his own perspective, seven out of the 15 portfolios allocated
for Christians in the cabinet. Yet, he gave up his claim and is now insisting
that outgoing Telecommunication Minister Gebran Bassil, his son in low, be
reassigned to the same ministry and that his bloc attains the interior ministry;
which is strongly rejected by the majority.
Future bloc calls for “peaceful dialogue” to finalize cabinet formation
August 25, 2009 /Now Lebanon
In the weekly meeting in Qoreitem presided over by outgoing Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora on Tuesday, the Future bloc members called for Prime Minister-designate
Saad Hariri to keep working on the cabinet formation through peaceful dialogue
to resolve political differences between Lebanese parties. The bloc reiterated
its commitment to the Taif Accord and the Lebanese constitution, stressing on
the clauses pertaining to the powers and duties of the PM-designate and the
president. “Regional threats should push Lebanese to hold on to the country’s
role as a message to the world,” added the bloc members.
Franjieh: Hariri must make sacrifices to head a national-unity cabinet
August 25, 2009 /Now Lebanon
After meeting a Tashnaq Party delegation on Tuesday in Bnachii, Marada Movement
leader MP Sleiman Franjieh said that “if Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri
wants to head a national-unity cabinet, he has to make sacrifices.”Franjieh
stated that the demands of the Change and Reform bloc are “fair,” adding that
Free Patriotic Movement MP Michel Aoun has the right to demand the largest
number of Christian ministers in the new cabinet, because he has the largest
Christian bloc.
Raad refuses to respond to patriarch, says Hezbollah does not play role of
mediator
August 25, 2009 /Now Lebanon
Loyalty to the Resistance bloc leader MP Mohammad Raad told An-Nahar newspaper
on Tuesday that Hezbollah has decided not to respond at this time to any
comments made by Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, who called for the
formation of a majority cabinet. Raad refused to comment on the possibility of a
meeting between Hezbollah and Sfeir taking place. Raad said that the most
realistic option for everyone in Lebanon is to form a national-unity cabinet
headed by Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri based on the 15-10-5 formula,
which grants the majority 15 ministers, the opposition 10 and the president
five.
He also said that there are no domestic obstacles “impeding the formation of the
cabinet. Therefore, we are getting worried about the delay,” as Lebanon has
entered its ninth week without a government. Raad said there were orders
coming from outside Lebanon to delay the cabinet formation, stressing that
“there is no logical, realistic, political, constitutional or legal
justification” for the majority to refuse appointing as ministers those who lost
in the recent parliamentary elections, a reference to Telecommunications
Minister Gebran Bassil, who Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun has
been backing for reappointment. Hezbollah is not the mediator between Hariri and
Aoun, Raad said, rather stressing that the party is Aoun’s ally. Raad went on to
say that each party has the right to decide on the portfolios it wants and the
prospective ministers it wishes to nominate for the cabinet, adding that Hariri
should have carried out separate talks with each party to respect their
“particularities.” President Michel Sleiman is following Hariri’s lead in the
deliberations on the cabinet formation, but is also giving him some guidelines,
Raad said, adding, “This is all the president is entitled to do
constitutionally.” He praised Sleiman, saying he is acting responsibly and is
being realistic, although “his options are very limited. We do not believe the
president will follow the ones who will further complicate the situation.”
The region imposes a Lebanese stalemate
Michael Young,
Now Lebanon , August 25, 2009
In recent weeks, Walid Jumblatt has retreated from the sharp position he adopted
at the Beau Rivage Hotel earlier this month on his separation from the March 14
coalition. From a desire to play an axial role in a Syrian revival in Lebanon,
the Druze leader, evidently in the face of Saudi and American annoyance, took
several steps backward. That shows some confusion on Jumblatt’s part when it
comes to regional dynamics, and when Jumblatt is confused you can be sure things
are confusing.
What is delaying the formation of the government? It would be nice to put all
the blame on Michel Aoun’s desire to advance the career of his son-in-law,
Gebran Bassil. But Bassil is an addendum. The fact is that the states most
involved in Lebanon – Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, as well as the United
States – are caught in a wait-and-see attitude that makes difficult any accord
over a new government, which, once formed, might tilt the balance one way or the
other. Therefore, deadlock has prevailed.
At the heart of the problem is the ambiguous Syrian-Saudi relationship,
characterized by reconciliation but also disagreement over what Syria seeks in
Lebanon. The Assad regime had wanted to position itself as the sponsor of an
inter-Lebanese reconciliation in order to hit three birds with one stone: to
force Saad Hariri to visit Damascus and go a long way toward declaring Syria
innocent in the murder of his father; to regain lost ground in Lebanon, both
with respect to the March 14 majority and its allies Iran and Hezbollah; and to
absorb the Lebanese track before a possible resumption of regional negotiations
in the coming weeks.
However, the Saudis, and with them the United States and Egypt, have refused to
sell the Lebanese store to Syria. It is an open secret that the Obama
administration thwarted a visit by Hariri to Damascus before he became prime
minister. The Saudis, too, became tougher, which is why Jumblatt, at least
publicly, has moved away from his Beau Rivage speech.
At the same time, Damascus and Riyadh see advantages in maintaining a good
rapport elsewhere, for example over Iraq. The succession of devastating suicide
bombings in recent weeks has exposed implicit divergences between the Syrians
and the Iranians, with the Saudis having an interest in going along with
whatever impairs Iran. Syria continues to allow Sunni militants across its
border to undermine stability in Iraq, while Iran, now that the Americans have
started withdrawing from Iraqi cities, is keener to consolidate a secure Iraqi
state friendly to Tehran.
The essence of Syria’s strategy is the destabilization of its surroundings to
increase its own regional leverage. Yet this cuts in many contradictory ways.
Iran cannot be happy with the prospect of a sectarian war in Iraq; Syria’s
efforts in Iraq are also alienating the United States at a time when the Obama
administration has engaged Bashar Assad to bring about a change in his regime’s
behavior; Egypt is fed up with Syria’s and Iran’s encouragement of Hamas’
intransigence, which has neutralized Egypt’s role in inter-Palestinian
reconciliation talks; Saudi Arabia and Egypt are unhappy with Syria’s
obstructionism in Lebanon; and both Syria and Iran are eying each other with
quiet suspicion to see which of them might open a full-scale dialogue with the
United States before the other does.
No wonder Walid Jumblatt has seemed bewildered. As things appear today, he
played his cards on Syria too soon, without any guarantees that Assad would come
out on top in Lebanon. But who will come out on top? The lack of a simple answer
is precisely why the government is not being formed. The country is a
distillation of the Middle East’s contradictions, and rarely have these been as
extensive as they are today.
Where does this leave us? There seems to be a general consensus that we should
not expect a government until after the month of Ramadan ends. That’s a good
excuse to dally. But then the road will be open to two possibilities: If the
regional situation becomes clearer, particularly with respect to peace talks
involving the Syrians, then we may well see a breakthrough, even if that will be
preceded by strenuous efforts by Syria to ensure it has substantial sway over
the Lebanese negotiating track.
If, on the other hand, the region is stuck where it is today, Lebanon will have
to find a more practical solution to its political crisis. Pressure may build
either for a reassessment of the idea of establishing a national-unity
government or, given the diversity of interests in the region, to consider a
different prime minister-designate. This would be a blow to a majority of voters
in that Saad Hariri best embodies the March 14 victory last June.
The thing is, stalemate tends to impose new thinking, sensible or not. And for
now the thinking is taking place not in Beirut but in foreign capitals,
regardless of whether most Lebanese voters are happy with the results.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
Wael Abu Faour
August 25, 2009
Now Lebanon
Progressive Socialist party MP Wael Abu Faour said during an annual dinner for
the party in the Lebanese village of Hasbaya that the Druze leader Walid
Jumblatt didn’t practice any reversal when it came to the 14th of March alliance
and the results of the Lebanese parliamentary elections. Abu Faour explained
that what Jumblatt had done was to present a new political view to be addressed
and discussed among the 14th of march people as well as among other political
groups, adding: “Walid Jumblatt didn’t and will not discard his principles
regarding the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, plus he will not scatter
the hopes, ambitions and struggles of thousands of Lebanese who rushed into
Martyrs Square more than once demanding the sovereignty and independence of
Lebanon. Jumblatt will never to turn his back on the election results, the
popular mandate given to him or to all the slogans that he have previously been
defending."
Abu Faour criticized those who started thinking that the Progressive Socialist
Party audience had become closer to them than to Jumblatt, and those who went
even as far as believing that Jumblatt’s alienated audience could be used as a
pressure tool against him.
Abu Faour declared that Jumblatt’s bloc is still a part of the parliamentary
majority i.e. 71 members as well as part of the governmental majority i.e. 3 out
of 15.
Abu Faour stressed that there is a new stage now and this stage needs to be
viewed in fresh eyes and read anew. He expressed his surprise as to why some are
wondering why Jumblatt returned to references about Palestine and Arabism as if
those people are suggesting that Jumblatt should have broken with his father
Kamal Jumblatt and the Progressive Socialist Party’s heritage. He added:
“We know that Palestine needs us and we need it; we also need Arabism because we
are in need of a wider context engulfing all our different groups and different
loyalties, a wider belonging that alleviates the intensity of the divisions we
are living today in Lebanon. “We support the designated Prime Minister Saad
Hariri and even if we have our slight differences with him, we will not accept
anyone taking advantage of them to out-manoeuvre others when it comes to the
process of forming the government. We don’t accept any weakening of the Prime
Minister’s stand because forming the government is the urgent demand of all the
Lebanese... It’s time for the government to be formed and all obstacles removed,
public obstacles as well as personal, because nation building doesn’t stop at
some people’s whims. “Reconciliations should not be done by us or the other few
political groups, it should be a national procedure including all, as well as
being the main item on the agenda of the next government.”
U.S.:
Normalization of Relations with Syria Impossible if it Continues with Lebanese
Allies to Cripple Government
Naharnet/Washington raised concerns about attempts by Syria and its allies in
Lebanon like Hizbullah and Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun to
impede the formation of a national unity government.A high-ranking U.S. official
speaking in Washington to An-Nahar newspaper's correspondent Hisham Milhem saw
this as part of a "pattern designed to undermine the democratic institutions of
Lebanon.""Syria's friends in Lebanon don't want to accept the results of
democracy which they claim they praise," the official said.
He pointed that U.S. President Barack Obama seeks to "improve and normalize
relations with Syria.""The Syrians are mistaken if they think that their
relations with us will not be affected as a result of what they are doing in
Lebanon ... President Obama wants to improve relations with Syria, but it would
be impossible if Syria and its friends in Lebanon continue to cripple the
democratic institutions," the official added.His remarks were translated into
English by Naharnet. The official reiterated Obama's as well as Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton's commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty and independence. He
also restated the Obama Administration's determination to continue to provide
support for Lebanon and help out at the political, economic and military levels.
Moreover, the official talked about the "deep support" for Lebanon from both
Congress and the White House as well as from Democrats and Republicans.
The official stressed that Washington will not "interfere" in Cabinet formation.
"This is a Lebanese issue," he insisted.
He pointed to the fears of some Lebanese circles from Syrian-American contacts,
saying: "I know that certain Lebanese circles are under the impression that
President Obama's sincere commitment to improve relations with Syria will come
at the expense of Lebanon... The reality is we want to improve relations with
Damascus in a way that would also serve the interests of Lebanon."
"I hope that the Syrians know there are limits to the improvement of relations
with the United States," the official said, but warned that "if signs indicated
Syrian intervention in Lebanon and in the event there was a return to previous
practices as if the military withdrawal did not happen, then exchange of
ambassadors will not take place."
When asked about Syrian meddling and kinds of intervention, the official
replied: "We all know who Wiam Wahab is. Wiam Wahab is everywhere. But it seems
that the Syrian ambassador to Lebanon has disappeared."He expressed dismay
because Syria did not keep pledges it has made to the United States on Lebanon,
including the demarcation of the border.
Turning to Hizbullah, he said Washington is aware that the Shiite group has
"influence in Lebanon with a base and deputies and alliances and also has
military forces on the ground."
"But it seems that Lebanese sovereignty or democratic governance is not
acceptable in some circles," the official pointed.
"Hizbullah's arsenal is a tool in the hands of a foreign power, and Hizbullah is
ready to use its military forces to protect this foreign force regardless of
Lebanon's wellbeing," a reference to Iran. Beirut, 25 Aug 09, 08:05
Draft Resolution on UNIFIL Creates Controversy
Naharnet/A draft Security Council resolution on the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate
has created controversy because it hints at the Khirbet Selm and Kfarshouba
incidents as violations of resolution 1701.Pan-Arab daily al-Hayat said that
both the U.S. and Britain have given consent to the French-drafted resolution
which is expected to be adopted on Thursday. It calls for the renewal of
UNIFIL's mandate for another year without a change to its Rules of Engagement.
Al-Hayat said that the draft doesn't specifically mention the Khirbet Selm and
Kfarshouba incidents although U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said in his letter to the
Council that the events were a clear violation of resolution 1701. However, As
Safir daily said differences emerged among Council members over French
insistence with U.S. backing to include an article on "concerns about violations
of resolution 1701 and particularly the dangerous violation referred to in the
U.N. Secretary-General's letter." A diplomatic source said that Libya has called
for amending the article so as not to refer to the Khirbet Selm incident or even
hint at it.
Libya insisted that if the "dangerous violation" would be mentioned in the
draft, then Israel's continuous violations of Lebanese airspace and occupation
of the northern part of Ghajar and Shebaa Farms should also be mentioned. Libya
has also expressed reservations on article 2 of the draft which calls on all
parties to respect the Blue Line and cooperate with UNIFIL to demarcate it and
reach an understanding over Ghajar. The diplomatic source said several countries
have called for amending the article and asking Israel to withdraw from the
northern part of Ghajar rather than only urge the Jewish state to reach an
understanding with the Lebanese government over it. The source expected Council
members to reach a settlement acceptable by Libya, the only Arab country in the
Security Council. Beirut, 25 Aug 09, 09:15
Amal: Security Council Permanent States Must Pressure Israel to Implement 1701
Naharnet/The Amal Movement criticized in a statement Tuesday "some" Security
Council permanent member states for ignoring Israeli violations of Lebanon's
sovereignty while focusing on "what they claim to be" Lebanese breaches of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1701. "At a time when the Security Council is
working on the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate for another year, as stipulated by
Resolution 1701, a number of decision-making states are only focusing on what
they claim are Lebanese violations (of the resolution) while turning a blind eye
to Israel's innumerable, repeated and flagrant violations of Lebanon's
sovereignty," said a statement by the movement's central bureau for foreign
relations. It urged these states to "oblige Israel to implement Resolution 1701
and to withdraw from all Lebanese territories." Beirut, 25 Aug 09, 16:27
Aoun: Any Government that Doesn't Address Our Rights Won't See Light
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun stressed "any government
that fails to address our rights will not see light," adding that "we represent
the bulk of Christians."
"The FPM demands are clear. We will not accept the appointment of any staffer or
directors or others without our participation in decision-making," Aoun said in
remarks published Tuesday by the daily Al-Akhbar. "Thus, our presence within the
government and within the ministries is necessary," he stressed. Aoun reiterated
that he had worked in facilitation of Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri's
task to form a government of national unity, stressing he is the "Christian's
political weight in Lebanon.""Those who don't want to give us a role, let them
look for others," he threatened. Aoun believed that external developments were
"now not in the interest of forming a government." On his relation with Druze
leader Walid Jumblat, Aoun said he was not "against an understanding with
anyone." Beirut, 25 Aug 09, 10:47
UAE Prosecutor Claims U.S.-Lebanese Man Had Qaida Ties
Naharnet/A state prosecutor in Abu Dhabi claimed Monday that a Lebanese-American
on trial in the Emirates had ties to a group backed by al-Qaida in Iraq.
The allegations were the first specific details made public against Naji Hamdan,
who was arrested last year on terror-related charges and who had claimed he was
beaten and abused by Emirates security agents and forced to sign a confession.
The charges against Hamdan include supporting terrorism, working with terrorist
organizations and being a member of a terrorist group. The charges are related
to a time when Hamdan was living outside the Emirates.
Hamdan denied the charges during his first court appearance in June, 10 months
after he was detained by Emirati state security forces.
On Monday, the prosecutor told a judge that Hamden -- a U.S. citizen of Lebanese
origins -- had direct links to Ansar al-Sunnah, one of the Sunni insurgent
factions associated with al-Qaida in Iraq. The prosecutor offered no further
evidence, but said investigators have copies of Internet communications
allegedly written by Hamdan.
The prosecutor's name was not released by the court, citing security risks.
Hamdan, 43, attended the court session but did not speak before the presiding
judge, Mohammed Yousri. The next session in the trial is scheduled for Sept. 14.
After the hearing, Hamdan told The Associated Press that he never had any
contacts with Iraqi or other militant organizations.
"I have no idea what he (the prosecutor) is talking about," Hamdan said before
police officers shackled him and led him out of the Emirates' highest court, in
a batch with 14 other prisoners who were there for different proceedings. "I was
active in the Islamic community in the U.S., I had my opinions, but that's it,"
he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union has accused U.S. authorities of pushing the
case in the Emirates because they lack enough evidence for American courts. The
ACLU had filed a request for U.S. courts to step in and order U.S. authorities
to call off the case. But U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled earlier this
month that he doesn't have the authority to interfere in a foreign criminal
prosecution. The U.S. Embassy in the UAE has declined to comment on the case
except to say that Hamdan has been given consular support. UAE officials have
never commented on the case. Hamdan moved to the U.S. as a college student,
became a citizen and ran a successful auto parts business in the Los Angeles
area. He also was active in the Islamic community. He said the FBI began
questioning him about whether he had terrorist ties in 1999. He decided to move
his family back to the Middle East in 2006 after living in the U.S. for 20
years. He was arrested in August 2008 and claims he was subjected to beatings,
threats to his family and verbal abuse. He wrote in a note that he believes an
American was present for at least some of the questioning. In July, Hamdan's
lawyer argued with a judge in a closed-door hearing that his client was innocent
and should never have been tried without sufficient evidence to support the
charges. The lawyer also told a judge that Hamdan should not be on trial in Abu
Dhabi because he never committed any criminal act in the Emirates.
Hamdan, who was never charged with any crime in the U.S., blamed the United
Sates for his predicament. "I believe the U.S. is behind this ordeal," Hamdan
told the AP before he was taken back to prison Monday. "I am very disappointed.
I truly don't know where we are going with this trial, but I feel my sentence is
already written."(AP) Beirut, 25 Aug 09, 07:55
'Make compromises' to
end deadlock - Phalange, PSP
Parliamentary majority urges rapid cabinet formation
By Elias Sakr /Daily Star staff
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
BEIRUT: As Premier-designate Saad Hariri returned to Beirut following a two-day
trip to Saudi Arabia to perform umra, the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) and
the Phalange party urged groups, which are tying the formation of a cabinet to
preconditions, “to make compromises.” The parliamentary majority called on
Monday for the prompt formation of a cabinet in order to break the political
deadlock given the need to tackle future challenges represented by Israeli
threats as well as to meet the country’s social and economic needs.
The PSP and the Phalange both issued statements indirectly blaming the delay in
the formation process on Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun’s demands
while noting the negative impact of the deadlock on the lives of Lebanese. The
PSP urged political parties Monday to facilitate the formation of a cabinet
based on the 15-10-5 formula in order to preserve Lebanon’s national-unity given
Israel’s recent threats. “There is a need to overcome the details and
calculations pertaining to relatives and sons-in-law,” the statement said, a
reference to demands by Aoun to appoint his son-in-law caretaker
Telecommunication Minister Jebran Bassil for a second term.
The PSP statement stressed that the 15-10-5 structure guaranteed partnership
among Lebanese groups and “preserved the will of Lebanese voters in light of the
outcome of June 7 parliamentary elections.” The 15-10-5 formula grants the
majority 15 ministers, the opposition 10 and President Michel Sleiman five seats
which guarantee him the tipping vote; March 14 and the opposition would
respectively be denied absolute majority or veto power. Besides the Israeli
threats and the implications of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict on Lebanon,
the statement stressed that the growing Lebanese public debt as well as the
budget deficit in the energy and electricity sectors all required a rapid
conclusion of the formation process.
“This small sample of pressing issues called upon political forces to make
concessions to form a national-unity cabinet capable of facing those
challenges,” the statement said.
Similarly, the Phalange Party called on “parties who tie the government
formation to preconditions” to take responsibility and facilitate the process.
In a statement issued Monday, the Phalange Party questioned the “mysterious”
deadlock regarding the formation process especially ahead of a series of
domestic as well as regional security and political challenges awaiting the
country. Meanwhile, March 14 sources slammed criticism directed against Hariri
and Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir published in Syrian state-run
newspaper Al-Baath, and described the report as a clear intervention in Lebanese
domestic affairs and the government formation process.
Al-Baath said in remarks published Sunday that Hariri’s “sudden” trip to Saudi
Arabia “raised questions and speculations. The newspaper referred to Hariri as
“MP-designate Hariri.” This term was first used by Aoun during a speech last
week. Al-Baath accused Egypt of seeking to re-appoint caretaker Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora for another term, adding that such a scenario “is quite plausible
if Hariri’s trip to Saudi Arabia is longer than expected.”
However, pro-Syrian Tawheed Movement leader Wi’am Wahhab said on Monday that
Damascus was not interfering in Lebanese domestic affairs but rather supported
consensus to facilitate the formation process. Wahhab called on Hariri “to stand
closer to a Saudi-Syrian accord rather than a Syrian-Saudi-American
disagreement.
Criticizing Sfeir, Al-Baath said “calls by some spiritual leaders to form a
majority cabinet regardless of the opposition’s participation, consensus and
national partnership also raises questions.” Also on Sunday, Aoun slammed
Sfeir’s call to form a majority cabinet if the political parties failed to reach
an agreement soon on a national-unity government.
“Would the patriarch support a majority cabinet if the parliamentary majority
were represented by a Muslim-Muslim coalition?” Aoun asked, adding that Lebanon
could only be governed through real partnership given its sectarian regime.
Sfeir had discouraged on several occasions the formation of a government
embracing opposition and majority forces, saying it opposed democratic
principles and adding that a majority should govern while an opposition should
monitor its performance.
Fadlallah calls for end to 'fanaticism'
Daily Star staff/Tuesday, August 25, 2009
BEIRUT: Senior Shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah called on the
Lebanese to “bring down the walls of fanaticism and wake up from the political
and sectarian coma we live in.” “The most dangerous problem the Arab and Muslim
worlds are facing today is fanaticism. It has affected our politics, and
religious leaders have unfortunately been caught in its web” Fadlallah said on
Monday during an iftar. He also regretted that the Lebanese have become
dependent of their political leaders and “are consequently overlooking all their
mistakes.” “There is a difference between respecting a person and idolizing
them,” he said. Fadlallah also warned that Lebanon was a complex country, adding
that Lebanon’s “weakest point” was foreign meddling in its internal affairs.
“Therefore,” he added, “our country is unfortunately a fertile breeding ground
for fanaticism.” – The Daily Star
The Seven Villages, another Lebanese-Israeli complication
By Nicholas Blanford
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
While Lebanon’s campaign for the return of the Shebaa Farms has became well
known over the past nine years, it is not the only outstanding territorial
dispute between Lebanon and Israel. A more arcane – and generally misunderstood
– Lebanese grievance with Israel is the fate of the Seven Villages, originally
populated by Shiites who found themselves under the French Mandate for Greater
Lebanon in 1920 before they were transferred to Palestine in 1924.
Hizbullah occasionally raises the demand for the Seven Villages as part of its
ongoing psychological warfare against Israel, hinting that winning back the
Shebaa Farms alone is insufficient reason for the party to disarm. In fact,
Hizbullah long ago dropped conditioning the retention of its military wing on
the return of Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory.
Today, Hizbullah claims its resistance is a vital component of Lebanese national
defense against future Israeli aggression. As Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,
Hizbullah’s secretary general, said as long ago as the year 2000, before Israel
had withdrawn from Lebanon, “so long as our neighbor is an entity that has
committed aggression, is aggressive by nature and could attack our country at
any moment, we should adhere to our resistance, if only to defend our country.”
The Seven Villages dispute arose because of an overlap in the early 1920s
between the initial administrative line separating the French Mandate of Lebanon
and the British Mandate of Palestine and the time it took to ratify the
international boundary between the two countries.
At the end of World War I, the British and French established military-run
Occupied Enemy Territorial Administrations (OETA) covering Syria and Palestine.
The line separating the northern French OETA and the southern British OETA ran
eastward from Ras Naqoura more or less horizontally terminating just north of
the now dried-up Lake Huleh in Upper Galilee. In December 1920, the British and
French signed an agreement that defined the borders of the Middle East
territories under their supervision, including that of Lebanon and Palestine.
The Lebanon-Palestine border was demarcated between March and July 1921, and the
final documents – a sketch map of the boundary line and a detailed written
description – were submitted to the British and French governments in February
1922. The following month the French Mandatory authorities in Beirut authorized
elections for a Representative Council, the forerunner of the Lebanese
Parliament. A census – of highly questionable accuracy – was conducted covering
the area of the French administered OETA, which included the Upper Galilee and
its villages and farms and its Jewish-populated areas such as Metulla. Those
covered by the census were given Lebanese identity cards entitling them to vote
in the April 1922 elections.
Although Britain and France were awarded their respective Mandates at the San
Remo peace conference in 1920, the League of Nations only formally approved the
Mandates in February 1923. That step allowed Britain and France finally to
ratify the Lebanon-Palestine border, which replaced the OETA line.
The final act came in April 1924 when around 24 villages and farms that had
found themselves north of the OETA line (thus under French administration) but
south of the new border were formally transferred to the jurisdiction of British
Mandate Palestine. Of these, 12 were populated by Sunnis, two were Maronite, one
was Greek Catholic, two were Jewish, six were Shiite and one was divided between
Shiites and Greek Catholics. The six Shiite villages were Terbikha, Saliha,
Malkiyah, Nabi Yusha, Kades and Hunin. The mixed Shiite-Greek Catholic village
was Ibl Qamh. Collectively, these villages today form what is known as the Seven
Villages. During the 1948 Arab-Israel war, most of the residents of the Seven
Villages met the same fate as other Palestinians and were driven from their
homes to become refugees in Lebanon. They were granted Lebanese citizenship in
1994.
Lebanon’s argument for the return of the Seven Villages is premised on the fact
that the residents were Lebanese citizens before they were transferred to
Palestine and became Palestinian citizens. But citizenship does not denote
sovereignty, otherwise the Shebaa Farms dispute would have been resolved in
2000. Lebanon was unable to persuade the United Nations of the validity of its
claim over the Shebaa Farms because it could not satisfactorily prove
sovereignty over the area, despite the fact that the former residents possessed
Lebanese citizenship and property deeds registered in Lebanon.
The OETA line was a purely administrative bounary, not a legal and
internationally-recognized border, much as the UN-delineated Blue Line today is
not a border but a temporary military line drawn up in 2000 to confirm that
Israel had pulled out of Lebanon in conformity with UN resolutions.
The case for the Seven Villages is further undermined by past precedent.
Previous Lebanese governments have recognized the legitimacy of the southern
border with Israel on many occasions, including in 1949, when it formed the
basis of the Armistice Demarcation Line, and in 1978 when UN Resolution 425
called on Israel to withdraw from all Lebanese territory “within [Lebanon’s]
internationally recognized boundaries.”
There is nothing to prevent Lebanon and Israel mutually agreeing to amend the
border in the future if they so wish. But demanding an amendment that would
place the Seven Villages inside Lebanon would also allow Israel to press for its
own alterations to a border with which it has never been satisfied.
**Nicholas Blanford is a Beirut-based correspondent for The Christian Science
Monitor. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an
online newsletter that publishes views on Middle Eastern and Islamic issues.
Realism needed in approaching terror
in Africa
The Arab League controls 10 African nations and the Islamic Conference controls
half of the continent. If oil indeed greases the paths of power in Washington
and elsewhere, how can poor African nations cope?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
By Walid Phares
Over the past months, the narrative of Washington's "new direction" in world
affairs blurred the clarity of the confrontation with the terror forces
worldwide. Are we at conflict with a global threat? The administration,
insisting on treating the issue locally, claimed otherwise.
But during President Barack Obama's July 11 speech in Accra, he said that "when
there's a genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply
African problems,” explaining, "they are global security challenges, and they
demand a global response."
This zigzag between local and global risk is confusing not only to the public
but to strategists as well. If terrorism in Somalia is a global security
challenge, then it is a global threat. And thus it is a global confrontation,
call it war or call it anything else. Therefore, the response has to be global,
security, military, political, economic, and ideological.
Responding to the jihadi threat throughout Africa must be continental and
integrated with international efforts. The president should have drawn the
attention of his audience to the trans-African jihadi threat commencing in
Somalia with the al-Shabab, and thrusting through the immensity of the Sahel via
Chad, Niger, Mali, and Mauritania. The menace is even wider as the Salafists
(al-Qaida-like jihadists) threaten northern Africa via Algeria, Morocco, and
even Egypt.
Unfortunately, neither the Cairo nor the Accra speeches described the terror
threat in full. In the next few years, 50 percent of the continent will be
involved in a full-fledged war with terror. That is not a little detail
obstructing development; that is the main threat against social, economic, and
democratic progress across Africa. The jihadists aren't just some extremists
with local demand: they have an all-out agenda diametrically opposed to the
modern democratic agenda and to U.S. efforts in international development.
In his speech Obama raised another point of confusion created by the
administration: The ideology of the global threat. Since early 2009, (but also
under the last two years of the George W. Bush administration) all reference to
the existence of ideology, doctrine, or school of thought of the foe, let alone
its name, was scrapped out of the lexicon. The word jihad was banned along with
all related words such as Islamism.
America fights off foreign cyber attacks
Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory have come up with a program that
allows defense computer systems to communicate when attacked in hopes of
strengthening the overall computer security of the government.
Analysis
Syria: A Beautiful Friend in the Neighbourhood
While the U.S. ambassador has returned to Syria, and relations apparently
warming, evidence shows Syrian complicity with North Korea in producing
ballistic missiles. Why the warm embrace now?
Until the Accra address, the Obama speech writers wanted the public to digest
the idea that there is no ideological battle. But in front of an all-African
legislative audience in Ghana, Obama resuscitated the unavoidable conclusion:
That is why we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst. It is never justified,
never justifiable to target innocents in the name of ideology. So is it or is it
not an ideology, regardless of what one wishes to call it?
In Africa, we cannot convince the people subjected to Wahabi, Salafi, or
Khomeinist propaganda that ideology has nothing to do with the massacre of black
men, women, and children. But in Cairo, we didn't raise the issue. In
Washington, we act as if we want it to go away by changing our lexicon. In the
end, Africa knows all too well the nature of the ideological menace. It knows
its name, its goals, and it has seen its work. The U.S. must catch up with the
continent's deep and dramatic knowledge of the roots of evil.
Twice in his speech, Obama asserted that "we must start from the simple premise
that Africa's future is up to Africans." Indeed, after the receding of Western
colonialism during the last decades of the 20th century, who is obstructing
Africa's global independence? What regional and international organizations are
controlling the African vote at the United Nations, paralyzing the African Union
when it decides to intervene against ethnic cleansing in Darfur, southern Sudan,
and Biafra, or to solve civil wars in Cote d'Ivoire and Somalia?
The Arab League controls 10 of Africa's countries and the Organization of the
Islamic Conference covers half of the continent. Both organizations are
essentially commanded by oil-producing regimes and jointly colonize the African
Union. NATO, the EU, the CIS, and the OAS have no membership in Africa. But
OPEC's big boys determine at what price Nigerians, Ghanaians, and others must
sell their oil. What I have coined as "oil imperialism" in my last book has been
devastating Third World independence since 1973, when petrodollars pushed back
against the West and intimidated weaker nations.
If oil regimes can exert influence in the world's most powerful capitals, how
can poor African nations resist their domination?
Walid Phares writes for The Cutting Edge News and is the author of The
Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad. He is the Director of the
Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a
visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy.