LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 16/09
Bible Reading of the day.
Luke15/11-31: He said, “A certain man had
two sons. 15:12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me my
share of your property.’ He divided his livelihood between them. Not many days
after, the younger son gathered all of this together and traveled into a far
country. There he wasted his property with riotous living. When he had spent all
of it, there arose a severe famine in that country, and he began to be in need.
He went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent
him into his fields to feed pigs. He wanted to fill his belly with the husks
that the pigs ate, but no one gave him any. But when he came to himself he said,
‘How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough to spare, and I’m
dying with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will tell him,
“Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no more worthy to
be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants.”’ “He arose, and came
to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him, and was moved
with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. The son said to
him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no longer
worthy to be called your son.’ “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out
the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.
Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; for this, my
son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’ They began to
celebrate. “Now his elder son was in the field. As he came near to the house, he
heard music and dancing. He called one of the servants to him, and asked what
was going on. He said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed
the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and healthy.’ But he
was angry, and would not go in. Therefore his father came out, and begged him.
But he answered his father, ‘Behold, these many years I have served you, and I
never disobeyed a commandment of yours, but you never gave me a goat, that I
might celebrate with my friends. But when this, your son, came, who has
devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’
“He said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.
But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was
dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’”
Free Opinions, Releases, letters &
Special Reports
Interview with
Lebanon's Ayatollah
Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah
Shiites' (and
Hezbollah's) Spiritual Leader/15.03.09
March 14” launches the “crossing
to the state” electoral program/Future News 15/03/09
Fugitives to Israel worry Aoun/Future
News 15/03/09
Riyadh: A Summit of Interests
and Reconciliation.
By Tariq Alhomayed 15/03/09
Contradictions in US
Openness to Iran and Syria.By
Huda al Husseini/15.03.09
Exiling Islamic
Terrorists, Leaving Islam Behind: Two Solutions and Counting.
Pajamas Media 15/03/09
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 15/09
Mixed signals for Israel as old foes take different tack-The
Australian
Sfeir
to Voters: Whoever Buys You Shall Sell You-Naharnet
Britain bars Hezbollah spokesman
from entry-Future
News
Hamade: Jumblatt will not ally
with Berry-Future
News
Souaid : March 14 program a
guide towards stability-Future
News
Najjar: reducing voting age
requires constitutional amendment-Future
News
Feltman: My Gift to Saniora is
Israel's Pullout from Ghajar Ahead of Elections-Naharnet
British politicians meet Hamas leader in Syria-Ynetnews
Murtada in Damascus as Lebanese Embassy Prepares to Open its Doors-Naharnet
Lebanese Sovereignty,
Military and Economic Assistance on Agenda as Suleiman Heads to Paris-Naharnet
Aoun: Election Going to be
Head-to-Head Battle between 2 Schemes, 2 Ideas-Naharnet
March 14 Coalition
Parliamentary Election Platform: UNSCR 1701, Taef Accord and The Arab Peace
Initiative-Naharnet
Hariri: Lebanon First to
Benefit From Syria-Israel Peace-Naharnet
Nasrallah Rejects U.S.
Conditions For Openness, Won't Recognize Israel-Naharnet
Diplomat: France Is Not
Worried of a Hizbullah Victory-Naharnet
Saudi Denies Shiites
Targeted in Sunni Kingdom-Naharnet
Sfeir to Voters: Whoever Buys
You Shall Sell You
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir urged the Lebanese during his Sunday
sermon to vote during the June 7 elections for candidates who will defend their
basic rights. "Voters must know who they will be choosing to defend their basic
rights," Sfeir said. "They must not forget the proverb 'whoever buys you shall
sell you'." He said people are "not products." Sfeir stressed that the upcoming
parliamentary elections will have a "big impact on the (people's) daily lives."
Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 11:44
Feltman: My Gift to Saniora is Israel's Pullout from Ghajar
Ahead of Elections
Naharnet/Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey
Feltman has said he would convince the Israeli government to withdraw from the
northern part of the border village of Ghajar ahead of the June elections.
Feltman "will present a gift to Premier Fouad Saniora by convincing the new
Israeli government to withdraw from the Lebanese side of the village of Ghajar
before the parliamentary elections," Al-Balad daily quoted diplomatic sources as
saying Sunday.
U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams expressed hope on Tuesday
that the formation of a new Israeli government following elections in February
would lead to a withdrawal from Ghajar and progress on the issue of cluster
bombs and munitions.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon also said in his ninth report on the implementation of
Security Council Resolution 1701 that Israel has expressed "readiness to enter
into technical discussions" about the village based on a UNIFIL proposal. "I
renew my call on the parties to proceed on the basis of the UNIFIL proposal so
as to facilitate the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces in accordance with
Israel's obligations under resolution 1701" that ended the Jewish state's war
with Hizbullah in 2006, Ban said. Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 08:50
3.1-Million-Square-Meter Land Discovered While Marking Blue
Line
Naharnet/The Lebanese army command said on Saturday that "liberated and deserted
land of 3.1 million square meters" was found in south Lebanon while marking the
U.N.-delineated Blue Line. It said a military committee continues in cooperation
with UNIFIL to mark the Blue Line in areas where it was distorted by the Israeli
aggression on Lebanon in July 2006. "The committee has already marked 9 points
and will make 12 other markings, including rugged terrain which was reached for
the first time since 1949," the military said in its communiqué. "The (army)
command will work hard in cooperation with the official authorities and the
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon to clear the lands from mines," the
communiqué added. Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 09:33
Murtada in Damascus as Lebanese Embassy Prepares to Open
its Doors
Naharnet/Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh's advisor heads to Damascus on Sunday
to officially start his mission at the Lebanese embassy in the Syrian capital.
Rami Murtada begins his mission officially on Monday after the Lebanese flag is
raised over the building in Damascus' Abu Rummaneh street.
Lebanon and Syria reached agreement last October on establishing ties. Lebanon
has named career diplomat Michel el-Khoury as its first ambassador. Syria has
yet to name its envoy. Three diplomats have been stationed at the Syrian embassy
in Beirut's Hamra district since last December but the mission is not yet fully
operational. Beirut, 15 Mar 09, 10:03
Aoun: Election Going to be Head-to-Head Battle between 2 Schemes, 2 Ideas
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun said
Saturday that upcoming election is going to be a head-to-head battle between two
schemes and two ideas. "Upcoming election is going to be a head-to-head battle
between two schemes and two ideas – one that calls for reforms and another which
is corrupt," Aoun said in a speech during a dinner for Tayyar at Habtour hotel
in Beirut. "You have to exercise your rights and choose the reformist group,"
Aoun said. He said the "battle now is aimed at putting an end to theft, and, God
willing, the ancestry which began in 1992 will end on June 7." "He who votes for
a fine administration, is himself fine, and he who votes for a corrupt
administration, is himself corrupt," Aoun believed. "You cannot have a corrupt
administration and a good community at the same time." He acknowledged that
Lebanon is "split" between two political lines. "This is why a reformist force
will be formed." On the controversial issue of a parliamentary centrist bloc,
Aoun said that when he criticizes the bloc "we are not attacking it as an idea
of moderation." "We have to differentiate between white and black. There is no
such thing as grey when it comes to values," he added. Beirut, 14 Mar 09, 23:21
March 14 Coalition Parliamentary Election Platform: UNSCR
1701, Taef Accord and The Arab Peace Initiative
Naharnet/The March 14 coalition announced its election platform on Saturday,
under which it would launch its race to the legislature on June 7.
The platform emphasized the necessary need for the implementation of United
Nations Security Council resolution 1701, to commit to the Taef accord and to
support settling the Palestinian cause based on the Arab peace initiative. March
14 Secretariat-General Coordinator Faris Soaid read the coalition's political
electoral statement on Saturday at a large conference gathering at the BIEL in
Beirut saying: "At the ballots, you decide for yourselves in 85 days to whom you
will give the mandate."
He went on to detail 14 points constituting the political platform upon which
March 14 Forces are united.
Lebanon's salvation and protection demand the accordance of the Lebanese people
to not let it be used politically, militarily, and securely in regional
conflicts that have nothing to do with national interests, with Lebanon holding
all its political and diplomatic commitments towards the Arab solidarity and the
rightful Arab issues, and especially the Palestinian cause. The path to
achieving this vital target for Lebanon's independence, stability, and
prosperity, is to implement the international resolution 1701, which provides
the necessary framework and tools to do so. This decision is not one of a
"party" or a "faction" imposed by March 14 forces. It is a decision that was
agreed on unanimously by the Lebanese, including March 8 forces who signed on it
twice: the first time in 2006 in order to stop the brutal Israeli aggression,
and the second time in 2008 in the statement of the current government.
Soaid said that this issue is the path, or rather the basis to reflect the
legitimate aspirations to:
1.Protect Lebanon from the Israeli aggressions and recovering Shebaa Farms
through the implementation of resolution 1701 in all it clauses.
2.Impose the state authority over all its territory in accordance with the Taef
agreement where " there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon except the
weapons and authority of the state".
3. End of the conflict with Syria which adopted since 1947 the policy of
military neutrality, and construct normal and amicable relations in accordance
with the Taef agreement and on the basis of brotherhood, equality, and common
interests. This calls for the end of Syrian interference in the Lebanese
affairs, and the completion of the diplomatic exchange which is considered as an
accomplishment for the independent Lebanon, as well as border control and
demarcation starting with Shebaa farms in order to facilitate its retrieval, and
an end to the issue of the Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons, the abolition
of military bases that are present outside the camps that are technically under
the authority of the Syrian authority, and the review of the unfair agreements
that were signed during the period of Syrian tutelage on Lebanon.
4.Provide harmony between Lebanon and the international community on the basis
of the Charter of the United Nations and the international resolutions, and
avoid pushing Lebanon to confront the international community with sectarian
claims that contradict its actual interest, and with convulsive slogans that are
far away from its nature of pluralism, as well as reactivate Lebanon's message
of co-existence and cultural interaction through supporting the initiatives that
make Lebanon "an international center for dialog among civilizations and
cultures, and a global laboratory for this dialog", according to the suggestion
of the President of the Lebanese Republic.
5.Restore Lebanon's Arab role and its active contribution in achieving Arab
solidarity which is the basic requirement to obtain Arab rights, and its
commitment to support the struggle of the Palestinian people and their unity led
by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in order to establish an
independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital in the context of
the "two-state solution" and a just and comprehensive peace in accordance with
the "Arab Peace Initiative" in the face of the escalation of extremism,
especially Israeli extremism and the policy of settlement and the expulsion of
Palestinians from their homeland.
6.Strict adherence to prevent the settlement of our Palestinian brothers in
Lebanon, and the adoption of the law of constitutional amendment proposal made
by the Parliament members of March 14 regarding this subject more than six
months ago which requires a Parliamentary consensus to amend the constitution
clause that has to do with settlement.
7.Complete the construction of the state and its institutions on the basis of
the Charter of co-existence through the implementation of the Taef agreement and
the constitution in letter and spirit, leading to a civilized democratic state
that ensures equality in rights and duties of individuals regardless of their
religious affiliations, as well as ensuring free and active presence of
communities, irrespective of any political or numerical consideration, adopting
a new law for elections and reducing the voting age to 18 years, reforming the
state institutions and departments, and liberating them from the sectarian
conflicts and political clientele and corruption, all in the context of the
expanded administrative decentralization, and the commitment of those in
authority to their jurisdiction that is specified in the constitution in order
to prevent the blocking actions from being done again.
8.Commit to achieve the requirements of the International Tribunal for Lebanon
whose purpose is to uncover the truth and achieve justice, which will fortify
Lebanon's sovereignty and will put an end to the trend of political
assassinations and impunity, and will give credit back to the law as a regulator
of life among the people, in parallel with strengthening the judiciary
independence and effectiveness.
Provide the necessary funds to complete the return of all the displaced people
and close the file once and for all.
9.Protect Lebanon and the Lebanese internally and abroad from the global
financial crisis repercussions and maintain the monetary stability, and keep the
inflation at low levels to protect the purchasing power for those who have
limited income, and develop an effective program for debt management and debt
reduction, and maximum benefit from the contributions of Paris-3.
10. Commit to economic and financial policies that have balanced development
dimensions in all productive sectors along all Lebanese regions, and remove the
obstacles away from the investments and reduce the cost of conducting business
while giving priority to the sectors and the projects that provide suitable job
opportunities for the Lebanese.
11. Develop the social contract that is binding for the state and the social
partners, and expand the scope of health, educational, social, and relief
services which commensurate with the needs and basic rights of the citizens, and
activate the social safety nets for the poorest factions in collaboration with
the civil society organizations.
12. Provide bigger and more effective participation for women in the political,
economic, and social life, and in decision-making on the basis of equality in
rights and in access to employment, education, health, and other community based
opportunities and in owning and distributing resources, as well as empowering
women legally through amending the unjust legislations and developing laws in
this issue, especially the electoral law.
13. Commit to the cause of the Lebanese Diaspora in the world in order to
provide a safety net in support of Lebanon's independence, stability, and
prosperity, and achieving equality in duties and rights with the residents,
especially the right to vote, which must be available to all expatriates in the
place of residence, and work on facilitating the restoration the Lebanese
nationality to all descendants of Lebanese origin, and facilitate the
acquirement of the civil register to the Lebanese without administrative or
legal complications, and granting incentives and facilities for the expatriates
to work and invest in Lebanon.
14. Put an end to the environmental deterioration through a national strategy
for sustainable development that includes the issuance of regulatory decrees for
the application of the environmental law, and implementing the environmental
impact assessment decree, as well as offer economic incentives for the
institutions that introduces the environmental component in its production
process, as well as promote the use of renewable sources of energy, biological
agriculture, protect the water resources and water quality, and promote tourism
that respects the ecological balance, preserve the wealth of forest, and
treatment of solid, liquid, and gas waste.
On the basis of these options, March 14 pledges to enter into the coming
electoral battle with interdependence and solidarity, in all electoral
constituencies, and in collaboration with the forces and personalities that
share these values and goals.
March 14 pledges to form a thorough parliamentary context inclusive of all the
winners of March 14 forces in these elections.
The March 14 elected deputies in the coming parliament pledge to you the
commitment to all the issues and pledge to work seriously and responsibly in
achieving it.
March 14 forces pledge to return to the constitutional assets in the authority
and in the opposition, with an openness to real representation in accordance
with the rules of parliamentary democracy and away from the logic of disruption,
whether from within or from outside the institutions.
We want to turn the page on the internal conflict, and re-connect what was lost
between the Lebanese, and devote a peaceful and democratic approach in the
political work and reject all internal violence.
On May 31, 2007, one day after the decision to create an international tribunal,
we held our hand out to the other team and issued an invitation to revive the
historical settlement, which was identified by the Taef agreement. The other
party did not meet the call. Instead they confronted us with blocking and
sometimes with weapons! In spite the violence that we were faced with, we did
not change our choice. Today, we renew this invitation, which verbally stated
the following:
"The division that emerged at the moment of the second independence in 2005 was
dangerous to Lebanon. Surpassing this division requires the surpassing of three
necessities:
1. The necessity to consolidate two key achievements in the history of modern
Lebanon - liberation, and independence- instead of putting them, as the case is
today, in confrontation with each other, which will lead to weakening these
accomplishments and emptying them from contents (…)
2. Confessing the impossibility of building the state on the basis of sectarian
dichotomies or troikas which Lebanon has paid the price for dearly in the
previous stages. It is also impossible to build Lebanon by marginalizing or
removing some of its sectarian components. Lebanon cannot be built on the image
of one of its sects or on its conditions, and at the expense of its civilized
quality that is formed on unity in diversity.
3. Confessing to the impossibility of building the state on the basis of giving
priorities to the regional and external interests and ties instead of giving it
to internal partnership and the national contract that are embodied by the
constitution".
In ending Soaid reminded his audience of the future saying:
The seventh of June 2009 is a pivotal stage in the historical path that you
started on March 14 2005, a winding hard path where you lost lives and shed
blood, but a path filled with the breath of freedom and regained sovereignty,
and the independent national decision.
Let us make from 7 June a date to cross to the state of Lebanon:
Lebanon the Taef agreement
Lebanon the implementation of resolution 1701
Lebanon the Arab peace initiative.
Beirut, 14 Mar 09, 17:51
Fugitives to Israel worry Aoun
Date: March 14th, 2009 Source: Future News
The “Aouni Movement” fears raising the issue of the Lebanese citizens who fled
to the Hebrew state following the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, especially since
MP Michel Aoun’s stands at then were comprehensively contradictory to his
today’s movement.
Aoun’s volatility between approving the citizens’ right to flee the country and
not convict them for being forced at that time to cooperate with the Israeli
occupation and wishing “Hezbollah” would “grant” them a right to resort to the
Lebanese judiciary and accuse the state of doing a bad job by not trying them.
At the first parliamentary session following the 2005 elections and the “tsunami
wave”, Aoun said “the people of Jezzine and the border line paid a high price
and are treated as spies. Why can’t we bring back the thousands of Lebanese who
sought refuge in Israel and just end the issue with a judicial-parliamentary
investigation?”
Aoun added “the Lebanese state wanted to reassume its right to unrightfully try
those refugees after so many years knowing that it had done nothing to settle
this issue earlier. Most of the Lebanese, especially the southerners know the
story. Was there a solution given by the state to the citizens of Jezzine and
residents on the borders line? It is inconceivable to try a people who attempted
to stay in their homes because their state regressed.”
Aoun asked the Khumeini party (Hezbollah) in the February 6, 2006 Memorandum of
Understanding to “grant” those who fled the right to resort to the Lebanese
judiciary for trial. His wished was a clear admittance that bringing back the
refugees is pertained to the “divine” authority, neglecting the state’s
authority to try them.
What Aoun could have done but didn’t was to suggest –along with “Hezbollah” an
accelerated bis draft law to the parliament.
But Aoun playing naive claimed the pardon must be issued by the state. During a
meeting with Nasrallah on OTV in February 2006, he said “the Lebanese state is
responsible for Lebanese state is responsible for the non-return of fugitives
because it hadn’t responded to the memorandum of understanding and sentenced an
8-year-old to 15 years of jail.”
Of course Aoun couldn’t convince people of the notion. But Head of the Court
Maher Safi al-Din said that this ruling was passed years ago before the MoU
between Aoun and Hezbollah.
From February 6, 2006 till this day, there are more than 3 years, and from May
25, 2000 till today, there must have been enough time to find this issue a
solution.
Sources of the Aouni Movement assert the fugitives to Israel are the victims of
his volatility concerning their cause and the victims of acquiring the
presidential post, which not only cost him his former slogans, but his
credibility as well.
Riyadh: A Summit of Interests and Reconciliation
14/03/2009
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat,
Seeing the Saudi monarch, the Egyptian and Syrian presidents and the Kuwaiti
Emir together in one shot was certainly an image that has long been absent. But
this is what we saw in the Saudi capital of Riyadh recently. Today we are faced
with many different analyses, with each party presenting its own view [of the
Riyadh Summit].
An analysis from Lebanon, another from the Palestinians, a third from Doha and
observation by the West; but what is more important than any of these is what
comes out of Tehran.
Nevertheless, before anything else, one must state that the Riyadh summit was
based on interests and this brings about a feeling of optimism as politics,
essentially, is the language of interests, not slogans.
The Saudis are convinced that foreign interference is what caused Arab division
and this threatens the security of our region; how can it not when our region
has witnessed three wars in the past five years, the execution of an Arab
president, a coup in Beirut and another in the Gaza Strip, charges being brought
against an Arab president, not to mention that we now have an impending
international court?
Egypt believes that one-upmanship and regional interference have begun to shift
underneath a sensitive cover whereby what is claimed certainly does not reflect
reality. The best example of this is the Palestinian Cause; whilst Cairo was
assuming its role with regards to the Palestinians, there were those who were
aiming to stab Egypt in the back.
Well what about Syria? Damascus wants to close most of its difficult files in a
clever way. The Syrians believe that the key lies in the Golan Heights, the
normalization of ties with Arabs and in opening up to the West, as Syria severed
ties with the West, particularly America, for eight difficult years. So the
détente Damascus achieved with France has not had the effect that Syria hoped
for with respect to the Arab world and the international community. The Syrians
have many interests and want to be reassured of the country’s safety.
These were the reasons behind the need for the four-way Riyadh summit. The
reconciliatory meeting was purely a meeting of interests. This is where its real
value and great importance lies and this is what also makes us look to the days
ahead with caution.
It is wrong to expect a quick positive and dramatic change just as it is wrong
to assume that there will be no change at all. This is the difficult equation
and is also what explains the reactions to the Riyadh Summit that we witnessed
from those obedient to Iran. The attacks on Saudi Arabia began to come from
Iran’s supporters, just as we began to notice Iran’s irresolution in its
political positions as a result of the isolation that Iran is experiencing after
Morocco cut ties with it and after having experienced the Arab counter-attack to
Iranian ambitions, in addition to the Riyadh summit.
The best example of such irresolution is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s
statement in response to Turkey’s offer to mediate between Iran and the United
States. He stated that his country did not require any mediation. The other
important matter is discussions regarding the need for Iranian-Arab dialogue.
Therefore, today, more than ever before, it is evident that Saudi King Abdullah
Bin Abdulaziz’s initiative for Arab reconciliation was an important and
necessary initiative culminated in the four-way Riyadh summit. Here we are today
witnessing the numerous results [of the initiative] on the ground.
Contradictions in US Openness to Iran and Syria
14/03/2009
By Huda al Husseini/Asharq Al-Awsat,
The United States claims that resuming ties with Syria is an attempt to distance
it from Iran. But at the same time, the US administration itself is opening up
to Iran. How can it justify to itself its attempts in this regard whilst at the
same time wanting to convince Damascus to cut its ties with Iran? The call for
opening up to Iran encouraged Chairman of the Expediency Council and former
Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani to visit Iraq after Iraqi
President Jalal Talabani’s visited Iran
The Halabja massacre took place during the Iraq-Iran war and Talabani and
Rafsanjani played significant roles in the war, in which one million lives were
lost. An Iraqi friend, who is yet to recover from the visit of Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Baghdad, said: what would happen to the Obama
administration if Osama Bin Laden visited New York and took a walk around Ground
Zero where he carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks during the tenure of former
US President George W. Bush? After Jeffrey Feltman from the US State Department
and Dan Shapiro from the White House visited Syria, the Syrian President said
that the upcoming elections in Lebanon would be “decisive” and warned against
politicizing the International Tribunal because “Lebanon would pay the price.”
The Taliban in Afghanistan responded to President Obama’s calls for opening a
dialogue with moderate elements within the Taliban by rejecting this proposal,
and stating that there is no such thing as moderate or extremist Taliban. The
American way of thinking at present about being more open is to facilitate its
withdrawal from Iraq and to win the war in Afghanistan. The situation in the end
will only become more difficult. Michael Scheuer, former CIA Chief of the Bin
Laden Issue Station stated that in two years, the Obama administration will look
at the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, which is in possession of a nuclear
weapon, and it will decide to leave Afghanistan to its fate so that it can focus
on Pakistan which cannot be lost.
US strategy is fundamentally based upon preventing any regional powers from
dominating [the region] so that they will not challenge the United States at a
later stage. In the case of the Middle East, this means Washington resorting to
complex bilateral or multilateral ties. To reach Afghanistan, the situation in
Iraq must be settled first. [It is] in the interest of the United States to
maintain Iraq’s independence, and to remain its ally and to make it [Iraq] a
buffer zone vis-à-vis its neighbouring countries, especially Iran. However,
because of its desire to reduce the number of its forces and expenditure, some
believe that Washington might find itself sharing influence over Iraq with Iran.
Shia Iran hopes to revive Persian domination; however, it is surrounded by an
ocean of Sunni states. Only the situation in Iraq is providing Iran the
opportunity to exert influence over its political future through its ties with
Shia groups in the hope of making Iraq an open field so that it will not pose a
threat to Iran at a later stage.
After accepting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s invite to take part in
the conference on Afghanistan (Clinton stated that what was important was
combating the planting and smuggling of drugs), Iran hopes to secure a “deal”
through which it can become a key player in Iraq, Afghanistan, and countries in
the Middle East as a whole.
However, Iran’s ambitions, including its nuclear program, are facing obstacles.
The recent elections in Iraq ruined the Shia alliance project and Egypt’s
adherence to its position regarding its borders with Gaza was a defeat for Iran.
Moreover, the way that US-Iranian ties will develop at a later stage [is also an
obstacle].
Most importantly, there is the issue of Saudi Arabia. Despite the decrease in
oil prices, Saudi oil wealth has a significant influence on Washington in light
of the financial crisis and the global recession. Despite US openness towards
Iran, US-Saudi relations remain stronger and Washington must discuss in advance
the development of its ties with Iran with Gulf States so that this does not
have a negative impact on Gulf interests, especially as Iran is occupying three
UAE islands. Iran cannot demand Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian
territories whilst it is occupying the land of others.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured GCC states that negotiations will
be conducted between Washington and the GCC regarding America’s openness to
Iran. The Gulf States had demonstrated their desire for this to happen during
the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in New York last December. During that meeting,
UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan called for an explicit
and guaranteed commitment from the US that no agreement would be concluded
between Washington and Tehran behind the GCC’s back, and that no concessions
would be given to Iran behind closed doors that had the potential to threaten
the national interests of the GCC states.
Many observers are waiting for the inevitable meeting between Clinton and her
Iranian counterpart, Manuchehr Mottaki, during the Afghanistan conference which
will be held later this month to see if she is stronger than the foreign
ministers of the EU Troika; France, Britain and Germany, with whom Iran played a
game of chess and won. Discussing Iran leads to the topics of Syria, Lebanon and
Israel and this is where US and Israeli interests clash. When Washington stood
by a significant part of the Lebanese nation to force out Syrian troops from
Lebanon in the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri, Israel objected because of an implied agreement that it had reached with
Damascus for its troops to remain in Lebanon in order to limit and control the
movement of Hezbollah.
Yet Israel is strategically and tactically working to restrain the increasing
influence of Iran and the connections that it uses to pursue this, [by] resuming
ties with Syria, Iran’s strategic ally in the Arab world. Peace with Syria would
allow Israel to contain the military threat posed by Hezbollah, which is Iran’s
first line of defence in the region.
Syria continues to condemn the Sykes-Picot agreement and insists that Lebanon or
at least part of it should be included within its borders. Even though Syria
agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, it is yet to assign an
ambassador to Lebanon and is waiting for the US to send its ambassador back to
Damascus. Moreover, the way that Syrian officials speak about the details of
Lebanese politics confirms their complete rejection of abandoning it. Syria is
of the view that its geo-political interests are based in Lebanon, and without
it, Syria would be economically weak and isolated. Controlling Lebanon would
allow Syria to have access to the Mediterranean Basin (as the Lattakia seaport
has failed to keep up with the Beirut seaport), making it a significant regional
power.
There are a number of reasons behind Syria’s insistence that the US should
sponsor Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Most importantly, with regards to the
military, Syria could not confront the Turkish threat from the north and the
Israeli threat from the south whilst Washington is an ally to both Ankara and
Tel Aviv. Syria feels that it is on its way to restoring its control of Lebanon
through its allies there, however it wants Washington’s acknowledgement of its
influential and effective role in Lebanon, and wants it to help convince other
Arab countries of the role that it aspires to have. Yet Syria’s negotiations
with Israel to regain the Golan Heights require important commitments from Syria
including neutralizing Hezbollah’s weapons and no longer supporting Hamas and
the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine.
Iran is prepared to give up Hamas and Islamic Jihad; however, it is a different
case with regards to Hezbollah. This is where the Iran-Syria problem arises if
we accept that Syria will consider that the US will grant it the long-awaited
opportunity to come out of diplomatic isolation. Washington’s interest in
engaging in dialogue with Syria goes back to its desire to break up its
strategic and decisive alliance with Iran and its push for Syria to stop
allowing weapons to pass through to Lebanon (to reach Hezbollah and Palestinian
organizations in and outside of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon). But
Washington is yet to reveal the concessions that it will offer Damascus. It gave
Lebanon to Syria once before and then forced it to leave; it sponsored Syria’s
negotiations with Israel; the former US Secretary of State Warren Christopher
visited Damascus twenty one times; and US president Bill Clinton met with late
Syrian President Hafez al Assad in Geneva. However, Israel, under Ehud Barak,
agreed and then retracted clinging to a 300-meter-long line at Lake Tiberius
[Sea of Galilee] and the Golan Heights remained under Israel’s control.
How will Israel abandon a foreign policy that it has adopted for thirty years,
especially after the International Tribunal for the Hariri assassination has
been established? There is another issue that is more serious; Sudanese
President Omar al Bashir. After having surrendered Carlos [the Jackal, whose
real name is Ilich Ramírez Sánchez] and expelling Osama Bin Laden, Sudan has no
more cards to play and it allowed its forces to commit massacres in Darfur and
the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for al Bashir’s arrest.
Therefore, he is serving as an example to many, despite his defiance, that
concessions can no longer provide guarantees for anybody!
Snuggling Up with Syria
By Claude Cartaginese
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, March 13, 2009
Just as an international tribunal has convened to examine the level of Syrian
involvement in the 2005 murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri,
as well as the deaths of several other anti-Syrian politicians and journalists,
the Obama administration has decided that now would be the perfect time to send
its top envoy over to Syria to have a cup of tea with its dictator, Bashir
Assad.
Syria has done nothing to deserve this diplomatic treatment. It remains the same
country that brutally occupied Lebanon over thirty years, and which has openly
supported Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda in Iraq. According to current Lebanese
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Syria even today is fomenting unrest in Lebanon in
an effort to destabilize it enough to justify a re-subjugation.
Naturally, Syria’s neighbors, especially Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, are nervous
about this visit. So much so that before going to Syria, envoys Jeffrey Feltman
and Michele Sison made a special visit to Lebanon to reassure Siniora that Assad
is now a changed man and worth talking to.
And yet, Syria is still Syria. It has done nothing to cooperate with the Hariri
tribunal. In fact, according to Siniora, it has done everything possible to
hinder the tribunal while continuing to bully its tiny neighbor: “They are
threatening," says Siniora. "They are intimidating.... Continuously intimidating
the country, intimidating the people.”
Still, the Obama administration’s overture towards Syria is not at all
surprising when one considers that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, and even former President Bill Clinton have relied heavily on the
counsel of the longtime pro-Arafat advisor Robert Malley, who calls for U.S.
disengagement from Israel and is a strong advocate of outreach to Syria.
This is the same Robert Malley who became foreign policy advisor to presidential
candidate Barack Obama in 2007 and who was sent last year to the Middle East by
Obama to outline the latter’s policy in the region. Now, under Malley’s good
counsel, ruthless, Syria’s political repression and regional misrule will be
rewarded with engagement from the new American administration.
During the presidential campaign, even Obama’s Democratic rivals questioned his
naïveté on foreign affairs. Their concerns now have a basis in American policy
toward Syria.
Exiling Islamic Terrorists, Leaving Islam Behind: Two
Solutions and Counting.
Pajamas Media; March 13th, 2009
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/03/13/exiling-islamic-terrorists-leaving-islam-behind-two-solutions-and-counting/
It might be the midnight hour but all is not yet lost, the British government
has, amazingly, just done the right thing: They have denied a visa to radical
terrorist, Ibrahim el-Moussawi, Hizbollah’s and Iran’s representative on earth,
stationed in Lebanon. This is the man whom Douglas Murray, the Director of the
Centre for Social Cohesion, had vowed to have deported were he to have been
allowed to speak at the London School of Economics and Appeasement, a venue from
which Murray himself had once been banned.
According to today’s Daily Mail, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, finally
concluded that el-Moussawi’s presence would not be “conducive to the public
good.”
I’ll say.
Credit goes to Douglas Murray for having threatened the lawsuit which has,
clearly, been successful. (Hat tip to Barry Rubin for asking me to confirm
this). You may read Murray’s press release HERE
Of course, if the British also keep denying visas to or, more shamefully,
deporting, men like Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, little will be gained
by such false equality. Wilders is sounding the alarm, el-Moussawi is the
problem. Murray states: “It is perverse that the government ever considered
barring Wilders from entering Britain and even more perverse that they ever
considered allowing Hezbollah in.”
My British informant says it best: “I did not think my country would have the
courage to ban this bandit.”
Thus, exiling or banning terrorists from our midst is one solution. There are
other, more radical solutions.
Just today, Amil Imani wrote and urged me to read his latest article which I
have now done. Imani is appealing to “cultural Muslims” by which he means
“moderate” or “good” Muslims who, by definition, are not jihadists. He writes:
“The real Muslims are the jihadists, a small minority who lives and dies by the
dictates of the Quran and the Sunna, the life examples of Muhammad. The free
world, rightfully alarmed by ever-varied and escalating assaults of the
jihadists, myopically has directed its tentative and haphazard effort at
countering them, believing that by so doing it can eliminate their threat and at
the same time remain on good terms of live-and-let-live multiculturalism with
the Cultural Muslims. This is a dangerous assumption that, if not abandoned,
will likely culminate in an Armageddon-kind of conflagration.
There is virtually no chance of reasoning with the brain-dead jihadists whose
eyes are fixed on the promised lush paradise of Allah. It isn’t that they love
death, just for the sake of death itself as Muslim leaders such as Hasan
Nasrullah, the head of Lebanon’s Hizbollah proclaimed. They love death and
happily embrace it because of what they have been brainwashed to believe is
awaiting them as a reward.”
Ah, yes, the same Hizbollah that Moussawi represents. Imani ultimately implores
the moderate or cultural Muslims to stop enabling the jihadists—by leaving
Islam. He writes:
“Dear Cultural Muslim, while you remain silent out of fear, lack of
organization, or apathy, the Islamists work around the clock and around the
world to further their agenda….On the one hand, the Islamists engage in acts of
violence to disrupt the functioning of societies, while on the other they
cleverly exploit the freedom they enjoy in non-Islamic lands to subvert them
from within.”
Imani then counsels cultural Muslims to choose, because they cannot “have it
both ways.”
“Dear Cultural Muslim… you can’t enjoy the fruits of liberty and at the same
time hedge your bet that by being somewhat of a Muslim you are staying in the
good graces of Allah. Allah is very non-forgiving of even the least
disobedience, Muhammad preaches. You need to make a clean break with Islam…
Don’t help the Islamists in their effort to make hell out of this world hoping
to find admittance into Allah’s purported paradise.”I wonder who will heed Imani’s plea? I challenge my religious Muslim readers to
explain how they can remain Muslims in an era in which jihadists are defining
what Islam is.
Lebanon's Ayatollah
Muhammad Hussein
Fadlallah
Shiites' (and Hezbollah's) Spiritual Leader
Looking Past Soundbytes and
By Pierre Tristam,
http://middleeast.about.com/od/lebanon/a/me090315.htm
Today it takes a seemingly different path, although not really: Lebanon's
Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah (the Journal spells his name Fadlullah),
spiritual leader of Lebanon's Shiites, and a conservative down to the threads of
his black turban. If Fadlallah were to subscribe to an English-language daily,
it'd probably be the Journal: The social platform of American conservatives and
conservative Muslims, whether Shiite or Sunni, is indistinguishable.
So maybe the choice of Fadlallah for a Weekend Interview isn't that daring after
all, though Journal Features Editor Robert Pollock does his best to distance
himself, by means of winks and irony, from Fadlallah. He puts quote marks around
the word "emulation" when describing the esteem that grand ayatollahs like
Fadlallah are held in by their followers. He describes the aging cleric as
sporting "the requisite black turban" (it is more a signifier of scholarship and
claimed descendence from the Prophet Muhammad than a “requisite”). And he feels
compelled to add the word "allegedly" immediatley before Fadlallah's claim that
Saddam Hussein in the 1980s "serv[ed]... the American strategy," though there's
nothing alleged about the Reagan administration's support of Saddam Hussein's
regime in the Iran-Iraq war or the administration’s knowledge, suggesting
complicity, that the Iraqi dictator was using chemical weapons.
At any rate, by the end of the interview Pollock conveys more of a sense of
being impressed than revolted by the man. (I got the same sense from the
Washington Post's Robin Wright's long interview with Hassan Nasrallah, leader of
Lebanon's Hezbollah, in Dreams and Shadows, her 2008 book; parts of the
interview appeared in the Post).
Nuance Over Stereotype: What Fadlallah Believes
Fadlallah doesn't tell Pollock what he wants to hear. Everything Fadlallah says
is consistent with Lebanese-Shiite orthodoxy. To Pollock's and the Journal's
credit, the length of the interview allows nuance to be heard above the din of
soundbytes and stereotype.
When Pollock points out that "many people associate political Shiism with Iran
and a concept known as Welayat al-Faqih -- or Guardianship of the Jurist --
which has been used to justify the authoritarian regimes of the Ayatollahs
Khomeini and Khameini," Fadlallah is quick to correct Pollock and the Western
habit of confusing Iran's Shiism with Lebanon's. They're two different stories.
"I don't believe that Welayat al-Faqih has any role in Lebanon," Mr. Fadhlullah
says without hesitation. "Perhaps some Lebanese commit themselves to the policy
of the Guardian Jurist, as some of them commit themselves to the policy of the
Vatican [Lebanon's large Maronite community is Catholic]. My opinion is that I
don't see the Guardianship of the Jurist as the definitive Islamic regime."
It's not clear whether Fadlallah explained why not, or if Pollock even asked
him. Lebanese history makes it clear: the country's sectarian fracture plays in
its favor in this case. No single denomination, whether Maronite, Sunni, Shiite
or Druze, has ever been able entirely to dominate the country, let alone
establish anything like those authoritarian regimes asphyxiating the rest of the
Arab world. Hezbollah, which entered the political process earlier this decade,
could no more impose a theocracy on Lebanon than, say, Lebanon's Maronites,
Syria's or Israel's military could impose their will. It's also why Fadlallah
could make the claim, generally unquestioned in Lebanon, that he doesn't think
that "Hezbollah has a project beyond Lebanon. Because it does not have the
capacity to do so."
Fadlallah and the West
Pollock asks Fadlallah about the West. Fadlallah's answer:
We do not reject the West. But we disagree with some Western administrations. We
believe that America is not the administration ruling America. America is rather
the universities, the research centers and the American people. That is why we
want to be friends with the American people with all their variation. I was the
first Islamic figure to denounce what happened on September 11. I issued a press
release after four hours saying that this affair is not acceptable by any mind,
divine law or religion. What these people did was directed to the American
people not to the American administration.
Pollock asks him about President Obama and hears "again an interesting answer":
I think that some of his statements show that he believes in the method of
dialogue. But here is an important point: America is not ruled by a person, it
is ruled by institutions. The question is what is the influence of institutions
like the Congress and others on the president. Can the president, if he has
private opinions, can he carry them out facing institutions and conditions
challenging the administration? We, in the Arab countries or in the East, we
don't have institutions. The ruler is one person or one family. Therefore the
people cannot object.
We wish that President Obama tries with all his mandate to confirm the slogans
he launched while still a candidate, that he tries with all power to make the
world a field of dialogue not a field of war.
It looks like Lebanon's Shiites are detecting the same contradictions between
Obama the campaigner and Obama the president.
Next page: Fadlallah on Bush and Israel.
Fadlallah’s Bush and Israel
Asked about George Bush's project to democratize the Middle East, Fadlallah is
unsparing, though politely so, in his ridicule, responding with lines as if
cribbed from the 2008 American presidential campaign: "Could democracy be forced
upon peoples? Does occupation represent a title of democracy for people?
Democracy sets out from the free choices of peoples. Therefore President Bush
managed to get America hated everywhere in the world. His policy was the
mentality of war, not a humane mentality. He might have spoken about 'peace,'
but he saved 'war' inside the word 'peace.' That is why he was even rejected by
American public opinion."
And when the interview turns to Israel, Fadlallah's words sounds like an echo of
the recent controversy over the failed nomination of Charles Freeman as head of
the National Intelligence Council. "There is an impression in the Arab region
that might be controversial," Fadlallah says, "that Israel is the one ruling the
United States and not the other way around. America is one of the Jewish
colonies." Pollock asks: "Does the Ayatollah believe that?" "I am close," he
says, and continues:
Anyway, we believe that Obama lived in a poor and disadvantaged environment. He
was poor. Therefore, we might listen to some of his statements trying to
alleviate taxes on the poor and impose them on the rich. We say to him: Be with
the disadvantaged, be with the poor, be with the people living and seeking their
humanity, and you will be the best American president in history. Be humane.
At which point the interview ends, and Pollock ends his report with these lines:
"We pose for pictures and the Ayatollah presents me with an English translation
of one of his books: Islam: The Religion of Dialogue. He signs it for me in
Arabic: 'With my affection and prayers.'"
All told, and with apologies to John McPhee, an encounter more with an archdruid
than an archenemy.
Assassinations in Lebanon: A History (1970s to the Present)
Murder as Politics by Other Means
By Pierre Tristam,
In war and peace, assassinations punctuate Lebanese history. Here’s a list of
assassinations of prominent Lebanese figures, including journalists,
intellectuals, politicians, clerics and glamorized toughs going back to the
1970s, after the outbreak of civil war. The list is updated as warranted.
The 1970s
March 16, 1977: Kamal Jumblatt, 60, leader of Lebanon’s Druze community, a
member of the Lebanese Parliament and a Socialist-nationalist supporter of
Palestinians, is assassinated by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party — which
Jumblatt had legalized as interior minister some years earlier. Jumblatt was
also the founder of the Progressive Socialist Party. He is succeeded by his son,
Walid.
June 13, 1978: Tony Frangieh, 36, the son of former Lebanese President Suleiman
Frangieh, a Christian Maronite, is assassinated at his home in Ehden, in
northern-Lebanon, along with his 2-year-old daughter, his wife, and 32
supporters, in the course of a long battle with the Christian Phalangist militia
of Bashir Gemayel, a rival.
The 1980s
September 14, 1982: Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel, 34, is assassinated
when a bomb demolishes the building housing his Phalangist Party headquarters,
where he had been meeting with staff.
June 1, 1987: Lebanese Prime Minister Rashid Karami, 65, a Sunni Muslim who’d
been prime minister 10 times in 32 years, is assassinated when a bomb rips
through his military helicopter, a French-built Puma. He’d been traveling from
his native city of Tripoli in North Lebanon to Beirut after a holiday marking
the end of Ramadan. Karami had been backed by Syria, then occupying Lebanon.
May 16, 1989: Hasan Khaled, 68, for 23 years the Grand Mufti of Lebanon — that
is, the supreme Justice of Lebanon’s Sunni Muslim community — is assassinated by
a 300-pound car bomb as he drove through West Beirut’s in Aishe Bakkar
neighborhood. His son-in-law and 20 other people are also killed. Khaled had
been a moderate Muslim, advocating coexistence between Lebanon’s numerous
factions.
November 22, 1989: Lebanese President René Moawad, 64, in office just 17 days,
is assassinated as his car is blasted by a bomb on his return from Independence
Day ceremonies in West Beirut. Twenty-three other people are killed. Moawad, a
Maronite Christian, had sought to establish a unity government to end the
Lebanese civil war, then in its 14th year.
The 1990s
October 21, 1990: Dany Chamoun, 56, a Maronite Christian and the son of former
Lebanese President Camille Chamoun, is assassinated at his home in East Beirut
by gunmen posing as Lebanese army soldiers. His wife and two sons are also
murdered. Chamoun had been an ally of Gen. Michel Aoun, the renegade army
general who’d opposed the Syrian-backed Government of President Elias Hrawi.
Chamoun was also a rival to Samir Geagea, a ruthless Christian militia who, in a
war ruinous to the Christian community, unsuccessfully fought Aoun for military
leadership of Lebanon’s Christians.
The 2000s
February 14, 2005: Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, 60, is assassinated as
a 1,000-pound truck bomb explodes while Hariri’s convoy travels near the St.
George Hotel on Beirut’s seafront. Hariri, a Sunni Muslim formerly accommodating
of Syria, had become a staunch critic of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon. His
assassination triggers massive rallies in opposition to the occupation. The
so-called Cedar Revolution leads to the withdrawal of Syrian troops that spring,
after a 29-year occupation.
June 2, 2005: Samir Kassir, 45, influential Christian author, columnist and
relentless critic of Syria at the leading Lebanese Arabic-language daily Al-Nahar,
is assassinated when a bomb under the seat of his Alfa Romeo explodes as he
stepped into his car in Christian East Beirut. His father was
Lebanese-Palestinian, his mother was Syrian.
June 21, 2005: George Hawi, 67, former head of the Lebanese Communist Party and
a Christian formerly allied with Palestinian causes, is killed by a one-pound
bomb that explodes beneath the passenger seat of his Mercedes as he was driven
in a Sunni neighborhood of Beirut. Hawi had become a staunch critic of Syria and
its intelligence service. His driver is slightly injured.
December 12, 2005: Gebran Tueni, 48, a Christian member of Parliament and
publisher of the Lebanese Arabic-language daily Al-Nahar, is killed by a
remote-controlled car bomb. Al Nahar is a critic of Syria. Two security workers
are also killed. Tueni had fled Lebanon the previous August in fear for his life
but had recently returned.
June 21, 2006: Pierre Gemayel, 34, a Lebanese cabinet minister and opponent of
Syrian influence in Lebanon, is gunned down in his car. Gemayel was the son of
former Lebanese president Amin Gemayel (whose brother, Bashir, was assassinated
in 1982, days before becoming president), and the grandson of Pierre Gemayel,
founder of the right-wing Christian Phalangist — or Kataeb — Party.
June 13, 2007: Walid Eido, 65, a Sunni member of Parliament and a member of the
Future Movement headed by Saad Hariri—the son of Rafik Hariri—is assassinated by
a car biomb as Eido drives by near a crowded amusement park along the
Mediterranean Sea. Nine other people are killed. Three days earlier, a United
Nations Security Council resolution ordering the creation of an international
tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of Rafik Hariri took effect. Eido
had been a critic of Syria.
September 19, 2007: Antoine Ghanem, 64, a Christian member of Parliament and a
member of the anti-Syrian March 14 coalition, is assassinated by a car bomb as
he drove through Sin al-Fil, a Christian suburb of Beirut. His bodyguard is also
killed. Ghanem was a member of the Christian Phalange Party. Ghanem had fled
Lebanon in fear for his life, returning just two days before the assassination.
December 12, 2007: Brig. Gen. François al-Hajj, 54, is assassinated by a
77-pound car bomb that explodes as he drove by, on his way to work at the
Defense Ministry. Al-Hajj had been one of the commander of the battle of Nahr
el-Bared, when the Lebanese army defeated a militant Palestinian cell. Al-Hajj
was to succeed Gen. Michel Suleiman, the army chief who in 2008.