LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِApril
17/2010
Bible Of the
Day
John's First Letter 2/7-11: "Brothers, I write no new commandment to you,
but an old commandment which you had from the beginning. The old commandment is
the word which you heard from the beginning. 2:8 Again, I write a new
commandment to you, which is true in him and in you; because the darkness is
passing away, and the true light already shines. 2:9 He who says he is in the
light and hates his brother, is in the darkness even until now. 2:10 He who
loves his brother remains in the light, and there is no occasion for stumbling
in him. 2:11 But he who hates his brother is in the darkness, and walks in the
darkness, and doesn’t know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded
his eyes"
Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
The undermining game/Now Lebanon/April
16/10
Threat of Israeli war is real/Daily Star/April 16/10
They love Barack, whether
he thrives or dives/By: Michael Young/April
16/10
The
missing and the kidnapped/By: Ziad Majed/ April
16/10
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April
16/10
Hezbollah says its missiles not Israel's business/The
Associated Press
Syria Denies Giving Weapons To Hizbullah; US State Dept Official Says
Arming/MEMRI (blog)
Lebanese tear down Israeli barrier on tense border/AFP
Lebanon: Druze Resistance Organization Announces
Launch Of Operations/MEMRI
(blog)
Sfeir
to Raise Issue of Sadr Disappearance in Vatican./Naharnet
National Dialogue: Raad Threatens
to Withdraw, Geagea Insists on Right to Discuss Hizbullah Arms./Naharnet
Al-Shami
Travels to Tehran, Slams Israel's Aggression Policy./Naharnet
Scuds for Hezbollah?/Los Angeles Times
Lebanese leaders to keep media
blackout on resistance's arms/Daily
Star
Is Lebanon blocking entry to Israeli-Arab
author?/Ha'aretz
Syria began to train Hizbullah to operate Scuds
in late 2009/World
Tribune
Drumbeat for War against Syria Begins/Right
Pundits
Rethinking Engaging Syria/Huffington
Post (blog)
Russia modernizing Syria ports for its warships/World
Tribune
Syria denies giving Scud missiles to Hizbullah/Daily
Star
Hamas executes two Palestinians
'collaborating' with Israel/AFP
Jumblatt to make second Syria trip
in a month/Daily Star
Southerners ready for any conflict
with Israel/Daily
Star
FPM to adopt 'Correcting the
Mistake' election slogan/Daily
Star
Hout: Campaign against MEA 'cover'
for ex-employee/Daily
Star
LU lifts ban on university
political elections/Daily
Star
Ex-US senator at AUB warns of WMD attack/Daily
Star
Background To Crisis With Syria/Philadelphia
Bulletin
Palestinians vandalize Syrian truck
in Minieh/Now Lebanon
Abbasiyeh residents take down
Israeli fence/Now Lebanon
Franjieh: Hariri, Hezbollah will
not be able to stop sedition over STL’s verdict/Now Lebanon
Israeli
Troops Go on Alert as Abbasiyeh Residents Remove Barbed Wire./Naharnet
Lebanese Delegation in
Damascus Monday to Set Stage for Hariri's Visit./Naharnet
Jumblat Makes Second Visit
to Syria Friday./Naharnet
Volcanic Ash Cancels
Several Flights from Beirut to Europe./Naharnet
Clinton Warns Freeze in
Peace Process Strengthens Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran./Naharnet
Saniora Rejects Language
of Treason./Naharnet
Berri Proposes
Coordination Committee between Resistance, Army./Naharnet
Raad: Resistance Arms
Forbidden to Talk About./Naharnet
Geagea Rejects Berri Offer
to Establish Hizbullah-Army Committee./Naharnet
Franjieh: Hizbullah Will
Not Disarm./Naharnet
Paris: Syrian Transfer of
Scuds to Hizbullah 'Alarming if Confirmed'./Naharnet
National Dialogue Agrees
on Political Pacification, Finding Mechanism to Solve Palestinian Arms./Naharnet
Paris: Syrian Transfer of Scuds to
Hizbullah 'Alarming if Confirmed'
Naharnet/The French foreign ministry announced Thursday that France would
consider as "alarming" the alleged transfer of long-range Scud missiles from
Syria to Hizbullah if the recent reports on the subject turned out to be true.
The ministry's deputy spokesperson Christine Fage called for "a total respect of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 in all its stipulations." "I
remind you that this Resolution imposes an embargo on the export of arms to
Lebanon, except those authorized by the Government of Lebanon or the United
Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)," Fage added. Syria strongly denied on
Thursday Israeli accusations that it has been delivering Scud missiles to
Hizbullah, which have aroused U.S. concern.
"For some time now, Israel has been running a campaign claiming that Syria has
been supplying Hizbullah with Scud missiles in Lebanon," a foreign ministry
statement said.
"Syria strongly denies these allegations which are an attempt by Israel to raise
tensions in the region," the statement added. "Israel is seeking to create a
climate that will pave the way for an eventual Israeli attack to avoid
responding to the demands of a just and comprehensive peace." Beirut, 15 Apr 10,
21:48
National Dialogue: Raad Threatens to Withdraw, Geagea Insists on Right to
Discuss Hizbullah Arms
Naharnet/Hizbullah arms once again drew hot debate during a National Dialogue
session, engaging rival politicians in heated arguments before President Michel
Suleiman postponed talks till June 3. As the 14 political leaders from the
majority March 14 alliance and the Hizbullah-led March 8 coalition met at Baabda
Palace at midday Thursday, Washington and Israel expressed concern over reports
Syria was providing Hizbullah with Scud missiles. A statement issued by the
presidential palace said following the nearly three-hour talks that participants
agreed to pursue their dialogue on a national defense strategy and on the
weapons of Palestinian factions outside the 12 refugee camps. National dialogue
was first launched in 2006. However, it has been adjourned over and over again
because of successive political crises as well as the thorny issue of Hizbullah
arms. March 8 forces insisted to halt debate on Hizbullah arms at the dialogue
table, arguing that "Lebanon has no alternative but the Resistance." Hizbullah
MP Mohammed Raad hinted at boycotting dialogue sessions if debate continued on
Hizbullah arms rather than a national defense strategy. "Either we want a
serious dialogue under the 'Defense Strategy' topic that includes key aspects of
military, security, political, media, cultural, social and economic, or we don't
want a serious dialogue, but rather exchange rhetoric," Raad told dialogue
participants. If this is the case, then "we are not willing to continue to
participate in the dialogue" process, Raad warned. Lebanese Forces leader Samir
Geagea hit back, saying "we have the right to discuss the issue of weapons here"
at the dialogue table.
"I tell you I am going to criticize Resistance arms in every statement. This is
our political right." Prime Minister Saad Hariri was said to be firm on Raad's
withdrawal threat, arguing: "How do you demand to stop debate on Hibullah arms
while you don't stop day and night from criticizing (former PM) Saniora, Dr.
Samir Geagea and (former) President Amin Gemayel?" Another quarrel also took
place when MP Suleiman Franjieh proposed the issue of "spying and treason."
Druze leader Walid Jumblat interrupted Franjieh to express reservations about
the Marada leader remarks. "Franjieh's words are unacceptable. They do not
preserve the atmosphere of calm and stability," Jumblat thought. Beirut, 16 Apr
10, 08:14
Sfeir to Raise Issue of Sadr Disappearance in Vatican
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has said he will seek to raise the
issue of missing Shiite Imam Moussa Sadr during a visit to the Vatican scheduled
for April 22. "The missing Imam was a man of peace and dialogue. He worked to
reunite the Lebanese," Sfeir told a visiting Italian delegation. "His absence
was a loss to everyone as he was a symbol for both Muslims and Christians since
he called for Christian-Muslim dialogue," Sfeir recalled. Beirut, 16 Apr 10,
14:08
Saniora Rejects Language of Treason
Naharnet/Former Prime Minister Fouad Saniora warned National Dialogue
participants during a meeting at Baabda Palace on Thursday against falling into
the Israeli trap. He said Israeli reports that surfaced just hours before
national talks resumed Thursday about the arrival of Scud missiles to Hizbullah
"draw suspicion of the enemy motives." Saniora warned against falling into the
Israeli "trap." He acknowledged a discrepancy between the rival political camps,
but said dialogue is the only "rational" way of finding solutions. Beirut, 16
Apr 10, 09:09
Raad: Resistance Arms Forbidden to Talk About
Naharnet/MP Mohammed Raad hoped that participants at the National Dialogue talks
would tackle the issue of Israeli threats and how to face them instead of
Hizbullah arms.
"It is not allowed to talk about resistance weapons, an issue not subject to
debate," Raad told political leaders during a session held at Baabda Palace on
Thursday.
"Otherwise, our position is clear. We will not be attending (national talks)
anymore," Raad threatened. He wondered whether it was "reasonable to register
550 Israeli violations of Lebanon against 5,000 calls to disarm Hizbullah?" "If
this continues, we will boycott dialogue," Raad warned. Beirut, 16 Apr 10, 09:30
Geagea Rejects Berri Offer to Establish Hizbullah-Army Committee
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea rejected a proposal by Speaker
Nabih Berri to set up a special committee drawn from the resistance and the
Lebanese army.
"Talk about an agreement not to address the issue of weapons is not true. We
have the right to discuss it here or outside" the dialogue table, Geagea told
participants at national talks held at Baabda Palace on Thursday. "Why can we
criticize everybody except Hizbullah and its arms?" Geagea asked. "I assure you
that I will raise the issue on resistance weapons in the press everyday. This is
our right," he told participants from the March 8 alliance. Geagea
rejected statements that say there is no alternative to resistance. "The
alternative exists in the army which has 5,000 troops more powerful than
Hizbullah and have capabilities greater than Hizbullah," he stressed. Beirut, 16
Apr 10, 10:41
Franjieh: Hizbullah Will Not
Disarm
Naharnet/Marada Movement leader Suleiman Franjieh said national dialogue was a
"waste of time." "Our participation is to avoid upsetting the balance and
because our political weight forces us to attend," he said in remarks following
national talks at Baabda Palace on Thursday.
"None of the dialogue leaders would change his opinion. They adhere to their
views while we hold on to ours with each side waiting for the other to change
its outlook," Franjiyeh stressed.
"There is no solution under current circumstances. And Hizbullah will not be
disarmed," he warned. Franjiyeh defined the meaning of spying, saying there is
no difference between those who deal directly with Israel and those who serve
the enemy through steps thy carry out or statements they make.He pointed to the
July 2006 incident where Lebanese troops had tea with Israeli officers at
Marjayoun Barracks. "What do you call this?" he asked. Franjiyeh also pointed a
finger at Deputy Parliament Speaker Farid Makari for referring to Israel as
"Lebanon's neighbor."He recalled that it was the late former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri who dissolved the Lebanese Forces in 1994.
Israeli Troops Go on Alert as Abbasiyeh Residents Remove Barbed Wire
Naharnet/Abbasiyeh residents on Friday removed the barbed wire set up by Israel
3 days ago near the Blue Line and hoisted Lebanese flags at the electronic gate
amid deployment of Israeli troops on the side of the border. The residents were
led by MP Qassem Hashem, the National News Agency said. Around ten Israeli army
vehicles and more than 50 soldiers went on alert under the gaze of the Lebanese
army and U.N. peacekeepers, it added. Voice of Lebanon radio said, however, that
the Israeli troops removed the flags after the protestors left the area. Hashem,
who held a press conference at the area, said: "This is Lebanese land. We
neither recognize Blue Lines nor Red Lines on the Ghajar-Abbasiyeh-Shebaa farms-Kfarshouba
hills axis."He warned that the residents will repeat their action if Israel sets
up barbed wires "because neither the international community nor international
resolutions are bringing back our rights." Beirut, 16 Apr 10, 12:46
Al-Shami Travels to Tehran, Slams Israel's Aggression Policy
Naharnet/Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami reiterated on Friday that Israel was
adopting an aggressive policy against Arabs and continuously violating U.N.
Security Council resolution 1701.
Al-Shami made his remark at Beirut airport before heading to Iran to take part
in a two-day nuclear disarmament conference on April 17-18. Iran said on Tuesday
that foreign ministers from 15 countries will attend the conference. When asked
what he thought about accusations that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to
Hizbullah, al-Shami said: "These statements contradict the status quo because
Israel is occupying land and not Lebanon.""Consequently, when a land is
occupied, the people, the army and the resistance should work to liberate their
land and use all legal international means including resistance and arms," he
said. Israel "is always adopting an aggression policy against Arab countries,
particularly Lebanon," the minister said, adding that the Jewish state has until
now "violated resolution 1701 more than 6,500 times."On Iran, al-Shami told
reporters that Tehran like other Arab countries was seeking to develop nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes "unlike Israel which has a huge nuclear warheads
arsenal."
Beirut, 16 Apr 10, 14:15
The undermining game
Now Lebanon
April 15, 2010
Thursday’s national dialogue session was another waste of time that saw the
committee simply kick the proverbial can further down the road. It was
symptomatic of the events of the last week, all of which have demonstrated that
Syria doesn’t want to play ball – or may we say football – with the new Lebanon.
Last week’s fighting between rival Palestinian factions in the Bekaa town of
Kfar Zabad between members of the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), which later spread to military bases in
nearby Qosaya, was another reminder of the cancerous tumor that must be excised
if the Lebanese state is to progress. The violence was, if one is to believe
that there are no coincidences in the Middle East, a message from Damascus that
it still controls Lebanon and that instability is a tap that can be turned on
and off at will. An insignificant spat between two armed gangs in a remote part
of Lebanon was nothing; worse could follow.
Then, last weekend, Damascus, which is still smarting over Lebanese Prime
Minister Saad Hariri’s insistence on backing the STL and maintaining a strong
alliance with Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, upped the ante further by
objecting to the composition of a ministerial delegation tasked by Hariri to go
to Damascus on Wednesday. Its job was to act as an advance party to renegotiate
earlier Lebanese-Syrian bilateral agreements, especially the future of the
controversial Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council (SLHC), as well as nail down new,
more equitable, treaties.
Syria wheeled out Wiam Wahhab, its most unabashed spokesman, on Hezbollah’s
Manar TV to reinforce the message. The former environment minister, who now
spends his time doing little except Syria’s bidding, said the visit was
postponed due to “lack of cooperation and seriousness on behalf of Lebanon,”
whatever that means.
It was a tactic designed to once again paint Hariri as the main culprit,
stalling on a golden opportunity to mend bridges. In reality, the veto was a
message to the young prime minister that if he thinks he can treat his neighbor
as a statesman, on equal terms, he should think again. Damascus doesn’t deal
with delegations.
And so to Thursday's national dialogue, a process that initially incurred Syrian
displeasure when it was announced by Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, and
which was the catalyst for the withering attack on the president – a campaign
that has since seen him adopt a more conciliatory stance vis-à-vis the
Resistance and its weapons, one of the key items on the committee’s agenda.
Thus, real progress on the much-touted national defense strategy is becoming
increasingly quixotic and bearing little fruit. It is clear that President
Sleiman, PSP leader Walid Jumblatt and Michel Aoun are all throwing their weight
behind the Resistance and the rest of the March 8 bloc. Put their positions
against those of Geagea and the remnants of March 14 who have not yielded to the
new reality and who still maintain that decisions of matters of war and peace
are the sole preserve of the state, it is clear that stalemate is the only
outcome.
At a time when Syria is turning the screw on the Hariri government, the only way
to move forward in future sessions of the national dialogue and ensure it
doesn’t become totally irrelevant is to insist on the immediate creation of a
mechanism to implement the 2006 decision to disband the armed Palestinian groups
that exist outside the camps. There is nothing to discuss. The decision has been
taken. It would force the so-called unity government to act and demonstrate,
whether Syria likes it or not, that Lebanon is the master of at least part of
its destiny.
Lastly, Syria must recognize once and for all that the days when it
micro-managed Lebanese affairs are long gone. They went one sunny day in March
2005. It is true that their allies have restored some ballast to its sway in the
country, but there is a difference between working to achieve genuine bilateral
relations as partners and allowing Lebanon to further submit fealty to Syria.
Lebanon needs to remain steadfast. Football matches are all very well, but we
must ensure no one moves the goalposts.
They love Barack, whether he thrives or dives
Michael Young, April 16, 2010
Now Lebanon
US President Barack Obama holds a press conference at the conclusion of the
Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 13. (AFP photo/Mandel Ngan)
This week the Carnegie Middle East Center held a gala at the Phoenicia Hotel.
The event was highlighted by a roundtable discussion that included Jessica
Matthews, the president of the Carnegie Endowment. Matthews was asked several
questions about Iran’s nuclear program, and her answers, in many regards, showed
how wide a berth President Barack Obama has been given by those who can
influence policy in Washington.
Matthews argued that something had definitely changed on Iran under the Obama
administration. She noted that the international consensus had turned against
the Islamic Republic, which “hated” being taken to the United Nations Security
Council. At the same time, however, Matthews acknowledged that it was difficult
to predict what the outcome of UN sanctions against Tehran might be.
As a National Security Council staffer during the 1970s who covered nuclear
proliferation issues, Matthews is worth listening to. However, there was a clear
subtext to her comments, namely that Obama had succeeded in pushing the
political burden of Iran’s nuclear project onto the Iranians, whereas George W.
Bush had failed to do so. Matthews’ colleague, Dmitri Trenin, director of
Carnegie’s Moscow Center, echoed that thought by adding “the ball is in Iran’s
court.”
But is it really? The ultimate test is how effective the United States will be
in using international goodwill to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon.
For now, the signs are not reassuring. Obama may be popular with policy mavens
in the American capital (even as his appeal abroad appears to be waning, but all
Matthews was really telling us is that the optics have changed, that Obama is
easier to like than Bush. However, if Iran builds a bomb anyway, political
burden or not, this alone will be the measure of its success.
It is remarkable how often Barack Obama has been judged positively on his
intentions by the policy community, while Bush was judged (justifiably) on the
basis of his actions. This isn’t sour grapes. One can debate Obama’s Middle East
policy, but his effort to avoid a military confrontation with Iran is judicious.
The administration’s efforts to suspend Israeli settlement building are overdue.
And Obama’s desire to “engage” Iran and Syria is, in some ways, defensible. But
ultimately, the only benchmark we should use to determine if the US president is
doing things right is whether he achieves his political aims.
Yet Obama is at serious risk of letting his actions undermine his intentions.
Attacking Iran is a bad idea, but the administration, through Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, needn’t have so explicitly removed military action from the
table recently. All this did was confirm that Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is right when saying the US will fail in derailing Iran’s nuclear
program – surely winning him key internal debates on the matter in Tehran.
Washington’s standoff with Israel is excellent news, but there has been a high
price to pay. It put off the start of “proximity talks”, which the
administration expended considerable political capital to initiate. The delay
may prove fatal to Obama’s peace efforts if it drags on until the November
congressional elections, where there is a distinct possibility that voters will
turn against the president, in large part because of the discontent provoked by
his health care plan.
As for engagement, we have seen the consequences of Obama’s opening to Syria in
recent weeks. Damascus has never stopped arming Hezbollah, in violation of
Security Council Resolution 1701. The latest reports are that the Syrians may
have sent the party advanced anti-aircraft weaponry and even Scud-D missiles.
The information was apparently serious enough to be brought up by John Kerry,
the chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, with Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad recently in Damascus.
Yet the administration did nothing more, persisting in its decision to return an
ambassador, Robert Ford, to Syria. Kerry moved the approval through his
committee, and now the full Senate is expected to vote on Ford’s nomination,
though this may be held up by senators demanding more information before
deciding. Don’t be surprised if Assad, like Ahmadinejad, concludes that America
has jelly for knees.
And yet Obama still can do little wrong among the policy centers and foreign
affairs journalists, the non-governmental organizations and Middle East studies
departments, and the reason is that most remain devoured by antipathy for George
W. Bush. It’s still very much about Bush in Washington, and about Obama as the
anti-Bush. But Obama has proven less insightful than his predecessor about the
benevolence of other states, and he is much more ambiguous about the uses of
American power. That’s why he needs to be assessed on the grounds of his
verifiable achievements, not according to relative intangibles, such as whether
he has altered the international mood on Iran.
A few years ago had someone defended Bush in the same way that Obama is being
defended today by many who should know better, he or she would, rightly, have
been ridiculed. Power is what matters, and for the moment Obama is hemorrhaging
power in the Middle East.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. His
book, The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life
Struggle (Simon & Schuster), has just been released.
Fouad Siniora
April 16, 2010
On April 15, the website of the March 14 forces, 14march.org, carried the
following speech delivered by former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora during the
dialogue meeting held in the Baabda Palace:
“At the beginning of this session, I would like to corroborate that once again
this meeting was summoned by President Michel Suleiman whom we thank for this
positive initiative. Despite the announced divergence between us over a number
of headlines, namely the defense strategy, the formula to protect Lebanon and
the way to organize the relation between the state’s arms and its authority and
the arms of the resistance among other issues, despite this divergence our
meeting is a positive sign which we should uphold, protect and continue, because
there is not a better way for the people of the same country to deal with each
other than by meeting and engaging in calm and serious dialogue. More
importantly, the Lebanese citizens are following up on our activities and expect
us to reach specific results. Moreover, along with the Arab and foreign public
opinion, they are watching the way we are dealing with each other, especially in
regard to the points of dispute. My brothers, the members of the dialogue table,
I wish to be very clear in regard to an important issue that has been raised
during the last few hours. It is the talk issued by the government of the
Israeli enemy and which was confirmed by Western sources saying that Hezbollah
introduced new weapons into Lebanon.
“In reality, I heard about this a few weeks ago but what seized my attention at
this level was the escalation of this Israeli talk a few hours before the
dialogue meeting which we are holding to discuss the defense strategy. This
forces me to ask you and myself the following question: Why did we see this
Israeli timing to raise the issue of Hezbollah’s arms and rockets? Does
Hezbollah possess arms and rockets? Of course it does. This is known and
announced before all as the party and its officials previously confirmed that.
However, this Israeli timing a few hours before the dialogue session and in
light of the domestic divergence aims at fishing in the murky Lebanese water and
at increasing the tensions on the Lebanese internal arena, which requires us all
to be cautious about this talk’s goals and purpose. What I want to say today is
that we should be aware of this trap which Israeli may be trying to set for us.
On our end, the main problem resides in the presence of an occupation over Arab
and Lebanese territories and we believe that the resistance was a natural
reaction to this occupation.
“Israel must therefore pull out from the occupied territories in Lebanon, Syria,
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and must accept the Arab offers, the last of
which was the Arab peace initiative. As for us the Arabs, we must show
solidarity during this stage to increase the pressures on Israel via all
political and diplomatic means, in order to widen the gap between Israel and the
Western and international public opinion. In Lebanon however, we must handle our
affairs through dialogue and calm discussions. Are we in disagreement over the
issues related to the ways to protect Lebanon and to the defense strategy? Of
course we are. Nonetheless, I do not believe there is any other way to find
solutions and develop the approaches except through rational, non-emotional and
non-accusatory dialogue. As for the continuation of the media slander campaigns
and the language of accusation and instigation, the will lead us to certain
failure and right into the Israeli trap.
“Therefore, I would like the honorable brothers to base dialogue on the latter
foundations, and if the goal is to protect Lebanon, this can only be achieved
through our solidarity in the face of the repeated Israeli attacks, threats and
violations of the [Lebanese] sovereignty by air, land and sea, the last of which
were the provocation attempts in Al-Hasbani and al-Abbasiya... My brothers,
about what happened during the last session and the things that were seen in the
media outlets in this regard, I would like to direct your attention to the fact
that what took place during that dialogue meeting should have stayed between us,
in order to maintain the cohesion and usefulness of our dialogue efforts. My
brothers, is it logical to see in the media reports saying that Prime Minister
Sanyurah snuck in to add an expression?
"None among us is a [a person who sneaks around]. We all represent sides
enjoying their statuses and I believe we should respect each other so that our
citizens respect us. I completely reject seeing reports in the media about what
happens [during the dialogue sessions] or responses to what was said here and
there. I hope that this is everyone’s position while bearing in mind that the
expression “the arms, the people and the resistance” was featured in the
ministerial statement of the government which I had the honor of heading
following the Doha Accord. Therefore, it is not new to me.
“However, it was not addressed during the last dialogue session and there were
divergent opinions over it between the members of the dialogue committee. Hence,
this position was necessary. What remains is a crucial point which we must
address and cannot disregard after what happened in the central Beqaa region
where there are armed Palestinian bases. After all the ordeals that Lebanon has
faced, it is not permissible or acceptable not to handle the issue of the
Palestinian arms. This is something we must address in all facets to reach a
solution, especially since we agreed to address it during the national dialogue
sessions that were held in parliament.”
The missing and the kidnapped …
Ziad Majed, April 15, 2010
Now Lebanon/
Two decades following the end of the Lebanese wars with its various chapters,
the issue of those who went missing or were kidnapped on the battlefield or on
barricades manned by various militias and troops remains pending without any
solution whatsoever.
17,000 human beings remain missing, though their fate is actually not so
unknown.
No one has acknowledged them, and no one has apologized to their families. No
government has ever announced their death and mourned them officially. No
government has ever erected a monument to glorify their memory, or named a
square, a street or a public garden after them, individually or collectively, to
say that massacres have been committed during the war; that they created victims
who have parents, children and friends; that it is necessary to start healing
and build on the lessons derived from those massacres in a country that many of
its “citizens” have taken – directly or indirectly - part in the battle and
shortcomings of the war …
17,000 families are still looking for innocent faces, repeating with each
passing day the process of drawing their minutest details and recounting their
last days. 17,000 families are still pondering possibilities and regretting a
phone call they failed to make, or a trip they should have avoided. 17,000
families are still waiting for a lead and a string of hope from a source in
Lebanon or abroad, telling them that their loved ones are still alive or
locating the places of their burials.
… And 17,000 families are faced with a society, the majority of which seems to
be closer to indifference or to inefficient sympathy. A society that seems to be
making light of its memory in times of peace and quiet, while making light of
violence and its consequences in times of tension. These two sets of extreme
behavior are certainly linked to one another, and one of the ways this relation
is revealed is through the coming and going of the April 13 anniversary every
year, albeit without its getting the importance it should have in our history
and our lives.
As we mark the anniversary of the war today, the downtown Beirut tent housing
the protest of the families of those who were missing or kidnapped is the only
reminder we have left, of what started 35 years ago and continued for 15 years.
Tragedy, which struck anew with the death of Audette Salem, seems to be the most
honest expression of what it means to remember the war fleetingly and to allow
it to fester instead of dressing its wounds. It seems that those living in that
tent look drawn by hope and have features just like ours. Let us remember the
minutes and few meters that made all the difference and allowed us not to be in
their shoes, living in the tent or joining the ranks of those whom they are
still waiting for …
**This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW
Arabic site on Tuesday April 13, 2010
Scuds for
Hezbollah?
Israel says Damascus has provided missiles to Hezbollah, raising fears of war.
That is exactly why Washington should send an envoy to Syria
April 16, 2010
Israeli officials this week accused Syria of providing the armed Islamic group
Hezbollah with medium-range Scud missiles, which would make the Lebanese
militants the first irregular army to possess such weapons, and would enable
them to target virtually all of Israel. U.S. officials have not confirmed that
the weapons were actually delivered, and Syria adamantly denies the charge.
Israel and Syria each are warning that the other is preparing for war, raising
concerns about a new military conflict in the region and prompting Republican
calls for President Obama to delay sending a U.S. ambassador to Damascus for the
first time in five years. That would be a mistake. The United States does not
send ambassadors as a reward to countries for their behavior, but to provide
tools for defusing crises precisely like this one.
Syria has armed Hezbollah for decades. The delivery of Scuds, however, would
mark a significant advance in its arsenal, further undermining the Lebanese
state, although the effect on Israel would be as much psychological as military.
During the 2006 war with Israel, Hezbollah used rockets with a range of up to 60
miles, and Scuds could increase that by at least sevenfold. But the large
1950s-era missiles are inaccurate, and Israel has the capacity to intercept
them. Still, Israel would view their introduction as an act of belligerence on
Syria's part.
It is hard to see what Syria would gain by giving Scuds to Hezbollah.
(Well-armed insurgent groups have a way of escaping the control of their
patrons, as the U.S. and Russia have discovered.) Some suggest that Syria and
Hezbollah believe Israel is planning a repeat of the 2006 war against a
now-rearmed Hezbollah; by this theory, the Scuds serve as a deterrent. Others
suggest that Damascus is frustrated at lack of progress in talks with Israel
over the return of the Golan Heights, and wants to turn up the pressure. Still
others propose that this has been masterminded by Tehran as part of a potential
regional response to any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. Whatever the
scenario, Israel often responds to a perceived threat increase with a strike, as
it did on an alleged nuclear site in Syria in 2007.
Jordan's King Abdullah II is reported to have told members of Congress in
Washington on Thursday that there is an imminent threat of war in the region.
This is further argument for engagement by the U.S. Despite the apparent lack of
results so far, the U.S. should continue its efforts to woo Syria away from
Tehran. The administration should mediate between Israel and Syria, and should
do so with a full diplomatic arsenal. That means the Senate must confirm Robert
S. Ford as ambassador to Syria.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Threat of Israeli war is real
Friday, April 16, 2010 Editorial/Daily Star
The latest tension across the Lebanese-Israeli border, and by extension the
Lebanese-Syrian border, has been generated by a flurry of press reports and
statements about the supposed arming of Hizbullah with upgraded weapons, in the
form of Scud missiles coming from Damascus.
The focus of this campaign is obviously two countries – Lebanon and Syria – but
a more useful place to look for the source of the tension is down south, in
Israel.
Israeli forces have been provoking Lebanon of late, whether their forces have
been crossing a “technical fence” into no-man’s land, or the actual UN-drawn
Blue Line of withdrawal.
The world’s latest “missile crisis” is being generated by the government of
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which is being squeezed, along with
the entire political-military establishment of the Jewish state.
The Israelis are being confronted by what they view as extremely serious
challenges. First, there is the ongoing demographic threat to their hold over
Palestinian territory. Second, there is a serious state-building threat, in the
form of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Third, the Netanyahu
government has cavalierly ignored Washington’s approach to the Middle East by
inflaming the settlements issue. Finally, the Israelis are shook up about the
situation in Iran, which continues to hold off an international community that
can’t agree on what kind of sanctions against Tehran, if any, will be effective
against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
It’s a convenient time for Netanyahu and the Israelis to embark on the reckless
strategy of turning things upside down, with the threat of military action
against whoever is convenient. Amid recent reports about steps by Hamas to
control the smuggling tunnels on the border with Egypt, it’s not a big surprise
to see the Israelis take aim at Lebanon. It’s a case of ratcheting up military
tension and “seeing where things go,” since the alternative, making compromises
on the peace front, appears to be unpalatable for Tel Aviv.
It’s a serious threat, since the West, while anxious to see peace break out, is
also anxious about Islamists, whether moderate or extremist. There are those who
say the “problem,” in the form of failed states, resistance movements, and
Al-Qaeda partisans, will be with us for decades, so why not act on it now?
People in the region might be happy to have right on their side, but we can’t
expect help from any quarter. An Israeli consensus apparently exists at the
highest levels to “do something” about Hizbullah.
For politicians in Lebanon and elsewhere, the threat is real: wars can break out
by mistake or by design, and if we remember the example of Iraq, a war over
trumped-up accusations of weapons of mass destruction can generate a climate in
which anything can happen.
Israel
will preempt
The recent disclosure that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to Hizballah
marks a significant turning point. If war on Israel’s northern border could have
been avoided — and perhaps it was already a forgone conclusion — that is clearly
not the case now.
With the addition of these missiles, which are capable of carrying chemical
warheads, Hizballah changes from an irritant to an existential threat to Israel.
It is now sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted to strike first.
Additional deliveries, such as advanced antitank and antiaircraft weapons — even
intelligence that indicates that they will be delivered in the near future — may
trigger a premptive response.
In my opinion, the US administration’s tilt away from Israel has caused Iran,
Syria, etc. to think that they will be able to hit Israel hard enough to hurt
her badly, while the US will step in immediately and prevent Israel from doing
more than an acceptable amount of damage in return. And probably Israel’s
decision-makers think so too. So this is another reason for Israel to choose to
preempt.
We can be certain that in order to get the US and Europe to rein in Israel, Iran
will take steps to cause the price of oil to hit the ceiling and splatter.
Israel will have to act swiftly and without giving the hostile US administration
advance knowledge. The US will make Israel pay for this, but the alternative is
worse.
The US administration’s response to the delivery of the Scuds has been to make
statements deploring it, while continuing its policy of ‘engagement’ with Syria.
US policy is pushing the region toward war rather than away from it.
The simple fact that we don’t seem to be able to get straight is that the weaker
we look, the harder they push.