LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
June 05/08
Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to
Saint Mark 12,18-27. Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to
him and put this question to him, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, 'If
someone's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the
wife and raise up descendants for his brother.' Now there were seven brothers.
The first married a woman and died, leaving no descendants. So the second
married her and died, leaving no descendants, and the third likewise. And the
seven left no descendants. Last of all the woman also died. At the resurrection
(when they arise) whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to
her." Jesus said to them, "Are you not misled because you do not know the
scriptures or the power of God? When they rise from the dead, they neither marry
nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven. As for the
dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about
the bush, how God told him, 'I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and
(the) God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are
greatly misled."
Free
Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Beirut's new face-By:
Lucy Fielder/Al-Ahram
Weekly 04/06/08
Lebanon’s Short, Sharp Conflict.By: Alain Gresh/ 04/06/08
How to measure al Qaeda's defeat. By Walid Phares
04/06/08
Another defeat. By
Moshe Arens - Haaretz 04/06/08
One small step for Lebanese politics, one giant
leap for Lebanon- The Daily Star 04/06/08
Exploiting Hezbollah’s Coup-By Tariq Alhomayad-Asharq Alawsat
- 04/06/08
Riyadh Versus Damascus. By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed 04/06/08
A One Package
Deal. By Mamoun Fandy, Ph.D. 04/06/08
Hezbollah army arises as a potent force under Lebanon's peace deal-Christopher
Torchia, 04/06/08
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June
04/08
Qatar Steps In, Aoun Apparently Biggest Obstacle-Naharnet
Rice Attacks
'Power-Hungry' Hizbullah, Says Doha Accord Was 'Necessary'-Naharnet
Message on Lebanon from
Sarkozy to Saudi King Abdullah-Naharnet
Cell Phones Start
Sell-off in 3 Months if Cabinet Okays Privatization Program-Naharnet
Soldier Kills Girlfriend, Commits Suicide-Naharnet
Fatah Islam Denies Abdeh Blast Claim-Naharnet
Suleiman: Lebanon Will Not Succumb to Terrorism-Naharnet
Defense sources: Syria arming Hezbollah even as Israel talks develop-Ha'aretz
Canadian
soldier killed in battle with Afghan
insurgents. AP
Bernier
ex-girlfriend also dated Mafioso: report -AP
Two Lebanese kidnapped for ransom in Nigeria-Daily
Star
Airport security arrests man with four guns in
car-Daily Star
Barak: Hezbollah setting up fortified positions along border-Ha'aretz
Remains 'were from five Israelis'-BBC News
Amal, PSP ink joint statement calling for
reconciliation-Daily Star
Siniora briefs Sleiman on progress in forming
national unity government-Daily Star
Assad says he's wanted official ties with
Beirut since 2005-Daily Star
UN Security Council extends mandate of Hariri
probe-AFP
Campaigning for 2009 polls looks to be under
way already-Daily Star
Local lawyer charged again over speech made in
2003-Daily Star
UN mine-clearance agency lauds pact to ban
cluster munitions-Daily Star
A globalized Lebanon in a Lebanonized world-Daily
Star
Israel confirms bodies returned by Hizbullah
belong to troops-AFP
Azour says ministry aims to cut T-bill rates to
ease cost of debt servicing-Daily Star
Beirut's cellular sell-off still awaits
political decision-Daily Star
Rebuild Lebanon exhibition looks to draw
investment-Daily Star
Booming grooming gives new meaning to 'a dog's
life-Daily Star
Every akub has its thorns, but tasty plant is
worth it-Daily Star
Health Ministry launches campaign to fight
viral hepatitis-Daily Star
Assad rules out direct talks with Israel until
2009-AFP
Qatar Steps In, Aoun Apparently
Biggest Obstacle
Naharnet/Qatar has reportedly stepped in to try to achieve a breakthrough in a
dispute over the make-up of the new cabinet as Free Patriotic Movement leader
Michel Aoun appeared to be the biggest obstacle in government formation. The
daily As Safir, citing Lebanese sources, said Wednesday that a Qatari official
was likely to visit Beirut within the coming days after four days of talks
failed to produce an agreement on the government line-up. The newspaper said the
Qatari decision came following a telephone contact made by Parliament Speaker
Nabih Berri with Qatar's Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr al-Thani.
As Safir said Berri informed Sheik Hamad of the "need to exert pressure in order
to reactivate dialogue channels."
Meanwhile, the pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat quoted sources as saying that Aoun
was the biggest obstacle to an agreement on government formation.
The sources said Aoun's clinging to the finance ministry post as well as his
insistence on getting other ministries, particularly the health, were the "main
obstacles" slowing the announcement of a new government. The Central News Agency
also quoted sources from the majority March 14 coalition as saying that one of
the main obstacle to the government make-up was differences among the opposition
itself. They said the problem was that both Aoun and Berri were fighting for the
health ministry. Another complication was that Aoun is also demanding five out
of eight ministries to be shared by the opposition.Press reports said Prime
Minister Fouad Saniora visited the presidential Palace in suburban Baabda late
Tuesday evening where he held talks with President Michel Suleiman on the
cabinet line-up.
Saniora, however, played down reports that there were difficulties in the
government formation, saying he was "following up on the process … which is
progressing bit by bit.""The goal is clear and we are conducting necessary steps
in keeping with our responsibilities," Saniora told reporters. "We are on the
right track and it is only natural that a government be assembled gradually,"
Saniora said, adding that "patience and wisdom are required for this mission."
Beirut, 04 Jun 08, 07:55
Rice Attacks 'Power-Hungry' Hizbullah, Says Doha Accord Was 'Necessary'
Naharnet/U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has slammed "power-hungry"
Hizbullah for using arms against the Lebanese but lauded the Doha accord which
she said was the result of the Shiite group's "violent actions." "Hizbullah's
recent use of violence against fellow Lebanese has exposed that group for what
it really is: selfish, power-hungry extremists…who will do anything, with the
backing of Iran and Syria, to impose their will on their fellow citizens," Rice
said in a speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington Tuesday. "The Doha
agreement was a necessary and even positive step. It is true that the conditions
were created by Hizbullah's violent actions, but there is an opening for
Lebanese patriots to bolster their nation's independence, expand its
sovereignty, and strengthen the democratic state," Rice said. The Secretary of
State also said in her speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
that the U.S. had a challenge to help the Lebanese government in keeping
security.
"Our challenge now is to help Lebanon's decent leaders and citizens take
advantage of this moment – to help them continue building a government in Beirut
that embodies aspirations, advances interests, ensures the security of Lebanon
and its neighbors," Rice said. She said there was an opportunity for peace in
the Middle East and building a Palestinian state. "A comprehensive peace,
including Lebanon, Syria, and other members of the Arab League, is a worthy
goal. And we do appreciate the effort that our ally, Turkey, is making to
support a peace between Israel and Syria," Rice said.
She also escalated the Bush administration's anti-Iran rhetoric, accusing Tehran
of pursuing nuclear weapons and saying there was no point in engaging the regime
until it changes its behavior. "We would be willing to meet with them, but not
while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talk,"
Rice said. Beirut, 04 Jun 08, 05:11
Message on Lebanon from Sarkozy to
Saudi King Abdullah
Naharnet/French Defense Minister Herve Morin delivered a message to King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia from President Nicolas Sarkozy on developments in
Lebanon, an aide told Agence France Presse. Morin held "very positive" talks
with Saudi officials on bilateral military links and selling French armaments to
the oil-rich kingdom, the aide said Tuesday. The talks with King Abdullah and
defense officials were "very positive," covering "the structure of (defense)
cooperation between Saudi Arabia and France," the aide told AFP, requesting
anonymity. They also covered the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia of FREMM frigates
and Fennec, Cougar and MH90 transport helicopters, said the aide, a diplomatic
adviser to Morin. He said Paris was putting in place a new state firm, ODAS, to
handle arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. The firm will succeed the now defunct
Sofresa, an arms export company which served as a broker for deals between Paris
and Riyadh. Morin, who met with Abdullah in the Red Sea city of Jeddah on
Monday, also discussed with his Saudi hosts the possibility of French
participation in a Saudi project to build a security fence along the kingdom's
border with Iraq, the aide said before Morin ended his two-day visit. Morin
delivered to Abdullah a message from Sarkozy "dealing with regional issues,
chiefly Lebanon, but also Iran and Iraq." The message and the discussions
focused on French-Saudi cooperation in promoting a solution in Lebanon "and
giving its new president a chance," the aide said.
Sarkozy will visit Lebanon on Saturday, becoming the first Western head of state
to meet Michel Suleiman since the former army chief was elected Lebanese
president on May 25 following a Qatari-brokered deal to end an 18-month
political crisis. Both France and Saudi Arabia support the ruling majority which
reached the deal with the Hizbullah-led opposition backed by Syria and Iran.
Morin met in Riyadh late Monday with the king's son Miteb, who serves as
assistant deputy commander of the National Guard. He held talks Tuesday with
Prince Khaled bin Sultan, assistant defense minister for military affairs,
before leaving the Saudi capital. Morin had last visited Saudi Arabia in
October.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 03 Jun 08, 20:36
Cell Phones Start Sell-off in 3 Months if Cabinet Okays
Privatization Program
Naharnet/Lebanon will start a longed-for sell-off of its two cell
phone networks within three months once the new government Okays the
privatization program, head of the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority Kamal
Shehadeh said. Hizbullah in particular has opposed the privatization of the two
state-owned mobile phone networks and the selling off of the country's landline
monopoly, though it had backed the proposal before quitting the government in
2006.
AMAL Movement of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri also had strong reservations
against the privatization of the networks.
Shehadeh said he hoped the new government would give licenses to the two cell
phone networks in addition to a third license to set up Lebanon
Telecommunication Company. Saniora's former government had committed to using
the expected $6bn windfall from the telecoms sell off to reduce Lebanon's debt
levels. However, the sale and the proposed use of the funds could be subject to
the veto power granted to Hizbullah and its allies under the Doha deal.
Shehadeh stressed that the advantages of cell phone licensing opens the way for
competition that would create more jobs in the market and lead to a reduction in
cell phone charges. He warned that Lebanese citizens would be the first to pay
the price if privatization were delayed.
There are 1 million mobile subscribers at present. Advocates of privatization
have claimed that the number of subscribers could go as high as 2 million in
less than two years if the privatization program is carried out. Caretaker
Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh has lately said Lebanon could get
between $5 billion and $6 billion from the privatization of the two cellular
networks, which are currently managed by the Kuwait's MTC Touch and the
German-Saudi consortium Alfa. Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's government was due
to launch a sell-off of the two cell phone networks this year, but the deep
political crisis have derailed these efforts. Beirut, 04 Jun 08, 13:03
Soldier Kills Girlfriend, Commits Suicide
Naharnet/A Lebanese army soldier shot and killed his girlfriend
before turning the gun on himself in Beirut's Zarif neighborhood.
Security sources said the soldier exploded in rage on Tuesday when he saw his
girlfriend with an army mate, firing four gunshots killing her instantly.
His colleague also suffered serious gunshot wounds. The soldier then shot
himself in the head. In a separate incident, four gunmen shot and wounded
Lebanese citizen Imad Zaghloul near the Kuwaiti embassy in Beirut's Bir Hassan
district overnight. Zaghloul was admitted to the nearby Rafik Hariri hospital
where he lay suffering from critical wounds. Security sources said two men in
civilian clothes and another two disguised in police uniforms and driving a
black X5 BMW approached Zaghloul and opened fire on him, wounding him in several
parts of his body. Zaghloul was identified as a supporter of MP Saad Hariri's
Mustaqbal movement. Police found that the car plates belonged to Lama N.J., wife
of Mohammed B., residents of the Shiyah neighborhood. Beirut, 04 Jun 08, 10:07
Fatah Islam Denies Abdeh Blast Claim
Naharnet/A signed statement allegedly from Fatah al-Islam denied
the terrorist group had blown up a military intelligence outpost in the northern
town of Abdeh.
The daily Al Akhbar newspaper on Wednesday said it had received a statement
signed by Fatah al-Islam's media bureau in which the group said it did not issue
a claim of responsibility for the Abdeh attack. Fatah al-Islam said statements
issued by the group's press office on the internet within specific websites and
signatures are the only accounts to be considered official. The state-run
National News Agency (NNA) on Tuesday said its office received a faxed statement
allegedly signed by the group's media bureau claiming responsibility for the
Saturday blast that killed a Lebanese army soldier. "God almighty has enabled a
group of our Mujahideen to start avenging the blood … shed during the assault by
the Lebanese Army against our people in Nahr al-Bared camp," last week's
statement said.
Beirut, 04 Jun 08, 09:29
Suleiman: Lebanon Will Not Succumb to Terrorism
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman has vowed that Lebanon will
not give in to terrorism "which also terrorizes military and security
institutions."
"Just as we will not succumb to the Israeli enemy, we will not succumb to
terrorism … because it destroys the reputation of Lebanon, the Arabs and
Muslims," Suleiman said in remarks published by several Beirut dailies on
Wednesday. Suleiman also urged the security services "to be vigilant so that
each and every Lebanese citizen can be confident in our efforts to ensure
stability." Beirut, 04 Jun 08, 09:07
Canadian platoon leader killed in
gunbattle with insurgents in Afghanistan
By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - A Canadian officer on his first tour in Afghanistan was
killed Tuesday in a prolonged firefight with Taliban militants who stubbornly
cling to patches of arid farmland west of Kandahar. Capt. Richard (Steve) Leary,
32, was leading a foot patrol involving Canadian and Afghan soldiers when they
were ambushed with small-arms fire around 9 a.m. local time. A sporadic,
half-hour running battle ensued. Leary was hit as his soldiers were moving
toward the cover of a safer position. An air strike was called in and the
insurgents were beaten back. "Steve was what we in uniform are expected to be:
he was a soldier and a leader," Col. Jamie Cade, the deputy commander of
Canadian troops in Afghanistan, told reporters at Kandahar Airfield, where Leary
was evacuated by helicopter.
Cade said medics and doctors struggled valiantly but were not able to save
Leary, who was pronounced dead in hospital.
"Every death or injury is deeply painful to us, but it is a risk that we - as
members of the armed forces - understand and assume as we work to bring peace
and stability to a country torn apart by decades of war," he said in a prepared
statement. The Brantford, Ont. native was married but had no children.
No other soldiers were hurt in the engagement. The army would not say precisely
where in the Panjwaii district the extended battle took place, citing
operational security and the need to keep militants guessing about the damage
they have inflicted. Leary, a platoon commander, served with 2nd Battalion,
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry based in Shilo, Man. His loss is
being felt keenly by his men, said Maj. Jay Janzen, a senior army spokesman in
Kandahar.
"When you lose a leader as effective as Capt. Leary, as personable, it is
difficult, but we're just thinking about (his) family right now," said Janzen.
Leary was the second soldier in a month to die in an ambush. The last was Cpl.
Michael Starker, a reservist and Calgary paramedic whose goodwill patrol was
attacked within sight of a major Canadian forward operating base. The May 6
attack happened in the restive Zhari district, which like Panjwaii has been a
hotbed of militant activity and bomb-makers. There have been 84 Canadians
soldiers and one diplomat killed since the start of the Afghan war.
The latest combat death came a day after four Canadian soldiers and an Afghan
interpreter were wounded in two separate attacks, also in the Zhari district.
Two of the soldier badly injured in Monday's attacks have been evacuated to U.S.
military hospital in Germany for further treatment.
The army does not identify wounded soldiers. Canadian troops, as part of an
evolving strategy in the counter-insurgency war, have been conducting more foot
patrols, leaving behind the protection of their armoured vehicles in order to be
more reassuring to wary Afghans, whom they're trying to win over.
"It's dangerous business, there's no question about that, but if we're not out
there doing our jobs we'll never be successful," said Janzen.
"The reason we're doing that is we want to set the conditions for security to
increase so that reconstruction and development can take place in Kandahar
province."
Last week, the Princess Patricia's battle group swept through eastern Zhari
district looking to dismantle bomb-making networks. The four-day operation ended
with no Canadian casualties but did result in the death of a Taliban group
commander along with 16 other militants.
Tributes for Leary poured in from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence
Minister Peter MacKay, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton.
"Each and every woman and man who volunteers to help rebuild Afghanistan is a
source of inspiration and hope for the Afghan people," Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean
said in a statement. "I commend Capt. Leary for his hard work and the sacrifices
he willingly made with courage and conviction. On behalf of our entire country,
we offer our sincerest condolences to his family, friends and comrades-in-arms.
Our hearts and our thoughts are with them." Also, in the eastern part of
Afghanistan on Tuesday, two other NATO soldiers were killed, a third soldier and
one Afghan civilian were wounded during a patrol. The military alliance did not
say which country the soldiers belonged to, but U.S. and Polish forces operate
primarily in the east.
Barak: Hezbollah setting up fortified positions
along border
By Yuval Azoulay, Haaretz Correspondent
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who toured Israel's northern border Tuesday, said
that Hezbollah is setting up fortified positions in villages along the
Israel-Lebanon border while continuing to grow stronger and collect weapons.
According to Barak, the militant Lebanon-based guerilla group is also setting up
positions in 150 villages deep within southern Lebanon.
Barak added that the strategic positions were established in a clear violation
of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the 34-day
war between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.
"On the surface it appears that there is calm," Barak said, "but there are no
delusions here. Israel Defense Forces officers in the northern command and the
lateral units are working day and night along the fence, primed and ready for
any possibility."
Addressing the issue of the cooperation between Hezbollah and Syria, Barak said
"the Syrians are working in intimate cooperation with Hezbollah, and they are in
large part responsible for the transfer of weapons and supplies to Hezbollah.
The ultimate responsibility, as far as we're concerned, lies with Hezbollah on
the one hand, and with the Iranians and the Syrians on the other."
The defense minister also addressed the recently renewed indirect peace
negations between Israel and Syria, saying "initial contact with the Syrians is
aimed at determining whether there will be proper conditions in the future to
launch direct negotiations and discuss all the issues. But the issues themselves
require, like in any negotiations, some tough concession. That means difficult
decisions on [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's part as well as on ours." During
his visit to the border, Barak met with GOC Northern Command Gadi Eisenkot,
Division 91 Commander Brigadier General Imad Fares, and IDF Chief of Operations
Major General Tal Russo. The senior officers briefed Barak on the recent
security developments in Syria and Lebanon, and the condition of IDF units along
the northern borders.
A One Package Deal
01/06/2008
By Mamoun Fandy, Ph.D./senior fellow for Gulf security and director of the
Middle East programme at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
in London. Before joining IISS
Anyone that tries to understand the Doha agreement between the Lebanese
adversaries from a Lebanese perspective would be making a mistake because the
correct perspective to understand this agreement is not Lebanon but Iraq. First
of all, the Doha agreement between the Lebanese adversaries is a diplomatic
package deal by all standards. But the issue is not in Doha nor is it in
Lebanon. The issue is that of two battles, two camps, two states, and two
operation theaters. As the countries of moderation in the region thought that
Lebanon was the principal theater for diplomatic action, the eyes of the United
States, Iran, and Turkey were on another playground; namely, Iraq. Iraq is the
true arena for diplomatic action. Iraq is where everything is taking place and
is the large strategic playground that is full of diplomatic prizes. That is why
all the steps taken by these three states [United States, Iran, and Turkey] and
all their energies were on this playground rather than on Lebanon as the Arabs
imagined. While Arab diplomacy -represented by the Arab League and Arab League
Secretary General Amr Musa were busy in the Lebanese playground, the
US-Iranian-Turkish diplomatic game was about to end on the Iraqi playground.
As the Arabs were expecting US President George W. Bush to announce the
establishment of the Palestinian state - in his speech in Sharm al-Sheikh during
his recent visit to Egypt - the United States, Iran, and Turkey (the other team
in the other playground) were seeking to end the dream of the establishment of
the Kurdish state. A Kurdish state is the common threat to each of Iran, Turkey,
and Syria; they are obsessed with this threat. No doubt, the dream of
establishing the Palestinian state is not a concern for the Turks and the
Iranians. Their concern is the establishment of a Kurdish state. As everyone
knows, the Kurdistan Workers Party [PKK] is a thorn in the side of the modern
Turkish state. This party that is known for its radicalism and its activities in
northern Iraq and southern Turkey has forced the Turkish forces to enter Iraqi
soil several times in order to chase the PKK Kurdish rebels. There are more than
20 million Kurds in Turkey, that is, more than 40% of the entire population, and
about six million Kurds in Iran that are concentrated in four provinces in
northwest Iran. They represented a real threat to the Iranian state before and
during the reign of the former Shah and even after the establishment of the
Islamic Republic although the Kurds initially supported this republic. It is the
joint Kurdish threat to both Iran and Turkey that drove the Iranians and the
Turks to sign an agreement during the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan to Tehran. This agreement provides for cooperation between the
two countries to confront the Kurdish fighters and prevent them from
establishing an independent Kurdish "entity" in northern Iraq that may lead to
strengthening the Kurdish secessionist movement and establish a Kurdish state in
the region.
In Syria, the Kurdish problem may assert a lower presence than in Turkey and
Iran; however, this problem does exist. The riots in Al-Qamishli in northeastern
Syria in the past few years attest to this presence. There are about two million
Kurds in Syria. They are to be found inmost of the major Syrian towns and
regions and they are concentrated in most of the towns and villages of the
Province of Al-Hasakah. Syria's Kurds have always been influenced by the Kurdish
activities in the neighboring countries. Syrian Kurds have volunteered to serve
in the ranks of the Peshmerga in northern Iraq and the almost public presence of
the PKK in the Syrian arena revived the spirit of Kurdish nationalism. The
revival of this spirit of nationalism drove the majority of the Kurdish youths
to fight in the mountains of Kurdistan.
The main point here is that the largest strategic arena in which the United
States invested its diplomatic efforts was in Iraq not in Lebanon. The United
States wants to stop the attacks on its forces in Iraq and its basic goal in the
region is to score an acceptable victory. Meanwhile, Iran wants to have
strategic influence in southern Iraq and wants an Iraqi government in Baghdad
that is close to Tehran. It also wants to crush the dream of a Kurdish state in
northern Iraq. The United States is ready to negotiate with Iran to obtain what
is mentioned above in return for ceasing its nuclear enrichment activities,
ending its confrontation with the United States in Iraq, and ending its support
for the military religious parties such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim
Brotherhood, and others. Turkey wants the same thing but in return for Iran's
influence in southern Iraq, it wants to have its influence in northern Iraq. In
addition to its wish to end the dream of the Kurdish state, Syria wants the
Golan in return for Lebanon, as I said in a previous article.
The interests of all these states intertwine with those of the United States in
the Iraqi playground. The three countries (Iran, Turkey, and Syria) are key
players in the Iraqi arena and Iran and Syria are also key players in the
Lebanese arena. Since the main concern of the US Administration is to score a
modest face-saving victory in Iraq, it has concluded that it should negotiate
with these three countries despite all the differences and the reciprocal
animosity. Thus, the Doha agreement to solve the Lebanese conflict constitutes
part of a deal to appease the Iranian and Syrian players for the sake of US
interests in Iraq not in Lebanon. We should also not forget that the United
States is well aware that it is Hezbollah that has the military power in
Lebanon. This was demonstrated in two recent events: The July 2006 war with
Israel and the military control of Hezbollah's men on Beirut during the recent
Lebanese crisis.
Naturally, Qatar has a very important side issue with Iran concerning the
northern oil field [Haql al-Shimal] that sits on a quarter of the world's gas
reserve. This field may cause tension in international relations and a serious
problem similar to that of Saddam's against Kuwait on the Al-Rumaylah oil field
that led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Furthermore, Qatar has
important diplomatic relations with the United States. The two major military
bases of the United States are on its soil. This is what brought the Qatari role
and made Qatar the diplomatic mediator of the United States with the countries
in the region. The interconnected interests of the United States, Iran, Turkey,
Syria, and Qatar drove Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa AlThani to visit
Syria, Tehran, and southern Lebanon. These interests also led to issuing an
invitation to Iranian President Ahmadinejad to attend the recent Gulf
Cooperation Council [GCC] summit that convened in the Qatari capital Doha.
It is these intertwined interests that also brought in the Turks and the
Israelis in the person of Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to attend the
activities of the Doha Forum for Democracy, Development, and Free Trade in Doha
following Qatari and Turkish visits to Syria and Syrian visits, on the level of
the head of state, to both Turkey and Qatar. These intertwined interests cooked
a joint peace deal in one package and led the Doha agreement on Lebanon, the
announcement on the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, and the secret negotiations
between Hamas and Israel to coincide with one another. It is perhaps the US
Administration's reassurance that the success of this diplomatic deal - that
solved several thorny files - is imminent that drove US President George W. Bush
to take a hard-line stance with Egypt in his speech in Sharm al-Sheikh. When the
United States sensed that the camp of moderation in the Arab world is not docile
and is not open with it as it wishes, it decided to deal with the original
hard-liners - Iran, Syria, and the radical movements - believing that if it has
the chance to deal with the original hard-liners, why should it deal with
conventional ones?
What happened simply is that while the Arab League was playing with the Lebanese
teams on the Lebanese playground, the United States and the countries that have
similar interests were running the game in the Iraqi playground. It was a
professional ploy that "resolved" all the issues in one package deal.
Exploiting Hezbollah’s Coup
02/06/2008
By Tariq Alhomayad
the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat
Amidst the blaze of forming the Lebanese government, numerous statements have
emerged here and there from the conflicting factions with each group justifying
its position by relying either on the Taif Accords or the outcome of the recent
Doha meetings. However it is evident that the opposition; Hezbollah
specifically, is only relying upon the May 7 coup and the occupation of Beirut.
How should we interpret Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah’s warning to the majority
in parliament that, “If it [the majority] is convinced and follows the correct
path then we will walk with it down this long road and together we can build a
state and society and live with happiness and pride. If it does not accept the
past experience, then it will be incapable of changing or achieving anything.”
But even graver were the comments made by Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan, Deputy
President of the Higher Islamic Shia Council in Lebanon who stated: “The absence
of the Shia signature from the government will not be permitted,” and called for
“creating a vice presidential post to be filled by a Shia so that the Shia may
take part in the decision-making process, in the case of them not getting the
Ministry of Finance.”
Sheikh Qabalan did not stop there; he continued to speak about [the ministries
of] justice and interior and the necessity of having neutral judges and officers
as it is not right for innocent people to be imprisoned without having recourse
to a fair trial, he said.
What Sheikh Qabalan seeks is the release of the four officers embroiled in the
case of Rafik Hariri’s assassination. This matter is shrouded in suspicion and
it foreshadows bigger things to come in near future. Moreover, it is clear that
there are roles being doled out by Hezbollah and its followers.
Sheikh Qabalan launched an attack on Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani, the Grand
Mufti of the Lebanese Republic the day that he warned against the sedition of
the May 7 coup. Sheikh Qabalan said, “If some leaders are happy to become tools
in the hands of Israel so that it may achieve its goals, then is it conceivable
for those in religious positions to be dragged behind them and cover them
[leaders] with their evocative speeches?”
But Sheikh Qabalan took it even further when he defended Iran in response to
Walid Jumblatt’s call for the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon. He
said that such questionable demands “fall under the framework of Israeli and
American incitement.”
All of the above suggests that Hezbollah and its supporters act based on the
coup that they carried out and their occupation of Beirut and not in accordance
with the Doha Agreement.
Hezbollah and its supporters want the sovereign ministries and want to create a
vice-presidential post to be filled by a Shia and they brag about what happened
in Beirut rather than apologize for what they have perpetrated. And why not? In
his most recent speech to his supporters, didn’t Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah say “I
have promised you victory” in reference to his martyrs in comparison to the
victims on the other side? So this means that his affiliates are martyrs while
others rank lower in life and death!
The danger of all of the aforesaid is that it can only aggravate matters, in
addition to firmly establishing the belief amongst some that accumulating
weapons and preparation are necessary – whilst there is nothing to guarantee
that Hezbollah will not repeat its actions, especially since the party’s
supporters continue to remind their opponents of the Beirut coup.
The gravity does not lie in the fact that this comes from a Hezbollah MP but
rather that it comes from a man of considerable status and who occupies the
position of Deputy President of the Higher Islamic Shia Council in Lebanon.
Riyadh Versus Damascus
02/06/2008
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
the general manager of Al -Arabiya television.
A battle is taking place between Riyadh and Damascus.
It is a silent battle on the part of Riyadh, but noisy on the part of Damascus.
Damascus rejected the Arab League secretary general's proposal to reform the
Arabs' relations with Iran. Syria rejected the idea in its capacity as president
of the Arab summit. It holds the view that no one is in disagreement with Tehran
and, therefore, let the Saudis alone deal with the problem. Damascus leaked its
views to the Lebanese press. Even though it officially denied these views,
everyone knows that they are literally Syrian, not Iranian, statements in spite
of Damascus's attempt to imply that they are Iranian. For some time now,
Damascus has been trying to convince the Gulf leaders that Iran is behind the
statements and reports that come out of Beirut and behind the events that take
place there and that Damascus has nothing to do with them.
Surely, Iran plays a large role in the crises of the region. However, we cannot
hold it responsible for everything happens and said in the region, even if they
were attributed to an Iranian news agency, such as Fars, or others, which were
lately used a lot in publishing statements of Syrian origin to keep suspicions
away from Damascus and fasten them on Iran, or even if they were attributed to
the Iranian Television Network.
What makes the disagreement with the Iranians different is that it is obvious
and can be defined. The Iranian regime's desire to dominate the Arab region from
the Gulf and Iraq to Lebanon is now public. They [the Iranians] told the
Americans "we have a role to play in Iraq and the Gulf" and said to the Saudis"
come let us reach an understanding on Lebanon" and so forth. However, it is
difficult for one to imagine that the Iranian regime's desire would be fulfilled
without causing dangers and extremely serious sectarian conflict. Thus, the
situation suffers a political and security tension. Besides, there is the
nuclear issue, and Iran does not hide its intentions to make nuclear weapons.
The Gulf region is more affected by this danger than by Israel, the name of
which is used to justify the making of weapons, as Saddam used to do in the
1980s. Afterward, he used his deadly weapons against Iran and his Kurdish
compatriots and occupied Kuwait. The six Gulf states are collectively convinced
that the Iranian weapons target them. The Iranian weapons will subject these
Gulf states to Iran's blackmail in the future, if not directly used against
them. These disagreements with Iran are clear. Even though they are serious,
communication between Riyadh and Tehran never ceased. In fact, it has been said
that this communication saved the region during some periods of tension, even
though it failed during the crisis of Hezbollah's recent coup. For the first
time, this crisis led to a public verbal altercation between the Saudi foreign
minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
That is why Damascus's leaked press statements were exciting. They show a state
of tension and fury and a desire to invent a clash. They complement statements
that were made early this year by Syrian Vice President Farooq al-Sharaa who
predicted the downfall of the Saudi oil regions. The Syrian statements that were
recently leaked to the press said Saudi Arabia was conspiring to overthrow the
Syrian regime. What a charge! I am sure the Syrians know very well that if Saudi
Arabia adopted a plan to topple their regime, the plan would not be impossible
and would be carried out in a "legitimate" way. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is
not like Syria in dealing with crises. The severest penal action that that Saudi
Arabia takes in such situations is to reduce or sever its contacts. On the other
hand, Saudi Arabia supported stability in Syria throughout the past 30 years,
not necessarily because it loved the regime, but because it is against chaos in
the region. Saudi Arabia believes that disagreements, no matter how bad, can be
resolved in the end. It held the view that if regimes do not rectify their
behavior, they do not livelong, no matter how many alliances they establish.
Currently, the Syrians are persistently engaged in a campaign of various forms
through many parties with the aim of insulting, provoking, and intimidating the
Saudis, out of their belief that this campaign will force their adversaries to
submit to their demands. Anyway, let us wait and see.
Hezbollah army arises as a potent force under Lebanon's
peace deal
Christopher Torchia, Associated Press
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Hezbollah fighters have pulled back since seizing parts of Lebanon's capital,
but their brazen display has made one thing clear: A private army blamed for
terrorist attacks on Western interests and dedicated to the destruction of
Israel will be a fixture in this weakened country for a long time.
Lebanon is an ideal incubator for Hezbollah's military clout, just as
Afghanistan served al Qaeda. Lebanon's U.S.-funded military doesn't interfere
with the thousands of rockets and missiles that militants are believed to have
hidden in basements and bunkers throughout Shiite Muslim areas of the tiny
country.
Hezbollah's refusal to discuss disarmament at talks with Lebanese factions in
Qatar recently means it has formidable firepower to unleash at will. This could
have wider implications, given Hezbollah's summer war with Israel two years ago,
though some Lebanese suspect Hezbollah's main objectives include local power
grabs and settling ethnic scores.
"Hezbollah's mask has dropped," said Ayman Kharma, a Sunni Muslim cleric whose
fourth-floor apartment in the northern city of Tripoli was blasted during
fighting this month with a militia allied to Hezbollah. "We were in favor of
Hezbollah when it was fighting Israel. Now we see it from the inside."
Kharma was talking about the sectarian tone of the violence, with Shiite
militants from Hezbollah targeting Sunnis tied to the government. He spoke in
the blackened wreckage of what was his living room, littered with fragments of
rocket-propelled grenades.
Hezbollah says its chief goal is to fight Israel, and its combat record -
burnished by the 2006 war - has earned it respect throughout the Arab world. The
attire of a Shiite fighter in the recent fighting in Lebanon testified to past
and present conflicts: an Israeli helmet, green fatigues with a "U.S. Army"
stamp, a black T-shirt and an American-made M4 carbine with a telescopic sight.
Witnesses say Hezbollah fighters used automatic rifles and rocket-propelled
grenades, but refrained from shelling parts of Beirut with mortar rounds, which
would have threatened civilians for minimal military gain.
The witnesses said militants handed out cell phone numbers to shopkeepers,
telling them to call if anyone attacked their stores. Hashim Jaber, a former
brigadier general in the Lebanese army, described many Hezbollah combatants as
"grade C, grade B" operatives who acted like military police officers,
supervising unruly fighters from allied militias.
Unlike Sunni al Qaeda, Shiite Hezbollah is a social and political movement
inspired by Iran's Islamic revolution. It has stepped back from the spectacular
bombings, kidnappings and hijackings in which it was implicated in the 1980s and
1990s, but praises Palestinian suicide bombers and helps the Palestinian group
Hamas, which has repeatedly fired rockets into Israel from Gaza.
The United States lists Hezbollah as a terrorist group and denounces suspected
aid by Iran and Syria. Washington also says Islamic militants linked to al Qaeda
have taken advantage of instability to infiltrate Lebanon, where extremism
breeds in Palestinian refugee camps.
Hezbollah says it doesn't have a foreign branch, but it is believed to have
operatives and fundraisers as far afield as Latin America, and among other
Shiite Muslim communities in Lebanon's diaspora of more than 10 million.
In 2006, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets at Israel, and intelligence
experts believe it now has a longer-range arsenal.
Gen. Amos Yadlin, Israel's chief of military intelligence, says Hezbollah
maintains a "massive" presence close to Lebanon's southern border with Israel,
including rockets, combat forces and observation points, in violation of a
U.N.-brokered cease-fire that ended the 2006 war. U.N. patrols in the area have
not reported similar claims, though the United Nations has complained of illicit
arms shipments to Hezbollah and Israeli overflights.
"If there is a future flare-up, Hezbollah will try to attack Israel not only
from the area south of the Litani (River) but from deep inside Lebanon as well,"
Yadlin said in an interview with Israel's Haaretz newspaper.
He said Hezbollah has munitions that "now cover large areas of Israel" in
contrast to rockets that mostly hit only the north during the war. The comments
match claims by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Hezbollah has built a private telephone network to shield operatives from
eavesdropping and be more resistant to aerial bombing. The government reversed a
decision to ban the fiber-optic system after Hezbollah's fighters and allies
overran parts of Beirut and other areas earlier this month, killing dozens in
scenes reminiscent of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.
A purported map of the phone network, released by a government ally, shows links
that stretch from Hezbollah's base of Dahiyeh in the southern suburbs of Beirut,
through the coastal cities of Sidon and Tyre to areas near the Israeli border
and up the entire length of the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon's interior. It follows
Lebanon's sectarian divide, connecting virtually all Shiite Muslim areas but not
Sunni Muslim and Christian areas.
Jaber, the former military commander, said the network was designed for military
rather than commercial use, and should be included in any discussion of
Hezbollah's weaponry.
The best Hezbollah fighters are believed to have trained in Iran, others at
camps in northeast Lebanon, near Syria.
Shlomo Brom, former head of strategic planning on the Israeli military's general
staff, said Israeli intelligence estimated that Hezbollah lost 500 to 600
fighters in the 2006 war.
"The only area where it is not clear whether they were able to reconstruct
successfully since the war is the training of new cadres, because they had quite
a large number of casualties," he said. "It is not easy to replace them, because
those were people who were trained for the past 10 years."
**This article appeared on page A - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Bernier controversy flares with
report ex-girlfriend dated Mafioso
Tue Jun 3, 3:31 PM
By The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - There are fresh concerns about national security over the Maxime
Bernier affair - this time involving the Mafia.
Opposition MPs grilled Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the House of Commons
Tuesday over a report that Bernier's ex-girlfriend once dated a man linked to
the Mafia. They asked if Harper was aware of the Mafia connection. Bloc MP Serge
Menard cited a report in Montreal's La Presse newspaper that said Julie
Couillard dated Tony Volpato in the early 1990s before her various associations
with bikers. Harper accepted the resignation of Bernier, his foreign affairs
minister, last week as Couillard was going public with the fact that Bernier
forgot a classified NATO briefing document at her home for several weeks.
But Harper maintains that there is no security issue and says he doesn't ask for
or receive security information about private citizens.
Liberal MP Denis Coderre says it stretches credibility that neither the RCMP nor
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ever warned Harper about the
potential security implications of having Canada's top diplomat dating a person
with Couillard's past associations.
According to La Presse, Volpato was a close friend and confidant of Frank
Cotroni, the chief of Montreal's Calabrian Mafia who died in 2004.
Another defeat
By Moshe Arens - Haaretz
It may not be only Ehud Olmert who is so busy worrying about his
legal problems that he does not have enough time to address Israel's urgent
security issues. Many Israeli citizens, except of course residents of the South,
are probably also completely engrossed in studying the details of the current
investigations and have little time left to worry about what really needs to be
worried about - the ongoing war in the South. One can only hope that the Israel
Defense Forces and its commander, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, are
continuing to take seriously the awesome responsibility with which they are
charged - assuring the safety of the people of Israel.
Maybe our chief of staff needs to be reminded of what he said shortly after he
assumed his present position: "In the next war, there will be no doubt about who
won." This was said after his predecessor, Dan Halutz, declared after the Second
Lebanon War that "the IDF won on points," though it was clear that the IDF had
actually been defeated in that war by a few thousand Hezbollah fighters. Halutz
did not want to recognize the obvious: that when the largest and strongest army
in the Middle East is confronted by a mere few thousand terrorists, yet finds
itself incapable of protecting the civilian population and reaches a standoff
with the terrorists, it is the terrorists who have won the war. That is the
terrorists' perception, and that is the world's perception. And perception
nowadays is reality. It was Halutz's inability to comprehend this that led to
the faulty management of the Second Lebanon War.
After agreeing to a cease-fire with Hezbollah that allowed it to declare
victory, rearm and become the dominant power in Lebanon, Israel had a second
chance in the war against terrorism: the war in the South against Hamas and
Islamic Jihad terrorists, who, like Hezbollah in the North, are backed by Iran.
Again, Israel's civilian population was attacked by short-range rockets. These
attacks have now lasted for many months and are reaching deeper and deeper into
Israel.
As during the Second Lebanon War, the IDF tried futilely to stop these attacks
via air power. But just as it did then, it became obvious that this mission had
to be carried out by ground troops. And having learned nothing from past
experience, Israel's government refused to order ground troops into the Gaza
Strip. Residents of the South continue to pay the price.
Should this confrontation also end in a standoff, with Israel agreeing to a
cease-fire with the terrorists, it would be another defeat for the IDF. Not a
"victory on points," and not even a victory on points for the terrorists, but a
defeat of the IDF by the terrorists. A defeat, pure and simple. That is how it
is going to be seen by all concerned. Israel will be seen admitting that it is
incapable of defending its territory and assuring the safety of its civilian
population.
This is no minor matter. To those who wonder how Israel has been able to survive
for many years in the hostile environment of the Middle East, the answer is that
it has been able, time and again, to defeat the enemies that have risen up
against it. The peace agreement with Egypt that Israel eventually reached was
the direct result of the IDF's victories on the battlefield. The peace agreement
with Jordan was based on Jordan's conviction that Israel could not be defeated
on the battlefield.
Thus if Israel's ability to defend itself should be called into question, this
would not only spell the end of any chance to widen the circle of peace, but
would also increase the probability of another full-scale war. That is what
hangs in the balance in the confrontation with the terrorists in the South. They
know - and we must relearn, if we have forgotten - that the life expectancy of a
Middle Eastern country that shows it cannot defend itself is likely to be very
short.
That is the challenge that faces the IDF and its commander today. Only a
decisive victory in the war against the terrorists in the South will assure
Israel's safety. A cease-fire will be a victory for the terrorists and a defeat
for the IDF.
Of course, it is the government, even in its present state, that will have to
make the decision. But it is the chief of staff who must tell the government
that he is capable of scoring a victory that will leave no doubt over who won
this war.
How to measure al Qaeda's
defeat
By Walid Phares
In an article published in the Washington Post on Friday May 30,
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden is quoted as portraying al Qaeda movement as
"essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout
much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border." The article said Hayden asserts that "Osama
bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has
largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents."
More importantly, the article quotes the chief intelligence declaring a "near
strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq; near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in
Saudi Arabia; significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going
to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on
their form of Islam."
These powerful declarations prompted a series of reactions and debates both in
political and counter terrorism circles, causing loud media discussions. The
main but simple question of interest to the public, and subsequently to voters
in the US and other Democracies, is this:
Is al Qaeda being defeated?
However more complex questions arise from the CIA Director's statements, which
if answered accurately would leave the main assertion still unclear. Following
are few of these strategic questions:
If al Qaeda is being defeated, who is defeating it? Is it the US and the West,
the Arab and Muslim moderates, or other Jihadists? If Usama Bin Laden is being
challenged by his own members, ex members or non al Qaeda Jihadists, how can
that be determined as a defeat and to whom?
Would a coup inside al Qaeda be of interest to Washington if the new team is as
Jihadist but not as "Bin Ladenist"? Or is it the US-centered interests that are
at play? Meaning the inability of al Qaeda under Bin laden and Zawahiri to
strike at America or target American troops and presence overseas, including in
Iraq?
Is it Bin laden's discredit, al-Qaeda's weakening or Jihadism's defeat that is
the broadest strategic goal to attain? Even farther in questioning, is it al
Qaeda'Takfiri method or it the global Jihadist ideology that is receding? The
matter is not that simple, as one can conclude. So how can we measure an al
Qaeda defeat in the middle of a War still raging around the world? I propose the
following parameters.
Is al Qaeda being defeated strategically worldwide as stated by the CIA
Director?
First the confrontation is still ongoing. Hence we need to situate the conflict
first. Are we comparable with WWII before Normandy or after? In this War on
Terror terms, what are our intentions? Is the US-led campaign designed to go
after the membership of al Qaeda, go after its ideology or to support democracy
movements to finish the job? Everything depends on the answers.
Geopolitically and at this stage, al Qaeda has been contained in Iraq, in
Afghanistan and in Somalia. But al Qaeda has potential, through allies, to
thrust through Pakistan and the entire sub Sahara plateau. It was contained in
Saudi Arabia but its cells (and off shoots) are omnipresent in Western Europe,
Latin America, Indonesia, the Balkans, Russia and India, let alone North
America. Objectively one would admit that the organization is being pushed back
in some spots but is still gaining ground in other locations. Although
geopolitical results are crucial, a final blow against al Qaeda has to be mainly
ideological.
How can we measure al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq, if that is true?
There are three ways to measure defeat or victory: Operational, Control and
Recruitment. First, is al Qaeda waging the same number of operations? Second,
does it control enclaves? Third, is it recruiting high numbers? By these
parameters al Qaeda was certainly "contained" in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni
triangle. This was a combined result of the US surge operations and of a rise by
local tribes, backed by American military and funding. But this scoring against
al Qaeda would diminish and probably collapse if the US quit Iraq abruptly, or
without leaving a strong ally behind. So, technically it is a conditioned
containment of al Qaeda in Iraq.
How about Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis have contained many of al Qaeda's active cells in the Kingdom. But
authorities haven't shrunk the ideological pool from which al Qaeda recruits,
i.e. the hard core Wahabi circles. The regime has been using its own clerics to
isolate the more radical indoctrination chains. It has been successful in
creating a new status quo, but just that. If Iraq crumbles, that is if an abrupt
withdrawal takes place in the absence of a strong and democratic Iraqi
Government, al Qaeda will surge in the Triangle and thus will begin to impact
Saudi Arabia. Therefore the current containment in the Kingdom is hinging on the
success of the US led efforts in Iraq, not on inherent ideological efforts in
Saudi Arabia.
How about Pakistan-Afghanistan?
In Afghanistan, both the Taliban and al Qaeda weren't able to create exclusive
zones of control despite their frequent Terror attacks for the last seven years.
But there again, the support to operations inside Afghanistan is coming mainly
from the Jihadi enclaves inside Pakistan: Which conditions the victory over al
Qaeda by the Kabul Government to the defeat of the combat Jihadi forces within
the borders of Pakistan by Islamabad's authorities. Do we expect President
Musharref and his cabinet to wage a massive campaign soon into Waziristan and
beyond? Unlikely for the moment believe most experts. Hence, the containment of
al Qaeda in Afghanistan is hinging on the Pakistan's politics. While it is true
that the Bin Laden initial leadership network has been depleted, the movement
continues to survive, fed by an unchallenged ideology, so far.
The war of ideas: Is al Qaeda losing it?
Geopolitically, al Qaeda is contained on the main battlefields in Iraq,
Afghanistan and somewhat in Somalia. It is suppressed in Saudi Arabia and other
Arab countries. But it is roaming freely in many other spots. It is not winning
in face of the Western world's premier military machine, but it is still
breathing, and more importantly it is making babies. All what it would take to
see it leaping back in all battlefields and more is a powerful change of
direction in Washington D.C:
As simple as that: if the United States decides to end the War on Terror. or as
its bureaucracy has been inclined to do lately, end the War of Ideas against
Jihadism, the hydra will rise again and change the course of the conflict in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arabia and the African Sahara. All depends on how
Americans and other democracies are going to wage their campaign against al
Qaeda's ideology. If they choose to ignore it and embark on a fantasy trip to
nowhere, as the "Lexicon" business shows, al Qaeda -- or its successors -- will
win eventually.
But if the next Administration would focus on a real ideological defeat of Bin
Laden's movement, then, the advances made on the battlefields will hold firmly
and expand.
Lately, some in the counter terrorism community are postulating that Bin Laden
is being criticized by his own supporters, or more precisely by ideologues and
Jihadists who backed him in the past, then turned against him lately. These
analysts offer striking writings by Salafist cadres against the leadership of
Bin laden and his associates as evidence of an al Qaeda going into decline.
Would these facts mean that the once unchallenged Bin Laden is now losing
altitude? Technically yes, Usama is being criticized by Jihadists. But does that
mean that we in liberal democracies are winning that war of ideas? Less likely.
A thorough review of the substance of what the Jihadi critics are complaining
about (a subject I intend to address in a future article), is not exactly what
the free world would be looking forward to. But in short, al Qaeda is now
contained in the very battlefield it chose to fend off the Infidels in: Iraq.
But this is just one moment in space and time, during which we will have to
fight hard to keep the situation as is. Our favorable situation is a product of
the US military surge and of a massive investment in dollars. It is up to this
Congress, and probably to the next President to maintain that moment, weaken it
or expand it.
Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime know exactly the essence of this strategic
equation. I am not sure, though, that a majority of Americans are aware of the
gravity of the situation. In other words, the public is told that we have won
this round against al Qaeda but it should be informed of what it would take to
reach final victory in this global conflict.
**Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation:
Winning the War against Future Jihad.
Lebanon’s Short, Sharp Conflict
By: Alain Gresh/ editor of Le Monde diplomatique and a specialist on the Middle
East.
© 2008 Le Monde diplomatique
Middle East On Line
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=26256
2008-06-04,
The changes in Lebanon in the events of May 2008 - and the current status of the
country: an on-the-ground report from Alain Gresh.
The Masnaa border crossing has recently reopened. The militias who had blocked
all traffic in and out of Syria have gone and the army has moved in, a sign that
tensions are easing after last month’s fighting in Lebanon. The road, which
plunges down the mountain towards Beirut, is usually choked with chaotic traffic
between the countries, but the situation hasn’t yet returned to normal, so you
can drive to the Lebanese capital in under an hour.
Though everyone I spoke to agrees on the sequence of events, their
interpretations differ. On 6 May, after 12 hours’ deliberation, Lebanon’s
government passed two decrees: one to establish an inquiry into Hezbollah’s
private communications network (“illegal, illegitimate, an aggression against
the sovereignty of the state”) and the other to transfer Beirut airport’s head
of security, Wafiq Shuqair, a Shia general, who is said to have close links to
the opposition. The authorities decided to internationalise the crisis and bring
the details of “this new aggression against the rule of law in Lebanon” before
the Arab League and the United Nations.
The decision was condemned by the opposition, whose main players (in the Shia
community) are Hezbollah, the political and military movement backed by Iran and
Syria, and Amal, led by Nabih Berri, and (in the Christian community) the Free
Patriotic Movement (FPM) led by the Maronite general Michel Aoun. On 8 May,
Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, denounced this “declaration of
war on the resistance” at a press conference. At the same time Hezbollah
militia, along with those of Amal and the secular Syrian Social National Party (SSNP),
took control of predominantly Sunni west Beirut. The airport and the port were
blockaded. After brief fighting, the militias of Saad Hariri’s Future Movement
(a Sunni party) and the prime minister, Fouad Siniora, surrendered. There were
confrontations in other regions in which 70 people were killed before a fragile
peace was restored.
The government rescinded its two decrees. The militias withdrew in favour of the
army, which had remained neutral, and the politicians. On 17 May, under the
auspices of the emir of Qatar and the Arab League, negotiations began between
government and opposition in the Qatari capital, Doha, with the aim of
preventing Lebanon splitting in two. The government side represented the
majority of Sunnis and Druze, as well as a minority of Christians. The
opposition spoke for most of Lebanon’s Shia and a good half of the Christians, a
fact which western media often overlook, portraying Hezbollah as the only
opposition. On 21 May, an agreement made provision for Michel Suleiman, the
former army chief, to be elected to the presidency (on 25 May; the position had
been vacant since November 2007), the creation of a government of national
unity, and a new electoral law which will come into effect for next spring’s
elections. For the moment, finding a solution to the highly sensitive problem of
Hezbollah’s arms has been postponed.
Questions remain
There are many questions but no clear answers. Why did the government pass the
two decrees? Why did Hezbollah and its allies take direct action? Why didn’t the
army get involved? Why didn’t the United States and the European Union
intervene? And what is the scope of the Doha agreement?
“Hezbollah claimed that it would never turn its arms on the Lebanese people.
They said they were aimed only at Israel,” a pro-government journalist told me.
“Now we know they were lying.” The argument that Hezbollah is no more than a
militia and doesn’t constitute resistance to Israel and the United States is
regularly voiced by all government leaders and their friends in the media. But
Ali Fayyad, a senior member of Hezbollah’s executive committee, says: “The
conflict is not about domestic politics. Our military communication system was a
decisive factor in our victory over Israel in July-August 2006. We cannot accept
it being dismantled. That would effectively mean disarmament. On the other hand,
we have never used force of arms to impose our views internally, to change the
government or obtain changes to the electoral system.”
What he didn’t say was that Hezbollah seized its chance to resolve a crisis that
has been festering for 18 months, paralysing the country and exasperating its
supporters. The formation of a national unity government furthers their aims,
since Hezbollah isn’t seeking a central role in government, but the creation of
a context favourable to its core mission: resistance to Israel and US plans for
the region.
Siniora and his allies knew that Hezbollah’s arms represented a line not to be
crossed. So why did they cross it, despite many warnings from officers from the
Internal Security Forces (ISF), which is loyal to the government? Waleed
Jumblatt, the pro-government leader of the Druze Progressive Socialist Party,
who brought the charge against Hezbollah’s telecommunications, and Saad Hariri,
head of the Sunni Future Movement, “miscalculated in not believing that
Hezbollah would respond militarily,” according to a government analyst. “They
hoped that the crisis would drag on, and that they could negotiate to win
concessions from the opposition. They didn’t take account of their own impotence
or US weakness in the region.”
Michel Samaha, a former opposition minister, agrees, but believes the two
government measures were part of a plan devised by the United States, Saudi
Arabia and Egypt, with their local allies, to impose their views on Lebanon.
President Bush has presented Lebanon as “the third front in the war on terror”
(after Afghanistan and Iraq). Samaha told me: “Plenty of evidence supports this
view: the meeting Samir Geagea, the [Maronite] Lebanese chief of staff, had with
Bush in mid-March; Saudi Arabia’s request that its nationals should leave
Lebanon; and the repeated American diatribes against Hezbollah ‘terrorism’. A
Security Council meeting was scheduled for 8 May, to hear [UN representative for
Lebanon] Terji Roed-Larssen’s report on Lebanon. This session was supposed to
conclude with the condemnation of Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm. But all these
calculations were based on an overestimate of the government’s strength and on
the conviction that Hezbollah would not resort to force.”
Weird rumours
To divert attention from its own shortcomings, the Lebanese government has
increased criticism of its allies’ lack of intervention. Weird rumours are going
round: Lebanon is being sacrificed for the sake of secret negotiations between
Washington and Tehran; or the United States, which has launched a major
offensive against al-Qaida in Mosul in northern Iraq, is trying to curry favour
with Damascus.
Like most political movements, General Aoun’s FPM has its own television
channel, O(range) TV. During my visit it was broadcasting simultaneous pictures
of the Syrian army leaving Lebanon in 2005, and the Saudi ambassador fleeing the
country this May. What all commentators agree on is that in this latest conflict
Riyadh didn’t handle its involvement carefully enough, especially its funding of
Siniora’s government and the Sunnis, and as a result suffered a humiliating
defeat.
The Lebanese media have been commenting ironically on the kiss of death Bush
sent Siniora when he expressed his support during his visit to Israel, the state
which all Lebanese regard as guilty of the destruction of their country in 2006.
The future participation of Hezbollah in Lebanon’s government marks a major
defeat for Washington. An academic in the Lebanese government wondered: “Do
westerners want the east coast of the Mediterranean to be dominated by the
Iranians?”
Members of the government have also castigated the army for its neutrality.
General Suleiman insisted that non-involvement was necessary to “avoid bloodshed
and more divisions within its ranks." At least a third of the army is Shia and a
significant number of officers have links to the opposition, especially the
Aounists. Any engagement by the army would have resulted in the break-up of
Lebanon’s last remaining institution.
Hezbollah took a serious risk in deciding to settle the crisis through force,
according to one Christian opposition leader: “Until that point, it only had
recourse to political means -- leaving the government in November 2006, calling
for the government’s resignation, setting up a tented village in the middle of
Beirut at the start of 2007, and demonstrating in the streets. But now it wants
to send a clear message: The arms of the resistance are non-negotiable. Even if
that makes it seem like a simple militia and stokes the tensions between Sunnis
and Shia.”
A few Hezbollah flags
In the streets of west Beirut, the only signs of a “Shia invasion” are a few
flags belonging to Hezbollah, Amal and the SSNP. In Hamra, the commercial
district, fashion boutiques, food shops, banks and sports centres are all open
again. Soldiers are everywhere and have set up barriers around sensitive places
such as the Saudi embassy, which is currently closed, the Hariri family home,
and the Lebanese-American University, which has just reopened after a two-week
closure. On its walls are warnings from the administration: “Out of respect for
everyone, don’t discuss politics or security problems.”
The closure of Future television and Saad Hariri’s daily, Al-Mostaqbal, has
provoked strong condemnation in the press. An opposition journalist shared this
indignation, but added: “During the three days of fighting, Hezbollah was afraid
that the media might fan the flames of a civil war. When the danger passed, they
were able to resume their activities without coming under any pressure.”
Sunnis, who feel let down by their leaders, express their fear of a Shia threat,
a spectre raised by several leaders of other Arab nations. Eyewitness accounts,
magnified by rumours, testify to atrocities during the fighting. And yet the
number of victims seems to have been limited. “If Amal’s men had taken part in
the attack without Hezbollah, there would have been at least a thousand dead and
mass pillage,” a pro-government journalist told me. According to Human Rights
Watch, both sides in Beirut and in the north committed human rights violations.
A journalist on the pro-opposition Al-Akhbar talked of “several cases of dead
bodies being desecrated.”
The authority of the Future Movement among Sunnis has been questioned since
“Saad Hariri was incapable of organising the Sunni community or defending it,
let alone building the institutions of state,” according to Mohamed Baydoun, a
former Amal minister who is now with the government. There are fears that
Sunnis, especially those in the north and in Tripoli, will turn to Salafist
groups, or even to al-Qaida, which has been extending its reach in Lebanon in
the past two years. It was after all, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida’s second in
command, who recently proclaimed that Lebanon would be pivotal in the struggle
against “the Crusaders and the Jews.”
The Christians stayed on the sidelines of the recent fighting. Alain Aoun, an
adviser to General Aoun, believes their reaction to the recent events has been
ambivalent: “On one hand, they were worried about the use of force, but on the
other they were pleased about the alliance between the FPM and Hezbollah, which
guaranteed peace in the Christian districts of Beirut and in the mountains.”
Five days of suspense
For five days the country remained in suspense while the Doha negotiations went
on. All the political leaders took part with the exception of Hezbollah’s Hassan
Nasrallah, who has rarely been seen since the assassination of his
organisation’s military leader, Imad Mughniyah, in Damascus on 11 February. On
the road to the airport demonstrators brandished placards saying “Reach an
agreement or don’t come back” or simply “Don’t come back.” Their message to
their political leaders as they departed for Doha was a sign of their discontent
with the political class. All of them espouse the principles of democracy and
champion the authority of the state, but these are more honoured in the breach
than the observance.
Ask which parties’ leaders have not embezzled public funds and the answer is
unanimous: “Hezbollah and the FPM.” Stealing from state coffers has become
standard since the signing of the Taif accords in 1989, when the civil war ended
and Hariri became head of state. “There aren’t two camps in Lebanon, a
democratic one and an autocratic one,” a writer told me with regret. “The
building of a state based on the rule of law isn’t the aim of any political
party. We’re the prisoners of the strategies of different regional and
international powers. We can dream of staying out of it, of going it alone, but
reality regularly brings us back down to earth. And often with a nasty bump.”
Hezbollah’s risky gamble has turned into a defeat for Saad Hariri’s US-backed
government. But the momentous week in May is not the last reverberation that
will be felt in this country, for so long the trial arena for all the conflicts
in the region.
**Alain Gresh is editor of Le Monde diplomatique and a specialist on the Middle
East.
© 2008 Le Monde diplomatique
Beirut's new face
By: Lucy Fielder
Al-Ahram Weekly
After months of deadlock and bouts of violence, the Lebanese have rare cause for
celebration this week, Lucy Fielder report
The tents came down and the posters went up. A new face has been added to
Beirut's pantheon of poster-children, that of Michel Suleiman, who stepped into
the six months vacant presidency this week.
"Dignity of the Nation" proclaimed a towering billboard near downtown's newly
tent-free Martyr's Square, showing a suitably distinguished-looking Suleiman
wearing a jacket and tie in place of his army commander's fatigues.
Drivers negotiated the square uncertainly, causing more than the usual chaos,
having apparently forgotten how to drive around downtown after an 18-month
hiatus, now cleared of the opposition's tents, removed last Wednesday following
the Doha deal to end Lebanon's crisis.
Foreign dignitaries and Lebanese MPs walked up a red carpet into parliament,
greeted by the parliamentary guard's salute, a rare display of pomp and ceremony
for a country whose institutions were paralysed, presidency vacant and
parliament closed until Sunday. "We have paid a high price for our national
unity, so let us preserve it together, hand in hand, for God is with those who
are united," Suleiman said in his inaugural speech, after he was voted in by 118
out of 127 votes. Parliament amended the constitution to allow the acting civil
servant to take the presidency.
Flag-waving masses thronged the streets to the sound of a marching band in the
northern coastal town of Amchit, Suleiman's birthplace. Well-wishers stopped
cars near the town with plates piled with sticky, sweet baklawa and cries of "
mabrouk !" A flag flew at full mast outside Baabda Palace the next day for the
first time in half a year, as Suleiman headed straight to his new office. He had
cancelled the traditional meet-and-greet to send a message to the Lebanese, who
found themselves on the brink of civil war just two weeks ago, that it was time
for action.
"After all these divisions, we've got a president for all Lebanese," said Rima
Mokarbel, a 22-year-old student at a raucous street party downtown on Monday
night, complete with a performance from pop star Haifa Wahbi. "Now hopefully we
can get on with living our lives."
But a taxi driver from the mainly Christian area of Ashrafiya, who preferred not
to be named, disagreed. "Lahoud, Suleiman, it's the same thing," he said,
referring to Suleiman's predecessor Emile Lahoud, another former general who
stepped down in November and was derided by his opponents as a Syrian stooge.
Reflecting a near universal sentiment, however, he said: "But at least we have a
president."
Waad Mohamed, an accountant in the southern suburb of Chayyah, welcomed the fact
that Suleiman "stood by the resistance", both in the July 2006 war with Israel
and during fighting in Beirut a few weeks ago, when the army secured positions
vacated by opposition forces. "But they still have to agree on the cabinet, so I
daren't hope it's all over yet."
Suleiman's perceived support for Hizbullah during that fighting drew criticism
from the group's opponents, leading them to question the army's vaunted
neutrality. His good ties with Syria during its three decades of domination in
Lebanon, necessary for him to manoeuvre as army commander, are another black
mark to some.
But the opposition had recently complained that he was getting closer to the
ruling team. So it remains to be seen whether he will lean towards either side
during his presidency, during which he will preside over a national dialogue,
with Hizbullah's weapons at the top of the agenda.
A national unity government with the Hizbullah-led opposition guaranteed its
"blocking third" of cabinet seats is to be appointed shortly, agreed under the
Qatar deal. With national unity in short supply in Lebanon, particularly over
the three years since Rafik Al-Hariri's killing pitched the country headlong
into crisis, many expect haggling to start there. Suleiman will appoint three
ministers under the Doha deal.
The removal of the tents, announced in Doha immediately after the deal by
Parliament Speaker and key opposition leader Nabih Berri, added to the sense of
a fresh start in Beirut. Lebanese from both trenches -- the Western-backed 14
March ruling team and the soon-to-be-former opposition -- wandered over to
watch, taking photos like tourists. "I closed my shop the moment they put the
tents up, and I'm opening it the moment they come down," said Joe Masinjian,
owner of a sports shop on the road between Riad Al-Solh and Martyrs Squares,
which the camp occupied, as an army of cleaners moved into his empty store.
The camp was often portrayed as a "Shia takeover" of a Sunni heartland, or a
"coup" against the Serail on the hill housing Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora's
offices, backed by statements to that effect from Washington. But even many
opposition supporters came to see it as a symbol of deadlock and stagnation.
Between 65 and 80 people were killed in clashes in Beirut and the Mountain two
weeks ago, during which Hizbullah and its allies briefly took over Beirut. "I
thank God it's been resolved, but why didn't the politicians sit round the table
to start with?" asked cellphone shop manager Said Nimr. "Did we have to bury so
many dead?"
With a discipline that even staunch critics agree is a trademark, Hizbullah had
removed most traces of the camp by the next morning, along with smaller allied
parties including Shia Amal and Michel Aoun's Christian Free Patriotic Movement.
Then what appeared to be the group's elite gardening corps moved in, kneeling in
Hizbullah-yellow peaked caps, trowels in hand, planting the squares' flowerbeds
with begonias in an offensive to win over ruffled citizens. "We're fixing the
railings and planting the borders and beds," said Hassan Ghosn, who was
overseeing the work. "It will be like it was before, only more beautiful."
Despite the heady mood, some columnists warned this week that the curse of
sectarianism would not be lifted by electing a president or brokering a
compromise. "A guard goes and another replaces him and the people gather around
him to cheer and praise him, before moving to gather around their own leaders to
cheer them," wrote Ibrahim Al-Amin, chairman of the board of directors at the
pro-opposition daily Al-Akhbar. "This is Lebanon: the king is dead, long live
the king."
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved