LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 20/08

Bible Reading of the day.
إHoly Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 9,14-29.  When they came to the disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and scribes arguing with them. Immediately on seeing him, the whole crowd was utterly amazed. They ran up to him and greeted him. He asked them, "What are you arguing about with them?" Someone from the crowd answered him, "Teacher, I have brought to you my son possessed by a mute spirit. Wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive it out, but they were unable to do so." He said to them in reply, "O faithless generation, how long will I be with you? How long will I endure you? Bring him to me." They brought the boy to him. And when he saw him, the spirit immediately threw the boy into convulsions. As he fell to the ground, he began to roll around and foam at the mouth. Then he questioned his father, "How long has this been happening to him?" He replied, "Since childhood. It has often thrown him into fire and into water to kill him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." Jesus said to him, " 'If you can!' Everything is possible to one who has faith." Then the boy's father cried out, "I do believe, help my unbelief!"
Jesus, on seeing a crowd rapidly gathering, rebuked the unclean spirit and said to it, "Mute and deaf spirit, I command you: come out of him and never enter him again!" Shouting and throwing the boy into convulsions, it came out. He became like a corpse, which caused many to say, "He is dead!" But Jesus took him by the hand, raised him, and he stood up. When he entered the house, his disciples asked him in private, "Why could we not drive it out?" He said to them, "This kind can only come out through prayer."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Hezbollah: The Savagery- By: Diana Mukkaled-Asharq Al Awsat 19/05/08
No going back--By: Lucy Fielder-Al-Ahram Weekly 19/05/08
The Making of Hezbollah-By Manal Lutfi-Tehran, Asharq Al-Awsa 19/05/08
Iran Conquered Lebanon, Now What?By: By: Gerald Flurry-theTrumpet.com 19/05/08
Israel’s Missed Boat in Lebanon. DEBKAfile Exclusive Report.19/05/08
Enabling Hezbollah. By: Ralph Peters. New York Post 19/05/08
Why Doha when Beirut has a Parliament? By Chibli Mallat 19/05/08
Time for Lebanon's politicians to take a real stand - for Lebanon-The Daily Star 19/05/08
Sunni backlash follows Hezbollah's strike in Lebanon-By: Nicholas Blanford-Christian Science Monitor 19/05/08
The Doha Feast-By: Ghassan Charbel 19/05/08
Israel’s Missed Boat in Lebanon. DEBKAfile Exclusive Report 19/05/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 19/08
Bush Attacks Hizbullah, 'Spoilers' Like Iran, Syria-Naharnet
Pro-, Anti-Government Lebanese Leaders Negotiate Qatari Proposal to End Crisis-Naharnet
Aoun Threatens to Return to Beirut-Naharnet
Qatar Proposes Unity Government, Postponement of Electoral Law Until after Presidential Elections-Naharnet
Human Rights Watch: Lebanon Should Investigate Atrocities-Naharnet
Bin Laden Lashes Out at Arab Leaders, Nasrallah Over Palestine-Naharnet
Geagea Proposed Arab Peacekeeping Force to Protect Beirut-Naharnet
Lebanese Hope for Doha Remedy-Naharnet
Moussa to Visit Syria After Doha Talks-Naharnet
Murr Praises Troops for Not Sliding into Civil Strife-Naharnet
Geagea: Doha Talks Cloudy, Nothing Works-Naharnet
Gemayel: Hizbullah Weapons are the Problem-Naharnet
Hajj Hassan Accuses Majority of Misguiding Lebanese And Arabs-Naharnet
Qatari mediator pushes proposals at Lebanon talks-Reuters
Lebanon talks in Qatar progress, major hurdles remain-Swissinfo
Lebanon crisis eases, but menace remains-International Herald Tribune
2nd day of top Lebanese talks in Qatar-The Associated Press
Lebanese Villagers Take Aim at Hezbollah Amid Talks on Standoff-Bloomberg
Bush Attacks Hizbullah, 'Spoilers' Like Iran, Syria-Naharnet
Report: Hezbollah refuses to discuss weapons in Doha talks-People's Daily Online
Lebanese Christian opposition leader threats to pull out of Doha talks-Xinhua
Why Doha when Beirut has a Parliament? By Chibli Mallat 19/05/08
Lebanese Leaders Remain Divided After 3 Days of Talks in Doha-Bloomberg
Domestic worker kills child, self in Kesrouan-Daily Star
Qatari emir steps up as talks make halting progress-Daily Star
Assailants vandalize home of journalist in Bekaa-Daily Star
UNIFIL officer dies in road accident in South-Daily Star
Israel holds war games just south of border-Daily Star
Mottaki says Qatar talks require complete solution-Daily Star
327 put signatures to joint statement blaming Hizbullah for country's strife-Daily Star
Doha agrees to propose solution on arms issue-Daily Star
Murr, Suleiman defend stance of army during clashes-Daily Star
Irish host gathering to ban cluster bombs-AFP
Lebanese hope talks in Qatar can end long-running crisis-AFP
The totalitarianism behind populist anti-sectarianism-Daily Star
HRW urges Lebanon to probe rights abuses during clashesDaily Star
Resumption of dialogue breathes life back into BSE-Daily Star
MEA boss shrugs off losses inflicted by recent closure-Daily Star
Media outlets have become targets, not just weapons-AFP
Parents discuss effects of clashes on Sidon's students-Daily Star
Chouf returns to normal despite new scars from clashes-Daily Star

Enabling Hezbollah
By Ralph Peters
New York Post | Friday, May 16, 2008
AS Hezbollah's terror army dismantles Lebanon, the world whistles "Ain't That a Shame."
With its heavily funded proxies marching through an Arab democracy's ruins, Iran has arrived on the Mediterranean, outflanking Israel.
Syria's surrogates punish Beirut. Lebanon's crippled government cringes at the whims of Hassan Nasrullah, Hezbollah's strongman. Terror rules.
And not one civilized country lifts a finger.
This doesn't mean that war will be avoided at the "negligible" cost of Lebanese lives and freedom. It just means that the inevitable showdown with Hezbollah will be a bloodier mess when it finally comes.
When will we face reality? Hezbollah can't be appeased. Hezbollah can't be integrated into a democratic government and domesticated. And Hezbollah, whose cadres believe that death is a promotion, can't be deterred by wagging fingers and flyovers.
Hezbollah, our mortal enemy, must be destroyed. But we - Israel, the United States, Europe - lack the will. And will is one thing Hezbollah and its backers in Iran and Syria don't lack: They'll kill anyone and destroy anything to win.
We won't. We still think we can talk our way out of a hit job. Not only are we reluctant to kill those bent on killing us - we don't even want to offend them.
Hezbollah's shocking defeat of Israel in 2006 (when will Western leaders learn that you can't measure out war in teaspoons?) highlighted the key military question of our time: How can humane, law-abiding states defeat merciless postnational organizations that obey only the "laws" of bloodthirsty gods?
The answer, as Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us, is that you have to gut the organization and kill the hardcore cadres. (Exactly how many al Qaeda members have we converted to secular humanism?).
Entranced by the military vogue of the season, we don't even get our terminology right. Defeating Hezbollah has nothing to do with counterinsurgency warfare - the situation's gone far beyond that. We're facing a new form of "non-state state" built around a fanatical killing machine that rejects all of our constraints.
No one is going to win Hezbollah's hearts and minds. Its fighters and their families have already shifted into full-speed fanaticism, and there's no reverse gear. Hezbollah has to be destroyed.
But we're not going to do it. And Israel's not going to do it. We both lack the vision, the guts, the strength of will. Hezbollah has all three. In spades.
As for Europe stepping in, it's got just enough UN peacekeepers in Lebanon to serve as hostages, but not enough to set up a convincing roadblock. (All the United Nations has done has been to direct traffic for Hezbollah arms smugglers.)
And Europeans won't fight to protect Jews. Even now, Europeans, high and low, wish they could find an excuse to pile on against Israel. The continent's shamelessly anti-Israeli media is doing all it can to give its audiences that excuse - witness the pro-Hezbollah propaganda reported as ground truth in 2006 - but Europe's still a bit too embarrassed by its recent past to actively aid in Israel's destruction.
Meanwhile, Israel's bumbling Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his government remain focused on the chaos in Gaza generated by Hamas - another Iranian tool - while trying to ignore the existential threat metastasizing on its northern border. The "world community" wrings its hands about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but does nothing - as Iran methodically sets the stage to launch volleys of medium-range missiles into Israel when the hour of reckoning comes.
The extremists running Iran today would destroy Israel. No matter the cost. And Hezbollah's happy to help.
Until that day comes, Tehran and Damascus are convinced that no one will stand up for Lebanon. They're savvier strategically than we are.
Before Israel squandered its credibility in the 2006 war, it briefly looked as though its Sunni Arab neighbors might rouse themselves to action to help thwart Tehran's ambitions. Those hopes have dissolved. Meanwhile, Jordan's rulers seem blithely unaware that they're next: Once Lebanon is under Hezbollah's thumb, Iran and Syria's next step will be to destabilize Jordan, surrounding Israel with active enemies.
Is there a good solution? No. Is there any solution? Yes. Backed by US air and naval power, Israel must strike remorselessly, destroying Hezbollah without compromise and ignoring the global save-the-terrorists outcry.
It's not going to happen. We lack the strength of will to do this right.
Israel or even the United States may feel compelled to intervene at some point. But we'll do too little too late and stop too soon.
Hezbollah would sacrifice women and children by the thousands to win. We rely on that fatal narcotic, diplomacy, as Lebanon shatters and our enemies pick up the pieces.
We're not Hezbollah's enemies. We're its enablers.

Qatari emir steps up as talks make halting progress
Arms issue not on agenda - or is it?
By Hussein Abdallah
Daily Star staff
Monday, May 19, 2008
BEIRUT: Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani weighed in on the third day of talks his country his hosting among opposition and pro-government leaders from Lebanon, meeting separately and jointly with members of both camps to try to bridge differences, mainly on the issue of drafting a new electoral law for the 2009 parliamentary elections. Well-informed sources in Doha told The Daily Star on Sunday that Sheikh Hamad has intervened and held talks with the rival leaders in a bid to address every hurdle in the talks. The sources said that Qatari officials are satisfied with the rival leaders' positive attitude toward the process. As The Daily Star went to press, there were indications that an interim declaration might be issued.
The sources added that the two days of talks have thus far focused on an electoral law, adding that the shape of the new government has yet to be discussed in detail. Despite reports that talks may yet stumble over a demand from the ruling coalition for clear guarantees that Hizbullah would not turn its guns on them again and that the fate of its arms would be debated in Lebanon soon, the sources said that the issue of Hizbullah's arms has not been put on the negotiations table in Doha yet. Arab mediators clinched a deal on Thursday to end Lebanon's worst internal fighting since the 1975-1990 civil war, in which fighters from Hizbullah and its allies, the Amal Movement and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, routed pro-government gunmen and briefly seized parts of Beirut.
The fate of Hizbullah's weapons is not on the agenda, but delegates said Arab mediators were consulting on the issue with regional powerbrokers including Iran, which supports the opposition, and Saudi Arabia, which a leading supporter of the ruling coalition.
"This issue is not under discussion and is not up for discussion on the table of dialogue in Doha," Hizbullah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan said. "They are trying to raise this issue for their own private calculations which are mistaken anyway." Hizbullah's chief negotiator, Mohammed Raad, on Sunday accused the government of trying to "blackmail" the opposition by raising the subject of Hizbullah's weapons.
Youth and Sports Minister Ahmad Fatfat said that there would be no agreement unless the arms issue is addressed. "The agreement we reached in Beirut includes discussing this issue and the last clause of the six-point agreement says that all the points are equally binding," he said. But Amal Movement MP Ali Hassan Khalil denied that the six-point agreement reached in Beirut had any mention of Hizbullah's possession of arms. "The agreement speaks about enhancing the authority of the Lebanese state, and specifies that this issue is not on the agenda of talks and is to be dealt with later on after electing a new president," Khalil said.
Notwithstanding the sensitive issue of Hizbullah's weapons, the talks appeared to make headway on Sunday.
A six-member committee created on Saturday to lay the framework for a new election law has made progress and was now working out the details of how to divide Beirut. Tashnak Party MP Hagop Pakradounian told LBC television that there were major dif-ferences on how to divide Beirut, particularly regarding the Christian constituency. Reports from Doha said that the ruling majority has proposed dividing Beirut into three constituencies - two Sunni-dominated and one Christian - with the Christian constituency getting to elect only four of Beirut's 10 Christian MPs.
The capital's Christian seats are currently distributed as follows; four seats for Armenians, two for minority Christians, two for Greek Orthodox Christians, one for Catholics, and one for Maronites. Such a proposal was strongly opposed by the opposition amid reports that the Armenian Tashnak Party, allied with the opposition, protested leaving the four Armenian seats out of the Christian constituency. Pakradounian also indicated that some parties from the parliamentary majority were also against the proposal. But former President Amin Gemayel sounded more optimistic when speaking on the electoral law.
"I think we have resolved 90 percent of the hurdles facing the new election law ... We have some obstacles left regarding some electoral constituencies," Gemayel said. "Hopefully, by evening we will have published a joint vision. We have to reach a solution in the end," he added.
Earlier on Sunday, Hajj Hassan accused the parliamentary majority of doing the math before proposing its formula of a new electoral law. "They want to know the results of the elections in advance," he told LBC. Meanwhile, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al-Thani had yet to win final approval on the shape of a new government but had made several proposals, including one to split seats three ways equally among rivals, delegates said.
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told Radio Free Lebanon on Sunday that he expected "today to be a decisive day" at the Qatar talks that seek to end the 18-month political stalemate and facilitate the election of a president after a six-month vacuum. Moussa also said that he would visit Damascus after the Doha conference concludes its discussions of the crisis. The Hizbullah-led opposition wants more say in a cabinet controlled by the anti-Syrian March 14 Forces.
The ruling coalition's refusal to yield to the demand for an effective veto power in the cabinet triggered the resignation of six ministers - including all five Shiites - in November 2006, crippling a political system built around a delicate sectarian balance. Election laws have always been a sensitive subject in Lebanon, a patchwork of religious sects where redrawing constituencies can have a dramatic impact on voting results. A deal would lead to the election of commander of Lebanese Armed Forces General Michel Suleiman as president.  Both sides have accepted his nomination for a post reserved for a Maronite Christian in Lebanon's sectarian power-sharing system. - With agencies

Bush reiterates call for other countries to side against Hizbullah
SHARM EL-SHEIKH: US President George W. Bush called on Sunday on Lebanon's neighbours and other nations in the Middle East to oppose Hizbullah.
"We must stand with the people of Lebanon in their struggle to build a sovereign and independent democracy. This means opposing Hizbullah terrorists, funded by Iran, who recently revealed their true intentions by taking up arms against the Lebanese people," Bush told a forum in Egypt.
He was speaking as rival Lebanese leaders were meeting in Qatar in a bid to resolve a protracted political crisis that recently threatened to escalate into all-out civil war. At least 65 people were killed in six days of street battles between pro- and anti-government forces that saw opposition gunmen led by Hizbullah briefly seize control of large swathes of western Beirut. "Hizbullah militias are the enemy of a free Lebanon and all nations, especially neighbors in the region, have an interest in helping the Lebanese people prevail," Bush added. - AFP

Why Doha when Beirut has a Parliament?
By Chibli Mallat
Monday, May 19, 2008
Nothing less than a titanic clash between two logics is at play today in Lebanon and in the larger Middle East. When the Cedar Revolution rose against the order imposed by Syria in 2005, after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, its main characteristic was non-violence. A unique event was at hand, an example to the world that had no precedent since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Unfortunately, the Cedar Revolution failed to translate its immense street success into political leadership. When Hizbullah provoked a catastrophic war against Israel in July 2006, the counterrevolution was on the march, with violence as its guide. The diplomatic incompetence of the Israeli and American governments, which prolonged the war for a month, did not help. As a frail cease-fire was established in August of that year, the effective coup attempt that Hizbullah initiated by starting the war, against the overwhelming wishes of most Lebanese, was turned fully inward.
Contrary to what Hizbullah claimed, it was always in the realm of possibility that it would use force against its fellow Lebanese. In December 2006 the party and its allies occupied the center of Beirut, at various times bringing in arms to their tent city, ruining the livelihood of many hundreds of people. They remain there to this day. In January 2007, Hizbullah and its allies tried to strengthen their hold on Lebanon by blocking roads throughout the country. On January 23, the Lebanese were again prevented from reaching their workplace and schools. Near the An-Nahar building in Downtown Beirut, I saw how Hizbullah militants stopped and vandalized the car of an employee of the newspaper who wanted to get through to her place of work. That day also, they closed the airport by force and cut eastern Beirut off from western Beirut, before frenzied negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran compelled the Iranian leadership to pull Hizbullah back.
The logic of force continued. Hizbullah remained entrenched in the heart of Beirut, continued to receive weapons and money from Syria and Iran, and refused to re-enter the government. Contrary to their claims of being marginalized, Hizbullah ministers and their allies had been included in the government since 2005. But they wanted their agenda to dominate. They rejected all calls to lay down their arms and submit to Lebanese law, and have fought the Lebanese-international tribunal tasked to try suspects in the Hariri assassination. Hizbullah and its allies, notably Michel Aoun and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, have also allowed their partisans to engage in violence, culminating in the events of last week.
Is it possible to respond to violence with non-violence? The heirs of the Cedar Revolution have tried, but that hasn't prevented violence by the March 14 camp in the past week. The majority can adhere to the logic of non-violence, but this needs teeth to endure, and the teeth must be constitutional. Hizbullah's domination of Beirut by force was unsustainable, and the reaction of its foes by closing the Masnaa road or by attacking opposition groups in Tripoli showed that both sides can close the doors on the other. Nor was Hizbullah able to push the government out, and a takeover of the Serail would have only complicated its efforts.
Now, with the parties meeting in Qatar, we must not allow the dialogue to equate the aggressor and the victim, or allow the state to surrender the basic principle of its monopoly over the use of force. We may not be able to force Hizbullah to disarm, but there can be no place in the government for a group that wields its weapons against fellow citizens. The government must also insist that Parliament is the only constitutional place for the dialogue between the Lebanese factions. Doha and other locations are unconstitutional as alternatives to parliamentary sessions.
The shutdown of Parliament, thanks to Berri's efforts, is not irreversible. But reopening the institution requires courage and clarity of mind from the March 14 parliamentarians. They must meet, under international protection if necessary - and this is where the role of world democracies is essential - because that is what parliaments do in any democratic country: They provide a forum for institutional dialogue. There is no need for surrender, whether that surrender takes place in Doha or Beirut.
**Chibli Mallat has campaigned for the Lebanese presidency, and is the author of "2221: Lebanon's Cedar Revolution, An Essay on Non-Violence and Justice." He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

327 put signatures to joint statement blaming Hizbullah for country's strife
Daily Star staff
Monday, May 19, 2008
BEIRUT: A group of 327 intellectual, political and media figures as well as social activists released an appeal on Sunday calling for "Peaceful Civil Resistance" to defend "the Lebanese nation and entity." "What is happening can now be clearly defined as a gruesome attempt to a coup d'etat not only targeting the nation's existence but also the Lebanese entity," the appeal said. "Hizbullah has declared a confessional war to accomplish the party's project of seizing full authority and join Lebanon to the Gaza-Damascus-Tehran axis by destroying the Lebanese society," it added.
According to the signatories, the capacity of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to protect the country and its citizens from militias backed by the Syrian intelligence and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards "have been paralyzed." "The LAF has also been forced to accept Hizbullah's conditions, at the expense of the Lebanese people, to protect the national institution's unity," the appeal said. It added that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, designated to ensure the execution of UN Security Council resolution 1701, was "turned into Hizbullah's hostages." "In order to protect its peacekeepers, the international community pressured the government into accepting Hizbullah's conditions," the appeal said. "And after Arab countries failed to dispatch forces to protect the civilians and help the legitimate forces in imposing their authority; "And after the Arab League worked on finding solutions to the crisis based on conditions imposed by Hizbullah which can be summed up in granting the party the right to preserve its state within a state and have a share in the Lebanese centralized state; "And in light of the fact that the international community has overlooked that an armed group, labeled as a terrorist organization, besieged the Lebanese legitimate authority's headquarters as well as homes of leaders, lawmakers and other political figures, and attacked and shut down media outlets;
The signatories declared the following:
"First: The Lebanese people demonstrated on March 14, 2005 and were able, without any foreign help, to end the Syrian occupation, an occupation, at one point, endorsed by the whole world, even Israel. Today, Lebanese people are able to protect their right to lead a free and respectable life, to build a country that represents them and to give the world, once again, the example of a country that refused to give up its rights to force.
"Second: The independent forces which agreed on participating in the dialogue, as an ultimate attempt to save civil peace, should give the priority to discussing the crucial issue of Hizbullah's arms. Allowing Hizbullah to keep their weapons means the end of the state Lebanon.
"Other items on the dialogue's agenda, such as the presidential election, the shape of the next government and the drafting of an electoral law all depend on the main hindrance, which is Hizbullah's weapons. A president is a president if the weapons are under the custody of the nation he presides. A government is a government if it has the power to execute its decisions. Parliamentary elections are free and impartial when everyone is treated equally and no party has the power to terrorize other parties with weapons and force them to resort to 'special security' measures to find some kind of balance.
"Third: The use of Hizbullah's weapons, in several Lebanese regions and especially in Beirut, led to a conflict between Muslim factions which created a deep wound in the people's souls and the fear of seeing the fight resume at any moment if Hizbullah remains an armed group. These wounds can't be healed and the fear of seeing the fighting resumed won't be erased until Hizbullah is stripped from its weapons." - The Daily Star

Doha agrees to propose solution on arms issue
'Heated discussions' over Hizbullah's weapons
Monday, May 19, 2008
BEIRUT: Lebanon's bickering politicians asked Qatar on Saturday to come up with a proposal on the thorny issue of Hizbullah's weapons during Arab-brokered talks aimed at ending a feud that recently drove the country to the brink of a new civil war. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al-Thani "offered to come up with a proposal on the Hizbullah weaponry issue and present it to the two parties," a pro-government delegate told AFP.
"The two sides have agreed to that," he added following the first session of Arab-mediated talks by 14 leaders, representing Lebanon's ruling coalition and opposition. Host Qatar made the offer after leaders of the ruling coalition initially insisted without success on including the arms question on the agenda, said the delegate, requesting anonymity. Another delegate from the group later said it has succeeded in including on the agenda a "demand for guarantees against resorting again to arms." He told AFP that the bloc "insists on debating the issue of arms in two stages."
The first stage should include "guarantees not to use arms [against other Lebanese parties] for whatever reason," while the "future of Hizbullah's arms to be dealt with in the second stage, after electing a president."
The state-run official National News Agency said the talks became tense when parliament majority leader Saad Hariri and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea both brought up the issue of Hizbullah's weapons. The private LBC Television said the feuding sides engaged in "heated discussions" over the subject and that the US-backed government leaders stressed that the fighting, which erupted in Beirut and other areas last week, must not be allowed to recur.
Geagea had warned Hizbullah that Doha talks would fail if the opposition group sticks to keeping its weapons.
"We can no longer accept Hizbullah as it is," he told the Qatari Al-Jazeera TV. Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh told The Associated Press that he expected "three critical days" before any sort of compromise is reached, but that the Doha talks would include "Hizbullah's use of its weapons to achieve internal political aims." Meanwhile, the delegates agreed to form a joint committee to address the issue of a new electoral law for parliamentary polls due next year, the first delegate said. In addition to the electoral law, the leaders are expected to discuss a proposed unity government.
Both sides have already agreed on electing the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, General Michel Suleiman, as president. Parliament has failed to convene on 19 occasions to elect a successor, exacerbating a crisis that began in late 2006 when six opposition ministers quit the cabinet of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. On June 10, it is due for the 20th time to meet to elect a president. Among those attending the meeting are Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri and a key government ally, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt.
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is not attending, reportedly because of security concerns, and is represented by Hizbullah MP Mohammed Raad. Also attending on behalf of the opposition are Speaker Nabih Berri and Christian leader Michel Aoun. Hopes of a Lebanon deal rose on Wednesday after Siniora's government canceled measures against Hizbullah that had triggered the unrest. It rescinded plans to probe a private Hizbullah telecommunications network and reassign the head of airport security over allegations he was close to the group. Still, Siniora struck an upbeat note, saying Saturday's session showed "all parties are eager to reach an understanding that will lead to the beginning of a solution to this crisis," the private Voice of Lebanon Radio reported.
"There is a real will on all sides; everyone lost with what happened. The winner is the biggest loser, because it opened up the important issue of the use of weapons," said Michel Pharaon, a minister in the Siniora cabinet. "It is imperative that there be discussions on the sovereignty of the state." There has been no deadline set for the talks but some politicians said a deal could be reached within a few days. "The issue is not simple," Youth and Sports Minister Ahmad Fatfat said, but "everyone will work day and night to reach a solution." Meanwhile, Speaking in Egypt, where he is on the final leg of a Middle East tour, US President George W. Bush reiterated his support for Siniora. "We are concerned about radical elements undermining the democracy," he said. "It is clear that Hizbullah, which has been funded by Iran, can no longer justify its position as a defender against Israel when it turns on its own people. "This is a defining moment; it's a moment that requires us to stand strongly with the Siniora government and to support the Siniora government." - Agencies

Murr, Suleiman defend stance of army during clashes
By Anthony Elghossain -Daily Star staff
Monday, May 19, 2008
BEIRUT: Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Elias Murr affirmed his confidence in the performance of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in a Sunday address to soldiers, and defended the Lebanese military against charges of inaction during the recent violence between feuding political factions.
"You have only recently avoided the trap of involvement in street clashes between your [people], protecting yourselves, your institution and the unity of our nation," said Murr, addressing charges against the LAF. "You were not distanced, nor did you resort to the gun to keep the peace."
Having held his positions in government since 2005, Murr recalled the "various tests and challenges faced by the armed forces" during his ongoing three year tenure, painting the army's performance as admirable given the delicate balance it has had to tread.
"On March 8, 2005, you protected the opposition masses ... On March 14, 2005, you protected the Cedar Revolution."
"During the [summer 2006 war] you protected and supported the resistance in face of Israeli aggression ... You have since enforced [UN Security Council] Resolution 1701 alongside [UN Interim Force in Lebanon] troops," Murr
In reference to the Nahr al-Bared battle pitting the LAF against Islamists based in the Palestinian refugee camp, Murr said the Lebanese Army "had its triumphant moment in order to achieve victory for Lebanon."He concluded: "While this may be my last address to you [as minister], it will not be my last stance with you, from any position I occupy. Politicians, governments and ministers come and go, but the army remains, so that Lebanon may remain."
LAF commander General Michel Suleiman, in a tour of Lebanese troop positions in South Lebanon, stressed his belief that "involving the army in internal clashes only serves the interests of Israel."Suleiman, endorsed as a compromise candidate for the presidency by pro-government and opposition factions, also said the restraint exercised by the LAF during the recent fighting was not a sign of distance, but of caution. "The sacrifices the army has made must be accompanied by the abandonment of provocative and seditious political rhetoric, which has featured prominently during the past three years," added Suleiman.
The LAF commander then asked soldiers "to be prepared to make more sacrifices in the near future, as the Lebanese people, having nowhere else to turn, have placed their hope in the LAF." Initially an outgrowth of Lebanese contingents fighting under French command in the Orient, the LAF was formally established as a national army and placed under domestic command in 1945, as the French Mandate in Lebanon came to an end on the ground.
The LAF has traditionally occupied the role of internal mediator rather than external fighting force. This has been encouraged by a pluralistic, but at times, fragmented political and social configuration that has strained the LAF's structural integrity during times of national duress. As the 1975-1990 Civil War developed, the LAF repeatedly split along confessional lines, but has since been rebuilt and retrained. Recent security scares and the eruption of violence between armed pro-government and opposition factions - and the rumored resignation requests of some 40 officers, which the LAF denies - briefly renewed fears of a split within the army, but several top government and army officials have stressed the unity of the force

Lebanese hope talks in Qatar can end long-running crisis
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Monday, May 19, 2008
Paul Kattan-Agence France Press
BEIRUT: The violence-weary Lebanese are hoping that their leaders will return home from Arab-brokered talks in Qatar armed with a solution to heal a feud that has plunged the country into deadly chaos. "I feel that this time, despite all the difficulties, they will reach an agreement, especially after all the bloodshed of recent days," businessman Abdullah Abu Tahan told AFP. Rival Lebanese leaders are meeting in Qatar in a bid to resolve a protracted political crisis which turned violent this month when pro- and anti-government forces fought fierce battles that killed 65 people. The talks between the opposition and the ruling majority are focused on electing a president, forming a unity government and a new electoral law. "The leaders saw with their own eyes the bloodletting and they will not return from Qatar without a solution," said Abu Tahan at his shop in Beirut's Hamra shopping district.
The opposition briefly took control of much of western Beirut after routing pro-government fighters at the height of the clashes before turning the area over to the army. The fighting, which also spread to other areas of Lebanon, erupted after the government ordered a probe into Hizbullah's private telecommunications network - a move seen by the group as a declaration of war. Last week the government revoked the decision and agreed with its partners in the ruling majority to join the opposition for the Arab League-brokered talks. But Abu Tahan, echoing the feeling of many of his compatriots, complained that "the Lebanese are unable of finding their own solutions" and must seek outside help. Saudi Arabia hosted a national dialogue in 1989 that led to the Taif Accord which ended 15 years of civil war.
Mohammad Ballout said he expects the country's political leaders to heed the blunt message a group of disabled people held up for them to see as they left for Qatar on Friday. "If you don't agree, don't come back," said the signs.
Ballout expects the feuding politicians to help restore calm in Lebanon, even a "precarious" one. "Some factions have no interest in seeing an agreement reached," he said, and named Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and Christian leader Samir Geagea, coalition partners and former warlords during the civil conflict.
Jumblatt and Geagea "want to destroy the country because they are used to waging war. But Arab determination [to reach a solution] will overcome their bad intentions," he added. Abu Tahan said he was sure that the Arab League "has concocted a remedy" for Lebanon, but conceded that relief might be short-lived.
Beirut resident Nizar Malluh said he was 85 percent optimistic that a solution will be found. "The situation has changed. A solution is on track and no one can stop the train from moving." Malluh believes an agreement will undermine the majority but he is convinced that the rival factions have "finally realised that power-sharing is the only alternative."But some Lebanese, Abdel-Qader Kabbani among them, are not at all confident."How can I be optimistic? After clouds there is rain. So where are the positive signs?" he asked

The totalitarianism behind populist anti-sectarianism
By Talal Nizameddine
Monday, May 19, 2008
First person By Talal Nizameddine
It has been in vogue for years and now, as Lebanon again fragments in an almost macabre cyclical ritual, a crescendo of voices is telling us that the root cause of the tragedy in the country is its sectarian system. Indeed, where else in the world would a society have the gall to allocate positions in government and the state on the basis of one's religion, confession or sect? By any standard this is discrimination of the first order and isolates a large proportion of people by constitutionally banning them from ever reaching certain offices.
In Lebanon, opponents of the Lebanese system have been historically sly about their desire to change it for fear that their calls would be interpreted as being anti-Christian - allocated the most senior political and administrative roles since 1943 - and more recently the innuendo has been carefully utilized to side-step emerging Sunni-Shiite hostilities aggravated by the situation in Iraq. Thus the anti-sectarian self-appointed intellectuals and their supporters have belonged to classic secular parties such as the communists and leftists and the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party and Baathists, which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s.
Today, the anti-sectarian movement has a populist facade, which in Lebanon has been represented since 2000 by an anti-Rafik Hariri coalition. Until last year, former President Emile Lahoud was cast as the spearhead in the confrontation with the Zaims under the guise of building a strong anti-sectarian state. The hallowed common people in the street repeat the apparently benign and good-natured sermon about us all being citizens before anything else, that we are all brothers and sisters in this nation, and that it is shameful to talk about people being Sunni, Shiite, Druze, Christian and so on. Indeed, the Lebanese media goes to great lengths to avoid these terms, choosing instead euphemisms about areas knowing that the Lebanese know for themselves the confessional make-up of each village and each town.
Meanwhile, among the anti-March 14 alliance, the leaders of the Cedar Revolution are depicted through their media as the propagators of sectarianism par excellence. Walid Jumblatt is portrayed as the Druze warlord, ruling his fiefdom with an iron fist, while Samir Geagea is none other than the murderous right-wing Christian extremist who seems to have committed murders before he was even born. Meanwhile Saad Hariri, like his murdered father, is the face of Sunni-Wahhabi Saudi Arabia corrupting his community with the oil wealth found in the Gulf.
After Lahoud, Michel Aoun and Hizbullah's Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah adopted this mantle utilizing the concept of the modern state and democratic ideals that the will of those numerically the largest and who command real power on the ground should govern. Despite the bitter irony of Hizbullah's centrality in this drive considering its ideological and confessional foundations, Lebanon's media has generally succeeded in permeating this undertone since 2005, so that the violent events that began on May 7 were camouflaged as a popular uprising. Moreover, if in realpolitik terms might is right, then in Lebanon the last few days have shown without doubt whose side right is on.
The second major public opinion triumph achieved by the pro-opposition media and their allies in the academic world is that the Lebanese are a hopeless people who never learn from their past. Always fighting and bickering among themselves, the sectarian undertone is ever-present. This is an important message because, other than minimizing the ambitions of Syria and Iran in this conflict, it further degrades the existing confessional system and strengthens the view that Lebanon should be ruled by a powerful majority and tacitly under the tutelage of a regional power.
But Lebanon is a very complex place where things are not always as they seem. These common sense arguments against the current system are in fact meaningless if placed under scrutiny. Primarily, it assumes that sectarian sentiments and divisions would disappear upon the imposition of a secular, centralized and majority-based system. There is a tendency to ignore the whole idea behind the decentralized and disparate confessional system, currently defined by the Taif Agreement, in order to protect the minorities of Lebanon from a dominant majority. Initially, the danger came from a Sunni pan-Arab sea and today it is from what appears to be a powerful Shiite storm inspired by the Khomeini Revolution in Iran.
The Lebanese are not a pitiful and rancorous people prone to bloodshed every once in a while but Lebanon is a small country with limited financial resources and is rather a victim to scheming neighbors, conspiring with great powers, pitting its people against each other. Is it a wonder, for example, that the Arabs found nowhere in the vast expanse of the Arab world to place hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, who also happened to be armed in the 1960s? Could the Lebanese have stood up to the might of Israel and its habitual shelling of the country over the course of the last few decades? How should the Lebanese have reacted to the US green light to Syrian hegemony during the 1990s? Let us remember for example that President Bill Clinton refused to even discuss Lebanon other than in the context of furthering Syrian-Israeli peace.
These days, there is clearly a new international agenda being imposed on Lebanon. The aim is to shatter once and for all the diverse, multi-colored message of communal cohabitation that the late Pope John Paul II talked about. It was a bad omen that a major media organization, Future TV and newspaper, was forcefully and violently silenced. This is the country that has been at the heart of the region's free media for over one hundred years. A long line of brave journalists from Kamel Mroue to Samir Kassir and Gebran Tueni have been forced to stop writing by the most primitive means of cold-blooded murder. But their organizations and their free message continued after them in defiance, at least until now.
The events in the past few days highlighted, rather interestingly, the sustained impact of years of Syrian tutelage on the television media in Lebanon. Al-Manar, OTV, NBN and Al-Jadid were brazenly pro-Hizbullah and its allies. With Future TV silenced and Christian LBC deliberately neutralizing itself in order not to antagonize Aoun supporters and their powerful Hizbullah allies, Lebanese television news became devoid of diversity. Perhaps for some in Lebanon this indicates a welcome shift away from what skeptics viewed as competing cantons to something more homogeneous. For many others Lebanon, for all its quirks, was until May 2008 a liberal ship sailing with its proud multi-colored passengers through the rocky seas of the Middle East. The sirens call of totalitarian power may have finally charmed the Lebanese vessel to oblivion.
**Talal Nizameddine wrote this article for The Daily Star.

HRW urges Lebanon to probe rights abuses during clashes
Both government, opposition cited for violations
By Anthony Elghossain
Daily Star staff
Monday, May 19, 2008
BEIRUT: Ongoing political talks being held by Lebanese leaders in Qatar need to address violations of humanitarian law that occurred during recent clashes between pro-government and opposition gunmen, according to a Sunday press release by Human Rights Watch (HRW).
In the statement, HRW said it documented several human rights abuses committed by both opposition and pro-government fighters, and urged the political leadership in Lebanon to "support impartial judicial investigations and not try to shield their supporters."
In addition to reports of maltreatment of captured fighters, a preliminary probe conducted by the human rights group indicated that at least 12 of those killed during the clashes had nothing to do with the fighting. "Armed gunmen have acted as if they are above the law in Lebanon for far too long," said HRW deputy Middle East director Joe Stork. "The Lebanese government should bring to justice all those who killed civilians, or who executed fighters in their custody."
Opposition fighter violations included the use of rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) in "densely populated areas of Beirut," including two reported instances where gunmen, using automatic weapons and RPGs, shot at civilians attempting to flee the conflict in Ras al-Nabaa.
Hizbullah detained four men suspected of being Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) members in Choueifat, although the men said they were treated well by their captors. However, a fighter detained by the opposition during clashes in Beirut told HRW that he was "beaten with the butt of a Kalashnikov [rifle]."
Supporters of the pro-government Future Movement and PSP "also resorted to violence against civilians and offices associated with opposition groups." Hizbullah has reported that two of its fighters were detained and then executed by PSP gunmen, and an HRW photo examination has found some evidence of maltreatment.
Other abuses committed by pro-government factions have come to light in gruesome videos that have appeared online, showing pro-government supporters brutalizing members of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) during clashes in the northern town of Halba in retaliation for SSNP involvement against the Future Movement. HRW has linked the judicial prosecution of such offenses to increasing the possibility of stability in Lebanon. Stork stressed that "unless the state acts quickly to hold the perpetrators accountable there are likely to be further reprisals ... Accountability is an essential building block for any future national unity."
The 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war is a legal framework that binds signatory states, including Lebanon, to a standard of conduct during periods of declared war and, as Article III states, "in the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties." This clause obliges Lebanon to investigate and prosecute violations of the convention in last week's clashes.
Lebanon is also constitutionally bound to do so, as Article B of the Preamble of the Lebanese Constitution, which stresses that Lebanon is a "founding and active member of the UN organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," adding "the government shall embody these principles in all fields and areas without exception

UNIFIL officer dies in road accident in South
By Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff
Monday, May 19, 2008
MARJAYOUN: A Malaysian officer serving as part of the Malaysian contingent of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon died in a road accident during a patrol in the southern town of Marjayoun late on Friday. The deceased officer was the only Christian member of the Malaysian battalion, which counts 360 personnel, the rest of whom are Muslims.

Media outlets have become targets, not just weapons
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Monday, May 19, 2008
Rima Abushakra
Agence France Presse
BEIRUT: Lebanese news media have found themselves engrossed in the latest political and sectarian violence to hit Lebanon, as they are used as weapons both sides. Most newspapers, television and radio stations are affiliated with or owned by political parties, a phenomenon that many blame for biased reporting and an absence of independent coverage despite a wide diversity of opinion. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, who headed an Arab delegation to try to broker an end to the fighting that left 65 dead, told the media it had a responsibility to "calm tempers rather than escalate" matters.
And Naseer al-Asaad, editor of the pro-government Al-Mustaqbal newspaper, which was shut down by opposition gunmen during the fighting, said "the media is part of the political conflict in the country. "Professional objectivity" has become rare, he said. Al-Mustaqbal, Future Television and Radio Orient are all owned by MP Saad Hariri, a Sunni and leader of the parliamentary ruling majority. The opposition came under heavy criticism for attacking the media outlets, with even some pro-opposition newspapers condemned the move. "We must speak out to protest and condemn the unjustified and unacceptable attacks on some of the media and cultural institutions in Beirut," the editor in chief of As-Safir newspaper, Talal Salman, wrote in an editorial.
Employees of the stations gathered on the steps of Future News in protest in the days that followed. Sahar Khatib, a news talk show host on Future, made a moving appeal on another news show. "You cannot silence a God-given voice ... Who represents our voice now?" she said, calling on people to take a stand.
Future television went back on the air at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday from studios it had in unaffected areas of the city. "We are back and the word is our weapon," said the news anchor. The media war, however, was not totally onesided as armed battles spread throughout the country. In the predominantly Sunni northern port city of Tripoli, cable companies stopped broadcasting Hizbullah's Al-Manar station. Shaza, 50, called her cable company demanding to receive it.
"I want to see what they are saying, whether or not I like them," she told the company. "He told me he would rather I take my money elsewhere than unblock the station," she said.
An employee from the Cable al-Madina company in North Lebanon said, "We didn't make the decision. They did when they shut down Future. We switched Al-Manar back on when Future came back on the air." Another North Lebanese cable company employee said, "We went with the pulse of the street. Tensions were very high and we thought that keeping Al-Manar on would stir up trouble." The tense media environment and the violence have put journalists at risk.
Wadih Sling, 35, who works with Al-Balad newspaper, was beaten up on the job. "I was standing on the side snapping shots and they ran after me and beat me up, without even asking what paper I am with," he said. "My job is to get the voices of people across through photographs. When people are doing something they are not proud of, they come at you. If they have something they want to show, they usher you in." Ayman al-Mawla, a cameraman with Al-Jazeera took bullets to the arm and shoulder when his car came under heavy gunfire in western Beirut. "We arrived to where we had heard gunshots and 10 to 15 gunmen opened fire on us," Mawla told AFP, adding that he was not sure the attackers knew he was media."We don't feel the drive or comfortable in covering this war that is pitting Lebanese against each other. We are Lebanese at the end of day," he said. Mawla felt strongly that the media has become the victim.
"If you put a press card your car, you get beaten up. If you don't, then you're the enemy. There is no protection for journalists in this country. You are vulnerable to a humiliating or deadly incident at any time

Chouf returns to normal despite new scars from clashes
By Maher Zeineddine -Daily Star correspondent
Monday, May 19, 2008
CHOUF: The heavy fighting witnessed in the Chouf region between opposition supporters and members of the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), which resulted in a large number of casualties, left palpable scars in the Chouf. The town of Choueifat, southeast of the capital neighboring Hizbullah's bastion in Beirut's southern suburbs, sums up the situation in the region. Buildings are pockmarked by bullet holes and posters of five PSP fighters and two from the opposition-allied Lebanese Democratic Party who lost their lives during the fighting were hung in the town. One of the PSP gunmen, Abu Alaa, told The Daily Star on Sunday that at least 60 Hizbullah fighters died during the clashes, while nine fighters from the Chouf were killed during the clashes. Two residents also lost their lives after Hizbullah allegedly abducted them. His claims could not be independently verified. The residence of Chouf PSP boss and Choueifat Mayor Haytham al-Jurdi was also reportedly targeted by the opposition and received mortar and rocket fire. According to Abu Alaa, "the residents miraculously survived this attack

Parents discuss effects of clashes on Sidon's students
By Mohammed Zaatari -Daily Star staff
Monday, May 19, 2008
SIDON: Parent groups from the southern coastal city of Sidon's public and private schools met with Sidon MP Bahia Hariri over the weekend to discuss the negative repercussions recent street clashes in Lebanon might have had on students. Hariri stressed the importance of education in strengthening Lebanon as well as building the "special relationship between the country and its younger citizens." She added that the Lebanese should "work hand in hand for the region and the whole country to rise."
The meeting came after public and private schools in Sidon witnessed a series of disputes among students which took on a political and sectarian nature.
Speaking about the effect of the political situation on the students, Hariri stressed the importance for teachers and parents to work on erasing bad memories of the clashes from the children's minds and to help guide young students down the path of peace and unity by showing them that Lebanese have much in common.
She added that "the young ones shouldn't pay the price of the adults' game."
As for the talks in Doha grouping the country's feuding political class, Hariri said she was confident that Lebanon's leaders would be able to find a solution to their problems and would reach a consensus over pending issues. The talks between the opposition and the ruling coalition are focused on electing a president, forming a unity government and drafting a new electoral law for the 2009 parliamentary polls. Hariri said the leaders of all political factions are now convinced that no one can dominate the country and that everyone has a place in Lebanon. She added that diversity should be considered national wealth and "we should work on showing the positive sides of this diversity." Hariri also saluted the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces for the efforts both institutions exerted "to protect the Lebanese and preserve their dignity." "Since the assassination of [former Prime Minister] Rafik Hariri, the country has gone through a very challenging period ... so let's remain faithful to our martyrs and hold on to our country, unity and diversity

Israel’s Missed Boat in Lebanon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
May 18, 2008
Sunday night, May 11, the Israeli army was poised to strike Hizballah. The Shiite militia was winding up its takeover of West Beirut and battling pro-government forces in the North. When he opened the regular cabinet meeting Sunday, May 11, prime minister Ehud Olmert had already received the go-ahead from Washington for a military strike to halt the Hizballah advance. The message said that President George W. Bush would not call off his visit to Israel to attend its 60th anniversary celebrations and would arrive as planned Wednesday, May 14 - even if the Israeli army was still fighting in Lebanon and Hizballah struck back against Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport.
American intelligence estimated that Hizballah was capable of retaliating against northern Israel at the rate of 600 missiles a day.
Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Lvini, the only ministers in the picture, decided not to intervene in Lebanon’s civil conflict. Iran’s surrogate army consequently waltzed unchecked to its second victory in two years over the United States and Israel.
DEBKAfile’s US and military sources disclose the arguments Washington marshaled to persuade Israel to go ahead: Hizballah, after its electronic trackers had learned from the Israel army’s communication and telephone networks that not a single troop or tank was on the move, took the calculated risk of transferring more than 5,000 armed men from the South to secure the capture of West Beirut.
This presented a rare moment to take Hizballah by surprise, Washington maintained. The plan outlined in Washington was for the Israeli Air force to bombard Hizballah’s positions in the South, the West and southern Beirut. This would give the pro-government Christian, Sunni and Druze forces the opening for a counter-attack. Israeli tanks would simultaneously drive into the South and head towards Beirut in two columns.
1. The western column would take the Tyre-Sidon-Damour-Beirut coastal highway.
2. The eastern column would press north through Nabatiya, Jezzine, Ain Zchalta and Alei.
Sunday night, Olmert called Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora and his allies, the Sunni majority leader Saad Hariri, head of the mainline Druze party Walid Jumblatt and Christian Phalanges chief Samir Geagea and informed them there would be no Israeli strike against Hizballah. Jerusalem would not come to their aid.
According to American sources, the pro-Western front in Beirut collapsed then and there, leaving Hizballah a free path to victory. The recriminations from Washington sharpened day by day and peaked with President Bush’s arrival in Israel.
Our sources report that, behind the protestations of undying American friendship and camaraderie shown in public by the US president, prime minister and Shimon Peres, Bush and his senior aides bitterly reprimanded Israel for its passivity in taking up the military challenge and crushing an avowed enemy in Lebanon.
While the president was busy with ceremonies and speeches, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley took Israeli officials to task. Hadley in particular bluntly blamed Israel for the downfall of the pro-Western government bloc in Beirut and its surrender to the pro-Iranian, Pro-Syrian Hizballah. If Israeli forces had struck Hizballah gunmen wile on the move, he said, Hassan Nasrallah would not have seized Beirut and brought the pro-government militias to their knees.
One US official said straight out to Olmert and Barak: For two years, you didn’t raise a finger when Hizballah took delivery of quantities of weapons, including missiles, from Iran and Syria. You did not interfere with Hizballah’s military buildup in southern Lebanon then or its capture of Beirut now.
IDF generals who were present at these conversations reported they have never seen American officials so angry or outspoken. Israel’s original blunder, they said, was its intelligence misreading of Hizballah’s first belligerent moves on May 4. At that point, Israel’s government military heads decided not to interfere, after judging those moves to be unthreatening.
The Americans similarly criticizes Israel for letting Hamas get away with its daily rocket and missile attacks on Israel civilians year after year. A blow to Hizballah would have deterred Hamas from exercising blackmail tactics for a ceasefire. In Sharm el-Sheikh Sunday, May 18, President Bush called on Middle East countries to confront Hamas and isolate terror-sponsors Iran and Syria.

Sunni backlash follows Hezbollah's strike in Lebanon
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0519/p06s02-wome.html
Sectarianism hardened in Lebanon after the Shiite militants clashed with Sunni groups. Talks in Qatar aim to resolve the crisis between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.
By Nicholas Blanford | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the May 19, 2008 edition
Reporter Nicolas Blanford discusses the role of camera-phones in reporting news in Lebanon.
MARJ AL-ALI, Lebanon - Broadcast from loudspeakers attached to the local mosque, a fiery sermon of anger and resentment against the militant Shiites of Hezbollah echoed across the rooftops and surrounding wooded hills of this small Sunni-populated village.
"They said they were resistance against Israel, but now the mask has fallen, exposing their true faces," thundered the sheikh, his oratory just one of many similarly themed Friday sermons from dozens of other mosques scattered throughout the Sunni-dominated Iqlim al-Kharroub district between Beirut and the coastal city of Sidon. "You hear that?" asked Mohammed Hajjar, a parliamentarian with the Future Movement, Lebanon's largest Sunni political party, sipping coffee in his garden a few hundred yards from the mosque.
"The people are furious about what happened and they are scared. All the time I have Future Movement people coming up to me, saying they want weapons. But our strategy is not to have weapons. We don't want a civil war."
Hezbollah's swift routing of Sunni groups during deadly street battles that started May 8 in Beirut has spawned an ominous backlash within Lebanon's Sunni community – one of anger, humiliation, and fear. While fighting lasted about a week, the result could see the influence of moderate Sunni leaders weaken as their constituents shift toward more militant groups – such as Al Qaeda and its adherents – as a perceived source of protection against powerful Hezbollah.
"What happened in Beirut could push the Sunnis to extremism," says Sheikh Maher Hammoud, a prominent Sunni cleric in Sidon and a close ally of Hezbollah since the 1980s. Hezbollah's offensive in Beirut may have been intended only as a short, sharp shock to discourage the Lebanese government from tampering with its military wing, but it has delivered a blow to the Shiite party's longstanding efforts to prevent intra-Muslim discord.
"Hezbollah knows that it will have to reach a settlement and make up with the Sunnis," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, who closely follows Hezbollah affairs.
The fighting was rooted in profound political differences between supporters of the government and the Hezbollah-led opposition, but it was overshadowed by the sectarian affiliations of the rival factions. The bulk of the opposition combatants were Shiites while the majority of those who fought on the side of the government were Sunnis and Druze. The Christians, who are split between the two camps, stayed out of the battles.
The fate of Hezbollah's weapons lies at the heart of the 18-month political crisis and was the trigger for last week's showdown. The Lebanese cabinet decision to declare Hezbollah's private telephone network illegal was regarded by the Shiite group as a direct assault against its military wing by the government and its backers in Washington. But Sunni-Shiite tensions have been building for months as Hezbollah expands its military capabilities, sometimes into non-Shiite areas. In late April, Hezbollah militants occupying a building in the Iqlim al-Kharroub village of Saadiyet beside the southern coastal highway clashed with the Sunni residents. According to Mr. Hajjar, when Lebanese troops intervened, they were denied entry into the building by a local Hezbollah official who claimed it belonged to the "resistance."
"Saadiyet is Sunni, so why was Hezbollah there?" asks Hajjar. "We now know that they have many buildings along the [southern coastal] highway because they want to control all the highway."
After Hezbollah militants and their allies surged into west Beirut, angry and humiliated Sunni residents vented their frustrations at Saad Hariri, the leader of the Future Movement. "We were betrayed by Hariri," says Omar Abed, a resident of the Sunni district of Tariq Jdeide in Beirut. "They should have given us weapons and training so that we could fight back. How can we fight Hezbollah with sticks and stones?"
In Masnaa, on the Lebanon-Syria frontier in the eastern Bekaa, a 100-strong group of pro-government Sunni gunmen from the nearby village of Majdal Anjar, including veterans of the Iraq insurgency, had seized control of the border crossing.  Ali, the leader, emphatically disassociated his group from the Future Movement. "We are the sons of Majdal Anjar," he says. One gunman says that the Sunnis of the area had no choice but to protect themselves. "The Future Movement is not helping us, so we have to help ourselves against the Shiites," he says.
In the northern city of Tripoli, Khaled Daher, a former parliamentarian, urged the formation of a national Sunni resistance force, "because those who occupied Beirut are a group in a Persian army," he says referring to the Iranian support of Hezbollah. Analysts say that Mr. Hariri faces a difficult challenge in the coming weeks to reassure his nervous followers and prevent them from abandoning moderacy for a more militant line. That is a worry for Hezbollah, too. The anti-Shiite militancy of Al Qaeda represents a threat to Hezbollah as it does to moderate Sunni leaders in Lebanon.
"The cracks that appeared in the body of the Future Movement are likely to expand fast in the coming months," wrote Ibrahim al-Amine, a Hezbollah confidante and general manager of the pro-opposition Al Akhbar newspaper. "This forces Hezbollah to contemplate the big question: With whom will it deal in the future and how?"
As the fighting flared in Beirut, jihadist websites were abuzz with speculation about a civil war in Lebanon. Fatah al-Islam, an Al Qaeda-inspired faction that fought a bloody three-month battle against the Lebanese Army last summer, vowed to come to the aid of Lebanese Sunnis against Hezbollah. "What has happened in Beirut – the invasion, the killing, the incineration, the humiliation against the Sunnis – is not acceptable," said a statement, the authenticity of which could not be verified.
Sheikh Hammoud, the Hezbollah-allied Sunni cleric in Sidon, acknowledges that there is support for Al Qaeda in Lebanon and that it could grow in the wake of the sectarian battles. He says he has sent messages inviting Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or his deputies to contact him directly.
"I want to inform them on exactly what is going on in Lebanon so they don't come here," he says. "Unfortunately, no matter what we say about this conflict, I think Al Qaeda will be tempted to come." Lebanon's top leaders traveled to Qatar Friday to negotiate a deal to end the crisis. Hopes are high that the dialogue will succeed, but few Lebanese believe that the troubles are really over. "We hope that it will be an end to our problems," says Hajjar. "But realistically, I think it's only the beginning."

The Doha Feast
Ghassan Charbel
Al-Hayat - 18/05/08//
There is no need for stunts, lies, or camouflage. There is no need to sprinkle sugar on death. The dispute is fundamental; the fears are founded; the hatred exists; the grudge is present; and the rhetoric on both sides is divergent. It is the impossibility of divorce that explains the reunion around the negotiation table after every feast; after every stunt committed by this side or that. The first provision in any effort to save Lebanon is to put an end to the hypocrisy. It is impermissible to conceal the blood spots with shy words. It is unacceptable to hide the daggers behind the hand-shakes. The communication has to be frank, clear and naked. It must be acknowledged that this country is witnessing an unprecedented crisis among its primary components. The events of the past few days were not a casual traffic accident. They were not caused by a train rolling off track as a result of a technical error. The country is collapsing. This country is either under construction or on its way to vanishing.
Those floating around the table in Doha should confess what they know. Lebanon is living the beginnings of a Sunni-Shiite dispute over its future; over domestic balances and over the regional and international position of the country. Among the Shiites, there are those who believe that the traditional Lebanese arrangement is a cage that blocks the recognition of new realities. Among the Sunnis are those who believe that the halo of the resistance is being used to reduce their share. The Christians are deeply fearful over their future; the demographic balance is against them and they are weary of the growing intolerance in the region.
The convening parties in Doha have their work cut out for them. It may even be an impossible mission. It is an attempt to explore the possibility of inventing a nation that has room for Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblat, Amin Gemayel, and Samir Geagea. Each one of them has undeniable representation; either popular representation or the representation of the extent of the demands and fears within their sectarian communities. In no way is Nabih Berri's presence to be understated, but it is not with him that the others have issue this time. In no way is General Michel Aoun's quality of representation understated, but Gemayel and Geagea are far more capable than him to express the old and new fears of their community just as Hariri and Jumblat do with respect to theirs, and even if the extent of representation by the latter is far wider, almost reaching the point of absolute leadership.
This is why Hariri, Jumblat, Gemayel and Geagea must openly and tolerantly listen to what Hezbollah's delegate Mohammed Raad has to say; to listen to his demands and fears as a representative of a major partner whose approval and the understanding of which are indispensable to build the nation. Their reliance on parliamentary majority does not give them the right to impose their voice, image or choices on the whole nation in the Lebanese order. This is their duty regardless of their feelings or the vocabulary of their dictionary.
It is Raad's duty to listen to the demands and fears of others to understand the others and be understanding of them. Hezbollah has no right, regardless of its sacrifices, to impose its color on the country without considering the desires of the other components. The majority enjoyed by March 14 does not grant it the authority to impose its state on the resistance without an historic settlement. Yet, the halo of the resistance does not authorize Hezbollah to impose its state or transform the Lebanese state into a state hanging on the ropes of a future open conflict in the region. These are Lebanese principles; they are principles regardless of the bitterness they may trigger and even if they sometimes seemed to be taking from the strong to offer the weak to save the cage outside which the Lebanese order cannot survive.
The Lebanese nation cannot be reinvented outside the logic of settlement; the logic of halfway solutions or the nearest possible point. The elements of strength cannot be ignored, but they cannot be submitted to or automatically translated into results either. It can be said that history will be watching Nabih Berrri's performance. His famous uprising in 1984 taught him the limits of uprisings and later introduced him into the club of the wise. History will also be watching Michel Aoun's performance. His acceptance of a governmental formula that cannot make decisions and run the country will devastate his image before his size.
It is fine for Lebanon to be summoned naked to the Doha table; for its veins and their congested contents to be revealed; for its bones, the fluctuations of its heart, and the suffocation of its lungs to be seen. I know that the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar and the participating ministers will see what surprises, upsets, and frustrates them, but they will have to try. Saving Lebanon is saving the entire Arab nation, and who cannot coexist in Lebanon cannot succeed outside it.
Settlement is the only possible choice. Without it, the state will be no more; the resistance will be no more; the winds of Iraqization will blow and its fires will spill over outside its borders, even if this took a time. No choice other than settlement is possible, even if it is laden with bitterness. No choice other than settlement is possible even if every guest felt it was more of a poisonous feast

Hezbollah: The Savagery
18/05/2008
By:  Diana Mukkaled-Asharq Al Awsat
I will not easily forget the images of the gunman prepared to kill on the “frontline” of Lebanese Future News television channel in Rawcheh as he opened fire on the channel’s old building. Bullets were fired from the offices and rooms in which I spent fourteen years over the span of which various incidents occurred; however it was the attack carried out against the empty building, riddled only by bullets, which destroyed everything inside.
The images of the armed men trampling over archives of videos and cassettes, setting fire to rooms without fear and full of hatred and hostility and abusing anything that they could get their hands on, is a decisive moment for any Lebanese journalist, or at least it should be.
Colleagues at Al Mustaqbal Newspaper were held under fire by Hezbollah militants, and what is still referred to as Lebanese opposition, who claimed that they were fighting armed men in the building but this has emerged to be lies. Workers complained about the authority of the armed men regarding their affairs and the angle of representation since only what they permitted would be transmitted.
The Lebanese have hesitated in expressing their objection to disorder, the onslaught and being taken from their homes at the hands of gunmen; crying women pleaded as their sons were snatched, people were forced out of their homes and areas for fear of being targeted for sectarian reasons and media employees received calls from unknown sources criticizing their media coverage because it is critical of the opposition. There have been many other forms of suffering that leave no doubt that a comprehensive plan had been set in motion by Hezbollah when it ventured, through its actions, upon seizing Beirut and the rest of Lebanon in the manner that has been adopted.
What has happened in Beirut and in Lebanon and what the media has been exposed to was no mistake or act of defiance by the lawless elements. What Hezbollah has ventured upon is the essence and formation of this party and its ideology based on individualism, purity, affiliation and the rejection, and stifling of, difference.
It seems that Hezbollah’s gloating over what happened to its opponent’s media is a strong indication of the party’s numerous writings over many years that sought to consolidate its position in the minds of its followers. These writings are based on selective information and the glorification of its leader so the central authority obscures what it considers necessary to obscure, falsifies what it deems false and promotes what it thinks should be promoted. For example, there has been the claim that it was not Hezbollah that closed down the Future television channel and it was not Hezbollah that bombarded the channel’s building and so on and so forth…
Lebanese media as a whole is not free from political bias and sectarian errors and disorder; however what Hezbollah embarked upon via its military, security and media capabilities has forced all Lebanese, and primarily the Shia, to face a real test, the outcome of which will determine the fate of the country in its entirety.
Hezbollah was not misleading regarding its agenda and methods and the response of Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was clear when he said that whoever reached for the weapons of the resistance would be cast into the sea.
Fear that the resistance will remain and Lebanon will cease to exist has become a more likely reality

No going back
Al-Ahram Weekly. -By: Lucy Fielder
19/05/08
"Lebanon in the dragon's mouth", reads the headline of pro- opposition Al-Akhbar, the morning after west Beirut fell to Hizbullah and its allies. A week after a dramatic escalation between the government and Hizbullah plunged the country into its worst violence since the civil war, the landscape had been transformed, reports Lucy Fielder.
Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora's government, forced to back down on the attempted clampdown on Hizbullah's weapons, which prompted the crisis, looked weak and besieged in its Serail on the hill, with the usual chorus of Western support ringing hollow.
Hizbullah was in indisputable control of Lebanon, having swept western Beirut with Shia ally Amal, subduing districts loyal to Sunni parliamentary majority leader Saad Al-Hariri and seizing strategic locations in Druze chieftain Walid Jumblatt's Shouf mountain stronghold.
But the Shia military and political group had also crossed a red line by turning weapons meant to resist Israel against fellow Lebanese, arguing that the government was under US-Israeli orders. Overnight, a guarantee that had governed the uneasy balance between the resistance and its domestic opponents vanished into thin air amid the stutter of machineguns and the boom of rocket-propelled grenades.
A stultifying deadlock has broken after 18 months of a power- struggle that left Lebanon without a president for five months. About 80 people lie dead, and Lebanese on both sides face an uncertain future.
A day after the cabinet issued two decisions banning Hizbullah's parallel telephone network and sacking an airport security chief who had Hizbullah's confidence, Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah called them "tantamount to a declaration of war on the resistance and its weapons". Within an hour of his press conference, clashes broke out for a second night running in flashpoint areas of Beirut that witness sporadic fighting between pro-government Sunnis and pro- opposition Shia.
But this time was different. Gun-battles engulfed the whole districts of Ras Al-Nabaa and Corniche Al-Mazraa and spread to neighbouring areas. In Ras Al-Nabaa, a stronghold of Al-Hariri's Future Movement with pockets of Shia loyal mainly to Amal, men in civilian clothes with rifles slung across their shoulders took up positions in garages of plush new flats and hiding behind cars. For six or seven hours, the air was a deafening cacophony of machinegun and Kalashinkov fire, punctuated by the thump of RPGs and the crack of sniper shots, the night lit by flaming cars.
By morning, the Future Movement's three centres in the area had fallen and gunmen, some Amal, others wearing yellow Hizbullah armbands, stood on street corners. Future's arms caches -- testimony to two years of denials that the movement was building a militia -- were turned over to the army.
Groups of men from the northern Sunni areas in Tripoli and Akkar, visible on the streets over the past few weeks to the irritation of some residents, had vanished. Shell-shocked locals stocked up at the few open grocers' shops and hurried home, crunching over broken glass with their heads down.
Friday saw sporadic fighting, with parts of the western Hariri heartlands of Hamra and Raouche flaring up. But western Beirut fell quickly and the army moved in to secure the areas taken. Amal and Hizbullah gunmen forced Future TV off air, drawing condemnation by journalists on both sides of the political divide.
Tanks blocked Beirut's legendary Hamra Street, once the haunt of the region's top intellectuals, for the first time since the civil war ended in 1990. Mainly Christian eastern quarters remained tense, but open for business. The contrast recalled that dark era, when there was not one capital, but East and West Beirut.
Amal militia-manned barricades blocking roads to central Beirut and the airport, which remained closed seven days later at the time of writing. At first, tyres burned and a pall of acrid smoke hung above the city. At the weekend, trucks brought earth and rubble reinforcements. The army, apparently coordinating with Hizbullah, set up checkpoints.
On Saturday, the army overturned the two decisions, after Al-Siniora invited its arbitration, and called on the gunmen, who by then were mainly Amal, to leave the streets. The guns immediately vanished, though the men and roadblocks remained, and armoured personnel carriers rolled in. An army communiqué promised to impose security in the tinderbox areas from the early hours of Tuesday, by force if necessary.
Stunned by the drastic change to their country, some government supporters have started to question the decision to challenge Hizbullah after a year and a half of US pressure. One Sunni Ras Al-Nabeh grocer cursed Hizbullah, but also Al-Siniora and Al-Hariri. "This situation needs a man who is strong," he said.
But anger at the Shia "invasion" of "their" city -- to borrow the sectarian logic of many inhabitants of this fragmented city -- is boiling among Sunni Beirutis. Saad Al-Hariri's position is potentially precarious, but analysts say Sunnis are likely to rally behind him as a sectarian zaaim (traditional leader), at least at first.
"Western Beirut is traditionally Sunni turf and the sense of humiliation is deep," said Timur Goksel, a security expert and former spokesman for the UNIFIL southern border force, as well as a resident of the area. "This Sunni-Shia rift, inflated by the regional rift between the two, is going to get deeper."
Druze chieftain Walid Jumblatt, a key US ally, for the first time in his nearly three-decade political-military career, appears to be struggling to fulfil his role as the protector of his mountain people who provides services and arms in exchange for loyalty. It was Jumblatt who launched the allegations of Hizbullah spying on the airport and extending its parallel telephone network beyond the south that prompted the government clampdown. Nasrallah singled him out in his speech as the main agent of the US plan in Lebanon, referring to the "government of Walid Jumblatt".
Druze supporters of Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party remain devoted to the aristocratic warlord, a feudal leader and main player during the civil war and now. The Druze constitute roughly 10 per cent of Lebanese, but they have traditionally held considerable power and still have clout beyond their numbers, partly thanks to Jumblatt's canny ability to forecast the political weather and ensure he is on the winning side.
On Sunday, in the heat of a losing battle, Jumblatt called on his rival, Druze figure Talal Arslan, to call off the local opposition and their Hizbullah allies and let the army take over. "Given the choice between radical local players such as [opposition figure] Wiam Wahhab and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Jumblatt would rather come to a deal with Arslan, who is another traditional leader with whom he has in a way shared power in the mountain," said a Druze former minister who knows the area well.
Pulling back before a rout in order to rearm and reorganise was another possible motive for his appeal, said the source who preferred not to be named. "We're in a defensive position at the moment, because we cannot go against the orders of Walid Beik," said Sami Ghannam in the Shouf village of Dmit, using a term of respect used by Jumblatt's followers. He looked at the floor, smoking a cigarette. "But we're ready to fight to defend our land. He just has to give the word and we'll go on the attack."
Fierce battles had raged in the hills nearby all night, and local men could be seen loading guns, wearing khaki shirts instead of the usual black with their traditional, sherwal trousers and white caps. But the atmosphere in Dmit appeared confident, despite the turn of events, partly in defiance but also perhaps because HIzbullah fighters were staying away from the villages.
"If they don't attack us, everyone will be fine, but if they enter here, they will be chewed up," said local mukhtar (village headman) Samir Abu Dargham, sitting in the entrance of the old stone village hall, which overlooks a vine-covered trellis and a green valley beyond bathed in sunlight.
The "Party of God" was really the party of the devil, he said, as bread and zaatar, wild thyme and sesame seeds, and a bowl of local olives were brought out from the kitchens. "Lebanon is a flower, but there's a thorn in its centre."
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

The Making of Hezbollah
18/05/2008
By Manal Lutfi
Tehran, Asharq Al-Awsat- Two fathers created the Lebanese Hezbollah Party. They were Ali Muhtashimi, the "godfather," former Iranian ambassador to Syria who came up with the idea and nurtured it in 1980s; and, Mohammad Hassan Akhtari, the 'operational father," the Iranian ambassador to Syria for the past 14 years, until last January.
Akhtari took the new idea of a "Hezbollah party" and transformed it over the years of his service as ambassador into a reality that has considerably changed the balance of power in the region.
Akhtari, twice ambassador to Syria, (1986 - 1997) and (2005 - January 2008), was the most influential diplomat in Syria. He was not an ordinary ambassador. In addition to being the "operational father" of Hezbollah, he was engineer of "the special relations" between Syria and Iran, coordinator of Iran's relations with Palestinian organizations in Damascus, and founder of the Palestinian-Iranian Friendship Society, which includes representatives from all Palestinian organizations in Damascus.
The purpose of this was "bringing the Palestinian and Iranian people closer together." He is also president of "Ahil al-Bayt World Assembly" for preaching and spreading the Shia doctrine and bringing Islamic sects closer together. Ever since he returned to Tehran (January 2008), he has been working as adviser to the Supreme Spiritual Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, a position he used to occupy before being posted again as ambassador to Damascus. During his time as ambassador, the Iranian Embassy in Damascus became the most important Iranian embassy in the world. It represented something akin to a "regional centre" for Iran's diplomatic activities that extended from Damascus to Beirut and the Palestinian territories and became privy to files on several matters, chief of which was Iran's relations with Syria, Hezbollah, the Palestinian organizations and Shia scholarly religious circles in the world known in Arabic as "Al-Hawzat al-Ilmiyah." Akhtari's most important achievement was the building of Hezbollah from a mere idea to an establishment with political, economic, military, and social independence in the region.
He supervised the building of Hezbollah, especially its military structure that was built by Iranian Revolutionary Guards specifically sent to Lebanon for this purpose by orders from the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Another no less important achievement was the building of a network of "special relationships" between Syria and Iran, without which Iran would not have been able to move as smoothly in Lebanon or with the Palestinian organizations. He succeeded in weaving all these threads together - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian organizations and formed what some have called an "Iranian carpet of complex and intertwined relations." Akhtari talks about the years of his work in Damascus and the missions he carried out in two capacities, as an ambassador and as a man of religion. Akhtari did not regard his work in Damascus and the missions with which he was entrusted from the very first day, as merely political activities, but as part of his role as a man of religion. He left his work as the imam at Samnan Mosque in northern Iran to become a diplomat with a religious mission, as he described himself in this extensive interview with Asharq-Al-Awsat in Tehran, the first of its kind with an Arab or foreign newspaper.
His diplomatic language is a mixture of religious fiqh [jurisprudence] and political language. He did not study diplomatic and political sciences; he studied fiqh at a religious school in Qom and worked as a man of religion and a mosque imam. President of the Iranian Republic Ali Khamenei chose him to be Iran's ambassador in Damascus, at a time which Akhtari was described as "sensitive and difficult." Iran was at the time involved in the "war imposed by Iraq" as he put it. Syria was one of three Arab states that stood by Iran; two of which - Libya and Algeria, withdrew their support later on, while Syria alone remained with Iran. It was then Akhtari's job to ensure that this coalition, unlike the rapprochement with Libya and Algeria would not end. Because Iran did not have an ambassador in Beirut at the time and only had a chargé d'affairs, Akhtari was put in charge of the Lebanese file. And, because the Palestinian organizations in Damascus, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, were making Damascus a base, Akhtari became responsible for Iran's relations with the Palestinian organizations.
Asharq Al-Awsat is publishing a series of articles about those decisive and fateful years of the 1980s that shaped relations in the region from that time to the present day. Hezbollah was established in those years, the special relationship between Iran and Syria was forged, as well as the relations between Tehran and the Palestinian organizations. The series includes testimonials from present and former public officials who were in the decision making circles at the time in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Some of these testimonials will be published for the first time. It also includes eye witness accounts, from present and former Syrian and US public officials and Palestinian leaders in Damascus. The first part of the series is with Mohammed Hassan Akhtari, the "godfather" of Hezbollah, and former Iranian ambassador in Damascus. He talked about the three main files that dominated his 14 years in Damascus as ambassador. They were: building Hezbollah and the role of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards; the war between the Amal Movement and the Palestinian organizations; and then between Amal and Hezbollah. He also talked about the building of relations with Palestinian organizations; the relations between Syria and Iran, and the Ahil al-Bayt World Assembly, of which he has been secretary general for the past four years which he said, performs religious activities. The underlying philosophy that guided him through all these issues, he said, was based on the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini. He revealed that between 1968 and 1972 he was instructed to perform religious activities in the Syrian cities of Homs and Aleppo, as well as Lebanon, implying that he was in contact with these countries for the past 40 years.
The following is the text of the interview:
[Asharq Al-Awsat] You returned to Iran early this year after 14 years as ambassador in Syria, could you tell us about your experiment in building Syrian-Iranian relations all those years?
[Akhtari] First of all, I thank you for coming and for this meeting. I hope that through your paper, we will always continue to consolidate fraternal relations between Muslims, and between Arab and Islamic states. I feel very strongly about these relationships. I believe in, and am convinced of the need to unify the power and resources and realize the unity of the Islamic nation, and establish the defenses against the evil conspiracies plotted against the Arab and Islamic nations. It is probably due to this feeling of responsibility and belief that I succeeded in my work as ambassador to Syria to further consolidate the strong relations between Syria and Iran. I was twice ambassador to Syria. One period lasted about 12 years; the other was seven years later and lasted over two years. It is unusual for an ambassador to remain in one country for such a length of time, not in Syria or Iran anyway. Very few ambassadors in the world spend more than ten years in one country. We have heard of some, but they very seldom stay for 14 years. Continuity and length of time are evidence that I was doing well. I was posted to Syria at politically complex and difficult times on the regional and international level. My first appointment as ambassador was in 1986 during Saddam's imposed war on Iran and after Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. There were also some important Lebanese issues. I can say the circumstances in Lebanon were particularly hot. It was under such circumstances that I was entrusted with the Lebanese file. I never worked as a government employee before my appointment as ambassador, I was new and so were most of the people in government in general.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Where were you before your appointment as ambassador to Syria?
[Akhtari] I was a Friday prayer imam, and from there I came to a seat of political responsibility and diplomatic relations. My background was a good pointer for achievement. In addition, I arrived in Damascus on 5 Ramadan 1986, and started work next day. That was a blessing for me at the start of my work. But that month also, perhaps the 19th or 20th of Ramadan of that year, confrontations between the Palestinians and Amal Movement took place in Lebanon. The Islamic revolution did not have an ambassador in Lebanon. There was only a chargé d'affairs, so, I was entrusted with the Lebanese file as well. In my early days as ambassador, I was entrusted with all these issues, partly because of the importance of the file, partly because Syria had a military and security presence in Lebanon, and partly because all Palestinian organizations and their central commands were in Damascus. I was wholeheartedly involved in these matters. We started working toward a ceasefire in order to create the environment to reconcile the two Muslim factions, the Palestinians and the Amal Movement. There was at the time an attempt to provoke sectarian sedition like the war imposed on Iran by Saddam, in order to portray the issue as a sectarian matter between Shia and Sunni. The conspiracy that we see today has been continuing ever since. There were poisonous and hateful attempts to provoke sectarian conflict. I turned all my attention to this problem because I am a believer in Islamic unity and rapprochement among Muslims in general. I strived earnestly, to prevent this issue from having adverse effects on Lebanon or anywhere else, and from being portrayed as a Sunni/Shia issue. There were Palestinians forcibly driven from their homeland and they came to Lebanon, and there were Lebanese groups who had complaints. And so the problem started. Although infighting was sparked off, our first concern was to prevent it spreading and secondly, prevent the issue from being presented as a sectarian issue between Sunni and Shia. We succeeded in this matter. There were some brothers who assembled Muslim scholars (ulema) in Lebanon at the time. They played an important role in this matter. We used to meet frequently and they used to issue statements calling for calm and explaining that the differences were factional and had no religious or sectarian roots. Thank God, we succeeded in this matter. I can state that Lebanon has refused to regard this as a sectarian matter and, from the beginning we were active in the field to extinguish the fire of sedition and confront it. At the same time, we started building the substance of relations between Iran and Syria, and between Iran and Palestine, amicably, brotherly, surely and with confidence.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] We need to stop here for some detail. What exactly were the differences between the Amal Movement and the Palestinian organizations, and what were your proposals to solve the problem?
[Akhtari] First, as I pointed out, the differences were a conspiracy. The Palestinians were made homeless and they came to Lebanon as guests, especially as far as the Amal Movement was concerned. Second, the founder of the Amal Movement, Imam Musa al-Sadr, was the first to receive the Palestinians. They were not rejecting the Palestinian presence in Lebanon and they knew about the Palestinian question. Moreover, they regarded the Palestine question as their own. So, they played hosts to the Palestinians, and generosity to the guest is one of our religious principles. Imam Musa al-Sadr was among those who welcomed the Palestinians, he always insisted on confronting Israel and supporting the Palestinians. He has a long history in this matter. Third, the two sides have relations with Syria, who was taking care of both the Amal Movement and Palestinian organizations. This provides evidence that it was not an issue of Lebanese Shia and Palestinian Sunnis. It was not like that. Fourth, the two sides had strong new relations with Iran. After the victory of the revolution and declaring the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini received the late martyr Yasser Arafat and the Islamic Republic transformed the embassy of Israel to the Embassy of Palestine. Amal too had relations with the Islamic Republic. They all had relations with the Islamic Republic. Consequently, I can state that the problem was in one backyard, not two, and that Israel was behind it. We have evidence of that. We used to meet in Damascus to follow up the issues. Sheikh Sheikh al-Islam, an assistant to the minister of foreign affairs and later on ambassador to Syria after me, came to Damascus and stayed there. Abdul Salam Jallud, the second man in the Libyan regime who resigned from official work after Lockerbie and kept away from all official activities in May 1993, also came at that time from Libya to Syria. In addition to the three of us, there were Syrian officials. We used to convene tri-partite meetings in the presence of leaders from Amal and the Palestinian organizations. We would meet at night, reach agreement, and in the morning issue a statement. Yet, even before circulating the statement or the decision to be announced, we used to hear about violations somewhere in the South, North, or Beirut. We used to try to discover the reason, and it always appeared that some people were enlisted to sabotage any agreement. The beneficiary in all this was Israel and its supporters. We know that after reconciliation the Palestinians remained where they were. That was a serious problem, caused by mercenaries from outside. Israel was behind it as well as its beneficiary. (Note by Asharq Al-Awsat: Musa al-Sadr, who founded the Lebanese movement Amal, was born in Iran, in the city of Qom on 15 April, 1928. He specialized in Islamic religious studies after obtaining two university degrees from the University of Tehran; one in Islamic studies, and one in political sciences. He went from Qom to Al-Najaf for higher studies under the supervision of Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim al-Tabtabai and Ayatollah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei. In 1960, he went to stay in the city of Tyre in southern Lebanon, where Iranians used to go to escape political problems in Iran. In 1974, he founded the Lebanese resistance brigades that became known as the Amal Movement, and before that in 1969, he established the Supreme Shia Islamic Council. This was the first time a formal sectarian separation was made between Sunni and Shia in Lebanon. His presidency of the Council coincided with the beginnings of Israel's intervention in southern Lebanon. He was naturalized as a Lebanese citizen later on, but not many people know that he was born in Iran, not in Lebanon. Musa al-Sadr vanished during a visit to Libya on 25 August, 1978. Libya continues to be very secretive about the circumstances of his disappearance and his fate is still unknown.)
[Asharq Al-Awsat] You also intervened to contain the conflict between Hezbollah and Amal, could you tell us about your experience with this case.
[Akhtari] I should say first that the issue between Amal and the Palestinians lasted for an entire year before we reached a solution reconciling the parties. After that a new problem arose between Amal and Hezbollah, which began as one party. It can be said that they all were the sons of Musa al-Sadr. After the victory of the Islamic revolution, they had a covenant with the Islamic Republic. They visited Ayatollah Khomeini at the time and began relations like all other Muslims. The problem between Hezbollah and Amal occurred after they split into two groups; some stayed with Amal, others formed Hezbollah. But they started as a united front against Israel to drive it out of Lebanon, or shall we say, from Beirut to the security belt, as it was called at the time. Within a few months, the Lebanese resistance in general, and members of Hezbollah and Amal from southern Lebanon in particular, were able to wage war against Israel. The confrontation between Amal and Hezbollah was very bad and had many negative results. It annoyed us very much. That's why we did all we could to end the problem.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What exactly was the reason, and was it ideological or political?
[Akhtari] I do not believe the reason was ideological. They all have one ideology and belong to the same sect. Nor was the reason political. The two parties had strong relations with Syria and Iran. Moreover, they did not have any particular ambition in Lebanon. So, one cannot really say the differences were political. They did not even have different or conflicting objectives.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Is it true then that Amal was more secular, while Hezbollah was more religious and that sparked off the differences?
[Akhtari] Religiosity, as we all know, is what you do. It is one's practical commitment and conduct. One may say that the brothers in Hezbollah were more active and more committed, while Amal had different strata; with some performing their religious duties in the same way as Hezbollah while others did not. But that is normal among youths. The main reason was not religion, sectarianism, beliefs, politics or ideology. They all believed in the need to confront Israel, and believed in the resistance. As I said, they all come from the same house. Sometimes an internal problem arises for a reason, and sometimes for no reason at all. Sometimes, after the event, one may not know what caused it. Two brothers from the same family and the same sect fight each other. This problem took us a long time. I was entrusted with the mission of reconciling the parties by the president of the Iranian Republic, Ayatollah Khamenei. I was Iran's representative, and Ghazi Kanaan, [Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon from 1982 to 2001 and later, minister of the interior from October 2003 to his suicide in 2005] was representative of the late president Hafiz al-Assad. In addition we had representatives from Amal and Hezbollah. We held long meetings and it took us months to achieve reconciliation.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What were the conditions for reconciliation between Amal and Hezbollah?
[Akhtari] The conditions were the return of things to where they were before, release of detainees by both sides, and abiding by the ceasefire. These were the main points and both parties abided by them. Political and religious figures in Lebanon also helped in solving this problem. Reconciliation between Amal and Hezbollah proceeded until the situation reverted to where it was before. The two parties performed their religious rites together, and they appeared at celebrations together. I can state that the two parties became closer to each other day after day, until they were like one stratum, as we see them today in Lebanon. The reconciliation was the basis for the unity, harmony, and collegiality that we see today between the two parties. Hassan Nasrallah is leading the spiritual and religious leadership, and Nabih Berri is leading the political movement in Lebanon. Both are doing well and we believe the reconciliation has gone well and formed the basis for trust between Iran and Syria more than ever before. Syria stood by Iran from the very first day. The late President Hafiz al-Assad trusted Ayatollah Khomeini and respected him. He was one of those who believed that any opposition to the Islamic Republic in any shape or form and under whatever pretext amounted to treason to the Arab, Islamic, and Palestinian causes. All President al-Assad's speeches at forums of Arab and Islamic states pointed in this direction. President Al-Assad's stand against Saddam was not personal. To him, the Islamic Republic and Ayatollah Khomeini took Iran out of the Western coalition and the coalition with America and Israel and put it in the coalition of Arab and Muslim states. Moreover, Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Republic regarded the Palestinian cause as theirs and called for commemorating Jerusalem's universal day in the month of Ramadan each year, in support of the Palestinian cause. Hamas and Islamic Jihad were formed after the Islamic revolution and were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini and the resistance he formed. The Palestinian Islamic resistance became a fact, first in Lebanon and then in Palestine. Therefore, the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance are legitimate sons of the Islamic Republic, morally and spiritually.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Abdul Halim Khaddam, former Syrian vice-president, claimed that Iran strengthened Hezbollah after the confrontation at Amal's expense. Was this true?
[Akhtari] No, it is not true. Iran had the same relations at the same time with both parties, yet even then some people or some circles tried to give the impression that Iran favors or supports Hezbollah at Amal's expense. In reality, Iran's relations were with both of them. Amal's president and members had very good relations with Iran as did Hezbollah and they used to visit Iran. Also, Iranian officials used to meet with the president of Amal and his aides. When the conflict broke out between them, Iran tried to solve the problem; but some people were intent on sabotaging all these attempts and solutions. It took us a long time to reach a solution. What you have attributed to Khaddam might have been his personal impression, but as a matter of fact it was not true. Iran assisted them in developing close and strong relations with Syria and Iran. There was complete trust and interdependence between the two countries. Some groups and political analysts thought that Syrian-Iranian relations would be confined to the war years with Iraq, but we have seen that the relations became wider and deeper and thank God, this is still the case.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] You played a big role in building Hezbollah in Lebanon. What were the difficulties that you faced in building Hezbollah, how long did it take, how was it planned, and how did you help?
[Akhtari] In my capacity as representative of the Islamic Republic, I played a role in supporting, widening and deepening the resistance. But it is important to stress that the resistance was launched in Lebanon with Lebanese spirit, Lebanese faith, and Lebanese men. They felt the need to establish the resistance, and found and organize its base. Imam Musa al-Sadr first founded the movement of the oppressed, which later became Amal. When Israel invaded Lebanon, the Lebanese felt the need to resist. At the same time, although we were at war with Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to send delegations from the Revolutionary Guards to support the resistance. We stood by them, supporting, assisting and encouraging, but the foundation was theirs. The land, capabilities and the faith were all Lebanese. They wanted to establish a wide deep-rooted resistance, and they did. We stood by them, helped them and supported them in this matter. They followed it up and we supported them morally and materially, and thus they got to where they are now.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Can we go back to the early days of founding Hezbollah? You have been repeatedly described as the 'operational father of Hezbollah, while Ali Muhtashimi was described as the 'godfather'. How was your relationship with Muhtashimi, and how did the idea of supporting Hezbollah occur to Iran?
[Akhtari] Ali Muhtashimi was in charge in the beginning, but later on when I became ambassador, I performed this supporting role to the resistance. My relationship with Ali Muhtashimi was good. We have been friends for more than forty years. Our friendship predates the Islamic revolution, and still stands. The reason Hezbollah was established and Iran entered the field of Lebanon was Israel's occupation of Lebanon [sic]. When Israel occupied Lebanon, the Islamic Republic deemed it necessary to support Lebanon in facing up to the Israeli occupation. Iran came to Lebanon and stood by the resistance in 1982. There was the Amal Movement and other Lebanese movements in the resistance, including Christians. The Islamic Republic stood by all political shades of the Lebanese resistance. Even the secular groups, Christian and Muslim, had relations with the Islamic Republic. The group of socialist and communist parties, as well as other groups had relations with the Islamic republic and they still do. The Islamic Republic has stood by the resistance. This group and those men wanted to resist, so they founded their organization and the Islamic Republic assisted them in organizing it. [ Asharq Al-Awsat note on founding Hezbollah: Ali Muhtashimi, Iran's ambassador to Syria from 1982 - 1985, who is considered the 'godfather' of Hezbollah, said in an interview with the Iranian newspaper Sharq, on 3 August, 2008, that Hezbollah fought side by side with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the Iran-Iraq war. Muhtashimi said: "Hezbollah's experience was partly gained in fighting and partly in training. Hezbollah gained high combat experience during the Iran-Iraq war. Hezbollah party members fought directly alongside our forces." He added: "After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Ayatollah Khomeini changed his mind about sending large forces to Syria and Lebanon. In other words, after the fifth Iranian plane carrying units from the guards, the Baseege and Dhul-Faqir Brigades (used to be called Khalidoon or the immortals in the shah's days), Ayatollah Khomeini objected to the idea of sending more forces. I was then Iran's ambassador to Syria, and I was really worried about Syria and Lebanon. I went to Teheran and met with Ayatollah Khomeini. As I was worried about Lebanon and enthusiastic about the idea of sending forces to Syria and Lebanon, I started talking about our responsibilities and what was going on in Lebanon. The imam cooled me down and said that the forces we send to Syria and Lebanon would need huge logistical support. Reinforcement and support would need to go through Turkey and Iraq. We are in a fierce war with Iraq. As for Turkey, it is a NATO member and an ally of the United States. The only remaining way is to train the Shia men there, and so Hezbollah was born." According to Muhtashimi, more than 100,000 men have received combat training, in batches of 300 men, since the party was founded in Lebanon.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Regarding Khomeini's decision to send the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to support Hezbollah, what exactly was the mission of those forces and how long did they stay in Lebanon?
[Akhtari] I do not remember exactly how long the Iranian Revolutionary Guards stayed in Lebanon, but as I said, the circumstances were those of occupation in Lebanon and the Revolutionary Guards went there to support the Lebanese at that particular time. When it ended, after a year or two, and the resistance produced the desired results, they went back and the presence of the Iranian guards in Lebanon was brought to an end.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What was the Guards' mission? Did they take a direct part in military operations or were they confined to training Hezbollah's forces?
[Akhtari] They supported Hezbollah in the matter of training and special instructions. I have no knowledge of any of them taking part in direct combat.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] You have talked about supporting Hezbollah and coordination with it. How was the coordination done? Did Hezbollah fighters and activists come to Damascus, or did you go to Beirut, and with whom did the coordination take place?
[Akhtari] We used to meet and they would show us what they had. They would tell us what decisions they had made, what commitments they had and what they were doing. They would tell us and submit some reports that in turn we sent to the brothers in the Islamic Republic. But the decision was always theirs. The relations with Palestinian organizations were conducted in the same way, and the officials in the Islamic Republic would give them advice if they had any. But here again, the decision was absolutely theirs. They had a shura council that was responsible for decision-making, and later on, had the power to elect the secretary general, who was also a shura council member. Executive decisions or major decisions were in the hands of the shura council and the secretary general; and this continues to be the case. We have stated repeatedly that the Lebanese question can only be solved by consensus. No solution can be imposed from outside by dictates or orders. We in Iran have never dealt with any of the parties who have ties with the Islamic Republic by issuing orders. This is how we have been dealing with our brothers in Afghanistan, in Iraq, with their different strata, Sunni, Shia, Kurds or others. The same is the case with the Lebanese and Palestinians. We meet with them, we talk, they send us reports, brief us on matters of concern and consult with us on some issues and we offer advice if we have any. The choice and decision-making is and remains in their hands. It is up to them to agree or disagree and to decide and act as they choose. In our view, the only way to deal with the Lebanese situation is by consensus among the spiritual and political leaders in Lebanon. It is one of the characteristics of Lebanon that the political leadership cannot impose its opinion on all the Lebanese. It is essential that the political and religious leaders reach agreement on this matter. Anyone who knows Lebanon and the events of Lebanon knows that Lebanese-Syrian relations at that time were excellent. All Lebanese groups were in contact with us in Syria. Whenever I went to Lebanon, I met with various parties ranging from the Hezbollah and Amal Movement to other Islamic and secular groups. The relations and contacts varied according to the requirements of the prevailing circumstances. At times of sedition and troubles, communications used to be continuous with a view to reaching a solution. When stability returned to Lebanon, naturally, the balance changed.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] How did the balance change?
[Akhtari] What happened is that stability returned to Lebanon. Like all ambassadors sent to Syria, when we used to go to Lebanon, we went in an official capacity and our meetings were official meetings, as is customary in the diplomatic field.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Did Iranian and Hezbollah leaders differ on any matter during your work and experience in Damascus?
[Akhtari] Do you mean the Lebanese and the Islamic Republic?
[Asharq Al-Awsat] No, I mean Iran and Hezbollah. The choices open to the resistance those days were difficult choices. There were strategic decisions to be made. Was there any disagreement between you and Hezbollah?
[Akhtari] This issue is difficult to explain. The issue of having different points of view is perennial among the various strata and officials in the Islamic Republic. This was and continues to be the case. I differ with my assistant, and the president of the republic differs with his ministers. There is always this and that view. In government and organizations, the decision is made by consultation [shura] and the decision made by the majority becomes binding. A 100 % agreement in points of view cannot be a fact. However, differences of opinion do not mean differences and do not mean opposition. As we stated earlier, Lebanese affairs are for the Lebanese. One may criticize the way a matter is dealt with, or may suggest a different way. But as far as we and Hezbollah are concerned, we are all of one religion and one faith. We and Hezbollah regard the United States as an enemy of Islam and Muslims. We regard Israel as a cancer in the body of the region and that the policy of confrontation and resistance is fundamental. As for the modes of implementation, Hezbollah may have its ways and means and different forms of expression. This may happen. As far as fundamentals, roots, and objectives are concerned, there are no differences between us.

Gerald FlurryEditor in Chief
Iran Conquered Lebanon, Now What?
By: Gerald Flurry
May 19, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
First, Iran conquered the Gaza Strip. Now, through Hezbollah, it controls Lebanon. What piece of territory will Iran conquer next?
Gerald Flurry Hezbollah terrorists recently overthrew the pro-democracy government of Lebanon. Sadly, the international community essentially stood back and let this happen. Everyone knows that Hezbollah operates as a proxy of Iran. A similar scenario occurred in the summer of 2006, when the mullahs in Tehran engineered the overthrow of the Gaza Strip through Hamas. The world was silent then too!
Yet if it were America or Israel taking over these nations, you can be sure there’d be a massive international outcry.
What does Lebanon’s takeover by Iranian-backed terrorists mean for America? It means the U.S. is losing its war against terrorism! It’s a calamity of the highest order! Most of the media and most of our politicians don’t view these events this way, but every terrorist victory is a warning sign to America, Britain and the Jews in the Middle East.
Iran is obviously the number-one terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East, and it has been since the 1970s. Iran gained control of the Gaza Strip in 2006, when its proxy Hamas violently took over. After that victory, Tehran began to focus more diligently on gaining control of Lebanon. That goal was achieved recently when Hezbollah overthrew the Lebanese government. Iran now controls Gaza and Lebanon!
Now we must ask the question: What piece of territory will Iran conquer next?
Iran is undoubtedly going to go after the West Bank. The Arabs of the Fatah party currently control the West Bank. However, Hamas terrorists (and weapons) are present throughout the West Bank and there is little doubt that they are working toward getting control of this strategically located region of Israel. Iran’s ultimate goal is to overrun Jerusalem. The West Bank adjoins the city. The Iranians believe that if they can conquer Jerusalem, they can unite the Arab world under their control.
Despite Tehran’s diabolical strategy to slaughter Jews and overrun Jerusalem, many in the United States still want to negotiate with Ahmadinejad, even as he continues to commit terrorist acts of war! We want to negotiate with a terrorist just as Chamberlain of Britain wanted to negotiate with Hitler leading up to World War ii. Hitler took over a big portion of Europe and almost won World War ii before the Allied powers finally woke up and realized there was no other recourse but to fight!
We face the same situation in the Middle East today. Iran has taken over Gaza and Lebanon, and soon it will get control of the West Bank. Then it will turn its attention toward its ultimate prize—the capture of Jerusalem!
Even after World War ii, President Franklin D. Roosevelt thought he could negotiate a peaceful handling of Eastern Europe with Russia’s Stalin. Yet Stalin, one of the worst dictators ever, ended up enslaving all of Eastern Europe. That’s what happens when you sit down and try to negotiate with these very ambitious and vile dictators. Sadly, too few people are paying attention to this alarming history today.
Last week the American president spoke at the Knesset to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Israel. Notice what he said:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
President Bush is exactly right! It’s not a time to negotiate. It’s time to stop terrorist acts. But we just don’t have the will to do it. Last week columnist Ralph Peters also noted the reality of America’s broken will—which I have been talking about for years:
When will we face reality? Hezbollah can’t be appeased. Hezbollah can’t be integrated into a democratic government and domesticated. And Hezbollah, whose cadres believe that death is a promotion, can’t be deterred by wagging fingers and flyovers.
Hezbollah, our mortal enemy, must be destroyed. But we—Israel, the United States, Europe—lack the will. And will is one thing Hezbollah and its backers in Iran and Syria don’t lack: They’ll kill anyone and destroy anything to win.
Clearly, there is a failure of will on the part of America and the Western world as Iran keeps marching forward and winning systematic terrorist acts of war. Did you know that God prophesied (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) that this would happen to the nations of end-time Israel because they would turn from God’s law and protection—the result being a series of defeating curses?
Both U.S. Democratic presidential nominees strongly disagreed with President Bush’s remarks. Barack Obama said that America needs to “use all elements of American power—including tough, principled and direct diplomacy—to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.” Hillary Clinton called Bush’s comments “offensive and outrageous.” Of course, Winston Churchill was also vilified for warning against Hitler and Nazi Germany before World War ii. But we fail to learn from our own history.
Bible prophecy says that Iran will push at a European power (Daniel 11:40). That push will undoubtedly revolve around Jerusalem, which remains a focal point of Catholicism, and is rapidly being besieged by radical Islamic forces led by Iran. Conquering Jerusalem has been Iran’s openly stated goal for some time. But can you imagine what will happen to the Arab world when it takes control of East Jerusalem—including its second-most holy site? (You can learn more about this event by reading “Jerusalem Is About to be Cut in Half”).
I think that event will transform many moderate Arabs into dangerous Arab radicals. Despite that victory, however, Iran is not going to get control of all of Jerusalem because when it pushes at Europe, Europe is going to react by descending upon it as a “whirlwind.” This is the clash between the king of the south and the king of the north, prophesied about in Daniel 11:40. This European king of the north will come against the Iranian-led king of the south like a whirlwind.
Strong’s Bible Concordance states that this European whirlwind will leave people terror-stricken! It’s probably going to be a nuclear whirlwind, and it’s going to do a lot of damage very quickly. Remember, Iran started this state-sponsored terrorism, and it’s been the sole power behind it for the most part, although occasionally helped by Syria. But it’s mainly Iran—the king of the south! And gaining control of Jerusalem is its number-one ambition. America and other Western nations can negotiate with it, and turn a blind eye when it overthrows governments, but nobody’s going to talk it out of that goal. Those are its avowed goals and it has said so for years and years, just like Hitler did before he started World War ii. It’s like Churchill said, we just never seem to learn from history!
God wants us to know that just before Christ’s return will be a time when prophecy will be very specific and detailed. He said we would even be counting the days. That’s very exciting! I don’t know how it could be more inspiring and stirring and uplifting than that. And when we see Iran’s continual pushing, though it is bad news, it’s going to lead to this greatest event ever to occur in the universe—the return of Jesus Christ!
It’s going to happen, and you can prove it from your Bible. You have to prove this to yourself. You don’t want to take my word for it or any man’s word for it—but you can take God’s word for it! When He says it, it will come to pass every time. These are the most exciting times in the history of man. The Messiah is about to come! •
Gerald Flurry’s column appears every Monday.

Israel’s Missed Boat in Lebanon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
May 18, 2008
Hizballah special forces in Beirut
Sunday night, May 11, the Israeli army was poised to strike Hizballah. The Shiite militia was winding up its takeover of West Beirut and battling pro-government forces in the North. When he opened the regular cabinet meeting Sunday, May 11, prime minister Ehud Olmert had already received the go-ahead from Washington for a military strike to halt the Hizballah advance. The message said that President George W. Bush would not call off his visit to Israel to attend its 60th anniversary celebrations and would arrive as planned Wednesday, May 14 - even if the Israeli army was still fighting in Lebanon and Hizballah struck back against Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport.
American intelligence estimated that Hizballah was capable of retaliating against northern Israel at the rate of 600 missiles a day.
Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Lvini, the only ministers in the picture, decided not to intervene in Lebanon’s civil conflict. Iran’s surrogate army consequently waltzed unchecked to its second victory in two years over the United States and Israel.
DEBKAfile’s US and military sources disclose the arguments Washington marshaled to persuade Israel to go ahead: Hizballah, after its electronic trackers had learned from the Israel army’s communication and telephone networks that not a single troop or tank was on the move, took the calculated risk of transferring more than 5,000 armed men from the South to secure the capture of West Beirut.
This presented a rare moment to take Hizballah by surprise, Washington maintained. The plan outlined in Washington was for the Israeli Air force to bombard Hizballah’s positions in the South, the West and southern Beirut. This would give the pro-government Christian, Sunni and Druze forces the opening for a counter-attack. Israeli tanks would simultaneously drive into the South and head towards Beirut in two columns.
1. The western column would take the Tyre-Sidon-Damour-Beirut coastal highway.
2. The eastern column would press north through Nabatiya, Jezzine, Ain Zchalta and Alei.
Sunday night, Olmert called Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora and his allies, the Sunni majority leader Saad Hariri, head of the mainline Druze party Walid Jumblatt and Christian Phalanges chief Samir Geagea and informed them there would be no Israeli strike against Hizballah. Jerusalem would not come to their aid.
According to American sources, the pro-Western front in Beirut collapsed then and there, leaving Hizballah a free path to victory. The recriminations from Washington sharpened day by day and peaked with President Bush’s arrival in Israel.
Our sources report that, behind the protestations of undying American friendship and camaraderie shown in public by the US president, prime minister and Shimon Peres, Bush and his senior aides bitterly reprimanded Israel for its passivity in taking up the military challenge and crushing an avowed enemy in Lebanon.
While the president was busy with ceremonies and speeches, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley took Israeli officials to task. Hadley in particular bluntly blamed Israel for the downfall of the pro-Western government bloc in Beirut and its surrender to the pro-Iranian, Pro-Syrian Hizballah. If Israeli forces had struck Hizballah gunmen wile on the move, he said, Hassan Nasrallah would not have seized Beirut and brought the pro-government militias to their knees.
One US official said straight out to Olmert and Barak: For two years, you didn’t raise a finger when Hizballah took delivery of quantities of weapons, including missiles, from Iran and Syria. You did not interfere with Hizballah’s military buildup in southern Lebanon then or its capture of Beirut now.
IDF generals who were present at these conversations reported they have never seen American officials so angry or outspoken. Israel’s original blunder, they said, was its intelligence misreading of Hizballah’s first belligerent moves on May 4. At that point, Israel’s government military heads decided not to interfere, after judging those moves to be unthreatening.
The Americans similarly criticizes Israel for letting Hamas get away with its daily rocket and missile attacks on Israel civilians year after year. A blow to Hizballah would have deterred Hamas from exercising blackmail tactics for a ceasefire. In Sharm el-Sheikh Sunday, May 18, President Bush called on Middle East countries to confront Hamas and isolate terror-sponsors Iran and Syria.