LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 25/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 28,8-15. Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce this to his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them on their way and greeted them. They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me." While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened. They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.'  And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy (him) and keep you out of trouble." The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated among the Jews to the present (day).

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Lebanon and the Damascus Summit.By: Abdullah Iskandar.Dar Al-Hayat 24/03/08
Unconditional Talks with Iran Could Lead to War.By: Amir Taheri-Asharq Alawsat. 24/03/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 24/08
Berri to Invite Lebanese Leaders for Dialogue If Arab Summit Fails to Find Solution-Naharnet
March 14, Opposition Planning for Arab Summit Aftermath-Naharnet
Amal: No Place for 'Illegitimates' in 'Legitimate' Parliament-Naharnet
MP, WAel Abou Faour: Arabs Should Not Be Lenient with Obstructionist Syria-Naharnet
Muslim baptized by pope says life now in danger-AP
Lebanon's house speaker hints at another parliamentary postponement-Monsters and Critics.com
Archbishop Haddad: The enemy succeeded in dividing Lebanon-Ya Libnan
Israel will not give up the Golan Heights-Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Barzani slams Syria's killing 3 Kurds-PRESS TV
At Lebanon Grave, Hezbollah Chief Hailed as Martyr-Reuters
Cheney Vows to Push Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process-Reuters

Abou Faour: Arabs Should Not Be Lenient with Obstructionist Syria
Naharnet/MP Wael Abou Faour from Druze leader Walid Jumblat's bloc in parliament has said Arabs should not be lenient with Syria's obstructionist policies in Lebanon. Syria should declare to Arab leaders that it will stop assassinations and the hindrance of a parliamentary session to elect a new president for Lebanon, Abou Faour said Sunday at a seminar organized in the Shouf mountains on the occasion of the 31st assassination anniversary of Kamal Jumblat.
"If they (Arabs) overlook the obstructionist Syrian regime's (policies) in Lebanon, they will loose this country…that's why what is wanted today is a decisive and historic stance" from Arabs, Abou Faour said. "We and the Syrian people are the victims of the same regime," the MP said, adding "the day will come when the battle of the Lebanese and Syrian people will unify against this regime." Beirut, 24 Mar 08, 11:28

Berri to Invite Lebanese Leaders for Dialogue If Arab Summit Fails to Find Solution
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri has said he would invite rival Lebanese leaders for talks next month if the Arab summit in Damascus failed to find a solution to Lebanon's ongoing political crisis. Berri also indicated he would postpone for the 17th time a parliament session scheduled for Tuesday to elect a new president.
"Until this moment, there is nothing new that stops the postponement of the session," Berri told New TV in a live interview Sunday. The Speaker said he would consult Arab and foreign leaders on his next steps if there was no breakthrough at the March 29-30 summit. Berri told New TV that he would call on bickering politicians who participated in the 2006 roundtable national dialogue to meet again if there was no progress at the Arab summit. "I will call (for a) dialogue to consult over the national unity government and the election law" in April, Berri said. He said his new initiative does not contradict with the Arab League initiative which calls for the election of Army Chief Gen. Michel Suleiman president, the formation of a national unity cabinet and the adoption of a new electoral law. He said the parliamentary elections law was the main sticking point between the majority and the Hizbullah-led opposition. The speaker also accused the majority March 14 forces of causing the presidential vacuum, saying they back out from agreements. "They have greed," he said, adding that all Lebanese leaders are "extremists" but "not traitors."Lebanon has been without a president since Emile Lahoud stepped down in November. On accusations that he is keeping the legislature's door closed, Berri said: "How come it is said that parliament is closed when every time we schedule (new) sessions?" to elect a head of state. His comment came in responses to charges made by the March 14 coalition that Berri was rejecting efforts to convene parliament. He also said Premier Fouad Saniora should represent Lebanon at the Arab summit although his government is "unconstitutional." "I know that Saniora won't go. But if there was specific and intense Arab presence (in Damascus), Lebanon will go," Berri said. The cabinet is scheduled to meet on Tuesday to decide whether Lebanon should attend or boycott the summit. Beirut, 24 Mar 08, 04:37

March 14, Opposition Planning for Arab Summit Aftermath
Naharnet/The majority March 14 coalition and the Hizbullah-led opposition are planning for the next stage as the upcoming summit in Damascus is not expected to find a solution to Lebanon's political crisis, the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat reported Monday. The majority would be steadfast in its efforts to rebuild the state and its institutions while the opposition would insist that unless it gets veto power in the future cabinet there would be no solution to the current crisis, al-Hayat said.
The newspaper quoted Arab and European sources as expressing fear that the security situation could deteriorate in the aftermath of the March 29-30 summit.
However, al-Hayat said that the March 14 coalition is wagering on its ability "to confront any security pressure that it might be subjected to" although it does not have the capacity to stop the situation from spiraling out of control. It also quoted majority sources as saying the opposition will not resort to violence for fears that the confrontation would lead to total chaos. Beirut, 24 Mar 08, 06:11

Cheney Discussed Lebanon, Syria, Iran in Jerusalem
Naharnet/U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney met on Sunday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, the latest stop on his Easter weekend bid to revive Middle East peace efforts. Cheney went straight into talks with the moderate Palestinian leader after arriving in Ramallah following a string of meetings with senior Israeli officials during which he also discussed the Jewish state's arch foe Iran. "We're obviously dedicated to doing all we can as an administration to try to move the peace process forward and also obviously actively involved in dealing with the threats we see emerging in the region," Cheney said earlier.
"Not only threats to Israel but threats to the United States as well," he said in an apparent reference to Iran that, along with Syria and Lebanon were also high on the agenda of the vice president's talks in Jerusalem. Upon arriving in Israel late on Saturday, Cheney promised an "unshakeable" defense of Israel's security while assuring Palestinians of U.S. "goodwill" as he renewed Washington's efforts to secure a peace deal before President George W. Bush's term ends in January 2009.
"We want to see a resolution to the conflict, an end to the terrorism that has caused so much grief to Israelis, and a new beginning for the Palestinian people," he said as he met Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In his meetings with Abbas and prime minister Salam Fayyad, Cheney is to reaffirm Bush's commitment to fostering the creation of an independent Palestinian state living peacefully side by side with Israel and focus especially on bolstering Palestinian institutions, aides said. Beirut, 23 Mar 08, 14:19

Amal: No Place for 'Illegitimates' in 'Legitimate' Parliament
Naharnet/MP Ali Bazzi, who is a member of Speaker Nabih Berri's bloc in parliament, has said the legislature's doors will remain shut to illegitimate entities.
Those who are "illegitimate will not enter the legitimate parliament," Bazzi said Sunday. "Parliament's doors will remain shut in the face of the illegitimate government," he said, adding that "this stance will remain firm even if all the countries in the world conspire" against it. The Amal movement MP said the only solution to end Lebanon's crisis is the full implementation of the three-point Arab initiative. The initiative calls for the election of Army Chief Gen. Michel Suleiman president, the formation of a national unity cabinet in which no one party has veto power and the adoption of a new electoral law. "The majority has accepted the first two points," he said, adding that the March 14 forces are "afraid" from the third point.Bazzi said that Berri is planning to launch a new initiative if the Arab summit fails to solve Lebanon's crisis out of concern for Lebanon's stability. Beirut, 24 Mar 08, 07:06

Amal: No Place for 'Illegitimates' in 'Legitimate' Parliament
Naharnet/MP Ali Bazzi, who is a member of Speaker Nabih Berri's bloc in parliament, has said the legislature's doors will remain shut to illegitimate entities.
Those who are "illegitimate will not enter the legitimate parliament," Bazzi said Sunday. "Parliament's doors will remain shut in the face of the illegitimate government," he said, adding that "this stance will remain firm even if all the countries in the world conspire" against it. The Amal movement MP said the only solution to end Lebanon's crisis is the full implementation of the three-point Arab initiative. The initiative calls for the election of Army Chief Gen. Michel Suleiman president, the formation of a national unity cabinet in which no one party has veto power and the adoption of a new electoral law. "The majority has accepted the first two points," he said, adding that the March 14 forces are "afraid" from the third point. Bazzi said that Berri is planning to launch a new initiative if the Arab summit fails to solve Lebanon's crisis out of concern for Lebanon's stability. Beirut, 24 Mar 08, 07:06

Lebanon and the Damascus Summit
Abdullah Iskandar
Al-Hayat - 23/03/08//
The presence of representatives from Lebanon at the upcoming Arab summit in Damascus in light of the current crisis is not merely a reflection of an internal conflict and presidential elections crisis. Nor is it attributed to Syrian-Lebanese differences over relations between the two countries. The fact of the matter is that it is an extensive accumulation of the resistance towards dealing with "Lebanon the State", whether from the Lebanese side - currently represented by the Opposition - or by "Syria the State", which is attempting to correct the "historical mistake" of announcing "Greater Lebanon" at the beginning of the past century.
The well-known story about the formation of the modern Lebanese State during the French Mandate in Lebanon and Syria can almost be found in all forms of the political debate related to the current crisis - governance , the election of a president, the internal political trends, and the external relations of Lebanon. The insistence of the current majority on refusing to "return to tutorship" and that of the Opposition on "strategic relations with Syria" are nothing but an expression of this problem, despite the fact that the Taef Accord was not able to put an end to the civil war except on the basis of "common paths". This was translated into a confrontation with Israel that was subsequently limited to Lebanon while right to arms was exclusively allocated to Hezbollah on the one hand. On the other hand, this also translated into the control of power and institutions in Lebanon, including the ability to interfere and modify decisions made by the Lebanese State.
In Syria's political understanding, the "common paths" eliminated the previous refusal of the Sykes Picot agreement, since it guaranteed its right to interfere in the decisions of the Lebanese State. And this is exactly what it did during its direct military presence in Lebanon. After its withdrawal, this right was transferred to its allies, whose power and roles were magnified through the "common paths". In other words, Syria gave up a "historical right" in the four cazas according to the widespread story about the formation of the modern Lebanese State, against the rights given to it by the "common paths".
In this context, it was possible to understand the Lebanese government's crisis, then the parliamentary crisis, and finally the presidential elections crisis. These three crises would not have emerged had the Lebanese constitution mechanisms been respected. However, when Syrian allies did not activate such mechanisms, it appears that the recognition of the Lebanese State is linked to this State's compliance with "common paths" and "privileged relations".
The mere use of "Syrian allies" and the strategic relation with them demonstrate that the Lebanese State still has a long way to go in order to attain normal relations with Syria. Until it does so, and complies with the necessary requirements, Damascus declares that it will not accept to have diplomatic relations with Beirut.
It is no secret that Damascus is negotiating with intermediaries to solve the Lebanese crises in the name of its allies. The conditions set in these negotiations give its allies (i.e. Syria itself) the right to prevent any Lebanese decision taken by the current majority government (veto power in the Cabinet). These allies will not approve the election of a president as long as this right is not guaranteed. In other words, Damascus will not welcome a Lebanese president at the first Arab Summit it is hosting unless he commits to guarantee this right, even if it is in conflict with the Lebanese constitution mechanisms.
The other aspect of this reality is the complete disregard since its founding of past policies and resolutions of the United Nations, whose primary function is to maintain the sovereignty of its member states - even those states whose political borders were set up by former colonial powers. As a result, UN policies and resolutions become meaningless when invoked in Lebanese-Syrian relations, where even the justification of this disregard is countering US and Western intervention. It does not hide an evasion from the present issue, which is recognizing Lebanon as a sovereign independent state autonomous over its international borders.
Regardless of the Lebanese government's decision to be represented in the Arab summit, the fact is that the mere prolongation of the presidential crisis for more than 4 months prior to the scheduled Arab summit, is a statement to Arab leaders that the institution of the Arab league does not have any authority or legitimacy to protect a member and a founding state
 

Israel will not give up the Golan Heights as long as Syria is aligned with Iran, Shimon Peres said.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency"Israel will never agree to return the Golan Heights, only to get, in return, Iranian-Syrian control over Lebanon," the Israeli president was quoted as telling visiting U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday. "Syria is an Iranian satellite, and there is no way of getting peace talks going while Syria is transferring weapons to Lebanon." Since the 2006 Second Lebanon War, both Israel and Syria have tentatively spoken about resuming peace negotiations. But Israel has balked at the Syrian precondition that the Golan be returned in full, and wants assurances that Damascus will first sever ties with Iran and Palestinian terrorist groups

Unconditional Talks with Iran Could Lead to War
21/03/2008
By: Amir Taheri-
Asharq Alawsat Newspaper
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=12162
Talk to almost anybody in Washington about foreign policy these days and you are likely to hear that Iran is the number one "international problem" for the United States. Pundits and politicians are unanimous that dealing with the Islamic Republic will be one of the key issues of the presidential election campaign.
The question is: what to do about Iran?
It is clear that the leadership in Tehran, boosted by last week's parliamentary elections, is in no mood to offer concessions.
The choice facing policymakers is between standing up to the Islamic Republic, even if that would mean military conflict, and acknowledging its right to pursue whatever policies it desires even if that meant threatening the vital interests of the Western democracies and their regional allies.
To avoid that choice, Senator Barack Obama, the front-runner as the Democrat Party's presidential nominee, has announced that, if elected, he would invite the Islamic Republic's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "unconditional talks."
This means that Obama would reverse the Bush administration's policy on Iran and ignore three unanimously approved United Nations Security Council resolutions that call on the Islamic Republic to suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for talks.
However, Obama is no longer alone in his call for "unconditional talks" with Ahmadinejad.
Last week, Henry Kissinger, a foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain, the Republicans' presumptive nominee for president, also called for unconditional talks with Tehran.
A few days after Kissinger's change of position, it was announced that Admiral William J Fallon, Commander of the US forces in the Middle East, had resigned because he disagreed with the administration's policy of keeping the military option open against the Islamic Republic.
Fallon is reported to have opposed plans for intercepting Iranian ships suspected of carrying dual-use products. Instead, the admiral urged his political bosses to think of talking to Tehran.
Then it was the turn of Dennis Ross, a former US peace-broker in the Middle East, to call for unconditional talks with Tehran.
Ross proposed that the talks be coupled with increased sanctions against Tehran with the help of the European Union, Russia and China. To achieve that, he proposed concession to Russia including scrapping US plans to install anti-missile units in Poland and the Czech Republic. (EU and China would also receive unspecified concessions from the US in exchange for harsher sanctions on Iran.)
All this talk of talking to Tehran may well sound eminently reasonable.
However, even if we ignore Ross's weird suggestion to make Tehran angrier by imposing harsher sanctions while inviting it to negotiate a deal, the "talk to Iran" idea is problematic for other reasons.
The first problem is to decide what the talks are going to be about.
The Islamic Republic has never said it was not prepared to talk.
It has been engaged in a dialogue with the EU since 1980 and maintains a cordial conversation with many other countries, among them Russia and China. It has also held secret talks with the US, in 1979, 1985-86, and, more recently, 1999-2000, in addition to public sessions over Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 20007.
The only thing that the Islamic Republic is not prepared to talk about is stopping its uranium enrichment programme as demanded by the Security Council.
To avoid that hurdle some advocates of the "talk to Iran" policy suggest that the uranium enrichment issue not be mentioned. Instead, as Kissinger has put it, the US and its allies should ask Iran to scrap the military aspect of its nuclear programme, thus permanently abandon its right to develop atomic weapons.
The problem is that the Islamic Republic has never admitted it had a programme to build the bomb.
What Kissinger demands is that the Tehran leaders first admit that they ad been lying all the time and had had plans to build the bomb but are now prepared not to do so.
Can Kissinger seriously expect the Iranian "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi to make such an admission?
Even if Tehran leaders were prepared to admit they had been lying, and that they would scrap a programme that they had claimed did not exist, they might still find it hard to offer the undertaking that Kissinger and others demand.
Why should Iran become the only country in the world to abandon the right to develop nuclear weapons?
After all, it is not illegal to acquire the technology to make nuclear weapons or even to manufacture and deploy them.
Some countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and most recently Libya, have voluntarily abandoned that right and scrapped their military nuclear programmes. Nevertheless, even they have not foresworn their right forever and could decide to revive their nuclear programmes any time they wished.
In other words, the "talk to Iran" chorus suggests that Tehran be asked to do something that no self-respecting government would contemplate.
The method that the "talk to Iran" chorus suggests could have disastrous results for all concerned.
It could persuade Tehran that it had already won and that it could ignore the three Security Council resolutions without risk. After all, unconditional talks means that the major powers have dropped their demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before engaging it in substantial negotiations about future relations.
Also, Tehran may offer concessions on a range of issues, for example sacrificing Hezballah and Hamas and even Syria, in exchange for a tacit acceptance of its nuclear ambitions by the US and its allies. That would put the Western negotiators in a quandary: granting Tehran a big and irreversible prize in exchange for smaller and reversible concessions. Tehran could activate or de-activate its Syrian, Hezbollah and Hamas pawns any time it wished as it has done with Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. However, once Tehran has the bomb no one would be able to put the genie back into the bottle.
The only way the Islamic Republic might abandon its nuclear ambitions is under duress when it realises that the cost of making a bomb, if that is indeed the aim, is much too high in terms of economic suffering, diplomatic isolation and/or military defeat.
Seen from Tehran, the idea of "unconditional talks" looks like a form of surrender by Western powers.
It could strengthen the most radical elements within the regime who could then dismiss their critics as cowards or traitors.
There is another, perhaps more important problem, with the "unconditional talk" policy. It could be tried only once.
If it fails to persuade Tehran to offer the only concession that matters, that is to say stop making raw material for a bomb, the only choice left for the US and its allies would be surrender or the use of force.
In one of those ironies of history, advocates of "unconditional talks" with Tehran may make war more not less likely.

A Redistribution of Power Essential in Lebanon
Graeme Bannerman
Common Ground News Service
March 23, 2008
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3099.cfm
Empowerment of the Shia community would allow a wider diversity of views and over time would diminish the influence of Hezbollah.
American objectives in Lebanon are clear, reasonable, and honorable. The United States wants an independent, democratic Lebanon free from foreign interference, particularly from Syria and Iran. It also wants a prosperous Lebanon at peace with its neighbors, including Israel.
The question is why have these goals been so difficult to attain? There is no single answer, but what is clear is that the United States does not understand the long-term political changes taking place in Lebanon and how they interfere with American objectives. Most important among these changes is the increasing influence of the Lebanese Shia community, which necessitates a redistribution of power within the Lebanese government. Until such redistribution takes place, the dominance of Hezbollah within the Lebanese Shia community is likely to continue.
The diversity of the Lebanese population has been unique in the Arab world since the time of the nation's founding. The large Christian population made Lebanon the only Arab state in which the preponderance of power rested with Christians, though Muslims still had sufficient levers of power to prevent the government from going against their interests.
By the mid-1970's, demographic shifts and changing regional politics created a rift between the actual division of power, and the original political compact no longer represented the interests of all. After 15 years of civil war, the 1989 Taif Agreement created equality between Muslims and Christians, marking a redistribution of power that was painful to the dominant Christian community, but essential for peace
Since Taif, a new rift has been created. The crucial imbalance of power this time, however, is not between Muslim and Christian, but between Sunni and Shia. The Sunnis have always dominated Muslim politics, just as the Christians dominated national politics before Taif. Over time, the demographic and political balance has shifted in favor of the Shia, but no corresponding shift in the distribution of power within the government has occurred. If peace and normalcy are to return to Lebanon, Shia interests must be protected.
Each community—Christian, Sunni, and Shia—must be assured that the government cannot make decisions against its vital interests. Currently, Christians and Sunnis have the power to block any government action, but the Shia have no such protection. Christians control the presidency and command the army while the Sunnis appoint the prime minister and command the internal security forces. Both groups have a blocking vote in parliament and the cabinet. In contrast, the Shia have no controlling position in the Lebanese executive branch and must rely on the speaker of the parliament and militia to protect their interests.
The current crisis began in late 2006 when all Shia cabinet members resigned their posts, thus terminating the ruling consensus. They thought this would force the government to reconstitute itself and address their concerns. However, the decision was made to continue governing without them, which highlighted the Shia inability to protect their own interests within the executive branch. With limited government powers, many Shia turned to their primary source of strength outside the government—Hezbollah—for leadership and protection.
The strength of Hezbollah is likely to continue as long as the Shia feel this lack of political power. A lasting solution to the current crisis is not likely until the Shia are afforded the same protection from government mistreatment that the Christians and Sunnis enjoy. In the short term, affording them a blocking third—11 of 30 members—in the cabinet would appear to be the only way to achieve this.
Many argue that the Shia community should not be given veto power over government policies out of fear of increasing the influence of Hezbollah. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true. Empowerment of the Shia community would allow a wider diversity of views and over time would diminish the influence of Hezbollah.
If the American goal of a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous Lebanon and a diminished role for Hezbollah is to be achieved, then as a prerequisite, the Lebanese Shia community needs a guarantee that the government of Lebanon cannot act without Shia concurrence. A failure to provide equal protection to the Shia is likely to lead to greater instability and the strengthening of Hezbollah.
**Graeme Bannerman is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. He runs his own international consulting firm and is a former staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service.