LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 16/09
Bible Reading of the day
Isaiah 5/21 Woe to those who are
wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Isaiah 3:4 I will give boys to be their princes, and children shall rule over
them. 3:5 The people will be oppressed, everyone by another, and everyone by his
neighbor. The child will behave himself proudly against the old man, and the
base against the honorable.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
Where Is the OIC When Mosques Are
Attacked?By Dr. Walid Phares/December
15/09
Federalism, Lebanon's ignored option/By Tamer
Mallat/December
15/09
Look north for opportunity/The Daily Star/December
15/09
International Crisis Group: Syrian
Gains in Region Could Prove Short-Lived/December
15/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 15/09
Israeli
Military Intelligence: Tel Aviv Area Endangered by Missiles of Hizbullah, Syria,
Iran
/Naharnet
Report:
Nasrallah Visits Saudi Arabia after Hariri Visits Syria
/Naharnet
Suleiman: U.S. Should Support
Lebanese Army to Enable It of Defending Lebanon
/Naharnet
Abul
Aynein: We Won't Allow Anyone to Undermine Security in Lebanon
/Naharnet
Albanian Newspaper Uncovers Arms Deal between Ukraine, Hizbullah/Naharnet
Suleiman, Obama Agree, Disagree on
Issues, Particularly over Arms/Naharnet
Baroud, Safadi, other politicians pay condolences
to Assad/Naharnet
Sleiman urges Obama to halt Israel's violations
in Lebanon/AFP
Hariri, court drop Wahhab slander case/Daily
Star
Israel 'committed' to Ghajar withdrawal - UNIFIL/Daily
Star
Congestion quandary needs multi-ministry solution/Daily
Star
Feltman:
U.S. has Normal Relations with Syria, Disagrees with Damascus on Hizbullah, Iran/Naharnet
Ban Says he will Meet
Hariri in Copenhagen, Hopes for 'Early Agreement' on Ghajar/Naharnet
Assad to Aoun: Syria
Concerned with Supporting Lebanon's Christians, Army, Hariri Cabinet/Naharnet
Abul Gheit: Egypt Not
Disturbed by Hizbullah's Presence in Lebanese Cabinet/Naharnet
Hariri to Meet Western,
Arab Leaders in Copenhagen/Naharnet
U.S. Official: Murr to
Washington To Discuss Type of Military Aid/Naharnet
Youth from Across
Political Spectrum Agree on Education Reform, Decentralization/Naharnet
Jumblat: Hariri's Visit to
Damascus Result of Syrian-Saudi Consensus/Naharnet
Berri: Resistance Remains
Necessary until End of Occupation/Naharnet
Phalange Party:
Washington's Stance Important in Lebanon's Battle Against Naturalization of
Palestinians/Naharnet
Geagea: LF Won't Visit
Syria for Condolences or Any Other Reason/Naharnet
Jaafar, Wehbe Clans Clash
in Baalbek with RPGs/Naharnet
Korean arms cache caught en route to Mideast/Daily
Star
Aridi defends record after storm/Naharnet
Hizbullah's arms block progess on rights - NGO/By
Dalila Mahdawi
Lebanon subsidized interest
loans reach $2.55bn by June 2009/Daily
Star
Renewable energy projects top UNDP agenda/Daily
Star
Mass reforestation project will
plant 2 million trees/Daily
Star
Women allowed to open bank accounts
for minors/
Daily Star
Landmark case lands Lebanese woman
in jail for beating migrant maid/Daily
Star
Sudanese, Ethiopian workers find
reprieve at Sidon restaurant party/Daily
Star
Front-line health workers master
teamwork in giant simulation/Daily Star
Freedom of expression on display at
LAU/Daily Star
UN, political leaders call for human rights advances in Lebanon/Daily Star
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 14, 2009 Remarks by President Obama and President Sleiman of Lebanon
after Meeting
Oval Office
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody. I want to welcome President
Sleiman and his delegation for the excellent visit that we've had.
I thought that this meeting was critical because the relationship between the
United States and Lebanon is critical. We have a strong friendship between the
two countries. Part of that results from the fact that we have 2 million
Lebanese Americans who have made extraordinary contributions to the life of the
United States, and continue to do so. Obviously Lebanon is a critical country in
a critical region, and we want to do everything that we can to encourage a
strong, independent, and democratic Lebanon.
The President has, I think, done extraordinary work in managing what is a
difficult situation, and we have continued to see progress in dealing with a lot
of the cross-currents that exist not only in Lebanon but also in the region as a
whole.
The United States wants to be a partner in this process. We want to strengthen
Lebanese armed forces so that they can help to secure the sovereignty and
territory of Lebanon. We want to make sure that there's full implementation of
United States -- United Nations' resolutions that help keep the peace in the
region and ensure Lebanon's stability.
We both agree that the issues of Middle East peace are linked to the issues that
exist inside Lebanon, and so the more we can work together to encourage the
parties involved -- not only Israel and the Palestinians, but also the Israelis
and the Syrians, for example -- to have constructive dialogue and try to
negotiate out of the current impasse, the better off Lebanon will be, the better
off the world will be.
We also want to make sure that the United States' assistance to Lebanon is not
seen just through a security lens. As I indicated in my speech in Oslo last
week, part of peace is economic opportunity and justice in civil society. And so
to the extent that we can help provide support around issues like education that
promote opportunity within Lebanon, we want to do so.
Let me just close by saying here on the South Lawn there is actually a Lebanese
cedar tree that was planted 30 years ago, a testimony to difficult times for
both the United States and Lebanon, but also the fact that we remain hopeful
about the future. That tree is strong; it is thriving. I think it represents the
friendship between the United States and Lebanon. And we will continue to water
that tree just as we continue to nurture the relationship between our two
countries.
And I don't know if you want to do a quick translation. I apologize, I should
have stopped in between my comments.
(President Obama's comments are translated.)
PRESIDENT SLEIMAN: (As translated.) Thank you very much. I am pleased -- I had
the pleasure today to come here in response to the invitation of this President,
of President Obama to the United States, and I had the pleasure to meet
President Obama and high officials in the United States administration.
We have with President Obama a common policy of openness and dialogue. And we
believe that the election of President Obama was a great mark in history,
especially his speech in Cairo, which gave hope to find peaceful solutions to
controversial issues. In addition to that, President Obama gaining of Nobel
Peace Prize also gave hope to people across the world, and especially the people
of the Arab countries, to find a peaceful solution that would return the rights
of the people of Palestine, and that would ensure withdrawal and grant
Palestinian refugees the right of return.
We have asserted our attachment and our support to the Arab Peace Initiative,
which was stated in 2002 in Beirut and which was affirmed in the Doha summit,
which grants all the rights back to their owners.
We have also discussed the situation in Lebanon which had witnessed great
stability last year and this year, be it on the political, security, and
economic levels.
We also discussed the Israeli threats against Lebanon that are taking place and
that place obstacles to the economic growth of the country. We ask President
Obama and the United States to exert further pressure on Israel to implement
Resolution 1701 and to withdraw from Israeli occupied -- Lebanese occupied
territories namely from the village of Ghajar, Kfar Shouba, and the Shebaa
Farms.
We also talked about the bilateral relations between Lebanon and the United
Nations. We believe we have many common denominators with the United States. The
first one are Americans of Lebanese descent which play a great role in the
United States, and also the shared values we have with the United States and its
people, namely the value of democracy, respect of human rights, public freedom,
rejection of extremism and fundamentalism, and confronting terrorism.
And Lebanon has paid a very heavy price to preserve these values -- a heavy
price because of the cost of its soul of its people, its infrastructure, and
also it had a heavy economical price, especially regards this part of the
Lebanese views we're obliged to indicate.
We have asked for the support of the United Nations on various levels: first of
all, on the military level, because a strong army and strong armed forces could
defend Lebanon against hostility of the enemy. Also it could allow the country
to confront terrorism which focus dangers not only on Lebanon but on humanity as
a whole.
The second level is the economic level in order to promote new -- more economic
growth and social justice, because injustice is sometimes taken as a pretext by
terrorist and fundamentalist organizations to recruit people and invite them to
terrorism.
We also asked for the political support of the United States to take a political
position to support Lebanon and to support a peaceful solution for the Middle
East crisis -- that cannot be done at the detriment of Lebanon -- and to reject
settlements. We insist on the rights of return for Palestinians because as
stated in the Arab Peace Initiative, we reject any form of settlement since it
contradicts our constitution and our special circumstances. So did the Arab
Peace Initiative state as well.
In 2010, and since we have been elected as a non-permanent member of the United
Nations Security Council, we will keep on cooperating and coordinating with the
United States on issues related to the world so that we can ensure Lebanon's
interests, and so that we can represent the position of the Arab League and the
general interest of all of humanity and reach better solutions.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm going to have to take one question.
Q Mr. President, did you talk about Hezbollah weapons? Because it's my
understanding that the Lebanese government now considers it an internal issue
and doesn't want the Security Council to deal with it.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We discussed this. And as President Sleiman said, we discussed
the enforcement of 1701. We've made progress on this front, but it's incomplete.
President Sleiman emphasized his concerns with respect to Israel. I want to be
clear that I emphasized to him our concerns about the extensive arms that are
smuggled into Lebanon that potentially serve as a threat to Israel. And it is in
the interests I think of all parties concerned to make sure that enforcement is
exerted with respect to such smuggling, as well as to any other issues.
So one of the things that I want to make clear is that President Sleiman and I
aren't going to agree on every issue with respect to how Israel, Lebanon, the
Palestinians, Syria, are interacting. What we do share is a commitment to
resolve these issues through dialogue and negotiations, as opposed to through
violence.
And that is consistent with the democratic traditions of Lebanon. That's
consistent with what we believe is in the interests of both Lebanon as well as
the other countries in the region. And we are going to continue to be promoting
those processes that bring parties together, even though there are going to be
some strong disagreements with respect to what the terms, for example, of a
final peace between Israel and the Palestinians may be. And I'm confident that
we can arrive at those -- such an agreement as long as all the parties are
entering into it in good faith.
Okay. All right, thank you, everyone.
END
Sleiman urges Obama to halt Israel's violations in Lebanon
US president presses counterpart on arms smuggling
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
BEIRUT: US President Barack Obama on Monday raised concerns about arms smuggled
into Lebanon that could threaten Israel, as he welcomed Lebanese President
Michel Sleiman to the Oval Office. Obama told reporters after the talks that
Lebanon was a “critical country, in a critical region,” and praised Sleiman for
managing the swift-moving political currents threatening stability in his
country.
“We want to do everything we can to encourage a strong, independent and
democratic Lebanon,” Obama said.
For his part, Sleiman said he tackled with Obama the repeated Israeli violations
of Lebanese territories and called on the US to pressure Israel into the
implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and acknowledging the
Palestinian refugees right of return.
Sleiman also called for an increase in military aid to enable Lebanon to face
terrorism and defend itself.
The Lebanese president urged Obama to politically support Lebanon and ensure
that peace solutions do not come at the expense of the Lebanese.
Signs of disagreement emerged when Sleiman said he had brought up Israel with
Obama. “We also discussed the Israeli threats against Lebanon which are taking
place and place obstacles to the economic growth of the country,” Sleiman said.
“We asked President Obama and the US to exert further pressure on Israel to
implement Resolution 1701,” Sleiman said.
Obama later made clear there were some issues on which he and Sleiman would not
agree, including Israel, and noted they had discussed the so far partial
implementation of the UN resolution on ending the 2006 war in Lebanon.
“I want to be clear, I emphasized to him our concerns about the extensive arms
that are smuggled into Lebanon that potentially serve as a threat to Israel,” he
said.
“President Sleiman and I are not going to agree on every issue with respect to …
Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinians and Syria,” he added.
“What we do agree on is we can resolve these issues through dialogue and
negotiations, rather than through violence.”
Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu last week denounced Resolution 1701, saying
it had proven to be a failure.
The resolution ended Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon. The war killed more than
1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers.
The resolution has not led to a permanent ceasefire.
It bans supplying arms to Lebanese militias while affirming the Beirut
government’s sovereignty over the entire country.
Earlier on Monday, Sleiman met with US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, during which they stressed the necessity
of cooperation between the two countries with regards to the US providing aid to
the Lebanese Armed Forces and other security services.
Regarding resolution 1559, Minister of State Adnan Assayed Hussein, who
accompanied Sleiman to the US, said it was fully implemented with one remaining
point concerning the weapons of the resistance. The minister said the issue
would be discussed during national dialogue sessions.
“Hizbullah is classified as a resistance as indicated in all ministerial
statements contrary to the classification of resolution 1559,” Hussein said.
Separately, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said Monday that ongoing pressure
from the US Congress to surrender the resistance’s weapons and prevent the
Lebanese Army’s armament coinciding with Sleiman’s visit to the US would fail
since the resistance would remain a need as long as the Israeli occupation to
Lebanese territories as well as threats and violations to the country’s
sovereignty persisted.
“We bet on forcing Israel to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and
425,” he said, adding that “We say with all pride that we are not incapable of
forcing the implementation of 425 through resistance.” – AFP, with The Daily
Star
Hizbullah's arms block progess on rights - NGO
By Dalila Mahdawi
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
BEIRUT: Continuing political crisis together with Hizbullah’s military strength
is preventing Lebanon from making any real progress on human rights issues, a
new report has said. Releasing “Bastion of Impunity, Mirage of Reform,” on
Saturday, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) detailed the
“deteriorating” human rights situation in 12 Arab countries – Algeria, Bahrain,
Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia
and Yemen – over the last year.
It said the “most significant development” toward greater human rights in
Lebanon was the country’s ratification of the Optional Protocol of the United
Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. The ratification obliges Lebanon to establish a
national instrument to monitor prison conditions and prevent torture Although
Lebanon ratified the Convention in 2000, practice of torture and ill-treatment
remains rampant throughout the country’s detention facilities. Article 401 of
the Lebanese Penal Code states that anyone who “severely beats someone with the
intention of obtaining a confession about a crime or information will be
imprisoned from three months to three years,” but enforcement of the provision
is extremely rare. Hardly any other legislative developments have taken place
because of the country’s political continuing political deadlock, the report
said, largely blaming Hizbullah’s continuing possession of weapons and
establishment of “a state within a state.”
Following sectarian clashes in May 2008, which saw Hizbullah and its allies
briefly take over areas of West Beirut, Lebanese political leaders concluded the
Doha Agreement to defuse a potential descent into civil war. Despite the move,
“developments in the past year indicate that the parallel power structure still
exists, especially given Hizbullah’s superior military capabilities as an
opposition power,” the report said. Hizbullah maintains that its arms are
necessary to defend Lebanon against repeated Israeli aggression.
Given Hizbullah’s considerable political and military clout, CIHRS said that
although the March 14 coalition won parliamentary elections in June, the
alliance was unable to form a Although Lebanon ratified the Convention in 2000,
practice of torture and ill-treatment remains rampant throughout the country’s
detention facilities. Article 401 of the Lebanese Penal Code states that anyone
who “severely beats someone with the intention of obtaining a confession about a
crime or information will be imprisoned from three months to three years,” but
enforcement of the provision is extremely rare.
Hardly any other legislative developments have taken place because of the
country’s political continuing political deadlock, the report said, largely
blaming Hizbullah’s continuing possession of weapons and establishment of “a
state within a state.”
Following sectarian clashes in May 2008, which saw Hizbullah and its allies
briefly take over areas of West Beirut, Lebanese political leaders concluded the
Doha Agreement to defuse a potential descent into civil war. Despite the move,
“developments in the past year indicate that the parallel power structure still
exists, especially given Hizbullah’s superior military capabilities as an
opposition power,” the report said. Hizbullah maintains that its arms are
necessary to defend Lebanon against repeated Israeli aggression.
Given Hizbullah’s considerable political and military clout, CIHRS said that
although the March 14 coalition won parliamentary elections in June, the
alliance was unable to form a
government for five months and has “remained incapable of translating the wishes
of voters into reality.”
It also noted that although there has been some progress in the UN-backed
Special Tribunal for Lebanon, charged with prosecuting suspects in the
assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri, the possibility of “achieving
justice in the case [is] still dependent on the extent … to which international
and regional players are willing to exercise responsibility and prevent impunity
for these types of crimes.” There are currently thought to be no suspects in the
case.
“There is also little hope that the fate of people who disappeared during the
Civil War and the period of Syrian guardianship over Lebanon will be
investigated,” the report said, referring to over 17,000 individuals.
In addition, the Lebanese authorities have taken no steps toward conducting an
impartial investigation of the bloody fighting between the Lebanese Armed Forces
and Islamist group Fatah al-Islam in 2007. Dozens of civilians were killed when
militants engaged the Army in fighting at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp.
Despite stalled progress on most rights issues, Lebanon “remains an exceptional
case” in the Arab region in allowing citizens the right to peaceful assembly and
protest, the report said.
It also devoted one chapter of the report to the stance of Arab governments on
women’s rights, saying regimes “use the issue of women’s rights to burnish their
image before the international community while simultaneously evading democratic
and human rights reform measures required ensuring dignity and
Federalism, Lebanon's ignored option
By Tamer Mallat
Commentary by
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Taif is 20 this year, and many of the questions posed by the accord have yet to
be answered in Lebanon. Political reform and further amendment of the
Constitution have been at the heart of the political debate relating to the
future of Lebanon since the end of the Civil War in 1990. Among several things,
Taif mandates a process of “political deconfessionalization,” and has remained
the primary framework for reform in Lebanon. The agreement put forward three
important ideas, some implemented, some not: the transfer of executive power
from the president to the Cabinet; the eventual abrogation of confessional
politics; and administrative decentralization. Despite the incorporation of many
of its clauses into the Constitution, Taif remains full of lacunas and
ambiguities. Hence the importance of finding more pragmatic alternatives to cope
with Lebanon’s problems, in many respects those of a Balkanized state.
Confessional federalism may be the only realistic solution to Lebanese woes.
This implies the institutionalization of federalism at a regional and
confessional level; in other words, constitutional recognition of the de facto
socio-political and religious reality present throughout the country.
Federalism implies creating regional parliaments and governments, decentralizing
politics, and reducing central state authority in some fields. This would allow
inhabitants of a region to participate in politics while generally avoiding
deadlock with the central authority. Moreover, it would prevent dominant
parties, or in some cases confessional groups, from attempting to hijack the
country by threatening to push Lebanon into a nation-wide political impasse in
defense of their narrow interests.
Federalism enhances representation on a local and national level. At a local
level, it allows the federated state to focus on problems relating solely to its
region, freeing it from the requirement of reaching an often elusive national
consensus as a preliminary step for decision-making. At a national level,
federalism gives federated states a voice and authority over institutions of the
central state. This would allow voters in Akkar, for instance, to have two
voices: one in their region, another in Beirut, doubling their representation,
making their voice count on regional matters while strengthening their Lebanese
identity through the authority exercised over national policy.
Under such a system, elections in the federated state would be carried out
according to proportional representation so all communities have a voice in
regional matters, guaranteeing their rights and protection.
Lebanon’s sectarian reality is stark. It is difficult today to find a mixed
neighborhood or village in the country. Despite the sectarian fighting last year
in Beirut and the mountains, Lebanese can be proud of having averted a repeat of
the Civil War. But, for a younger generation, growing up in relative peace has
come at the detriment of a “Lebanese” identity, in an atmosphere of exacerbated
communitarianism. Perhaps more than their parents, youths are first and foremost
Maronites, Shiites, Sunnis, or Druze. Because of their parents, they live in
self-imposed regional exiles, even psychological ones. Unlike their parents,
they did not witness bloody conflict, therefore do not understand the nature of
“Lebanese identity,” a notion that relies heavily on the country’s fragile
stability. In other words, Lebanese identity cannot exist without being embodied
in long-lasting, institutionalized stability.
Should one talk about national identity if it does not really exist? Wasting
time on the illusion of a unified Lebanese identity only postpones a more stable
order. A unitary, more secular state, as proposed by Taif, may not be the right
solution for such a diverse and segmented society as ours. Secularism does not
necessarily alleviate the tensions between different communities; it only
amplifies them as political parties continue to act in a confessional manner,
allowing those sects with the most numbers to dictate the politics of the
country. If Lebanese society responded to the criteria of a mixed integrated
community, Taif could have been an option. But the reality on the ground is far
different. The Lebanese are a divided people.
Nor is administrative decentralization, as vaguely described by Taif, suitable
for Lebanon’s reality. The paragraph that elaborates this concept begins by
saying that “the state of Lebanon shall be a single and united state with a
strong central authority.” Most Lebanese live under the impression that
administrative decentralization is synonymous with enhanced local representation
through the devolution of central authority to regional administrations. This is
not the case; it is merely an interpretation of what the Lebanese wish were the
case. Decentralization in Taif remains nebulous, expressing little in terms of
practical content.
Perhaps Taif’s most important clause is the one that shifted executive power
from the presidency to the Council of Ministers as a collective body, in which
all communities are represented, and Christian and Muslim representation, as in
Parliament, respects a 50-50 ratio. This structure has effectively established a
framework for a concordant federal executive that could resemble the Federal
Council of Switzerland, a country not unlike Lebanon in its social and communal
complexity. In such a system, executive decisions could be made by common
consent; and the leader figure could change once every year, let’s say, giving
the chance for all communities to direct politics.
This project may appear difficult on a technical and psychological level.
Technically, elections in the regions and on the national level are difficult to
organize. Federalism, if poorly applied, can also lead to aspirations for
regional autonomy, or worse, secession. Psychologically the word federalism is a
non-starter for many Lebanese, who have little knowledge about what it really
signifies and its widespread application in the world, in places as diverse as
the United States and Germany or Malaysia and Switzerland.
Despite the difficulties of carrying out this project, federalism, if applied
well, may allow Lebanon to find much-needed stability. Unless the Lebanese
people are willing to accept that their current unity is a fantasy, political
crises and strife will continue to characterize the country’s status quo. Tamer
Mallat is a second year student in the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean
undergraduate program at Sciences-Po Paris. He wrote this commentary for THE
DAILY STAR.
Albanian
Newspaper Uncovers Arms Deal between Ukraine, Hizbullah
Naharnet 15/12/09/An Albanian opposition daily revealed in an article published
Dec. 2 the involvement of the Albanian government in facilitating the passage of
Ukrainian arms to Hizbullah. It said Albania bought the missiles -- type "C 18"
and "C 16" – using money from Iran in favor of Hizbullah and the Islamic Jihad.
The shipment, according to the paper, was then transferred via Off Shore Company
to Beirut. Pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat daily on Tuesday quoted Albanian and Balkan
sources as denying knowledge of an arms shipment from Ukraine to Hizbullah via
Albania
Feltman: U.S. has Normal Relations with Syria, Disagrees with Damascus on
Hizbullah, Iran
Naharnet/U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
Jeffrey Feltman said Washington has "normal" relations with Syria. "The long
time spent to form the new Lebanese Cabinet may have left a positive impact on
the Lebanese because it may mean that the Lebanese are beginning to understand
each other," Feltman said in remarks published Tuesday by pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.
"This is what I observed through my reading of the policy statement, which means
that time has come for the Lebanese to rally behind an internal, national
agenda," he added. His remarks were translated into English by Naharnet.Feltman
said he hoped the Lebanese would start a new phase by attending to domestic
affairs and "stop thinking about what Americans or the Saudis or the Syrians or
any external element believe, but think of what Lebanese need."He described
America's relationship with Syria as "more normal than before and on more than
one level." "Several dialogue channels are now open, meaning that today dialogue
is multi-sided," Feltman said, adding that the two countries continue to
exchange formal visits. "This is a positive and useful aspect. The important
thing today is that that we are talking with each other, and not at each other.
And that's better for us and for Syria, as well as for the Lebanese," he
believed. He pointed to the "deep differences" with the Syrians in views
regarding Hizbullah and Iran. Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 09:09
Ban Says he will Meet Hariri in Copenhagen, Hopes for
'Early Agreement' on Ghajar
Naharnet/U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon has unveiled that he would meet with Lebanese
Premier Saad Hariri in Copenhagen and hoped for a quick solution to the border
village of Ghajar.
"I am going to have a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Saad Hariri in
Copenhagen and we will discuss all the matters pertaining to peace and stability
in Lebanon and beyond," Ban told a press conference in New York. Hariri travels
to Copenhagen on Tuesday to attend the global climate talks. Ban warned that
negotiators face a race against time to prevent the meeting ending in
catastrophic failure after developing nations staged a five-hour walkout. Asked
about Ghajar, Ban said: "There had been discussions between UNIFIL and my
special representative on one side and Israeli authorities on the other. I
sincerely hope we will be able to have an early agreement." "I am not in a
position to tell you exactly where we stand. But negotiations and discussions
have been actively going on in this matter," the U.N. secretary-general told
reporters. The Lebanese national unity cabinet has adopted its ministerial
statement and confirmed adherence to Security Council resolution 1701, he said.
Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 08:05
Abul Gheit: Egypt Not Disturbed by Hizbullah's Presence in Lebanese Cabinet
Naharnet/Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit has denied that Cairo was
annoyed by Hizbullah's presence in the new Lebanese government. "The situation
in Lebanon is much better than before. There is a government, calm and
stability," Abul Gheit told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat in Paris."I don't think that
Hizbullah's presence in the cabinet frustrates us because it was present in the
government before the crisis between it (the Shiite party) and Egypt," said the
foreign minister. Abul Gheit was in Paris along with Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak to meet with President Nicolas Sarkozy.Asked about ties with Syria and
if there were any visits between the two countries, Abul Gheit ruled out such
trips, adding "Egypt and Syria will meet on different levels at the appropriate
time." Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 08:30
Assad to Aoun: Syria Concerned with Supporting Lebanon's
Christians, Army, Hariri Cabinet
Naharnet/Concerned with support for Lebanese Army, Hariri Cabinet Success
Syrian President Bashar Assad said Damascus is concerned with protecting the
Christian role in Lebanon, the Levant and the Arab world. Syria "is also
concerned with providing support for the (Lebanese) military institution and
with the success of the Lebanese government," Assad told visiting Free Patriotic
Movement leader Michel Aoun. Aoun is in Syria to offer condolences to Assad over
the death of his younger brother, Majd. As-Safir daily said Assad also renewed
his invitation to Aoun and his family to spend a weekend with him "at the
earliest possible opportunity." Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 10:35
6 Reasons Why Emperor of Lebanon Aoun Met with Assad Twice
Reform Party of Syria
December 14, 2009 (Alfred G. - RPS Armenian Satire) - Apparently, our president
for life, met with General Michel Aoun of Lebanon twice behind closed doors in
Damascus.
For those who have no clue why our president would meet twice with Aoun, this
should enlighten you:
Aoun forgot to ask for directions back to his real home.
Aoun asked that Assad encourage Hezbollah to stage a coup while Suleiman is in
Washington so that he can be Emperor of Lebanon. The second meeting was for
Assad to explain to him why this is premature.
Assad's tailor had to re-measure because the earlier measurements did not make
sense.
Aoun wanted to move the body of Majd al-Assad to Rabiya to remind the Lebanese
who is really the boss in Lebanon.
Aoun forgot to kiss Assad's hand.
Aoun wanted to remind Assad that the last check paid by Qatar bounced.
Where Is the OIC When Mosques Are
Attacked?
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
By Dr. Walid Phares Tuesday, December 15, 2009
According to the Associated Press, Jihadi terrorists “stormed a mosque in
Rawalpindi, killing at least 36 worshippers, including six military officers,
during Friday prayers as they sprayed gunfire and threw grenades before blowing
themselves up,” Pakistani officials said.
A military statement said four attackers hurled grenades and then opened fire as
they rushed toward the mosque, located on Parade Lane in a military residential
colony, just a few miles from the capital. Two Jihadists then blew themselves up
inside, while the other two terrorists were killed in an exchange of gunfire.
Seventeen children and 10 civilians were killed. The dead included a major
general, a brigadier, two lieutenant colonels, one major and a retired major as
well as three regular soldiers, military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said.
Witnesses said two of the militants entered the mosque, which had up to 200
worshippers inside, while others ran into buildings nearby.
Per the AP, “Nasir Ali Sheikh saw the attackers at the mosque as he walked there
to pray. He said they were dressed in traditional Pakistani clothing of loose
pants and a long tunic and carried hand grenades, automatic weapons and
ammunition belts slung around their shoulders. “They were killing people like
animals,” he said. “I couldn’t understand what was happening.” TV footage showed
that the mosque’s walls and prayer mats were covered in blood and shattered
glass lined the floor.
What horrifies observers around the world is the unethical Jihadi behavior in
terror operations. The sheer, open and cold blood massacring of children, women,
elderly and civilians in general, even when they coin these horrors as
“martyrdom operations” (amalyyat istishadiyya), they qualify unarguably as war
crimes. The Jihadi Salafists have been perpetrating these types of international
law breaches since the early 1990s in Algeria, where more than a hundred
thousand civilians, mostly women, children, older persons and cultural
personalities have been butchered for ten years. Salafi Jihadism has been among
the most barbaric levels of violence produced by radical ideologies in the
modern history of the Arab and Muslim world. Intellectuals and politicians in
the region have long ago indicted this “movement” as catastrophic. Moderate
Iraqi, Jordanian, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Pakistani, Lebanese and Egyptian writers
and commentators have appeared on air and wrote often about the necessity for
their governments to forcefully condemn not only the perpetrators but also the
ideology and the doctrines allowing such mayhem.
But what surprises me and many other observers is the heavy silence of the
largest club of governments and regimes in the world, just below the United
Nations: The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). With a membership
exceeding 50 countries and a dizzying economic power embodied by many of its oil
producing regimes, the OIC should have been at the forefront of fighting the
Salafi Jihadist method. Since the massacres in Algeria in the 1990s, the OIC has
refrained from expressly denouncing the movement and ideology behind these
perpetrators. If we put aside the Jihadist massacres of 9/11, Madrid, London,
Beslan, Mumbai and those perpetrated in southern Sudan, arguing that these
societies are non Muslim (not that this should justify the bloodshed) but even
when the al Queda, Taliban and other Salafist terror groups had targeted Muslim
societies in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Indonesia, and Pakistan,
still the alleged representative of the one billion Muslims dodged the ideology
behind the murder of Muslim women, children and elderly. The question is why?
The OIC was overwhelmingly active to get a vote on the so-called “defamation of
religion” at the United Nations but ran away from indicting the doctrine that
kills people of its own religion. One would at least expect that the OIC would
narrow its indictment of Jihadism to focus on what many Arab Muslim governments
coin as “Takfirism,” that is the so-called hot headed fringe within the Islamist
web. But that never happened; why not?
Then Mosques have been attacked by Jihadi terrorists, while shouting “Allahu
Akbar,” in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. Where on earth is the
OIC when the very worship places it is supposed to protect are targeted by
militants claiming “Jihad.” We’ve seen the OIC bureaucracy thoroughly
investigate any possible criticism of the ideology of Jihadism coining it
“Islamophobia” while the Jihadists murder Muslims inside their own Mosques. The
OIC, whose member states are mostly authoritarians, is busy fighting the Swiss
democratic referendum on the shape of the Minarets in the Alps, while Mosques
are ravaged in one of the most populated Muslim countries in the world:
Pakistan. Something is utterly wrong here.
OIC bureaucrats must first of all rush to the defense of the children and women
executed by the Jihadists inside the Masajid, Shia or Sunni, Pakistani or Arab,
and openly condemn the savage behavior of those who are claiming themselves as
the soldiers of the new Jihad. In refraining from coming to the rescue of their
own populations and civil societies—including their own houses of worship—these
bureaucrats would be sending a message to a billion people that Petrodollars are
protecting the murderous ideologies instead of protecting innocent civilians.
**Dr. Phares is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future
Jihad and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Suleiman, Obama Agree, Disagree on Issues, Particularly over Arms
Naharnet/While President Michel Suleiman and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed
on a number of key commitments, they disagreed on others, particularly over
security and Hizbullah arms. Obama on Monday said a U.N. resolution calling on
Hizbullah to disarm must be enforced. Speaking to reporters following a private
Oval Office meeting with Suleiman, Obama said that while there has been progress
made in enforcing the resolution, that progress is incomplete. Hizbullah has
continued to defy the U.N. resolution that ended its 2006 war with Israel and
called on the group to disarm. Obama said he is particularly concerned about
"the extensive arms that are smuggled into Lebanon that potentially serve as a
threat to Israel."
Hizbullah, which the U.S. lists as a terror group, has said it has thousands of
rockets and missiles, some of which can reach deep into Israel.
Obama said the U.S. and Lebanon may not always agree on issues involving Israel,
but both nations share "a commitment to resolve these issues through dialogue
and negotiations, as opposed to through violence." "And that is consistent with
the democratic traditions of Lebanon. That's consistent with what we believe is
in the interests of both Lebanon as well as the other countries in the region,"
he added. "And we are going to continue to be promoting those processes that
bring parties together, even though there are going to be some strong
disagreements with respect to what the terms, for example, of a final peace
between Israel and the Palestinians may be. And I'm confident that we can arrive
at those -- such an agreement as long as all the parties are entering into it in
good faith," Obama concluded. Suleiman, for his part, called on the United
States to provide Lebanon military support.
He also urged Washington to put pressure on Israel to implement U.N. resolution
1701 and demand that it stop threatening Lebanon.
"We discussed the Israeli threats against Lebanon that are taking place and that
place obstacles to the economic growth of the country," Suleiman said, calling
on Obama and the United States to "exert further pressure on Israel to implement
Resolution 1701 and to withdraw from Israeli occupied -- Lebanese occupied
territories namely from the village of Ghajar, Kfar Shouba, and the Shabaa
Farms"
Suleiman said talks also touched on bilateral relations between the two
countries.
"We believe we have many common denominators with the United States. The first
one are Americans of Lebanese descent which play a great role in the United
States, and also the shared values we have with the United States and its
people, namely the value of democracy, respect of human rights, public freedom,
rejection of extremism and fundamentalism, and confronting terrorism," Suleiman
said. "And Lebanon has paid a very heavy price to preserve these values -- a
heavy price because of the cost of its soul of its people, its infrastructure,
and also it had a heavy economical price, especially regards this part of the
Lebanese views we're obliged to indicate," he went on to say. Suleiman said
Lebanon has asked for U.S. support on various levels, mainly military "because a
strong army and strong armed forces could defend Lebanon against hostility of
the enemy. Also it could allow the country to confront terrorism which poses
dangers not only on Lebanon but on humanity as a whole. The second level,
according to the Lebanese president, is economic "in order to promote new, more
economic growth and social justice, because injustice is sometimes taken as a
pretext by terrorist and fundamentalist organizations to recruit people and
invite them to terrorism." "We also asked for the political support of the
United States to take a political position to support Lebanon and to support a
peaceful solution for the Middle East crisis. Suleiman also reiterated Lebanon's
insistence on the rights of return for Palestinians. Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 07:40
Gemayel Rules Out Any Possible Visit to Syria Soon
Naharnet/Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel on Tuesday criticized the negative
statements by some politicians against President Michel Suleiman's foreign
visits, and added that the president defends Lebanon's interests and has shown
openness to everyone. After receiving a delegation from the Maronite League
headed by its president Joseph Tarabay, Gemayel ruled out any possible visit to
Syria in the near future. "We demand to have best relations with Syria through
solving the pending issues between the two countries," added Gemayel.
The Phalange leader described the Syrian warrants against some Lebanese
officials as an "annoying issue."Gemayel wished success for the Maronite
Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir in managing to gather all of the Christian leaders. He
affirmed that Phalange Party was open to any initiative taken by the Patriarch
in that direction.On his part, Tarabay stressed that the league will pursue the
issue of inter-Christian reconciliations on the basis of understanding instead
of temporary settlement. Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 16:15
Reshuffling the Cards? (I): Syria's Evolving Strategy
MENA Report N°92
14 December 2009
This executive summary and recommendations is also available in Arabic.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Syria’s foreign policy sits atop a mountain of apparent contradictions that have
long bedevilled outsiders. Its self-proclaimed goal is peace with Israel, yet it
has allied itself with partners vowed to Israel’s destruction. It takes pride in
being a bastion of secularism even as it makes common cause with Islamist
movements. It simultaneously has backed Iraqi Sunni insurgents and a Lebanese
Shiite armed group. The U.S. has wavered between different approaches in
unsuccessful attempts to persuade Damascus to clarify its stance, from a peace
process focus in the 1990s to isolation and pressure under George W. Bush in the
following decade. Barack Obama, having turned an old page without settling on a
new one, seems intent on engagement on bilateral issues, albeit more cautious
than ambitious. It might work, but not in the way it has been proceeding. Syria
might amend its policies, but only if it is first reassured about the costs – in
terms of domestic stability and regional standing. That will entail working with
Damascus to demonstrate the broader payoffs of a necessarily unfamiliar, and
risky, journey.
At the heart of the problem is a profound mismatch of expectations. The West
wants to know whether Syria is ready to fundamentally alter its policies –
loosen or cut ties to Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah; sign a peace deal with Israel –
as a means of stabilising the region. Syria, before contemplating any
fundamental strategic shift, wants to know where the region and its most
volatile conflicts are headed, whether the West will do its part to stabilise
them and whether its own interests will be secured.
From Syria’s vantage point, there is good reason to cling to the status quo. For
almost four decades, it has served Damascus well. Despite a turbulent and often
hostile neighbourhood, the regime has proved resilient. It has used ties to
various groups and states to amass political and material assets, acquiring a
regional role disproportionate to its actual size or resources. One does not
readily forsake such allies or walk away from such a track record.
But satisfaction with the past does not necessarily mean complacency about the
future. On virtually all fronts, Syria can see peril. Its economy is wobbly. The
country lacks significant natural resources or human capital, most conspicuously
a qualified workforce and entrepreneurial business class. Its infrastructure is
obsolete. And unlike years past, when the Soviet Union and then Saudi Arabia
offered support, Iran or Iraq provided cheap fuel and Lebanon was prey to its
plunder, Syria no longer can count on a foreign rent. All this, coming amid an
increasingly competitive global market and financial crisis, calls for
structural reforms that the regime almost certainly cannot undertake without
Western help and a more pacified regional environment.
In terms of societal dynamics, regime policies are fanning Islamist sympathies
that, over time, could jeopardise its secular foundation. Cuts in subsidies and
the collapse of the welfare system, as well as high unemployment and inflation
rates, have chipped away at the regime’s ideological pillars. Its pan-Arab
rhetoric gradually has been replaced by a “resistance” discourse that has more
in common with Islamist movements than the Baathism of yore. Clashes between
government forces and Islamist militants are not uncommon, their frequency
ebbing when the regime more clearly espouses regional Islamist causes – which
further harms its secular outlook. The posture of the past few years – close
ties to Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah, promotion of resistance against Israel and
support for what was a Salafi-oriented Iraqi insurgency – encouraged trends that
threaten longer-term social cohesion.
Recent gains in the region could prove short-lived. However vindicated leaders
felt by events in Iraq (where they opposed the U.S. war), Lebanon (where the
Western-backed coalition was unable to bring Damascus to its knees, and
Hizbollah stood its ground against Israel) or Palestine (where its Islamist
allies have gained influence), they remain preoccupied by lingering conflicts
and persistent fault lines. The spread of sectarianism, uncertainty on its
eastern and western borders, stalemate in the Arab-Israeli peace process and
threat of confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program cloud the horizon. The
potential for domestic spillover of regional tensions haunts the regime and
helps explain why, in addition to economic and social fears, it might be
searching for a different way forward.
Syria’s ambivalence – its reliance on existing alliances and longing to break
out of the current mould – is perhaps best embodied in its Iranian-Turkish
balancing act. Syrian doubters argue that the regime will not cut its ties to
Iran. They are right. Tehran remains a valued and indispensable partner,
especially in a context of regional uncertainty. The long relationship provides
military assets and security cooperation, as well as diplomatic leverage in
dealing with Western and Arab countries.
But that is only half the picture. Budding ties with Ankara show a different
side. For Damascus, they are an opportunity for economic stimulus through
increased tourism, investment and the possibility of a more integrated region in
which it could be central. More, they are of huge strategic value as a gateway
to Europe and a means of bolstering regime legitimacy in the eyes of its own and
the Arab world’s Sunni population.
Besides, not all is tranquil on the Iranian front. The relationship became
increasingly unequal as Tehran’s fortunes soared. Excessive proximity harms
Syria’s posture in Arab eyes and cannot mask deep disagreements. Syria warily
watches Iran’s growing reach, from Iraq (which Syria believes must remain part
of the Arab sphere and where it objects to Iran’s backing of sectarian Shiite
parties) to Yemen (where Syria has sided with Riyadh in what appears as a proxy
war against Tehran). As long as Syria’s environment remains unsettled, in short,
it will maintain strong ties to Iran; at the same time, it will seek to
complement that relationship with others (Turkey, France, and now Saudi Arabia)
to broaden its strategic portfolio and to signal a possibly different future.
President Obama’s effort to re-engage was always going to be a painstaking and
arduous task of overcoming a legacy of mutual mistrust. Syrian doubters have
their counterparts in Damascus, who are convinced Washington never will truly
accept that the Arab nation can play a central regional role. The
administration’s slow and cautious moves are not necessarily a bad thing. There
is need for patience and realism. The region is too unstable for Damascus to
move abruptly; relaxation of U.S. sanctions is tied to Syrian policies toward
Hamas and Hizbollah that are hostage to a breakthrough with Israel for which
conditions do not seem ripe. Neither side is ready for a leap, and both have
domestic and foreign skeptics with whom to contend.
But the pace is less worrying than the direction. The temptation in Washington
seems to be to test Syrian goodwill – will it do more to harm the Iraqi
insurgency, help President Abbas in Palestine or stabilise Lebanon? On its own,
that almost certainly will not succeed. The U.S. is not the only one looking for
evidence. So too is Syria – for proof that the risks it takes will be offset by
the gains it makes. The region’s volatility drives it to caution and to hedge
its bets pending greater clarity on where the region is heading and, in
particular, what Washington will do.
A wiser approach would be for the U.S. and Syria to explore together whether
some common ground could be found on regional issues. This could test both
sides’ intentions, promote their interests and start shaping the Middle East in
ways that can reassure Damascus about the future. On Iraq, it may not truly
exercise positive influence until genuine progress is made toward internal
reconciliation. The U.S. could push in that direction, test Syria’s moves and,
with the Iraq government, offer the prospect of stronger economic relations with
its neighbour. Syria claims it can press Hamas to moderate views but only if
there is real appetite in the U.S. for an end to the Palestinian divide. Both
could agree to try to immunise Lebanon from regional conflicts and push it to
focus on long-overdue issues of governance. Given the current outlooks and
suspicions in Damascus and Washington, these are all long shots. But, with
little else in the Middle East looking up, it is a gamble well worth taking.
This is the first of two reports on Syria’s evolving foreign policy. The second,
to be published shortly, will take a closer look at specific changes in
Damascus’s regional approach and the prospects for U.S.-Syrian relations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To the U.S. Administration and Syrian Government:
1. Devise a process of mutual engagement revolving around concrete, realistic
goals, notably:
a) containing Iranian assertiveness in new arenas such as Iraq or Yemen (rather
than aiming to drive a wedge between Damascus and Tehran);
b) working toward national reconciliation in Iraq, by combining U.S. leverage
with the Iraqi government and Syrian access to the insurgency and former regime
elements;
c) encouraging the Lebanese government to refocus on issues of domestic
governance and containing the risks of a new Hizbollah-Israel conflagration; and
d) combining Syrian efforts to restrain Hamas and reunify Gaza and the West Bank
with U.S. adoption of a more welcoming approach to intra-Palestinian
reconciliation.
To the U.S. Administration:
2. Establish an effective line of communication by:
a) sending an ambassador to Damascus, part of whose mission should be to build a
direct link with President Bashar al-Assad; and
b) identifying a senior official to engage in a strategic dialogue aimed at
exchanging visions for the region and determining a blueprint for future
bilateral relations.
3. Recalibrate U.S. efforts on the peace process by:
a) displaying interest in both the Palestinian and Syrian tracks;
b) working at improving Israeli-Turkish relations as a step toward resuming
Israeli-Syrian negotiations under joint U.S.-Turkish sponsorship; and
c) making clear that, consistent with past Israeli-Syrian negotiations, any
final agreement should entail full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights,
firm security arrangements and the establishment of normal, peaceful bilateral
relations.
4. Restart bilateral security talks related to Iraq, beginning with border
issues, either immediately or, at the latest, after parliamentary elections in
Iraq.
5. Soften implementation of sanctions against Syria by streamlining licensing
procedures and loosening restrictions on humanitarian or public safety grounds.
To the Government of Syria:
6. Facilitate access for U.S. diplomats to relevant officials upon arrival of a
new ambassador.
7. Utilise existing security cooperation mechanisms with countries such as the
UK and France to demonstrate tangible results, pending direct talks with the
U.S.
8. Articulate proactively its vision for the region in talks with U.S.
officials.
9. Consolidate improved Syrian-Lebanese ties by demarcating the border and
providing any available information on Lebanese “disappeared”.
10. Clarify what immediate, positive contributions Syria could make in Iraq,
Palestine and Lebanon and what it would expect from the U.S. in turn.
Damascus/Washington/Brussels, 14 December 2009
Suleiman: U.S. Should Support Lebanese Army to Enable It of Defending Lebanon
Naharnet/resident Michel Suleiman on Tuesday said that Washington has to support
the Lebanese Army in order to enable it of defending its territories against any
enemy.
Suleiman was delivering a speech before a delegation from the Lebanese community
in the U.S.
"The practice of democracy in Lebanon is robust," said the president in his
speech.
Suleiman stressed that Lebanon's strength lies in the unity of its army and its
capability to protect its land and face any threat to its stability.
"We reiterated support for the Arab peace initiative endorsed in Beirut, and we
informed the U.S. administration about Lebanon's rejection to the naturalization
of Palestinians on its land," added the president.
Suleiman told the Lebanese community members that Lebanon depends on them,
promising to engage them in the country's national decisions through the urgent
adoption of a law allowing the immigrants to vote in the parliamentary
elections.
Earlier, Suleiman held a summit with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Oval
Office. The two leaders reportedly agreed on a number of key commitments, and
disagreed on others, particularly over security and Hizbullah arms.
Obama on Monday said a U.N. resolution calling on Hizbullah to disarm must be
enforced.
Speaking to reporters, Obama said that while there has been progress made in
enforcing the resolution, that progress is incomplete. Hizbullah has continued
to defy the U.N. resolution that ended its 2006 war with Israel and called on
the group to disarm.
Obama said he is particularly concerned about "the extensive arms that are
smuggled into Lebanon that potentially serve as a threat to Israel."
Hizbullah, which the U.S. lists as a terror group, has said it has thousands of
rockets and missiles, some of which can reach deep into Israel.
Obama said the U.S. and Lebanon may not always agree on issues involving Israel,
but both nations share "a commitment to resolve these issues through dialogue
and negotiations, as opposed to through violence."
"And that is consistent with the democratic traditions of Lebanon. That's
consistent with what we believe is in the interests of both Lebanon as well as
the other countries in the region," he added.
"And we are going to continue to be promoting those processes that bring parties
together, even though there are going to be some strong disagreements with
respect to what the terms, for example, of a final peace between Israel and the
Palestinians may be. And I'm confident that we can arrive at those -- such an
agreement as long as all the parties are entering into it in good faith," Obama
concluded.
Suleiman, for his part, called on the United States to provide Lebanon military
support.
He also urged Washington to put pressure on Israel to implement U.N. resolution
1701 and demand that it stop threatening Lebanon.
"We discussed the Israeli threats against Lebanon that are taking place and that
place obstacles to the economic growth of the country," Suleiman said, calling
on Obama and the United States to "exert further pressure on Israel to implement
Resolution 1701 and to withdraw from Israeli occupied -- Lebanese occupied
territories namely from the village of Ghajar, Kfar Shouba, and the Shabaa
Farms."
Suleiman said talks also touched on bilateral relations between the two
countries.
"We believe we have many common denominators with the United States. The first
one are Americans of Lebanese descent which play a great role in the United
States, and also the shared values we have with the United States and its
people, namely the value of democracy, respect of human rights, public freedom,
rejection of extremism and fundamentalism, and confronting terrorism," Suleiman
said.
"And Lebanon has paid a very heavy price to preserve these values -- a heavy
price because of the cost of its soul of its people, its infrastructure, and
also it had a heavy economical price, especially regards this part of the
Lebanese views we're obliged to indicate," he went on to say.
Suleiman said Lebanon has asked for U.S. support on various levels, mainly
military "because a strong army and strong armed forces could defend Lebanon
against hostility of the enemy. Also it could allow the country to confront
terrorism which poses dangers not only on Lebanon but on humanity as a whole.
The second level, according to the Lebanese president, is economic "in order to
promote new, more economic growth and social justice, because injustice is
sometimes taken as a pretext by terrorist and fundamentalist organizations to
recruit people and invite them to terrorism."
"We also asked for the political support of the United States to take a
political position to support Lebanon and to support a peaceful solution for the
Middle East crisis.
Suleiman also reiterated Lebanon's insistence on the rights of return for
Palestinians. Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 17:51
Report:
Nasrallah Visits Saudi Arabia after Hariri Visits Syria
Naharnet/The visitors of former president Emile Lahoud, who visited Damascus
lately, said that a closed meeting gathered Lahoud to Syrian President Bashar
Assad, for 45 minutes, in which they discussed Lebanese and regional situations.
The Central News Agency quoted Lahoud's visitors as saying that the media
circulated reports, about Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
visiting Saudi Arabia, were correct and confirmed, and that his visit will occur
after that of Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Damascus. Lahoud's visitors stressed
that the atmospheres between Saudi Arabia and Syria are going fine, especially
that "they are based on good intentions between the two countries." Beirut, 15
Dec 09, 21:21
Israeli
Military Intelligence: Tel Aviv Area Endangered by Missiles of Hizbullah, Syria,
Iran
Naharnet/Amos Yadlin, Head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate,
known as Aman, said that "the calm prevailing -- in the Israeli areas bordering
Lebanon from the north and Hamas(-controlled Gaza) from the south -- is not due
to the power of deterrence achieved by the army in the wars of July and Gaza."
"Those areas are calm because the enemies on both borders are taking advantage
of that situation to pursue their arming and build up of military capabilities,"
added Yadlin.
At a conference organized by the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security
Studies, Yadlin added that Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah have the ability to
"threaten" the greater area of Tel Aviv and the surrounding cities through the
massive missile barrages they can launch.
"Israel succeeded in achieving the power of deterrence against Hizbullah in the
July war, and against Hamas in the Gaza war … They will, in any coming
confrontation, compare the profit and loss accounts between attacking the
Israeli army and their willingness to take risks and hazards," added Yadlin.
Beirut, 15 Dec 09, 20:21