LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
August 11/08
Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 14,22-33.
Then he made the disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side,
while he dismissed the crowds. After doing so, he went up on the mountain by
himself to pray. When it was evening he was there alone. Meanwhile the boat,
already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind
was against it. During the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them,
walking on the sea. When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were
terrified. "It is a ghost," they said, and they cried out in fear. At once
(Jesus) spoke to them, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid."Peter said to
him in reply, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He
said, "Come." Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward
Jesus. But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and,
beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus stretched
out his hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did
you doubt?"
After they got into the boat, the wind died down. Those who were in the boat did
him homage, saying, "Truly, you are the Son of God."
Origen (c.185-253), priest and
theologian/Commentary on St Matthew's Gospel, 11,6; PG 13,919/
"Truly, you are the Son of God."
When we have stood firm during the long
watches of the dark night that rules over our time of testing; after we have
struggled as best we may..., then let us be assured that towards night's close,
«when the night is advanced and the day is at hand» (Rom 13,12), the Son of God
will come to us, walking on the waves. When we see him appearing like this, we
will be seized with doubt until at last we clearly understand that it is the
Lord who has thus come among us. Still thinking we are seeing a ghost, we will
cry out in fear, but at once he will say to us: «Take courage, it is I; do not
be afraid.»It is possible that these reassuring words will cause a Peter aiming
at perfection to rise up within us, who will get out of the boat, sure he has
escaped the trial that was tossing him about. To begin with, his wish to meet up
with Jesus will enable him to walk on the water. But since his faith is still
shaky and he himself is unsure, he notices «how strong the wind was», becomes
frightened, and begins to sink. Still, he escapes this misfortune because he
directs this great cry towards Jesus: «Lord, save me!» And scarcely has this
other Peter finished saying «Lord, save me!» than the Word stretches out his
hand to help him. He catches him just as he begins to drown, reproaching him for
his little faith and doubt. However, take note that he did not say:
«Unbelieving» but «man of little faith», and that it is written: «Why did you
doubt?», which is to say: «It is true you have a little faith, but you let
yourself be pulled in the opposite direction.» And immediately, Jesus and Peter
will get into the boat again, the wind will die down, and the others in the boat
will do him homage, saying: «Truly, you are the Son of God.» But only those
disciples close to Jesus in the boat spoke such words as these.
Free
Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Hizbullah’s global reach.By: J.
Halevi, A. Perry-Israel Opinion 10/08/08
White suits, black future-By Zvi Bar'el-HaaretzHa'aretz
10/08/08
A single precondition-By Zvi Bar'el.Haaretz
10/08/08
Andrew Wilson: Georgia and Russia can still step back from the brink-
By: Andrew Wilson - Independent
10/08/08
White suits, black future.By Zvi
Bar'el .Haaretz 10/08/08
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August
10/08
Gemayel Gives No-Confidence Vote,
Tueni Examines, Atallah Refrains-Naharnet
Report: Israel, Iran fighting over Syria-Ynetnews
'Hizbullah received advanced launchers'-Jerusalem
Post
A Murder Mystery in Syria-Newsweek
Barak
Vows to Strike Deep in Lebanon-Naharnet
Report: Israel, Iran fighting over Syria
London-based al-Hayat reports Iranians have demanded to receive information on
Damascus' talks with Jerusalem. Lebanese sources say Jewish state's recent
threats against Hizbullah and Syria aimed at creating counter-pressure
Roee Nahmias
Published: 08.10.08, 11:48 / Israel News
Lebanese sources say Syrian President Bashar Assad's visit to Tehran last week
was a failure due to disagreements with Iran on the indirect negotiations
between Syria and Israel, the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat.
The sources, who were updated on the talks in Tehran, said that Israel's recent
threats against Hizbullah and Syria were aimed at creating counter-pressure to
that exerted by Iran in regards to its talks with the Jewish state.
Domestic Syrian killings remind us not to expect genuine normalization with
Damascus
According to the report, the Iranians demanded to receive information on the
details of the talks so as to know the exact issues being discussed.
Tehran is also concerned about Syria's recent openness to the West, particularly
in light of Assad's visit to Paris last month. The Iranians say that this
building relationship was initiated by Israel in order to tempt Damascus to
sever its ties with Iran. During his visit to Tehran, Assad expressed his
sympathy to the Iranian. He said that "Israel and the United States are plotting
in the region and we must be careful." He added that "the Zionist regime is not
strong and the countries can achieve their rights through resistance and
determination." According to the Lebanese sources, the Syrian president's recent
visit to Turkey was not planned ahead and was aimed at asking the Turks to help
Damascus overcome the difficulties in its talks with Israel, due to Iran's
concern over the negotiations.
Meanwhile, the Qatar-based newspaper al-Qatan reported Sunday that Syria and
Lebanon were expected to restore their relations.
According to the report, new Lebanese President Michel Suleiman has come to the
realization that the tensions between the two countries over the past three
years have had a negative influence on his country. Suleiman will arrive in
Damascus on Wednesday on his first official visit as president. He and Assad are
expected to agree on resuming the operations of the two countries' joint
"supreme committee".
'Hizbullah received advanced launchers'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
The senior aide to Syrian President Bashar Assad who was assassinated last
weekend had been in charge of supplying Hizbullah with advanced anti-aircraft
weaponry, the Sunday Times reported. Last week, Lebanon's new Cabinet
unanimously approved a draft policy statement which could secure Hizbullah's
existence as an armed organization and guarantee its right to "liberate or
recover occupied lands." "The Cabinet unanimously approved the draft,"
Information Minister Tarek Mitri told reporters after the five-hour meeting at
the presidential palace in a Beirut suburb last Monday. Government sources in
Jerusalem said the decision would make the government in Beirut an accomplice to
any Hizbullah aggression and give Israel the right to hold it responsible.
During the Second Lebanon War, Israel came under international pressure not to
harm Lebanon's infrastructure because it was Hizbullah, not the Lebanese
government, that killed several IDF soldiers and kidnapped reservists Ehud
Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in the July 2006 cross border raid which sparked the
conflict.
White suits, black future
By Zvi Bar'el
Haaretz
The festive photo depicting the Lebanese leadership, all decked out in white
suits to mark Army Day, could not conceal the deep differences that still
prevail among different parts of the government. Although the real conductor of
the Lebanese symphony that will be played until next year's elections, Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah, was missing from the party, he has already achieved his
aims. The state and the resistance (that is, Hezbollah) last week became one,
officially and by mutual consent.
"'There is no Lebanon without the resistance' has become a formative phrase,"
wrote influential Lebanese columnist Hazam al-Amin last week. "After all, if
Lebanon is the resistance, all resources should be mobilized for it. Indeed,
supporting the resistance also means aiding Syria and the Syrians, i.e.,
enabling Syrian agricultural produce to enter Lebanon unrestrictedly, at the
expense of Lebanese produce, for example, or silencing the voices of others, as
happened when Hezbollah took control of the Al-Mustaqbal television station."
Advertisement
The statements by President Michel Suleiman, who invited Hezbollah to direct its
weapons at Israel, should also be seen against this backdrop. Suleiman is well
aware of his army's strength. What worries him is that Hezbollah might aim its
weapons at Lebanese citizens once again, at Sunni Muslims or Christians, as
happened in April and May of this year. So, while Israel is worried about
Hezbollah's missiles, the Lebanese president is worried that these weapons will
bring down the fragile state he heads.
Although the Lebanese Army receives aid from the United States, it is fraught by
internal frictions between Hezbollah's supporters and its opponents. Hezbollah,
on the other hand, is free to take on the role of the national army. Although
the American aid is not contingent on upholding UN Resolutions 1559 or 1701,
Hezbollah continues to accuse parts of the government of being U.S. or Israeli
agents.
There is no escaping the conclusion that, "We are now in the stage where the
weapons of resistance will remain with us forever," as columnist Dalal al-Basri
laments. "After all," she continues, "Michel Aoun, Nasrallah's Christian
partner, says Hezbollah will keep its weapons until the Palestinians receive
their rights. There is no coexistence of a state and weapons of resistance," she
clarifies, "except according to the Lebanese formula, the formula of destructive
vagueness."
This vagueness does not make it clear who the real enemy is. Is it just Israel -
a fact no one is even arguing about - or is Israel just the excuse for
Hezbollah's imposing itself on Lebanon? This is precisely how Israel became an
inseparable part of internal Lebanese politics. Not only is it an external enemy
against whom all resources must be mobilized, it is also Hezbollah's leverage
against domestic rivals.
Why Assad is pleased
Anyone trying to understand the confusion and chaos now rampant among the
Lebanese government need only look at the basic government guidelines, approved
during a festive session last week. The most meaningful section, granting
Hezbollah the power to determine government policy, states: "Lebanon, its
people, its army and its resistance forces [Hezbollah] have the right to
liberate or get back the Shaba Farms, the hills of Kfar Shuba and the Lebanese
part of the village of Ghajar, and to defend Lebanon against any aggression and
protect its water rights - by all possible legal means." The Lebanese Army
therefore has a senior partner, Hezbollah. The attempt by the parliamentary
majority to add the phrase "all under the auspices of the government" in order
to establish the government's status, failed completely.
The next section states: "The government will continue to call on the
international community to implement Resolution 1701 in full, including a fixed
cease-fire [with Israel]. The government will also work to attain an Israeli
withdrawal from the village of Ghajar, the Shaba Farms and Shuba, including [a
review of] the possibility of these places being temporarily transferred to UN
protection." Will the Lebanese government accept a trial period to get the Shaba
Farms from Israel, or at least transfer them temporarily to the UN before
Hezbollah takes the initiative once again? Is this government, which is
demanding the full implementation of Resolution 1701, also planning to stop the
arms smuggling from Syria, as the resolution stipulates, or to disarm Hezbollah
south of the Litani River?
The answers to these questions lie in Damascus and Tehran, and no less so in
Washington and Jerusalem. Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is vacationing this
week with his family at the southern Turkish coastal city of Bodrum, has reason
to be pleased. He brought Syria back into Europe's bosom, the alliance between
him and Iran did not collapse because of the dialogue he is conducting with
Israel, Lebanon is run by a president and government friendly to Syria, and he
is also not cut off from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Assad still has to
find out who assassinated Mohammed Suleiman, his senior liaison officer to the
army and Syrian domestic intelligence, and we may soon learn of several changes
in the Syrian leadership following the assassination. But none of this is
affecting Syria's new status in the region.
Gemayel Gives No-Confidence Vote, Tueni Examines, Atallah
Refrains
Naharnet/Parliament is expected to resume later Sunday debate on a policy
statement drawn up by the new government and focused on the thorny issue of
Hizbullah weapons.
Negotiations on the policy statement, which began Friday, have been hampered by
disputes on the key issue of the arsenal of Hizbullah, which has continued to
insist on the "right to resist" Israel.
The statement itself insists on "the right of Lebanon, its people, its army and
its resistance to liberate its land" that is occupied by Israel.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Saturday adjourned cabinet policy statement
discussions till 6:00 pm Sunday.
MP Solange Gemayel did not grant the cabinet a vote of confidence due to the
existence of Hizbullah arms outside the authority of the state.
"Any weapons other than legal state weapons pose the greatest danger to the
state," Gemayel said in her address to parliament on Saturday.
MP Ghassan Tueni, meanwhile, hinted that his stance from the vote of confidence
is linked to "how the (lingering) dispute is going to develop, particularly
regarding what ways the government would adopt to solve its problems and meet
its promises." MP Elias Atallah, however, said he would refrain from giving the
government a vote of confidence. Controversy in Lebanon over Hizbullah's weapons
intensified after its militants captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border
raid in July 2006 that sparked a devastating 34-day war. It boiled over again
when Hizbullah led an armed takeover of large swathes of predominantly Sunni
west Beirut in fierce fighting in May that killed 65 people and sparked fears of
all-out civil war. The Syrian-backed opposition, with 11 ministers, has the
power of veto in the new 30-member cabinet under a May 21 accord struck in Doha
that allowed MPs to elect a new president. The vote to fill a six-month
presidential vacuum came after a protracted political crisis which prevented
parliament from holding a session. Israel says the government gave in to
Hizbullah by allowing it to use armed force against the Jewish state, although
the ruling Western-backed majority in parliament wants decisions over war or
peace to be restricted to the state.
Barak Vows to Strike Deep in Lebanon
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak pledged "very tough" Israeli retaliation to
any attack by Hizbullah, vowing to target the areas deep in Lebanon.
Barak warned against an "intimate relation" between Hizbullah and Syria saying
it could lead into distorting the balance of power in Lebanon, which would lead
Israel to retaliate. Barak said unlike Europe and North America the Middle East
does not provide a place to "those who are weak."
Saniora Sets the Rule of Engagement with March 8: Enough
Naharnet/Premier Fouad Saniora has set the rule of engagement with the Hizbullah-led
March 8 stating that "it is no more acceptable to take citizens' souls, their
stability and security captive to serve whatever pretexts or goals."Saniora made
the remark in a non-binding conclusion to the cabinet's policy statement that
parliament started deliberating Friday evening. "Our nation is neither test
grounds nor arena," Saniora declared at parliament.
Hizbullah MP Ali Ammar wanted to protest against the phrase, but Parliament
Speaker Nabih Berri told him "it is not included in the policy statement."
Orange TV, mouthpiece of Gen Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), said
Saniora's words were tantamount to "storms, or mini-storms that would strike
parliament in the few coming days." Saniora stated that the Lebanese people
"want a one and sole authority … to protect their rights, interests and
coexistence."
FPM leader Michel Aoun, who addressed parliament, criticized the policy
statement for mentioning "people, army and resistance." "We are one identity,"
Aoun said in an apparent effort to imply that Hizbullah's Islamic resistance is
part of the nation. Beirut, 09 Aug 08, 08:28
A Murder Mystery in Syria
By Dan Ephron, Mark Hosenball and Kevin NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 9, 2008
What happens when a cloak-and-dagger general is shot dead in an Arab country
where the regime is secretive and the press regularly gagged? It ignites a
blogosphere bonanza. The assassination early this month of Syria's Mohammed
Suleiman got limited coverage in the printed press, but it spawned streams of
commentary on Web sites devoted to the Middle East and to military matters.
Suleiman, who was killed while vacationing at a resort on the Mediterranean
coast, was a close confidant of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Nicknamed "the
imported general" for his pale complexion and foreign looks, Suleiman had been
linked to some of Syria's most criticized policies and programs, including its
dealings with North Korea and Iran, an alleged nuclear facility that Israel
bombed last year, and its support for Lebanon's militant Hizbullah group. He'd
been a key aide to Assad since the mid-1990s. Among the more intriguing whodunit
theories circulating: Iran whacked him to avenge the death earlier this year of
master bomber Imad Mughnieh, or Assad ordered him killed because Suleiman knew
too much about the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik
Hariri.
In Washington, three current and former officials familiar with the Middle East
told NEWSWEEK that Israel's Mossad has to be near the top of any shortlist of
suspects. All refused to be identified discussing sensitive matters.
Israel has long complained that Syria funnels Iranian arms to Hizbullah and
gives the group rockets from its own arsenal. (Both Syria and Iran say their
ties to Hizbullah are their own business.) An Israeli diplomatic source told
NEWSWEEK last week that Suleiman was Syria's main liaison to the group and had
helped Hizbullah triple its arsenal of rockets and missiles in the past two
years. But a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, asked about
Suleiman's assassination, said Israel had "no direct knowledge and no comment on
this matter."
Killed Syrian Aide Gave Anti-Aircraft Missiles to Hizbullah
by Hana Levi Julian
Arutz Sheva
Top Syrian presidential aide Brigadier-General Mohammed Suleiman, assassinated
at the beginning of this month, reportedly supplied Hizbullah terrorists with
the advanced SA-8 anti-aircraft missile system, according to The Times of
London.
Suleiman, 49, was a key person in President Bashar Assad’s regime, “more
important than anyone else” according to the London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat
newspaper. In a report published last week, the newspaper called Suleiman
“senior even to the defense minister,” and said, “He knew everything.”
As operations officer, Suleiman was responsible for national security, and for
the security of Assad’s regime. He was also linked to Syria’s dealings with
North Korea and Iran, as well as the alleged nuclear facility that was destroyed
on September 6, 2007 in a remote section in the northeastern corner of the
country. Suleiman was also Syria’s main liaison to Hizbullah.
That all ended when he was quietly killed at dawn on August 2 by a single bullet
to the head as he sat in the garden of his summer home near the port city of
Tartus in the north. Writing in The Sunday Times, journalist Uzi Mahnaimi noted,
“Nobody heard the shot, which appears to have been fired from a speedboat by a
sniper, possibly equipped with a silencer. The expertise required to execute
such a long-distance sniper murder has led suspicion to fall upon the Israelis.”
A spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, however, that Israel had “no
direct knowledge and no comment” on the assassination.
During the prime minister’s visit to Paris last month, sources in Jerusalem said
Olmert asked French President Nicolas Sarkozy to warn Assad that Syria was
“crossing a red line” by sending weapons to the terrorist group in Lebanon.
Last week the Security Cabinet received the latest intelligence report on
Syria’s weapons deliveries to Hizbullah – including information on the SA-8.
The system supplied to Hizbullah by Suleiman may have been the inspiration for
the group’s announcement last week that it would soon “stop Israeli fighter
planes flying over our land.”
The Russian-made SA-8 Gecko (Russian designation 9K33 “Osa”) surface-to-air
missile system was originally developed in the late 1960s. It is a highly
mobile, low-altitude, short-range tactical system, the first mobile air defense
missile system to incorporate its own engagement radars on a single vehicle.
It is slaved to a fully amphibious, six-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (9A33 TELAR)
steered by both the front and rear wheels, able to drive up a 60% gradient. The
individual SA-8 vehicles are also equipped with their own targeting, tracking,
launching and guidance systems.
Hizbullah’s global reach
Shiite group’s reach extends far beyond Lebanon, poses global
threat
J. Halevi, A. Perry
Published: 08.10.08/ Israel Opinion
Recently, Iran’s sabre-rattling has escalated in an attempt to deter an attack
on its nuclear facilities. Last month Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
threatened that “the (Iranian) armed forces will cut off the enemies’ hands
before they can put their fingers on the trigger.”
While many have interpreted this as a possible pre-emptive missile strike
emanating from Iran, there is an even more sinister possibility.
Internal Threat
Arab-Israeli suspected of contacting Hizbullah agent / Raanan Ben-Zur
Qalansuwa resident accused of receiving money from Lebanese national in Germany
in exchange for information on potential candidates for recruitment to Shiite
group
Over the last few years, Iran's proxy Hizbullah has been spreading its influence
far and wide. In its brinksmanship with the West, Iran has learned much from the
two neighboring Gulf Wars. As opposed to Saddam Hussein, whose threat of an
all-out campaign against the West was largely rhetoric, Iran takes a global view
and is diligently preparing terrorist networks all over the world to spring into
action when the word is given.
Hizbullah is an integral part of the Islamic revolution regime in Tehran. The
ruling Iranian religious authority gave Hassan Nasrallah the title of Lebanese
“representative,” making him an essential part of the Iranian revolution.
Hizbullah receives millions of dollars a year from Iran to finance its
operations. After the Second Lebanon War it received even more funds to
compensate for its military and civilian losses and to rehabilitate the Shiite
villages that supported it. The Iranian funds are transferred to Hizbullah by
the al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian Foreign Ministry, and
official institutions with branches in Lebanon.
The current relative calm along Lebanon’s border with Israel should not be
mistaken for a cooling off of Hizbullah’s enthusiasm. Rather, it serves to mask
Hizbullah’s focus of its main goals: changing the Lebanese constitution and
ensuring a greater Shiite presence in the Lebanese parliament, with an eye to
eventually taking over Lebanon by exploiting the country’s democratic processes
to turn it into a radical Shiite Islamic country like Iran.
However, Hizbullah’s mission reaches far beyond Lebanon. Hizbullah is very
popular in the Arab world, even amongst Sunnis, and is an important factor in
sweeping the masses into jihad. The organization assists those who target their
own governments in weakening Sunni opposition and in creating an admittedly ad
hoc strategic alliance with the all the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood
across the globe, infiltrating even Palestinian areas.
These activities are in line with the Iranian leadership’s 50-year plan made
public at the end of the 1990s. According to an Iranian document, the plan is to
export the Islamic revolution to neighboring countries and beyond through
preaching, encouraging Shiite emigration, purchasing real estate, forming
political organizations, infiltrating the local political establishments, and
taking over the various parliaments and focal points of political power.
‘We have the means’
Iranian-Hizbullah footprints can be found in various African and South American
countries. In Nigeria, for example, Hizbullah operates within the expatriate
Lebanese Shiite and local populations. The leader of the indigenous Shiites in
Nigeria, Sheikh Zakzaky, has created idolism for Hassan Nasrallah and the
leaders of Iran. In Venezuela and other South American countries Hizbullah has
been waging a long-term campaign to convert the native Indians to Shiite Islam.
Teodoro Rafael Darnott, also known as “'Commander Teodoro,” recently claimed,
“If the United States were to attack Iran, the only country ruled by God, we
would counterattack in Latin America and even inside the United States itself.
We have the means and we know how to go about it. We will sabotage the
transportation of oil from Latin America to the US. You have been warned.”
On June 29 the Kuwaiti daily al-Siasa reported that Hizbullah was training young
men from Venezuela in its military camps in south Lebanon to prepare them to
attack American targets. In addition, Hizbullah and Iran has set up secret cells
abroad for carrying out terrorist attacks. Such cells were responsible for the
attacks on the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA Jewish Center building in Buenos
Aires in the early 1990s, the attacks in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and attempted
attacks in London and Thailand.
Meanwhile, ABC reported that the American and Canadian intelligence services had
information about Hizbullah sleeper cells in Canada whose role was to gather
intelligence about Israeli and Jewish targets in Ottawa and Toronto for possible
terrorist attacks.
The ramifications of Hizbullah's reach are the very real threat they pose in
many corners of the world. Iran has understood that to truly threaten and hold
the West hostage it must create a multi-faceted menace to the citizens of these
nations and their interests. Hizbullah's web of terror cells provides them just
that.
The UK government is one of very few in the world to fully recognize this threat
by recently outlawing the military wing of Hizbullah. It is time that more
Western nations follow suit if they are going to neutralize Iran's surrogate and
joker card in case of an attack on its nuclear program.
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and
radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is the co-founder
of the Orient Research Group Ltd. and is a former advisor to the Policy Planning
Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ashley Perry is an editor at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs for the
Middle East Strategic Information project
White suits, black future
By Zvi Bar'el
Haaretz
The festive photo depicting the Lebanese leadership, all decked out in white
suits to mark Army Day, could not conceal the deep differences that still
prevail among different parts of the government. Although the real conductor of
the Lebanese symphony that will be played until next year's elections, Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah, was missing from the party, he has already achieved his
aims. The state and the resistance (that is, Hezbollah) last week became one,
officially and by mutual consent.
"'There is no Lebanon without the resistance' has become a formative phrase,"
wrote influential Lebanese columnist Hazam al-Amin last week. "After all, if
Lebanon is the resistance, all resources should be mobilized for it. Indeed,
supporting the resistance also means aiding Syria and the Syrians, i.e.,
enabling Syrian agricultural produce to enter Lebanon unrestrictedly, at the
expense of Lebanese produce, for example, or silencing the voices of others, as
happened when Hezbollah took control of the Al-Mustaqbal television station."
Advertisement
The statements by President Michel Suleiman, who invited Hezbollah to direct its
weapons at Israel, should also be seen against this backdrop. Suleiman is well
aware of his army's strength. What worries him is that Hezbollah might aim its
weapons at Lebanese citizens once again, at Sunni Muslims or Christians, as
happened in April and May of this year. So, while Israel is worried about
Hezbollah's missiles, the Lebanese president is worried that these weapons will
bring down the fragile state he heads.
Although the Lebanese Army receives aid from the United States, it is fraught by
internal frictions between Hezbollah's supporters and its opponents. Hezbollah,
on the other hand, is free to take on the role of the national army. Although
the American aid is not contingent on upholding UN Resolutions 1559 or 1701,
Hezbollah continues to accuse parts of the government of being U.S. or Israeli
agents.
There is no escaping the conclusion that, "We are now in the stage where the
weapons of resistance will remain with us forever," as columnist Dalal al-Basri
laments. "After all," she continues, "Michel Aoun, Nasrallah's Christian
partner, says Hezbollah will keep its weapons until the Palestinians receive
their rights. There is no coexistence of a state and weapons of resistance," she
clarifies, "except according to the Lebanese formula, the formula of destructive
vagueness."
This vagueness does not make it clear who the real enemy is. Is it just Israel -
a fact no one is even arguing about - or is Israel just the excuse for
Hezbollah's imposing itself on Lebanon? This is precisely how Israel became an
inseparable part of internal Lebanese politics. Not only is it an external enemy
against whom all resources must be mobilized, it is also Hezbollah's leverage
against domestic rivals.
Why Assad is pleased
Anyone trying to understand the confusion and chaos now rampant among the
Lebanese government need only look at the basic government guidelines, approved
during a festive session last week. The most meaningful section, granting
Hezbollah the power to determine government policy, states: "Lebanon, its
people, its army and its resistance forces [Hezbollah] have the right to
liberate or get back the Shaba Farms, the hills of Kfar Shuba and the Lebanese
part of the village of Ghajar, and to defend Lebanon against any aggression and
protect its water rights - by all possible legal means." The Lebanese Army
therefore has a senior partner, Hezbollah. The attempt by the parliamentary
majority to add the phrase "all under the auspices of the government" in order
to establish the government's status, failed completely.
The next section states: "The government will continue to call on the
international community to implement Resolution 1701 in full, including a fixed
cease-fire [with Israel]. The government will also work to attain an Israeli
withdrawal from the village of Ghajar, the Shaba Farms and Shuba, including [a
review of] the possibility of these places being temporarily transferred to UN
protection." Will the Lebanese government accept a trial period to get the Shaba
Farms from Israel, or at least transfer them temporarily to the UN before
Hezbollah takes the initiative once again? Is this government, which is
demanding the full implementation of Resolution 1701, also planning to stop the
arms smuggling from Syria, as the resolution stipulates, or to disarm Hezbollah
south of the Litani River?
The answers to these questions lie in Damascus and Tehran, and no less so in
Washington and Jerusalem. Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is vacationing this
week with his family at the southern Turkish coastal city of Bodrum, has reason
to be pleased. He brought Syria back into Europe's bosom, the alliance between
him and Iran did not collapse because of the dialogue he is conducting with
Israel, Lebanon is run by a president and government friendly to Syria, and he
is also not cut off from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Assad still has to
find out who assassinated Mohammed Suleiman, his senior liaison officer to the
army and Syrian domestic intelligence, and we may soon learn of several changes
in the Syrian leadership following the assassination. But none of this is
affecting Syria's new status in the region.
A single precondition
By Zvi Bar'el
Haaretz
The Lebanese Army is nowhere to be found on the border between Lebanon and
Syria. Neither are the peacekeeping troops of UNIFIL and the Lebanese police. UN
Security Council Resolution 1701, which aimed, among other things, to block the
porous border between Lebanon and Syria, has become a dead letter. The area is
essentially a no-man's land, predominantly Shi'ite, and is controlled by the
large clans whose main income comes from growing cannabis. Past efforts by the
Lebanese government to replace the drug crops with fruits and vegetables have
failed. This year, the cannabis harvest in the border district of Baalbeq-Hermel
is expected to yield $250 million in revenues. The clans protect this income
with private armies, armed to the teeth with RPGs, mines and heavy machine guns.
It has even been reported that one clan kept a tank in the backyard. If the
Lebanese Army or UNIFIL were to try to impose their control on this area, it
would involve a bloody war.
Hezbollah also enjoys a strong hold on the region - not because of
considerations of ideology or religion, but of livelihood. And so a significant
portion of the arms coming from Syria to Hezbollah passes through this area. The
border here is permeable and lacks controls, since on the Syrian side, too,
people benefit from granting the smugglers free passage, mostly because the
Syrian government is unable to address the region's economic difficulties.
When Israel threatens to forcefully end the flow of arms from Syria, it should
at least understand the nature of this front. Israel is justly demanding that
Syria take control over the arms export to Lebanon, just as it has asked Egypt
to stop the arms smuggling from its territory to the Gaza Strip. The U.S. also
maintains that Syria can prevent the transfer of terrorists and arms from its
territory into Iraq. However, there is a difference between Egypt, which is
trying to block the transfer of arms and is even combating the terrorist groups
in Sinai, and Syria. Because Syria - which enjoys a newfound status as an
internationally recognized state, whose leader hops from Paris to Tehran, and
from there to the Turkish resort town of Bodrum, and meets with Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas and exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, with Iran's
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and whose
representatives hold indirect talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - this Syria
views Hezbollah as a strategic asset and not a threatening rival, like Egypt
views Hamas.
Moreover, the group that is essentially become a state and Syria are locked in
an alliance based on co-dependence, where neither side wishes to dictate its
wishes to the other, but where services are exchanged. This is also the reason
why Hezbollah still has a thing to say about Syria's negotiations with Israel.
For its part, Hezbollah continues to run its affairs in Lebanon, and it will not
permit the central government to sit at the negotiating table with Israel.
Bashar Assad, on the other hand, can shake off his commitment to unify the
Syrian and Lebanese tracks vis-a-vis Israel, and fears no surprises in Beirut.
After all, Hezbollah will take care of Syria's interests in Lebanon.
Israel has also forgotten Assad's commitment to Lebanon. From its point of view,
an independent Lebanon is a lost cause, now that with Syrian assistance, Hassan
Nasrallah has taken over Beirut's center of power, including the presidency and
the cabinet.
Therefore, the real prize in the talks between Israel and Syria is defined in
terms of Syria breaking away from Iran. But herein lies the strategic error.
Whether Syria breaks away from Iran or not, Iran will continue to develop its
nuclear capabilities. While Lebanon has no centrifuges or enriched uranium, it
has turned into a genuine threat, having dragged Israel into a number of wars
and perpetuating high levels of tension.
Israel, which is threatening to forcefully put an end to the flow of arms to
Hezbollah, cannot simultaneously toy with polite negotiations with Syria. It is
difficult to expect Syria to continue negotiating with Israel if it attacks
Hezbollah's arms depots, or if it targets the Syrian arms storage facilities
that ship to Lebanon. But this is the same Syria that, following American
threats and sanctions, knew how to put an end to terrorists and arms entering
Iraq and recognized that it must take a step back when Turkey threatened war
after accusing Damascus of supporting Kurdish separatist organizations. Syria
can and should block the border with Lebanon. This is not a gesture of goodwill
toward Israel, but a precondition for continuing negotiations.
Andrew Wilson: Georgia and Russia can still step back from
the brink
Sunday, 10 August 2008
The hostilities in Georgia are more than a war in Europe's backyard. It is a war
in Europe itself, with brings potentially dire consequences.
The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, elected in a landslide in 2004 on a
manifest destiny platform of restoring national unity, has miscalculated and may
have stepped into a Russian trap. Vladimir Putin came to see Georgia as Russia's
Cuba – an outpost of a foreign power in his backyard – and trouble has been
brewing for months.
The South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali is surprisingly close to Tbilisi. But a
quick campaign made no sense from Saakashvili's position of weakness. He may
have built up his armed forces with American help since 2004, but his most
important assets are moral, although his image as the leader of a beleaguered
democracy was already tarnished by his suppression of anti-government
demonstrations in Tbilisi last November.
Saakashvili may have thought the Olympics Games would give him cover, especially
as Putin was in Beijing and Russia hosts the next Winter Games just over the
border in Sochi in 2014. But this only made him look duplicitous, especially as
he announced a ceasefire just before launching the invasion.
The Georgian may therefore already be losing the all-important propaganda war.
The Russians always thought Saakashvili would be easy to provoke and have been
prodding and jabbing since the spring. A minority of Nato states may argue that
the conflict increases the case for Georgian membership, but in others,
scepticism is more likely to grow.
A second set of lessons should be learned by Europe. It's not that European
governments failed to notice the problems ahead. The Lithuanians have been
agitating; Javier Solana visited Georgia in June; the Germans have been trying
to broker a diplomatic solution. But EU states did not stand solid enough behind
the Germans. Too many had their heads in the sand, and the wrong signals were
sent to both sides. The Georgians felt isolated. We created a vacuum where
Saakashvili thought he had to act on his own, and the Russians thought they
could act with impunity. The lesson: even if we think an issue is peripheral, we
should get involved early on, when conflict prevention is still possible.
Finally, there are some hard facts for Russia. Russian troops are on sovereign
Georgian territory. There are credible reports of attacks on "Georgia proper",
although the very use of the term undermines the nation's territorial integrity.
It is Russia that has escalated the conflict by hitting towns such as Kutaisi,
Poti and Gori, and the likely consequences will destabilise the region as a
whole.
Even if Russia withdraws, Georgia will be chastened and lessons will learned by
neighbouring states. The prospects for a deal between Moldova and the "Transnistrian
Republic" will diminish, despite the elections due next March. Russia will feel
its Black Sea fleet can stay in Ukraine's Crimea beyond the current agreed date
of 2017.
If Georgia is more seriously damaged, Russia may feel it has established a veto
on who joins Nato in the future. But it is not too late for the West to get
properly involved. Both sides risk serious collateral damage: the Georgians to
their Nato and EU ambitions, the Russians to President Medvedev's proposals for
a new security treaty in Europe and to their relations with the incoming US
president.
We should recognise that the Russian "peacekeepers" are not peacekeepers any
more, and press for a Lebanon-style force with an international mandate that
could perhaps be agreed by the nascent US-EU-Nato-OSCE mission. Both sides have
miscalculated, but, for all the talk of "genocide", both have incentives to step
back from the brink.
**Andrew Wilson is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign
Relations