LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 28/09
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 24:42-51. Therefore, stay
awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come. Be sure of this: if
the master of the house had known the hour of night when the thief was coming,
he would have stayed awake and not let his house be broken into. So too,
you also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will
come. Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in
charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time?
Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so.
Amen, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that
wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is long delayed,' and begins to beat
his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards,
the servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour
and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where
there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. -Naharnet
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
Resisting the Resistance. By: Ana
Maria Lucal/Now Lebanon/August 27, 2009
Sleiman Franjieh/Now Lebanon/August
27, 2009
Lebanon: The Circumstances and the
Customs. By: Abdullah Iskandar/Al Hayat 27/08/09
If
politicians acted more responsibly, religious leaders would not need to speak
out.
The Daily Star 27/08/09
Obama's
Mideast vision: Confusion. By:
By Michael Young 27/08/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August
27/09
Security Council Renews UNIFIL Mandate-Naharnet
Hariri Meets Suleiman;
Declines Comment-Naharnet
Bassil: Israel Sole
Beneficiary of Barouk Station-Naharnet
Raad Stresses on 'National
Responsibility;' Fadlallah's Views 'Personal'-Naharnet
Israel: increase UN efforts in Lebanon-Ynetnews
As-Safir: UN extends UNIFIL mandate
without amendments/Now Lebanon
Murr:
Never in the History of Lebanon Did Each Bloc Demand 'This and That' Portfolio-Naharnet
Security Source Says Syria, Hizbullah Backing Salafists
Amid Fears Over Killing Plots by Fatah al-Islam -Naharnet
Sarkozy for Quick Lebanese
Unity Cabinet Formation -Naharnet
Hariri Stresses Equal
Shares, Christian-Muslim Coexistence -Naharnet
Soaid: Cabinet Deadlock is the Result of Hizbullah's Regional Calculations
-Naharnet
Barak: 'Israel More
Prepared than Ever' -Naharnet
Report: Parant to Take Up New Post in Elysee -Naharnet
Aoun: I Will Not Pay Any
Visits; those Wanting to Negotiate Can Visit Me
-Naharnet
March 14 Slams Campaign Targeting Sfeir -Naharnet
Inhabitants of Northern
Border Town block Highway in Protest -Naharnet
Arslan: Domestic Obstacles
Are Hindering Cabinet Shape-Up -Naharnet
Jumblat Expects Initiatives as Hizbullah Resumes Activity with Rabiyeh
-Naharnet
MPs: Berri Says Situation
Requires 'Extraordinary' Government
-Naharnet
Syrian ambassador hopes
national-unity cabinet is formed soon/Now Lebanon
As-Sharq al-Awsat: Barouk
internet station not affiliated with Israel/Now Lebanon
Aoun: I Will Not Pay Any Visits;
those Wanting to Negotiate Can Visit Me-Naharnet
UNIFIL
Baathail Lake fence to be completed in 3 weeks-Daily
Star
Haigazian University to hold Armenian genocide talk-Daily
Star
Hariri
stresses Christian-Muslim coexistence as Lebanon's message-Daily
Star
Fadlallah's latest criticism of Sfeir sparks March 14 backlash-Daily
Star
Leaked
Security Council draft: UNIFIL mandate extended 1 year-Daily
Star
Consul
in Sydney loses Zionist defamation case-Daily
Star
Thaibesh
denies 1999 killing of four Lebanese judges-Daily
Star
Rafik
Hariri conviction could cause Sunni-Shiite strife-Daily
Star
Number
of swine flu cases 'likely to be in thousands-Daily
Star
Well-connected inmates in Roumieh live in luxury-By
Agence France Presse (AFP)
Shatah
begins to outline 2010 draft budget-Daily
Star
Delays
in government formation damaging Lebanon's hospitality industry-Daily
Star
As-Safir: UN extends UNIFIL mandate without amendments
August 27, 2009 /Now Lebanon
As-Safir reported on Thursday that the UN will hold a session to unanimously
decide on the extension of UNIFIL’s mandate in South Lebanon by one year without
amending the peacekeepers’ power. The resolution, which was prepared by France
and supported by the US, has been approved by the Lebanese cabinet. According to
the daily, Libya's Deputy UN Representative Ibrahim al-Dabbashi said his country
voiced reservations over the resolution’s clause that states “deep concern over
violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1701,” a reference to the explosion
of a Hezbollah arms storage facility in Kherbet Selem last July. Libya insisted
the resolution be more upfont in condemning violations committed by Israel,
stating however that “Lebanon’s approval has led us to abandon our
reservations.” As-Safir added that similar Libyan reservations had been made
about the resolution’s introduction which had called for reaching an agreement
between Israel and Lebanon on Ghajar Village, because Libya feels Israel should
fully withdraw in compliance with Resolution 1701. The introduction was then
amended and now states that all parties should respect the Blue Line separating
Lebanon and Israel, including the section that passes through the Ghajar
Village.
Lebanon’s Ambassador to the UN Nawwaf Salam, displeased with the section about
Kherbet Selem, said the Lebanese mission worked with other UN members to
intentionally make the clause ambiguous. Salam also stressed that the amendments
did not meet Lebanon’s demands, however, he thanked Libya and the other UN
members for their efforts and participation in altering the resolution.
Resisting the Resistance
Ana Maria Luca,
Now Lebanon/August 27, 2009
The entrance to the village of Mawahein in South Lebanon. (NOW Lebanon)
Abu Alaa had had enough. The thugs with the guns had harassed him and had beaten
his wife while she gathered wood. Now they wanted to plant trees on his land
next to his tobacco crop. He had told them “no” several times, telling them that
planting trees near tobacco affects the crop.
But the next day, when he went to the field, he found the trees had been
planted. The crops and the land were his livelihood. So he went to the Hezbollah
office in the South Lebanon village of Marwahein to complain.
“I asked them why they did what they did,” he told NOW. “We had an agreement to
not plant trees there.” The official told him that they would plant the trees
even if Abu Alaa had to sue. “He told me, ‘my foot is on your neck’. Then he hit
me.”
Abu Alaa sits on a plastic chair on his veranda under the thick tobacco ropes
left to dry. The smell is heavy, but it doesn’t seem to bother him on this hot
afternoon at the beginning of Ramadan. His wife brings glasses of water for the
guests and sits beside him.
“Tell them how old you are,” she urges. “I’m 68 years old,” says Abu Alaa,
showing a scar on his arm. “There were five of them, but I managed to escape.”
Abu Alaa said they came after him but that the entire village came to his help.
The Sunnis in Marwahein had had enough of the Hezbollah office in their village,
and it was not the first time one of them had been harassed.
“I was sick for two days. Look, my medicines,” Abu Alaa’s wife, Fatima, says,
picking the packs of pills from an old biscuit box. “See how many? I have to
take them all.”
She sits back on her chair and sighs. “We are poor people. My husband is sick
and we have only this land. We only plant tobacco.”
“Everybody has problems with Hezbollah,” Abu Alaa explains. “We don’t know why
they are doing this to us. We haven’t said anything to them, and we didn’t do
anything to them. We don’t even talk to them. We go to work in our land and we
come back. We will never leave. It’s our land. Where else can we go?”
Quiet negotiations
Khaled, one of Abu Alaa’s neighbors, sits on his veranda smoking grape-flavored
arghileh while his wife and sister-in-law prepare food. They’re not fasting
today.
“It started with Abu Alaa, three days ago, but it got bigger,” he explains.
“They brought around 200 armed men, and all the people in the village came out
to fight them. The army came. The police came. Then the secret police came. We
called the mufti from Tyre, and somebody senior from Hezbollah was also here,
and it is all settled now. Nothing happened. But God knows what will happen
next.”
According to Khaled, the problems with Hezbollah started after the July War in
2006. Until then, there was peace and quiet in Marwahein and the other Sunni
villages of Em al-Tout, Yarine, Al-Boustan and Bouhaira, which all sit on the
Israeli border.
“They do this to us because we are Sunnis, and there are political problems in
Beirut,” Khaled says. “Nothing like this happens in the Shia or Christian
villages. But here they beat the workers on the land. They beat the women
looking for wood. They beat the kids taking care of the cattle. They want to be
in charge in this village.”
“We coexist”
The anger is not shared by everybody in Marwahein. Three women sitting in front
of their house swear there was never any fighting.
“No, no, no. Not at all. It’s not even something we talk about,” one woman
explains while handling the tobacco ropes. “We don’t even speak of ‘Sunni’ or ‘Shia’.
We are all Muslims; Arabs. Israel doesn’t differentiate between Sunni and Shia.
We have the same enemy, and we’re on the same mission. My mother is Shia, and my
sisters are all married to Shia. Whether we’re from Beirut, the South or the
Metn, we’re all Lebanese.”
Her sister brings water and sweets. “I am with the Resistance, and I love the
Resistance,” she says. “It protects us from Israel. The army or UNIFIL do
nothing for us. The UN people kick us out when we go to ask for help.” She says
she has had to live with an unexploded bomb buried in the family’s garden since
the July War because UNIFIL have been unable to carry out a controlled
explosion.
When told that the Israeli army had filmed the fight between the locals and
Hezbollah, she denied it could be true. “It’s just propaganda to divide us.
There’s nothing at all. Maybe the feeling of fear is there in some people, but
not in me. This is normal for us. We coexist.”
Abu Alaa is amused to hear that the Israeli Defense Forces filmed everything.
“Well yes, Israel is nearby,” he laughs. “Up that hill. It’s a shame that the
Israeli media knows about this before the Lebanese media. We called the Lebanese
newspapers and radios and nobody came.”
He leans back on his chair and sighs. “We are not against Hezbollah. Make sure
you say that in your report. They are Lebanese like us. They helped us during
the war. We don’t want the Israelis to get our land. My sister and my
brother-in-law had seven children, and they all died in the July War. All we
want is to live in peace.”
Sleiman Franjieh
August 27, 2009
Now Lebanon
Marada leader Sleiman Franjieh said after a visit made to him in Bnachii by
Tashnag party representatives that the Lebanese people are in one place and the
state is in another, adding that those Lebanese are great indeed because they
instituted for themselves a model where they work and live regardless whether a
government exists or not.
On how the delay in forming the government is affecting the country:
Franjieh explained how he views this country as weird and strange, saying that
sometimes even when a functioning government exists things continue to relapse,
while at other times a government would be non-existent and things still go
forward.
“The Lebanese people are indeed great; for in the same manner as they would use
generators when there was no electricity and dug wells when the water was gone,
now in the absence of a government they constructed a method for functioning
without a problem. The fact is that the people are self-sufficient.”
On what obstructions exists in the forming the government:
Franjieh said: “I don’t say that there is anybody obstructing the formation of
the government but since there will be a unity government, it is advisable that
all the sides be satisfied… Now every side has its provisions and we have our
own but the one forming a national unity government ought to make sacrifices.
All sides are agreeing on a national unity type government and so I don’t think
that there is anybody standing in the path of its formation. General Michel Aoun
who speaks in the name of the ‘Change and Reform bloc’ says that his demands are
fair and we stand beside him on that. It is right for General Aoun to claim the
bigger Christian share since in fact he does represent the bigger Christian
bloc. It is a right for us and others ought to respect this right.”
On Gebran Bassil as an obstacle:
Franjieh said: “Let’s be clear and I say this for the first time, General Aoun
wasn’t insisting on the opposition picking Gebran Bassil for a ministry post but
when 14th of March people insisted on purposely neglecting Bassil it felt like a
stab to Aoun and an attempt at breaking the Free Patriotic Movement, so then we
as an opposition decided to persist in regards to Bassil. Aoun started insisting
on Bassil since only a week ago and Aoun didn’t get into the names until the
other side starting fussing about Bassil. So initially we didn’t really suggest
Bassil.”
On regional obstacles:
Franjieh said: “There are no regional obstacles facing the forming of the
government. Did those regional powers tell Aoun to do what he did? I don’t
thinks so because all we know is that we are trying to calm the General not stir
him up. I do believe that the General’s demands are right and if anyone is
interfering with the general, he or she is there to calm him down and tone down
his positions. It is obvious that Aoun is always the first to start raising the
bar and when he tones his rhetoric down a bit he does so to appease his allies.
“When Aoun found that there is a group in the country unwilling to grant any
concessions while continuing to talk about a national unity government, Aoun
stated his conditions and demands and told the 14th of March people that if they
accept them they are welcome and if not there shouldn’t be a unity government.
So I think there is no unity government at this time.”
“Who is the one today incapable of either forming the government or excusing
himself from doing it? I say that because he who will turn down the job at hand
[faces] a big chance that he won’t return again.”
On the formula 15+10+5:
Franjieh said: “This formula is still holding ground as well as the 11th
minister with a 91% chance and anything other than is unacceptable.”
On the delay of the Christian-Christian reconciliations
Franjieh said that what is important is the present tranquility on the Christian
scene not any hastily-made reconciliation, adding that for four years some were
saying it’s too early to reconcile while we were saying that for only two months
now, and there is no problem.
Aoun: I Will Not Pay Any Visits; those Wanting to
Negotiate Can Visit Me
MP Michel Aoun said in an interview Wednesday he will not visit any politician
or resume negotiations on the government until those who attacked him apologized
and recognized his rights.
"Those who want to negotiate, let them come to my home," Aoun told NBN
Television. He said he was not the one to "create a government crisis. The
crisis remains outside of Lebanon and for reasons soon to be uncovered." "They
are the ones to put be in the forefront and they started saying the son in law
until the whole issue turned into a challenge," Aoun said. He was referring to
the majority's opposition to his nomination of his son in law, Telecoms Minister
Jebran Bassil, to the new government. The Free Patriotic Movement leader
insisted he will be represented in the Cabinet and will acquire five portfolios,
and ruled out an imminent formation of a government. Asked whether the
opposition was willing to offer more concessions, Aoun said March 8 "gave up 3
seats of its share in Cabinet on the basis of proportional representation and is
not prepared to sacrifice more than that." Asked why he was insisting on the
interior ministry's portfolio, he replied: "I am not discussing ministries. I
presented an offer and still waiting for a reply." Beirut, 26 Aug 09, 18:46
-Naharnet
Leaked Security Council draft: UNIFIL mandate extended 1 year
Document expresses deep concern over Resolution 1701 violations
By Patrick Galey and Carol Rizk
Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 27, 2009
BEIRUT: The draft to extend the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been made available to the media, a day before an official
Security Council decision is expected. Lebanese papers on Wednesday carried
leaked copies of the draft, overseen by French diplomats, which called on member
states, as well as Lebanon and Israel to “help secure a permanent ceasefire in
the long-term solution as mentioned in Resolution 1701.”
It states that the Security Council has decided “to extend the mandate of UNIFIL
until August 31, 2010.”
Deputy UNIFIL spokesman Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star that it would refrain
from commenting on the draft until an official announcement had been made from
New York.
“I would say that we should wait and see what happens tomorrow and wait until
the actual resolution comes out,” he said.
“I don’t know where they got their information from.”
Speculation has been mounting ahead of the extension deadline that Libya – the
only Arab Security Council member – is pushing for an article mentioning all
“serious violations” of Resolution 1701. However, An-Nahar quoted Wednesday a
“western source” who described such conjecture as a “big error.”
While the draft mentions “deep concern over violations relating to Resolution
1701, especially the latest dangerous violations,” it stops short of explicitly
citing incidents such as the arms cache blast near Khirbet Silim, southern Leba-non,
in July and persistent flyovers by Israeli jets, which many view as flagrant
violations of UN law.
Former long-term UNIFIL adviser Timor Goksel told The Daily Star that mentioning
the violations without specific reference to individual incidents was
significant as it put them “on the record.”
He suggested that the draft could have been leaked to gauge regional reaction
ahead of any official announcement.
Security Council Resolution 1701 was drafted to end the 2006 war between Lebanon
and Israel and extended UNIFIL’s operational mandate while expanding its troop
numbers between the Litani River and the Blue Line – the boundary of Israeli
military withdrawal from Lebanon.
The draft reiterates the necessity of “demarcating the Blue Line and reaching an
agreement concerning the upper part of Ghajar.”
Ghajar’s residents live in a town which straddles the marker between Israel and
Lebanon. Although they have Israeli identification cards, debate rages as to
what should become of the village, with Israel bullish on the prospect of its
inhabitants gaining Lebanese citizenship.
The draft also “stresses the importance that UNIFIL be equipped with all
necessary material to execute its mandate,” to which Goksel expressed surprise.
“I thought they were well equipped, I don’t think that [UNIFIL troops] are
missing anything.”
Earlier this month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wrote a letter to the
Security Council calling for the extension of UNIFIL’s mandate “without
amendment.” In it he expressed concern that a reduced amount of equipment and
personnel could hamper UNIFIL’s ability to operate effectively. Ban also called
the alleged stockpiling of weapons close to the Blue Line by groups other than
the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL “a clear violation” of 1701.
Goksel cited Article Five of the draft – which states the UN’s “intolerance
toward any form of sexual exploitation or abuse” and calls for all member states
“to take all necessary measures to prevent such actions and punish the culprits”
– as particularly unexpected. “There has never been any reference to staff
problems [in previous extensions]. If anything that serious has happened then we
should have heard about it,” he said. “To put it in the operational part of the
mandate doesn’t make sense.”
The new draft states the importance of keeping the area “free of armed
individuals or any arms except those pertaining to the Lebanese Government and
UNIFIL.”
Although UNIFIL’s operational mandate remains ostensibly unchanged, the draft
asks the ecretary general “to continue presenting reports to the council
concerning the execution of Resolution 1701 once every four months and whenever
he deems necessary.”
Western sources told An-Nahar that “the revision is part of a broader project
concerning the mandates of all peacekeeping forces across the world in the aim
of allowing the forces to better perform their duties.”
Goksel said that the operational continuity of the draft had been expected:
“From an operative [stance] there’s nothing new.”
According to the draft, the UN believes that Lebanon “still represents a threat
to international peace and security.”
An official announcement is expected from the Security Council on Thursday.
Fadlallah's latest criticism of Sfeir sparks March 14 backlash
Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 27, 2009
BEIRUT: Implicit criticism made by senior Shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein
Fadlallah against Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir sparked a flurry of
responses from figures of the March 14 Forces. On Tuesday, Fadlallah had slammed
Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir’s call to form a majority cabinet if
efforts to form a national-unity government are facing obstacles. “Why do you
restrict the issue to the parliamentary majority?” Fadlallah asked during an
iftar in a clear reference to Sfeir’s demands. “We call for a popular majority
and popular referendum, so that people would have their say.” In remarks made to
Lebanese Forces-affiliated magazine Al-Massira to be published Saturday, Sfeir
called on the March 14 Forces to form a majority cabinet so as to work toward
securing the country’s stability and halt the emigration of the youth.
Sfeir stressed that the previous Cabinet’s experience was not encouraging since
it proved that a government embracing the majority and the opposition was
subject to obstruction.
The patriarch added that “if the majority governed and the minority opposed,
matters would progress better.” “A government based on a horse in the front and
another in the rear would mean the wagon remains broken and at a standstill,”
Sfeir said. During the iftar, Fadlallah stressed that “Lebanon’s glory has been
given to the struggling and resilient people.”
The sayyed was referring to a popular proverb in Lebanon saying that the “glory
of Lebanon is given to the Maronite patriarch.” The March 14 secretariat general
said Wednesday that no one can take away “the glory of Lebanon from its makers,”
while slamming attacks on Sfeir. In a statement after their weekly meeting at Le
Gabriel Hotel in Achrafieh, March 14 slammed “the organized campaign” targeting
Sfeir, describing Sfeir’s stances and speeches as a “guarantee for a sovereign,
free and independent Lebanon.”
The alliance also criticized the interference of religious authorities in
political matters, adding that such a behavior was a blow to Lebanese
institutions and the principles of coexistence and unity.” Democratic Gathering
MP Henri Helou also condemned “the campaign on Sfeir,” adding that Sfeir’s
stances have always been “wise and patriotic.”
In his comments in Al-Massira, Sfeir slammed Hizbullah’s possession of arms,
adding that the Lebanese state should maintain monopoly over weapons.
“Hizbullah has become stronger than the Lebanese state,” said the prelate.
Hizbullah’s Loyalty to the Resistance bloc head MP Mohammad Raad, however,
refused to comment on Sfeir’s statement. When asked whether he was satisfied
with the March 14 Forces maintaining the majority in Parliament following the
June 7 elections, Sfeir said: “Wouldn’t a shift in the parliamentary majority
from the March 14 to March 8 mean that Syria and Iran would take control of the
Lebanese situation?” Tackling the issue of Hizbullah’s weapons, Sfeir said the
party became stronger than the Lebanese state, adding that the situation was
“abnormal.” “Is the liberation of occupied territories an exclusive right to
Hizbullah, while others are not concerned with liberating their country?” Sfeir
asked. – The Daily Star
Hariri stresses Christian-Muslim coexistence as Lebanon's message
Pm-designate keen to form unity cabinet gathering all main parties
Daily Star staff/Thursday, August 27, 2009
BEIRUT: Prime Minister- designate Saad Hariri stressed on Wednesday that
coexistence between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon was the country’s true
message. “We want Lebanon to remain a place for inter-religious union and
dialogue and we want Christians and Muslims in this country to maintain equal
shares regardless of numbers of demographics,” Hariri told religious figures
representing Lebanon’s 18 confessions during an iftar at his residence in
Qoreitem. Hariri reiterated he was working on forming a unity cabinet “that
would gather all the main political parties so as to counter Israeli threats and
tackle economic and social challenges.”
He added that promoting the tourism sector would be one of his government’s top
priorities.
“I also wish to promote religious tourism, especially pilgrimage to Christian
vestiges such as the Notre Dame Cathedral in Harissa and the southern town of
Qana,” he said.
Almost two months after the designation of the Future Movement leader to form
the country’s first cabinet following the June 7 parliamentary elections, his
efforts to form a national unity cabinet have yet to pay off.
Hariri has so far maintained a reconciliatory tone, especially during iftar
meals he has organized so far. On Tuesday, Hariri pledged to include Hizbullah
in the upcoming Cabinet, in defiance of Israeli warnings against group’s
participation in the Lebanese government.
The latest pledge came in response to remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who warned Lebanon against letting Hizbullah into the new
government.
Netanyahu said earlier this month that Israel would hold the Lebanese government
responsible for any attacks on Israeli targets by Hizbullah.
For its part Hizbullah has also shied away from fiery rhetoric and has expressed
willingness to help Hariri form a national unity.
A statement by Hizbullah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc urged
“calm and practical dialogue” in order to form a cabinet.
Hizbullah’s official in south Lebanon Sheikh Nabil Qawouk considered the
challenges slowing the formation of a cabinet as “external rather than
internal.”
“Domestic obstacles are superficial,” he said.
Qawouk said Hizbullah insisted on the formation of a national unity cabinet,
adding that his group was “keen on maintaining a calm and positive atmosphere,
and will not take sides.”
However, Hizbullah’s key ally Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun did
not mirror Hizbullah’s tone.
Aoun said he refused to visit Hariri at the latter’s residence, “unless his MPs
apologize for insults that targeted me and our demands are met.”
Conversely, Progressive Socialist party leader MP Walid Jumblatt slammed on
Wednesday attempts to obstruct the prime minister-designate’s efforts to form a
cabinet.
Jumblatt had told As-Safir newspaper in remarks published Wednesday that Hariri
has “exerted every effort” to facilitate cabinet formation.” He revealed that
Hariri was likely to “take new initiatives, in order to expedite and revive the
formation process.”
“Hariri and I want a government that would act as a safety valve to face the
challenges,” Jumblat said.
Meanwhile, another key opposition player Speaker Nabih Berri has remained silent
on issues related to cabinet formation.
For the second week in a row, Berri did not comment to reporters following his
meeting with President Michel Sleiman on Wednesday.
But lawmakers who met with Berri in Parliament Wednesday quoted him as saying
there was a pressing need “to form a unity government to address dire social and
economic matters.”
On Tuesday, Sleiman discussed the cabinet formation process as well as regional
developments during a telephone conversation with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Media reports on Wednesday said Sleiman was expecting a new round of talks to
break the deadlock over the government.
Reports added that the president wished that a government be formed prior to his
trip to the UN General Assembly on September 22 to deliver Lebanon’s address.
In an interview with NBN television on Wednesday, Aoun said that if Hariri
wishes to discuss the cabinet formation process, “he’s welcome to visit me at my
residence.”
The FPM leader reiterated that he was not obstructing the formation of a
government, but that the process was rather impeded “due to external reasons
that will soon surface.”
The March 14 Forces say Aoun’s demand for the Interior Ministry and his
insistence that his son-in-law remain on as telecommunications minister have
impeded the process. Hariri was reported to have rejected those demands.
Asked whether the opposition was willing to offer concessions in order to
facilitate the formation process, Aoun said: “We have already given up three
seats of our share in Cabinet on the basis of proportional representation and we
are not prepared to sacrifice more than that.” Asked why he insisted on getting
the Interior Ministry portfolio, he replied: “I am not discussing ministries. I
presented an offer and still waiting for an answer.” On Tuesday, the weekly
meeting of the March 14 Forces, which was attended by all groups including the
Phalange Party and the PSP, condemned what they dubbed as “the campaign
targeting Premier-designate Hariri.” “The campaign is a result of Saad Hariri’s
adherence to the Constitution and his constitutional privileges in forming a
government in cooperation with the president,” it said. It said the longer
government formation was delayed the more “Lebanon is exposed to regional
disputes, especially in the face of repeated Israeli threats.” “A certain
political group continues its attempts to obstruct the formation process and
placed the country in a state of tension,” the statement added. – The Daily Star
Phalange attends March 14 Forces meeting
BEIRUT: The weekly meeting of the March 14 Forces General Secretariat at Le
Gabriel Hotel Wednesday was attended by a Phalange Party representative, while
the Progressive Socialist Party representative remained absent from the
meetings, which he stopped attending since the departure of party leader MP
Walid Jumblatt from the coalition in early August.
The Phalange representative at the meetings Sassine Sassine said his party
“remains an integral part of March 14.” He added that the Phalange will
officially re-activate its membership within the coalition “as soon as party
leader [former] President Amin Gemayel returns from a trip abroad and issues a
decree to re-activate our participation.” He said the Phalange diverged with the
general secretariat “on certain administrative and logistical issues, but talks
were under way to resolve those matters.” – The Daily Star
Consul in Sydney loses Zionist
defamation case
Daily Star staff/Thursday, August 27, 2009
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s consul general in Sydney, Robert Naoum, has lost a court case
launched to prevent a website calling him a Zionist, Australian newspaper the
News reported on Wednesday. Naoum went to court in an attempt to remove comments
posted about him on an Arabic-language website owned by Nabil Dannawi through a
permanent court order, alleging they put his life in danger. But the court ruled
the comments were not defamatory. – The Daily Star
Rafik Hariri conviction could cause Sunni-Shiite strife
Thursday, August 27, 2009/Bassem Mroue
Associated Press
BEIRUT: No one knows when an international court will issue its first
indictments in the assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister, but
Lebanese are already afraid it could spark a wave of violence between its Shiite
and Sunni communities. The Netherlands-based tribunal has kept silent on who it
might charge in the 2005 slaying of Rafik Hariri. The fear in Lebanon is that it
will accuse members of the powerful Shiite group Hizbullah. Hizbullah has
fiercely denied any role in the killing, and the group’s leader Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah has warned of a backlash from the heavily armed group if the court
implicates any of its members. He threatened a repeat of clashes that erupted in
May 2008, when Hizbullah fighters trounced pro-government gunmen in battles that
nearly tipped the country into civil war.
“Let everyone know that what we did on May 7 was only a wave of our hand. We are
strong enough we can overturn 10 tables, not only one,” Nasrallah said in a July
meeting with expatriate Lebanese, according to two newspapers close to the
group, Al-Akhbar and As-Safir.
The speculation was sparked by a report in May by the German magazine Der
Spiegel, which said the court had evidence that members of Hizbullah were behind
the assassination of Hariri, who was Lebanon’s most prominent politician since
the 1975-1990 Civil War ended.
The report did not name its sources, and the court prosecutor’s spokeswoman
Radhia Achouri refused to comment on it, saying, “We don’t take into account
reports leaked through the media.” Hizbullah called the report a “fabrication.”
Some in Lebanon believe the report was concocted to discredit Hizbullah ahead of
June parliament elections that pitted a Hizbullah-led coalition against the
parliamentary majority bloc.
The speculation may also be fueled by confusion over what direction the court
will take. Many Lebanese accuse Syria of being behind Hariri’s slaying, a claim
Damascus denies.
Four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals were jailed in Lebanon for nearly four years
on suspicion of involvement and were widely expected to be the court’s first
defendants. But in April, the court ordered them freed because of insufficient
evidence. With their release, there are no obvious suspects in the killing.
Also unknown is when the court will take action. Tribunal spokesman Peter Foster
this week said reports in the Lebanese press that indictments would come within
months were based on “imagination,” but would not give a timeframe. The
prosecutor’s office has only said the investigation is still ongoing.
Shiites say an indictment against Hizbullah would cause turmoil in Lebanon,
where the sectarian divides among the Sunni, Shiite and Christian communities
have repeatedly exploded into violence over the past four years. Each community
makes up roughly a third of Lebanon’s population of 4 million.
Lebanon’s top Shiite cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah warned in July of a
“major conspiracy to burn the country by plunging it into sectarian strife.” He
accused Israel of being behind the Der Spiegel report.
Druze politician Walid Jumblatt described the report as “more dangerous than Ain
al-Rummaneh’s bus” – a reference to a 1975 attack on a bus in a Beirut suburb
that sparked Lebanon’s 15-year Civil War.
Hariri’s assassination in a suicide truck bombing set up a spiral of political
turmoil in Lebanon. It led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops and the end of
Damascus’ 29-year domination of the country. But that opened the door to a still
unresolved struggle for power between pro-Syrian Lebanese led by Hizbullah and
pro-Western factions.
The political fight is intertwined with the sectarian divisions since most
Sunnis back the pro-Western bloc while most Shiites support the pro-Syrian side.
Christians have been divided between the camps. Sporadic clashes between Sunnis
and Shiites have killed more than 100 people in Lebanon in recent years.
There has been a relative calm since the May 2008 violence. The pro-Western bloc
won the June 7 election, and its leader – Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri,
the slain Hariri’s son – is working to put together a new government.
But there have been flashes of tension. Three weeks after the voting, a gunfight
between Hariri supporters and Shiites killed a woman and wounded two other
bystanders in a Beirut neighborhood. Fistfights and a stabbing have occurred
between followers of Saad Hariri’s Future Movement and supporters of Hizbullah
and its Shiite ally Amal.
Hundreds of Lebanese troops remain deployed in tense mixed neighborhoods in the
Lebanese capital’s Muslim sector.
A senior Hariri loyalist, former lawmaker Mustafa Alloush, said that if an
indictment blames Hizbullah elements “that are not connected” to the leadership,
the group should hand them over to the tribunal in order for “civil peace not to
be affected,” he said.
Well-connected inmates in
Roumieh live in luxury
Inside prison’s walls, money, influence are all-powerful
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Rita Daou /Agence France Presse
BEIRUT: Well-connected inmates inside Lebanon’s Roumieh prison can enjoy
conditions granted to just a privileged few, regardless of their crime – thanks
to understaffing, incompetence and corruption. Inside the prison’s mildewed
walls and overcrowded cells, money and influence are all-powerful, to the extent
that even Islamist militants live a favored existence despite the serious
charges against them.
The case of Taha Haji Sleiman, a Fatah al-Islam militant facing terrorism
charges, propelled the need for reform in Lebanon’s prison system to center
stage.
Sleiman, a dual Syrian and Palestinian national, was charged with belonging to a
“terrorist network,” the Al-Qaeda-inspired Fatah al-Islam militia which fought
deadly battles with the army in a refugee camp north of Tripoli in 2007.
Yet he still managed to escape in a pre-dawn jailbreak last week before being
recaptured by the army in woods near Roumieh, northeast of Beirut, a day later.
Seven others failed in their bid for freedom.
Despite the seriousness of the charge against Sleiman and the seven others, one
security guard in Roumieh told AFP: “Fatah al-Islam prisoners receive
preferential treatment.”
Speaking on condition of anonymity, he added: “Some religious authorities
constantly intervene on their behalf and we are not allowed to say anything.”
For criminologist Omar Nashabe, they are not the only powerbrokers who can – and
do – interfere in how the notorious Roumieh prison runs.
“Muslim and Christian clerics, businessmen, officials in embassies, security
institutions, the military and prominent social figures do so as well,” said
Nashabe, author of “If Roumieh Could Speak,” a book on the prison.
“There are even second-rate ‘stars’ with enough power to intervene and improve
the conditions of a certain prisoner or ensure he gets privileges,” added
Nashabi, who is also adviser to Lebanon’s interior minister. These privileges
could include more comfortable cells on higher floors and longer hours outdoors,
he said.
And with the start of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting, Fatah al-Islam
inmates got “feasts from outside the prison,” the guard said. “They sometimes
choose which cells they want and set their own hours for outdoor exercise.”
Guards had also found two mobile phones among the belongings of the eight Fatah
al-Islam prisoners involved in the jailbreak, he added.
Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud described the attempted mass breakout as “one of
the most dangerous things that could happen.”
After an inquiry exposed shortcomings inside the prison, including staff
negligence that could have facilitated the breakout, he had several prison
officials arrested. Baroud also ordered the sacking of 360 internal security
forces officers at the country’s 21 prisons. The minister told AFP he
continually received “complaints about transgressions and incompetence within
the prisons” – but he also stressed that the country’s jails were both
understaffed and under-equipped. They are overcrowded too. Although Roumieh was
originally built to house 1,500 inmates, more than 4,000 men – 65 percent of the
country’s prison population – are crammed inside the facility. “In the building
from which the inmates tried to flee, there are eight guards for 920 prisoners,”
the security guard told AFP of last week’s breakout. “I work 16 hours daily for
four days in a row.”
Roumieh is a microcosm, in some respects, of life outside its walls, said the
founder of one independent group that helps prison inmates. “The rich buy their
privileges and the poor just become even poorer than they were before,” said
Father Hadi Aya, founder of the Association Justice et Misericorde, which offers
free services to prisoners, including defense lawyers and counseling.
Languishing at the base of the power pyramid inside the prison system are the
foreigners, he told AFP. Blanca, a 35-year-old Sri Lankan working in Lebanon,
pleads the case of her compatriot Rupie, 28, who spent a month in a women’s
prison in the northern coastal city of Tripoli after failing to renew her
residency permit on time. “They did not even give her food,” Blanca told AFP. “I
brought her a dish daily all the way from Jounieh” just north of the capital.
“Entering prison in Lebanon amounts to a death sentence, regardless of the
offense,” Father Hadi said. “Like the country in which they are located, inside
these prisons there is no justice, no rule of law.”
Lebanon: The Circumstances and the Customs
Wed, 26 August 2009
Abdullah Iskandar/Al Hayat
There is a campaign taking place in Lebanon against the Maronite Patriarch, in
part explicit, and in another implicit. While the first aspect of this campaign
is being instigated by some Christians, specifically certain Maronite parties,
the other part is being initiated by non-Christian sides, specifically
Hezbollah.
Let us say from the beginning that this campaign has nothing to do what so ever
with religious creed, or competition between religions. Rather, it is targeting
the post of the Maronite patriarchy itself, and what this fundamental symbol
embodies in the Lebanese entity ever since its inception. Therefore, it is not a
coincidence that this campaign was escalated against the patriarch as soon as he
talked about the threat posed to the Lebanese entity, on the eve of the recent
parliamentary elections.
His talk and stances were thus deliberately understood to be within the
political adversity and competition associated with the elections. This is while
he was in fact tackling a threat that menaces the Lebanese political regime that
regulates the peaceful coexistence amongst the different sects and confessions,
all on the basis of the Tai’f Accord. In other words, the purpose behind this
was to undermine the [Patriarch's] warning that was expressing a general
national concern, and which pertains to the entity and the regime themselves.
The aim was also to interpret this warning as interference in political
conflicts, and as siding with one group in the elections, against another.
Most probably, Sayyed Nasrallah's blunt response to Sfayr was a part of this
belittlement of the Patriarch’s warning, especially that he limited the meaning
of his national concern to be exclusively the Israeli threat and the need to
support the resistance. As such, he [Nasrallah] overlooked the meaning of
coexistence and the need to organize it according to the constitution. He also
portrayed that this latter issue was fabricated, and that it should thus be
removed from discussion. However, despite the results of the elections, and as
manifested by the obstacles currently obstructing the formation of the
government, the main internal issue was confirmed to be quintessentially about
the political regime itself.
Meanwhile, the Head of Hezbollah parliamentary bloc Mohammad Raed, was
interviewed by An-Nahar in yesterday’s issue. In his defense of the patriarch's
Christian opponent, General Michel Aoun, and the latter’s insistence on
appointing his son-in-law in the cabinet, Raed expressed the problem facing the
Lebanese regime by saying : "Certain circumstances govern this country, and
these circumstances are more important that any customs." This means, according
to Raed, that the priority should be given to the circumstance, i.e. the de
facto situation on the ground, and not to the customs that govern some of the
functions of the constitutional institutions. It can be thus concluded that the
campaign against Sfayr not only targets his political position, but also the
equation by which the political customs in Lebanon are established, and which
the patriarchy is defending seeing that they represent the pillars of the
entity.
While the patriarchy is at the forefront of this campaign, and was thus
requested to formally apologize for what Sfayr said about the threats posed to
the entity, the constitutional institutions are suffering from the effects of
this same campaign, starting with the presidency, then the parliament, and the
premiership. In addition, while President Suleiman has not been targeted
directly yet - perhaps due to the reasons pertaining to the way he took office
and his calm approach and consensual talk that embarrasses his critics - the
post of the presidency itself has been targeted. This happened by depicting this
post as a side to the conflict, rather than a symbol for the country's unity and
institutions, and one that looks after the constitutional principles, while
rising above all political conflicts.
As such, some sides speak about the president's share in the cabinet (and how
entitled he is to obtain this share and how he should be represented). Even Aoun
considered that this share over-represents the popular support for the
president, and thus started quibbling with the presidency over who should
supervise the key portfolios. Meanwhile, and as far as the parliament is
concerned– which has been shut down before – it is yet to restore its role as a
key part of the work of the institutions. While the current pretext is the need
to wait for the cabinet to be formed, some sides in the parliament are busy with
their sizes and demands, something that further obstructs the cabinet formation.
This is how it comes to pass that the cabinet and its prime minister are
hostages of the de facto forces which Raed labeled as "circumstances", and which
will thus govern the cabinet formation. This deprives the prime
minister-designate of a genuine constitutional right. There is therefore an
intertwined chain of campaigns that targets the symbols of the Lebanese entity,
its political regime, as well as the constitutional procedures that govern it…
If politicians acted more responsibly, religious leaders would not need to speak
out
By The Daily Star /Thursday, August 27, 2009
Editorial
Is it legitimate for senior religious figures to express their views on the way
that Lebanon’s political system should function? Yes. Is it healthy? No. There’s
a simple reason why a Maronite patriarch and a Shiite ayatollah have made
headlines in recent days, each expressing a specific, controversial
interpretation of the simple, yet powerful question: who should rule?
It’s because politicians, and the political class in general, have failed to
spell out exactly what needs to be done in our precarious republic and how it
can work in sound fashion. It doesn’t really matter whether this failure took
place at Nijmeh Square, because Parliament was dilly-dallying, or at Mathaf and
Baabda Palace, during cabinet sessions in which avoiding divisive issues was a
perennial “item” on the agenda. With this abdication of responsibility, the
arena is opened for people like Cardinal Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, or Sayyed
Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, and others, to offer judgments on how Lebanon should
be ruled. The arguments, such as they are, don’t lead us anywhere useful. Take
Sfeir: he says it’s fine to have a government headed by a simple majority of
political forces (as measured by parliamentary seats). So whatever happened to
sectarian consensus? Did we miss an amendment to the Constitution somewhere?
Take Fadlallah: all he has to do is take this a step further, saying that if you
want a simple majority, then let’s really have one, complete with public
referendums, and possibly the direct election of the president.
This is where the debate usually ends up – because our political performance
doesn’t match our ability with words. Take the Taif Accord: is it about
cementing sectarian consensus, or abolishing sectarianism in politics? Debating
such matters is fine; the problem is our political class doesn’t see such
struggles through to the end; key issues are left pending, until there’s a
change in the regional situation, or maybe a change in the weather. Our
politicians somewhat eagerly settled on the 1960, qada-based, winner-or-take-all
election law to guide the current period, and the dissonance is clear for all to
see. Take Michel Aoun: he supported the 1960 law and its simple majority
arrangements, then demands proportional representation in the Cabinet. Settling
the issue of how the political regime should function is serious business; it’s
not about sound bites and one-page statements, but precise, diligent work. The
Butros Commission did this hard work, but politicians dismissed its call for a
mixed parliamentary electoral system, incorporating proportional representation.
Our politicians and religious leaders are presenting us with largely ad-hoc,
slogan-like options, but ones with far-reaching consequences. If officials
commission a feasibility for a road project, don’t they have enough energy and
seriousness to present feasibility studies on what their political proposals
would lead to?
Obama's Mideast vision: Confusion
By Michael Young /Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 27, 2009
There is great discomfort these days among those who backed Barack Obama’s “new”
approach to the Middle East when he took office 10 months ago. That shouldn’t
surprise us. Everything about the president’s shotgun approach to the region,
his desire to overhaul all policies from the George W. Bush years
simultaneously, without a cohesive strategy binding his actions together, was
always going to let the believers down.
As the president’s accelerated pullout from Iraq begins to look increasingly
ill-thought-out, as his engagement of Iran and Syria falters, as Arab-Israeli
peace looks more elusive than ever, and as Americans express growing doubts
about the war in Afghanistan, Obama is discovering that personal charisma is not
enough to alter the realities of a Middle East that has whittled down better men
than he.
For the US president, the clearest articulation of his approach to the region
was his speech in Cairo last June. However, there was always more mood to that
address than substance. The president put out a wish-list of American
objectives, padded with reassurances and self-criticism, but there was no solid
core to what he said – a discernible sense of the values and overriding
political ambitions the United States was building toward. As Obama himself
admitted, no single speech could answer all the complex questions the Middle
East has tossed up. However, American behavior on the ground has made things no
easier to understand, which is why regional uncertainties are turning to bite
the administration in the leg.
For example, what is the policy in Iraq? In recent weeks, following the American
military withdrawal from Iraqi cities, the upsurge in devastating suicide
attacks has threatened to reverse years of efforts by Washington to stabilize
the country. Ultimately, Obama’s priority can be summed up in one word,
reflecting his psychological hesitation to commit to an enterprise that he
associates, in a dangerously personalized way, with his predecessor. That word
is “withdrawal,” and Obama described his Iraqi policy this way in Cairo: “Today,
America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to
leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no
bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its
own.”
Those were noble thoughts, but how do they square with other American concerns,
such as the containment of Iran, the avoidance of sectarian conflict that might
engulf the region, the stability of oil supplies, and much else? Obama feels
that an America forever signaling its desire to go home will make things better
by making America more likable. That’s not how the Middle East works. Politics
abhor a vacuum, and as everyone sees how eager the US is to leave, the more they
will try to fill the ensuing vacuum to their advantage, and the more
intransigent they will be when Washington seeks political solutions to prepare
its getaway. That explains the upsurge of bombings in Iraq lately, and it
explains why the Taliban feel no need to surrender anything in Afghanistan.
Engagement of Iran and Syria has also come up short, though a breakthrough
remains possible. However, there was always something counterintuitive in
lowering the pressure on Iran in the hope that this would generate progress in
finding a solution to its nuclear program. Engagement is not an end in itself,
it is a means to an end among countless others. Where the Obama administration
erred was in not seeing how dialogue would buy Iran more time to advance its
nuclear projects, precisely what the Iranians wanted, while breaking the
momentum of international efforts to force Tehran to concede something – for
example temporary suspension of uranium enrichment. For Obama to rebuild such
momentum today seems virtually impossible, when the US itself has made it
abundantly clear that it believes war is a bad idea.
Attacking Iran is indeed a bad idea, but in the poker game he has been playing
with Tehran, Obama didn’t need to show all of his cards. He’s virtually folded
over Iraq, is stumbling in Afghanistan, and does not occupy himself very much
with Lebanon, all places where the Iranians can and are hurting the Americans.
By placing most of his chips on engagement, the president has failed to develop
a more multifaceted strategy while relinquishing other forms of coercion that
could have been effective in Washington’s bargaining with the Islamic Republic.
On Syria, the US has been more steadfast, particularly in trying to deny
Damascus the means to reimpose its will in Lebanon. However, the Assad regime
has shown no signs of breaking away from Iran, a major US incentive in
re-engaging with the Syrians, even as it has facilitated suicide attacks in Iraq
and encouraged Hamas’ intransigence in inter-Palestinian negotiations in Cairo.
The Obama administration can, of course, take the passive view that Syria is
entitled to destabilize its neighbors in order to enhance its leverage; or it
can behave like a superpower and make the undermining of vital US interests very
costly for Bashar Assad. But it certainly cannot defend its vital interests by
adopting a passive approach.
With respect to the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, Obama has taken Israel on
over its settlements. It was about time, since the Bush administration’s
permissiveness on settlement construction neutralized its own “road map”.
However, there is more to Palestinian-Israeli peace than settlements. Obama is
exerting considerable political capital to confront Israel, but it may be
capital wasted at a moment when Hamas can still veto any breakthrough from the
Palestinian side. In other words, Washington is working on a narrow front
whereas its failure to weaken Hamas may render the whole enterprise meaningless.
But how can the US weaken Hamas when improving relations with the movement’s
main regional sponsors, Iran and Syria, remains a centerpiece of American
efforts?
Barack Obama’s devotees may imagine that because he spent a few years abroad as
a boy, he is well equipped to understand our complicated world. Perhaps he is,
but his approach to the greater Middle East, shorn of the soaring rhetoric, has
been artless and arrogant. The president is being tied up every which way by his
foes, who can plainly see that the Obama vision is an unsystematic one. If ever
the US has been close to achieving potentially terminal self-marginalization in
the region, it is now.