LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJanuary 23/2010

Bible Of The Day
Isaiah 2/5-22: God's arrival
2:5 House of Jacob, come, and let us walk in the light of Yahweh.  2:6 For you have forsaken your people, the house of Jacob, because they are filled from the east, with those who practice divination like the Philistines, and they clasp hands with the children of foreigners. 2:7 Their land is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures. Their land also is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots. 2:8 Their land also is full of idols. They worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. 2:9 Man is brought low, and mankind is humbled; therefore don’t forgive them. 2:10 Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust, from before the terror of Yahweh, and from the glory of his majesty. 2:11 The lofty looks of man will be brought low, the haughtiness of men will be bowed down, and Yahweh alone will be exalted in that day. 2:12 For there will be a day of Yahweh of Armies for all that is proud and haughty, and for all that is lifted up; and it shall be brought low: 2:13 For all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, for all the oaks of Bashan, 2:14 For all the high mountains, for all the hills that are lifted up, 2:15 For every lofty tower, for every fortified wall, 2:16 For all the ships of Tarshish, and for all pleasant imagery. 2:17 The loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be brought low; and Yahweh alone shall be exalted in that day. 2:18 The idols shall utterly pass away. 2:19 Men shall go into the caves of the rocks, and into the holes of the earth, from before the terror of Yahweh, and from the glory of his majesty, when he arises to shake the earth mightily. 2:20 In that day, men shall cast away their idols of silver, and their idols of gold, which have been made for themselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats; 2:21 To go into the caverns of the rocks, and into the clefts of the ragged rocks, from before the terror of Yahweh, and from the glory of his majesty, when he arises to shake the earth mightily. 2:22 Stop trusting in man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for of what account is he?

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Dr. Samir Geagea's statement/January 22/11 
Lebanon: New Ally for Hezbollah/New York Times/January 22/11 
The C word/Now Lebanon/January 22/11
What’s next for Lebanon?/By: Hanin Ghaddar/January 22/11
Jumblatt’s dilemma/By: Matt Nash/January 22/11
The Lebanese Hole/By Tariq Alhomayed/January 22/11 
What might Hezbollah face once the trial begins?/By William Harris/January 22/11 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 22/11 
Ban Stresses 'Open Dialogue,' Says Lebanon Should Continue to Fund Tribunal/Naharnet
Israeli's Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom: 'Iranian government' in Lebanon possible/Israeli News
A Karami premiership means corruption and Syrian control, Geagea warns/Now Lebanon
Nasrallah, Syria Asked Jumblat for 7 Votes in Favor of Karami: Non-party Members Support Hariri/Naharnet
Consultations Could be Postponed Again Over Equal Votes on PM/Naharnet
Hariri's office: March 8’s negotiating terms were an attack on Taif and the premiership/Now Lebanon
President Sleiman stresses importance of Lebanese model’s success/Now Lebanon
Gemayel voices importance of international efforts for Lebanon/Now Lebanon
Selim Sayegh: Why is the STL so important to Hezbollah?/Now Lebanon
Geagea warns from Syrian comeback if opposition takes power/iloubnan.info
Shalom says 'Iranian government' in Lebanon possible/Ynetnews
Turkey still mediator in Lebanon, says Turkish FM Davutoglu/worldbulletin
Egypt's Mubarak meets leader in Lebanon's 14 March Alliance/Al-Masry Al-Youm
Lebanon Druze leader Walid Jumblatt sides with Hezbollah in crisis
4 Tripoli MPs Under Spotlight: Votes Are Necessary to Keep Hariri in Power/Naharnet
Report: Saudi Embassy Urges Citizens to Take Precautionary Measures/Naharnet
Sarkozy Adamant to Guarantee Lebanon's Stability as Arab Officials Rush to Paris/Naharnet
Greek Religious Leader to Visit Syria and Lebanon Next Week/Naharnet
STL Sets Feb 7 Date for Public Hearing on Legal Questions Raised by Indictment/Naharnet
Jumblatt redraws PM battle lines/Daily Star
Iran balks at nuclear discussion. Military option aired/DEBKAfile
Lebanon's rumor mill at full throttle/AP
Tony Blair: West must be prepared to use force against Iran/Haaretz
Michele Alliot-Marie: 'Syria has role of much importance in stabilizing Mideast'/Haaretz

Ban Stresses 'Open Dialogue,' Says Lebanon Should Continue to Fund Tribunal
Naharnet/U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon has stressed that the Lebanese government should "abide by its commitments" and continue to pay its share of the international tribunal's funds. In remarks to Arab satellite TV network al-Arabiya, Ban said Lebanon should be loyal to its commitments because the court was established by the Security Council upon the demand of the Lebanese people and government. Meanwhile, his spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said Friday that Ban is "concerned" over the situation in Lebanon and stresses the importance of stability during the government formation process. "It's not for the Secretary-General to recommend how a sovereign country goes about forming a government. What, simply, the Secretary-General has said is that it's obvious that what's important is stability," Nesirky said in his press briefing. The spokesman also stressed on "open dialogue between all the parties concerned" to solve the Lebanese crisis. When asked if the U.N. has a contingency plan to move the U.N. personnel from Beirut to Cyprus?, Nesirky said: "We don't discuss security arrangements. As you all know, UNIFIL has said very clearly that it has, and has had already in place, adequate measures." Beirut, 22 Jan 11, 09:58

Samir Geagea
January 22, 2011
I will go over the events that happened, which show the nature of the crisis since there is only one truth. One day, surprisingly, the March 8 ministers went to President Michel Sleiman and told him that they needed a cabinet meeting the next day to discuss the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, while Prime Minister Hariri was in the USA working to end the crisis. Sleiman called Hariri, who told him that it was impossible for him to be back the next day, and that he would set the cabinet session with Sleiman as soon as he returned to Lebanon. However the March 8 ministers resigned, along with one minister who was supposed to be on Sleiman’s side.
The next day, Speaker Nabih Berri met with Sleiman and set parliamentary consultations [on the prime ministerial nomination] for the 17th and 18th of January. PM Hariri went to sleep on Sunday with a 70 vote majority [in the parliament]. It was then that March 8 pressed for the postponement of the consultations, which they knew would not be in their favor.
We refused postponement and PM Hariri told Sleiman our position, [pointing out] especially that we [March 14] were not the ones who set the date [for the consultations].
However, Sleiman postponed the consultations hoping to reach some kind of agreement.
I want to pause here at one of the conclusions we can draw from all this, and here I appeal to President Sleiman: March 8 does not want any compromise nor do they want any agreement. All they want is for PM Hariri to say he that he gives up the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Is it possible to accept this? [Then] their demand is that they do not want Hariri as premier. They act as though there is no other side in the country.
President Sleiman postponed the consultations because he wanted things to go smoothly. After the postponement, things went back to where they started, and the battle started over the number of votes.
President Sleiman should bear the consequences of his decisions, since we were against the postponement.
Threats that occurred led to a change in the balance of power. This is why we ask President Sleiman to give the right to its people.
The real problem is that March 8 are waging a battle against Saad Hariri. Why do they refuse Hariri? Because he is a Sunni, or because he’s from Saida? Or because he is corrupt? Of course not.
They refused PM Fouad Siniora because he is not ‘in the hands of Hezbollah and Syria.’
They then demanded that Hariri be PM because [they thought] he was a young man so they could choke him.
They wanted Hariri then, and now they do not want him because he is not ‘in their hands.’
They refuse PM Hariri because he is independent, and because when he went to Syria he asked about detainees, border demarcation and Palestinian arms inside refugee camps.
Syrian knew then that Hariri has requests that they do not want.
March 8 has only one problem: the STL. They reject Saad Hariri because he speaks about matters that are taboo for them.
The Saudis did all they could to prevent any security turmoil in Lebanon.
If PM Omar Karami is to form a cabinet, then [former Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon] General Rustom Ghazali is the one with the most influence in forming it, since he brought in Karami. So the cabinet will be formed by Ghazali and [Hezbollah official Wafiq] Safa.
Progressive Socialist Party MPs would not choose Karami if they had a choice. The Karami cabinet will be as bad as previous cabinets.
Lebanon’s status will become like Gaza, since the Arab and international position towards this cabinet will be unknown.
What will the economic situation be with such a cabinet?
If March 8 forms the cabinet, MTV will close and the students will only have the right to study, since we don’t know the amount of freedom that will be given to them.
Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun is like someone sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
For all these reasons we support Saad Hariri, because he is the opposite of all this.
Aoun is battling against corruption, and I will believe this. But I want to ask him: will a Karami cabinet will be a cabinet against corruption? Was there any cabinet from 1990 until 2005 in which former PM Rafik Hariri had the majority? No, the majority belonged to Aoun’s current allies.
If Rafik Hariri was corrupt, where was the parliament stuffed with MP Aoun’s allies?
The basis of corruption was Michel Aoun’s current allies.
If MP Aoun knows what he is doing, it is a problem. It is an even bigger problem if he doesn’t. Aoun’s allies were the basis of the government from 1990 to 2005. Was PM Rafik Hariri more powerful than the Syrians?
Free Patriotic Movement youth should decide their stance. MP Aoun forgot that Karami was the first prime minster after the Taif Accord, and that his 1992 cabinet resigned for economic reasons and corruption. MP Aoun wants such a cabinet.
Michel Aoun is describing the Hariri team as the enemies of the Christians in Lebanon, and that they expanded at the expense of the Christians. I say yes, but what did Hezbollah, Amal Movement and the PSP do? Everyone expanded at the expense of Christians. Why? Because someone came and broke the back of the Christians. Who was it? The Syrians. And what is MP Aoun doing? He is bringing the Syrians back into this cabinet. PM Hariri will never abandon his allies.
No one signed any compromise, especially PM Hariri and the Saudis. The other team have only one clause in the compromise, which is Hariri abandoning the STL.
Can there be compromise with only one clause? We are ready to discuss the STL again under the slogan of openness and reconciliation, but not under the slogan of stopping it.
In the compromise, Hariri proposed restoring state institutions to work and the issue of the security problem, illegitimate weapons, and other matters important to state-building. They only proposed the tribunal clause. The discussions should focus on what will happen after the STL, not its work. Rumors about Hariri accepting to withdraw the signed protocol with the STL are wrong. We didn’t agree, we said we are ready to discuss. Hezbollah surprised us with an organized deployment on the second day after the postponement of the consultations, which was a blow, not for Israel and the US, but for the Lebanese economy. I hope that Hezbollah learned from this day and will never go back to it again.
I want to ask a question: can Hezbollah ask any citizen to consider them a Resistance? Hezbollah is using its [military] abilities to influence the domestic scene. If Hezbollah wanted to move, I ask the Lebanese state to protect us because we will not accept anyone attacking us and we will not attack anyone.
LBCI said yesterday that “it’s over”, but no, nothing is over yet. I call on the MPs and ask them to remember those who voted for them. Remember that nothing is left but courage at the moment of truth, and now is the moment of truth. We started our journey from underground and we won, so how [much easier will it be now that] we are starting it from above the ground?

Nasrallah, Syria Asked Jumblat for 7 Votes in Favor of Karami: Non-party Members Support Hariri
Naharnet/An agreement was reportedly made between the March 8 forces backed by Syria and Democratic Gathering leader MP Walid Jumblat for his bloc to give seven votes for the opposition's nominee for the premier's post, Omar Karami, amid efforts to guarantee a eighth MP. An Nahar daily quoted March 14 forces as saying Saturday that Democratic Gathering MPs who are not members of Jumblat's Progressive Socialist Party have informed him that they would nominate caretaker Premier Saad Hariri. They are: Mohammed al-Hajjar, Fouad al-Saad, Henri Helou, Marwan Hamadeh and Antoine Saad. An Nahar said that Jumblat guaranteed that only five party members -- in addition to a sixth who could be MP Elie Aoun -- would vote for Karami. The remaining six ministers stand by Hariri, the daily said. Hariri and his coalition have 60 seats in the 128-seat parliament against 57 for the March 8 camp. Jumblat's bloc holds 11 deputies, including five Christians and a Sunni. If he clinches the backing of enough of his MPs, he would guarantee that Hizbullah and its allies would impose Karami for the premiership. Beirut, 22 Jan 11, 09:20

PM’s office: March 8’s negotiating terms were PM’s office: March 8’s negotiating terms were an attack on Taif and the premiership
January 22, 2011 /Media outlets publishing reports about the terms of the Saudi-Syrian attempt to resolve Lebanese tensions should “ask about the paper prepared by [March 8], which had no other goal but to rally against the Taif Accord and […] besiege the premiership,” Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s press office said on Sunday.
Claims that Hariri signed an agreement are false, his office said in a statement, adding that “there was no signature or approval [of an agreement]. Matters remained within the framework of discussion.” The compromise was not limited to the articles being reported, which were “merely a step in a political and diplomatic process that was supposed to lead to an integrated approach for national reconciliation, affirming the implementation of the Taif Accord and the commitment to the promises made in the Doha Agreement,” the statement said.
The compromise would have “addressed the problem of the use of weapons in deciding political disputes, as well as deal with the security [problem] in all Lebanese regions according to a mechanism supervised by state institutions.” “[The articles also included] the implementation of national dialogue decisions agreed upon by the parliament, foremost of which is the surrender of Palestinian military encampments outside the refugee camps to the Lebanese army. All of this [would have been implemented] within a supervisory mechanism managed by a number of brotherly and friendly states.” “Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s protection of the security and judicial posts within the state is a matter he will not shirk, [especially] in light of the unjust campaign targeting these posts.”The unity government headed by Hariri collapsed January 12 after the reported failure of Syrian-Saudi-led efforts to resolve Lebanese tensions over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which issued its indictment last Monday in former Prime Minister Rafik Hairi’s 2005 assassination. -NOW Lebanon

A Karami premiership means corruption and Syrian control, Geagea warns
January 22, 2011 /Any cabinet formed by former premier Omar Karami would be shaped by former Syrian military intelligence chief in Lebanon General Rustom Ghazali and Hezbollah official Wafiq Safa, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said on Saturday. President Michel Sleiman bowed to March 8 pressure and postponed consultations on the prime ministerial nomination when Prime Minister Saad Hariri would have won, Geagea said in a press conference, calling on Sleiman to “behave in a way that keeps the right with those to whom it [rightfully] belongs.” Geagea reiterated support for Hariri’s prime ministerial candidacy as the “opposite” alternative to Karami’s corruption and Syrian control.
“No one can tell me that the Democratic Gathering MPs, if they had a choice, would choose Karami over Hariri.” “[Change and Reform bloc leader MP] Michel Aoun is like someone sawing off the branch he is sitting on,” Geagea also said, arguing that if Aoun claims to oppose corruption, he should remember that Karami’s first cabinet resigned due to corruption and economic crisis. He stated that while Aoun is right to say that Hariri’s side benefited at the expense of the Christians, “everyone expanded at the Christians’ expense, [because the Syrians] came and broke the Christians’ back. [Now Aoun] is bringing the Syrians back into the cabinet.” Following the January 12 collapse of the Lebanese unity government, Hariri is now heading a caretaker government pending the outcome of consultations postponed to next Monday between Sleiman and parliamentarians on the appointment of a new premier. Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement have said that they will not back Hariri for the premiership, while Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt officially announced on Friday that his party will side with the Resistance and Syria, leaving the rest of the Democratic Gathering bloc MPs’ decisions unknown. March 8 forces will reportedly back Omar Karami for the premiership in Monday’s consultations.-NOW Lebanon

Gemayel voices importance of international efforts for Lebanon
January 22, 2011 /“International efforts are required to preserve democracy and legal institutions in Lebanon,” Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel said on Saturday.
“We are witnessing an armed coup in Lebanon at the expense of democracy,” a statement issued by Gemayel’s office quoted him as saying. “A few days ago a military deployment pressured the president and the MPs concerning parliamentary consultations,” he added following his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Sleiman and French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie in Egypt. Crowds of young men gathered in some Beirut neighborhoods early Tuesday morning, causing some schools to close amid fears of potential violence. Parents were seen taking their children out of classes. The unity government headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri collapsed January 12 after the reported failure of Syrian-Saudi-led efforts to resolve Lebanese tensions over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which issued its draft indictment last Monday in former Prime Minister Rafik Hairi’s 2005 assassination. PM Saad Hariri is now heading a caretaker government pending the outcome of consultations postponed to next Monday between President Michel Sleiman and parliamentarians on the appointment of a new premier.-NOW Lebanon

Selim Sayegh: Why is the STL so important to Hezbollah?
January 22, 2011 /“Is the Special Tribunal for Lebanon(STL) so important to Hezbollah that it is ready to give up power just to abolish it?” asked Minister of Social Affairs Selim Sayegh on Saturday. “We are not afraid, because we have nothing to be afraid of,” Sayegh told As-Sharq radio. “Can someone that lost in the elections be nominated prime minister?” added the Kataeb backed minister, in a reference to former premier Omar Karami – reportedly the opposition-backed candidate for the premiership. “A person like [Lebanon First MP] Okab Sakr had the parliamentary majority to become [parliament] speaker, but he wasn’t nominated – for the sake of cooperation.” Following the January 12 collapse of the Lebanese unity government, Prime Minister Saad Hariri is now heading a caretaker government pending the outcome of consultations postponed to next Monday between President Michel Sleiman and parliamentarians on the appointment of a new premier. Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement have said that they will not back Hariri for the premiership, while Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt officially announced on Friday that his party will side with the Resistance and Syria, leaving the rest of the Democratic Gathering bloc MPs’ decisions unknown.-NOW Lebanon

Sleiman stresses importance of Lebanese model’s success
January 22, 2011 /“The Lebanese formula is a challenge and must succeed against terrorism, the Jewish state in Israel, and cultural conflicts in Europe,” said President Michel Sleiman on Saturday. “The [Lebanese] pact requires the participation of all with responsibility to achieve reform and defense, and not for the sharing of quotas,” Sleiman said in a statement.
“The current debate is over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon(STL), and no one side can eliminate the other. Everyone must participate responsibly.” The unity government headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri collapsed January 12 after the reported failure of Syrian-Saudi-led efforts to resolve Lebanese tensions over the STL, which issued its indictment last Monday in former Prime Minister Rafik Hairi’s 2005 assassination. PM Saad Hariri is now heading a caretaker government pending the outcome of consultations postponed to next Monday between Sleiman and parliamentarians on the appointment of a new premier. -NOW Lebanon

The C word
January 20, 2011
It can be argued that the May 21, 2008 Doha Agreement has taken Lebanon to the troubled place it finds itself in today. The meeting in the Qatari capital ended exactly 18 months of political deadlock and was trumpeted as a diplomatic triumph. And why not? It did, after all, bring together March 8 and March 14 political groupings that had been at each other’s throats since March 2005 to thrash out an agreement on the formation of a national-unity government and the nomination of a new president. But it also gave us a dirty word: compromise.
Ever since Doha, the country has lived an illusion. Yes, there has been stability, but it has been based on the ever-present, low-intensity intimidation of March 8 and Hezbollah’s threat of violence. The veiled message was, “Give us what we want or at any time we can collapse the government and/or take our people onto the streets. They may be armed or they may not be armed, but either way we will disrupt daily life.” Almost all of the components of the threat, save the “nuclear” option, have been carried out in the last week.
The most recent module of the March 8 formula was activated in the early hours of Tuesday morning, when groups of men belonging to Amal and Hezbollah gathered at key intersections in the capital. It happened less than 24 hours after it was announced that the draft indictments for those involved in the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri had been submitted to the office of the pre-trial judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
It was an act of unparalleled cynicism. It created panic and resurrected not only memories of the street demonstrations that punctuated 2007 and the first six months of 2008, but also the bloody street skirmishes in May of that year. March 8 got the reaction it wanted. Schools closed while many parents simply brought their children home from those that didn’t.
Had March 8 finally followed through on its threat to further destabilize the country in the face of an international judicial process that it is convinced is part of a US-Zionist conspiracy to crush Hezbollah? We still don’t know, as the men dispersed almost as quickly as they appeared. Whether this was a dress rehearsal for something or a symbolic gesture to mark the presentation of the indictments, we don’t know. What we do know is that it was neither the action of national unity nor engaging in consensus. It was blackmail.
Surely it is time to recognize that compromise can never work when one side has no intention of being a genuine partner in government. Compromise blurs. Compromise muddies the waters. Compromise has taken government and the rule of law away from the corridors of the constitution and placed it in the bazaar, where barter and sleight of hand is king. It has paralyzed the public sector, slowed economic development and hastened the brain drain. Indeed, compromise has taken Lebanon from the promise of a new era of democracy and sovereignty to the brink of the abyss. The current crisis is based upon March 8’s refusal to recognize international justice simply because the bloc believes that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is politicized. Based on this hazy assumption, it has threatened to deliver chaos. March 8 will fight the tribunal no matter what. As such, the March 14 majority (yes, it still has one) must abandon the path of compromise and pursue a course of action based on the rule of law, the constitution, state institutions, UN resolutions and, above all, non-violence.
It must set this example in the face of intimidation and the threat of a coup, armed or otherwise. The people must know that the caretaker government operates according to the constitution, the army and the security services must know that it represents the state, and the world must be assured that Lebanon is not about to descend into sectarian strife. What remains of Lebanon’s government must be a model of constitutional probity. In short, it must not blink and it must never return to Doha.

What’s next for Lebanon?
Hanin Ghaddar, January 22, 2011
A psychological war, combined with a political and media campaign, is what constitutes Hezbollah’s plan to take over Lebanon and its state institutions. The party’s “game” looks constitutional and democratic on the surface, as all it did was resign from the government and bring about its collapse. Now President Michel Sleiman has to carry out parliamentary consultations on Monday, assuming they aren’t once again postponed, to name the new prime minister and form the new government. Druze leader and MP Walid Jumblatt has apparently taken sides with March 8, a move that might allow the Hezbollah-led coalition to form a government, most likely under two-time premier Omar Karami. In his press conference on Friday, Jumblatt announced that his Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) would side with Syria and the Resistance. This contradicts his statements of last week in which he implied that he would name his erstwhile March 14 ally, the current caretaker prime minister, Saad Hariri.
He told Al-Akhbar daily on Monday that “The [opposition] ministers’ decision to resign was a mistake in politics.” He said that Hariri is the best candidate for premier, adding that the March 14 coalition wanted to replace Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in 2005 but “it was refused, since Berri was a representative of the Shia sect.”
This, of course, does not mean that the whole block will side against Hariri. The Druze leader has 11 deputies – among whom five Christians and one Sunni – in parliament, and he must garner the backing of seven MPs to allow Hezbollah and its allies to impose their candidate for the premiership.
Does this sound anti-democratic or anti-constitutional? Not at all. However, the rules of the game are neither political nor constitutional. What is happening is an insurgency, pure and simple.
Away from the numbers game, Jumblatt was pressured to make his statement on Friday. What happened is yet another volte face by the PSP leader, who usually cannot face bullying, especially when it comes to threats of street clashes involving the Druze community in the Chouf Mountains. This is exactly what happened in May 2008, and it worked again this time.
Without their arms, and the intimidation caused by the threat of using them, the end result would have been completely different for March 8. No political game should involve militia-like gatherings that only lead to panic among citizens, and no democratic process should involve threats of sectarian clashes such as the May 7 events of 2008. The March 8 and Hezbollah media made veiled threats of a return to street violence, not in media reports or opinion pieces, but in vague articles that can only be described as intelligence reports.
So with Hezbollah’s arms as the decision-maker in today’s Lebanon, what will happen next?
Two scenarios loom on the horizon. One is that the parliamentary consultations will be postponed. Recent reports verify this scenario, which would drag Lebanon into a long, open crisis, during which the probability of clashes and sectarian strife will increase, as a way to pressure politicians and factions to submit to the Iranian-Syrian demands. The other scenario is that Monday will witness consultations that will lead to the selection of Karami as the next PM.
So what do Iran and Syria want? During his speech on Thursday night, PM Saad Hariri declared that no matter how many compromises he was willing to make, their one and only demand is to keep him away from the prime minister’s office. That is doubtless the biggest mistake the Syrian regime has made in a very long time, probably since their decision to extend former President Emile Lahoud’s term in 2004.
It seems that the Syrian regime hasn’t learned from experience. What happened on March 14, 2005 was not just a direct result of former PM Rafik Hariri’s assassination. It was the fruit of a long process of opposition to its practices in Lebanon. Internally, it will not be a straightforward change of government. They are bringing back a prime minister whose previous government witnessed the assassination of Rafik Hariri and was toppled by the Independence Intifada.
The return of Karami would signify a return of the Syrian regime to Lebanon, but this time orchestrated and controlled by Hezbollah and Iran. The Sunni street and the majority of the Christians in the country will not accept that. This government will never be seen as legitimate, either internally or by the international community.
Another lesson that March 8 has probably forgotten is when they tried the same stunt in 1998 when Hariri senior was ousted from office only to return stronger in 2000. His son could do the same in 2013.
On another level, this time March 8 will have to deal with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, meaning that they will have to face the international community, backed only by Iran.
Nevertheless, and as much as they look as if they’re shooting themselves in the foot, Hezbollah and Syria seem to be drugged by power. Their actions indicate that they believe they can stop the Special Tribunal by terminating the protocol signed between the Lebanese government and the court, withdrawing the Lebanese judges and ceasing the Lebanese funding to the court.
According to the procedures of the tribunal, and knowing the similar events surrounding the International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, this is not possible. The tribunal will go on with its work, regardless of what happens in Lebanon. Another scary scenario is if March 8 succeeds in forming a strong government that it uses to change the government system from the current equal division of power between Christians and Muslims to a three-way power-sharing scheme among Christians, Shia and Sunnis. The two parties have repeatedly hinted at a new equation, mostly under the pretext of “abolishing sectarianism.” At the moment it’s too early to tell which way it will go. Monday might carry new surprises.
**Hanin Ghaddar is managing editor of NOW Lebanon.

Jumblatt’s dilemma
Matt Nash, January 21, 2011
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt announced at a press conference Friday that his party would “stand with Syria and the Resistance” in naming Lebanon’s next prime minister. Hezbollah has indicated it will not support the re-election of caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri. On Thursday, Hariri said he will once again stand for the post, and his March 14 coalition has thrown their support behind him. President Michel Sleiman is scheduled to hold constitutionally-mandated consultations with parliament on choosing a new PM Monday, though those consultations have already been postponed once. Jumblatt’s decision could derail Hariri’s chances of winning re-election as PM. The constitution does not specifically call for a formal vote, but traditionally the president receives a name from MPs, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Speculation about whom Jumblatt – and the 10 parliamentarians in his Democratic Gathering bloc – will support as Lebanon’s new PM has been rampant since the government collapsed on January 12. Just last week, Jumblatt and sources close to him were hinting he would support Hariri. This week, however, Lebanon’s press has been abuzz with rumors the Druze leader will support former PM Omar Karami, reportedly the March 8 coalition’s choice. The conventional wisdom surfacing from press reports also indicated Jumblatt decided not to support Hariri under pressure from Damascus and Hezbollah.
In an interview with The New York Times published on Thursday, Jumblatt, speaking of the coming vote on a new PM, said, “I’ve been able to slowly regain the confidence of Hezbollah and Bashar [al-Assad]… I’m not going to commit any more blunders. I cannot afford to.”
“It’s clear they’ve been twisting his arm,” a source close to Jumblatt told NOW Lebanon of pressure exerted by Syria and Hezbollah on the PSP leader. “There have been rumors of military action [by Syria and Hezbollah], threats against the Druze. The main problem is Hezbollah doesn’t have an enemy to fight [in the Sunni and Christian communities.] If the Druze are in the equation [against them], they do have an enemy. The Druze are the only ones willing to stand up. If Hezbollah wants to take West Beirut, No one will stand against them.”
Hilal Khashan, a Political Science professor at the American University of Beirut, agreed that Jumblatt was pressured against supporting Hariri’s nomination.
“The Syrians told him to vote for Karami,” Khashan said. Jumblatt last visited Damascus on January 15, days after 11 ministers resigned from the cabinet, forcing the collapse of the government. The source close to Jumblatt, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to talk to the media, added that Saudi Arabia’s announcement that it was abandoning mediation efforts in Lebanon gave Jumblatt the green light to side with March 8. Saudi Arabia, the source said, provides the PSP with a “big chunk” of the money in the party’s coffers. “It’s not a secret. Everyone knows this. [Jumblatt] says it publically.” But, the source added, “The Saudis gave up and threw in the towel. [Jumblatt] would never go against Saudi wishes, which is why he opened up to Syria in the first place,” following the June 2009 parliamentary elections. Khashan, however, disagreed with this assessment of Jumblatt’s ties to the Saudis.
“The Saudis are not in a position to apply pressure on Jumblatt. There are two sides: the Americans and the Syrians. Jumblatt does not trust the Americans. They will let him down,” he said.
Jumblatt’s decision could mean a win for March 8 in choosing the next PM, but that is not yet guaranteed. In the New York Times interview, he said he can only count on four or five of the 11 MPs in his bloc to vote against Hariri.
During his press conference, Jumblatt did not say his entire bloc – which includes official PSP members as well as non-members and is comprised of five Druze, five Christians and one Sunni – will vote with March 8. Two sources close to the PSP gave NOW Lebanon conflicting analysis on what might happen during consultations.
One source said seven MPs will vote with Jumblatt while another said only four will. Neither was sure if the remaining Democratic Gathering bloc MPs would vote for Hariri or abstain from a vote. An article in As-Safir recently noted that Tripoli MPs Mohammad Safadi, Ahmad Karami and Najib Mikati, Donniyeh MP Qassem Abdel Aziz, and Zahle MP Nicolas Fattouch are technically independent, though they ran on March 14-supported electoral lists, and may choose to vote against Hariri. Khashan rejected out of hand that the Sunni MPs from the north would vote against Hariri, but Fattouch is expected to vote with March 8, according to press reports. Voting next week, should it take place, could be close, but Jumblatt’s decision seems to preclude Hariri’s chances of winning re-election. That, of course, does not mean a government will be formed any time soon.  “March 14 won’t join the cabinet of Omar Karami,” Khashan said, echoing unnamed sources from the coalition quoted in the press this week. “They will boycott. This is an unfolding crisis, and worse is yet to come

March 14 Meetings in Several Cities in Support for Hariri
Naharnet/March 14 supporters are holding several meetings and conferences in Beirut and the northern port city of Tripoli in support of Caretaker Premier Saad Hariri. More than 500 personalities, including doctors, engineers, lawyers and academics will hold a meeting at the Quality Inn Hotel in Tripoli. They will issue a statement in the name of the city announcing their support for Hariri, An Nahar daily said. In Beirut's Ashrafiyeh neighborhood, March 14 leaders and activists will meet at Le Gabriel Hotel for a conference under the slogan of "A Consultative Meeting in Defense of the Republic." Beirut, 22 Jan 11, 11:29

Report: Saudi Embassy Urges Citizens to Take Precautionary Measures
Naharnet/The Saudi embassy has reportedly sent text messages to its citizens, urging them to take precautionary measures over the deteriorating political situation in Lebanon. An embassy source told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat in remarks published Saturday that "given the situation …. the embassy asked its citizens to remain in contact with it to know what measures to take." He said, the sms also urged Saudis to give their phone numbers to the embassy if their contacts are still not registered at its premises. Riyadh fears that the political deadlock could lead to a deteriorating security situation in the country, the source added. Beirut, 22 Jan 11, 08:41

The Lebanese Hole
22/01/2011
By Tariq Alhomayed
The first lesson that any lifeguard learns is not to let a drowning man cling to them and drag them under, and the first lesson that anybody dealing with the Lebanese scene must learn is that you must not march to their beat, but rather raise your engagement with them to the state level.
Prince Saud al-Faisal announced that the Saudi monarch had given up on mediation with Syria with regards to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and following this it was asked in Beirut "Is Saudi Arabia angry with Hariri?" My [Lebanese] brothers, please pay attention! Prince Saud al-Faisal said that King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz had spoken with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, head-of-state to head-of-state, and when there was no forthcoming commitment to what had been agreed upon, he gave up on this agreement. However, the Lebanese then said "Yes…but does this confirm that Saudi Arabia has given up on Lebanon?" Yesterday, Prince Saud al-Faisal responded to this, answering that it confirms that Saudi Arabia has "only [given up] with regards to the issue of mediation." However tomorrow the Lebanese will ask, why did you withdraw from your withdrawal?" This is a vicious circle that will continue in this way; the Lebanese hole drowns everybody who tries to enter it. The issue does not stop here, for during the 2006 war, when Saudi Arabia issued a statement about the [military] adventurists, the Lebanese asked "who wrote this speech?" and the answer was "what's the difference? Everybody is loyal to King Abdullah." This, of course, was a statement that was followed by even more analysis [from the Lebanese].
The whole issue is one of wrangling, for the Lebanese only hear what they want to hear, otherwise how can we explain their disregard of the statement issued by the Turkish Foreign Minister [Ahmet Davutoglu]. The Turkish foreign minister, accompanied by his Qatari counterpart, issued a statement [on Thursday], announcing the end of their mediation efforts in Lebanon. This came after the Saudi Foreign Minister [Prince Saudi al-Faisal] announced that King Abdullah had given up on mediating the Lebanese problems. Davutoglu's statement was clear, he said that his country would be halting its mediation efforts because the Lebanese parties were not responding…this was a very unambiguous statement, but we did not hear any [Lebanese] response to this.
In order to understand the problems [in Lebanon], we must consider one simple thing whose symbolism is clear, and that is that when [Hezbollah chief] Hassan Nasrallah met with the Iranian President [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] in Lebanon during his last visit, this meeting took place at the Iranian embassy. Ahmadinejad was not taken blindfolded to meet with Nasrallah [at a secret location], and this is because Ahmadinejad was dealing with a subordinate or an employee. The same applies to many others when they visit Damascus, for the Damascus leadership does not come to them [in Lebanon]. However when the Saudi monarch visited Lebanon, he went and visited Hariri, rather than having Hariri come to him at the Saudi Arabian embassy, and that is a big difference!
In comparison, we have all heard the complaints made, for example, by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, about the journey he was taken on in order to meet with Hassan Nasrallah. We also do not know the manner in which the Turkish and Qatari foreign ministers met with Nasrallah a few days ago.
Therefore, what we mean to say here is that states cannot lower themselves to the level of sect or militia leaders, meeting with them in caves or rooftops. Tell me…is it rational for the Saudi Foreign Ministry to deal with the fickle Walid Jumblatt? The changeable nature of Mr. Jumblatt means that it would be better for the Saudi Weather Service to deal with him, for his changes in position go beyond even the weather changes in our region!
Therefore we say, there is no need for further clarification, now is the time to deal with Lebanon with the logic of a state, and if the Lebanese do not respond, they are the ones who will pay the price; their situation is getting progressively worse, and this will not only affect them but their neighbors, because there is no question that this fire will spread to others.

Jumblatt redraws PM battle lines
Druze leader: Thwarting of Syrian-Saudi deal indicates special tribunal politicized
By Hussein Dakroub /Daily Star staff
Saturday, January 22, 2011
BEIRUT: Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt voiced support Friday for Syria and Hezbollah, throwing his weight fully behind the March 8 coalition ahead of a fierce battle for the prime minister’s job with the rival March 14 camp led by caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
Jumblatt also slammed the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon as a tool for “political blackmail” that threatens the country’s national unity and security. The STL, which is investigating the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, has for months been at the root of tension between the March 8 and March 14 camps that plunged Lebanon into one of its worst political crises.
Declaring that Lebanon stood at “a dangerous crossroads” as a result of the current tension over the STL’s indictment into Hariri’s killing, Jumblatt told a news conference at his residence in Beirut: “I hereby announce the appropriate political position to confront this stage and its complications. The party [PSP] will stand firm in support of Syria and the Resistance.”
Jumblatt’s decision, which is likely to give the March 8 coalition an edge in deciding who will be the next prime minister, marked a major shift of alliance for a politician who once staunchly supported Hariri against Hezbollah. Jumblatt said his decision, which was taken after chairing a meeting of his 11-member parliamentary Democratic Gathering bloc, was aimed at preserving stability and avoiding a sectarian conflict.
Jumblatt did not say how many of his MPs would vote for the March 8 coalition’s candidate for the prime minister’s post. But March 14 officials said Jumblatt’s MPs were not united behind their leader.
A senior March 8 source told The Daily Star Friday night Jumblatt has promised that seven MPs of his bloc would vote for the March 8 camp’s candidate.
“The opposition has secured a majority in Parliament. But holding the parliamentary consultations on time remains uncertain,” the source said, adding that there was still time for Arab and international moves to search for a compromise which could lead to another postponement of the parliamentary consultations.
Jumblatt later Friday night met with Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
The feuding camps are scrambling to muster a majority of votes in the 128-member Parliament ahead of President Michel Sleiman’s binding consultations with lawmakers Monday and Tuesday to poll them on their choices for a prime minister.
The candidate with the most votes will be named prime minister. Hariri and his allies in the March 14 coalition have 60 lawmakers, while Hezbollah and its March 8 allies have 57.
Jumblatt holds the decisive vote in
Parliament with his 11 MPs. With Jumblatt saying that the PSP is committed to supporting Hezbollah, there are at least five lawmakers who are party members and who are expected to vote for the March 8 camp’s candidate to the premiership. There are also some independent lawmakers in the March 14 coalition who have not yet declared where they stood on the premiership issue. The March 8 coalition has declared that former Prime Minister Omar Karami is their choice for prime minister.
Jumblatt’s declaration came a day after Hariri said he would seek a new term as prime minister, defying pressure by Hezbollah and its allies to oust him. Hariri’s national unity Cabinet was brought down last week with the resignations of March 8 ministers in a long-simmering dispute over the STL’s indictment, which is widely expected to implicate some Hezbollah members in Hariri’s assassination.
Hezbollah, which has repeatedly denied involvement in Hariri’s killing, has dismissed the STL as an “American-Israeli tool” designed to incite sectarian strife in Lebanon.
Jumblatt, who has reconciled with Syria and Hezbollah since his withdrawal from the March 14 coalition in 2009, blasted the STL. “The international tribunal has assumed a political dimension par excellence, threatening the national unity and national security,” he said. “This tribunal’s path has become a tool of sabotage and deviated from the path of justice to enter a political bazaar and political blackmail.”
Jumblatt said the Saudi-Syrian initiative on Lebanon had clearly provided for terminating Lebanon’s links with the STL through the cancellation of the cooperation protocol with the tribunal, the halting of funding for it and a withdrawal of Lebanese judges from the tribunal.
Jumblatt said he supported the Saudi-Syrian initiative “because it provided a solution for the current crisis,” adding that it had been endorsed by all the parties, including Syrian President Bashar Assad, Hariri and Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Apparently referring to the United States, which was accused by the March 8 coalition of derailing the Saudi-Syrian efforts, Jumblatt said: “International powers did not agree or accept a Syrian-Saudi rapprochement through which an inter-Lebanese settlement could be reached to negate the ramifications of the tribunal and its indictment which is in theory secret, but has been announced by all media outlets. This matter has undermined the tribunal’s credibility and confirmed that it is politicized.”
The PSP leader said that he decided to take “this choice” after the Arab initiative had been thwarted. Jumblatt said that as part of attempts to sabotage the Saudi-Syrian initiative, the STL’s Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare submitted a sealed indictment Monday to the tribunal’s pre-trial Judge Daniel Fransen.
Jumblatt’s declaration came a day after Turkey and Qatar abandoned their efforts to a mediate a solution. Saudi Arabia also said this week that it has abandoned efforts to mediate in the Lebanese crisis and warned of a dangerous situation in Lebanon that could lead to the partitioning of the country.
Meanwhile, the French Ambassador to Lebanon Denis Pietton called on the Lebanese to respect the Constitution and democratic rules in the formation of a new government after meeting Hariri. “I reminded Mr. Hariri of the two pillars of the French policy toward his country: Support for the sovereignty, independence and stability of the country on one hand, and the fight against impunity in the framework of international legality on the other hand,” he told reporters.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said in a statement he has postponed a visit to France, scheduled for next week, due to the “worrisome situation” in Lebanon.
Western Bekaa MP Jamal Jarrah of Hariri’s parliamentary Future bloc told the Voice of Lebanon radio station that pressure was being exerted on lawmakers so that they would not name Hariri as prime minister. He accused the March 8 camp of failing to comply with the requirements of security and stability.

What might Hezbollah face once the trial begins?
By William Harris /Daily Star/Friday, January 21, 2011
So Daniel Bellemare, the prosecutor of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, has submitted a draft indictment against suspects in the Hariri assassination. The judicial train has finally left the station. This is a pivotal event, even if we do not yet know the identities of those indicted. Bellemare has told us he would submit an indictment based on overwhelming evidence. Therefore, we can assume that there will be a legal process and that individuals with clear political affiliations will be subjected to months of judicial proceedings before a global audience, whether or not they are personally present.
We know that the indictments will almost certainly cover persons aligned with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. One question, though, is whether Syrian or even Iranian persons will be named alongside the Lebanese accused. Given Hezbollah’s assumption that the murder indictments will encompass two or more of its members, what would the implications be for the party? Contrary to the view that the party is capable of seizing Lebanon and sailing through unscathed, the consequences for it in the longer term may be catastrophic.
First, although indictments are against individuals, not organizations, public suspicion directed against Hezbollah will be overwhelming, given the large-scale conspiracy involved in Rafik Hariri’s assassination and the subsequent trail of associated murders. This will be especially true if party members are the most prominent among the accused, while others fade into the background. As Hezbollah’s secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, openly stated in a speech last July otherwise denying Hezbollah’s involvement, any claim that party members involved in Hariri’s killing were “rogue elements” would fail to convince, given Hezbollah’s tight, disciplined structure. Much the same holds for Syria’s intelligence services.
Furthermore, if the indictment of Hezbollah members eventually leads to convictions, it is difficult to see how the party could thereafter take part in Lebanese official business as if nothing had happened – at least in a Lebanon still part of the international community.
Second, although the indictments are specifically for the Hariri assassination, it will be almost universally assumed that the leading suspects were also involved in other political crimes in the period 2004-2008. The sequence of political murders and attempted murders, including the Hariri assassination, involved 12 incidents, targeting politicians, journalists and security officials, with a total casualty toll of 54 dead and at least 335 wounded. These attacks represented the largest, most dramatic assassination campaign in the post Cold War world. Any organization or regime tarred with this brush will be politically finished in any meaningful sense, regardless of the constituency they might think they control.
Third, defiance of the Special Tribunal, combined with efforts to turn the Lebanese government against the institution, will be to no avail. The tribunal will try the suspects in absentia and the international community will impose sanctions on both Hezbollah and the Lebanese state. If the international community is pushed into a corner, no one in Lebanon should doubt that it will react with serious measures.
Overall, if the indictment includes Hezbollah personnel, the party will have little room for maneuver. Lebanese politics will go nowhere during the weeks when the pretrial judge, Daniel Fransen, confirms Bellemare’s indictments, whatever the dubious interventions of Turkey, Qatar or others. More Hezbollah speeches and threats to cut off hands will just convince more people that the party has plenty to hide, and any coup attempt can only end badly for the party. The formal indictment of Hezbollah members may conclusively wipe out its legitimacy in half of Lebanon. Assuming the prosecutor maintains the upper hand, the subsequent court proceedings might bring over many Shiites, as successive, relentless judicial sessions make the party’s alleged victimhood look ever more threadbare.
Up to the point of indictment the Syrian regime has worked together with Hezbollah to try to force Lebanon to end its participation in and endorsement of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Both the party and Damascus fear the trajectory of the international judicial process. However, if an initial indictment names only Hezbollah members and Lebanese also-rans, Syria would hope for a free pass out of crimes that could not have occurred without its direction.
**William Harris, a professor and head of the Department of Politics at the University of Otago, New Zealand, is author of “Faces of Lebanon” and “The Levant: A Fractured Mosaic.” His “History of Lebanon, 600-2011” is forthcoming with Oxford University Press. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Lebanon Druze leader Walid Jumblatt sides with Hezbollah in crisis
The U.S.-backed coalition led by caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri is on the verge of losing its grip on power after Jumblatt's defection to Hezbollah.
By Alexandra Sandels and Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times
January 22, 2011
E-mail Print Share Text Size Reporting from Beirut and Cairo — The U.S.-backed parliamentary coalition led by caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri was on the verge of losing its tenuous grip on the Lebanese government after a key politician defected Friday to support the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.
The decision by Walid Jumblatt, a Druze chieftain and longtime player amid Lebanon's fractious parties, to back Hezbollah, which is supported by Syria, highlighted the dangerous regional maneuverings across the troubled Lebanese political scene. The move was a blow to Washington, which had worked with Hariri until his 14-month-old unity government collapsed this month. "The party will stand firm in support of Syria and the resistance," Jumblatt, head of the Progressive Socialist Party, said at a news conference in Beirut. He did not, however, reveal how many of the 11 members of parliament with his party would side with him. But Jumblatt's support is crucial for any party jockeying to form a government.
Lebanon's delicate unity government imploded after Hezbollah and its allies recently resigned from the Cabinet as a protest against the United Nations tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Hariri's father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The probe is widely expected to result in indictments against Hezbollah members.
Tensions around the assassination investigation intensified when indictments were given to a judge in The Hague on Monday. Jumblatt, once a staunch supporter of the tribunal, attacked it as a threat to Lebanon's security. The Druze leader holds the decisive vote in parliament. If he sides with the Hezbollah-led coalition and manages to get the backing of at least seven of his 11 deputies, it would clear the way for the Shiite Muslim bloc and its allies to impose their choice as prime minister.
For his part, Saad Hariri has said he will attempt to regain his post when talks to form a new government begin Monday. "I remain committed as a candidate, in line with my parliamentary bloc's decision," Lebanese news reports quoted him as saying in a speech Thursday night.
The standoff, one of Lebanon's worst crises in years, comes as Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia appear to have abandoned mediation efforts. The escalating confrontation between the Hezbollah-led coalition and Hariri's reflects the ongoing geopolitical rivalry between a camp of nations and militant groups led by Shiite Iran and another supported by the U.S. and its Sunni Muslim allies, most notably Saudi Arabia. Analysts said Syria has put immense pressure on Jumblatt to support the opposition. They added that such a scenario was no surprise given that Jumblatt, as head of a minority group, would be prone to side with Hezbollah in hopes of warding off another round of sectarian violence among Shiites, Sunnis and Christians.
But analysts were skeptical of a Cabinet led by the Hezbollah-controlled opposition. Such a Cabinet, they said, would probably not win the approval of President Michel Suleiman and would be boycotted by Hariri's current pro-Western parliamentary majority, known as the March 14 alliance.
"We will not have a new Cabinet … for months and months," said Hilal Khashan, a political scientist at the American University of Beirut.
To form a government, one must have the support of at least 65 lawmakers in Lebanon's 128-seat parliament. Hezbollah and its allies have 57 seats and Hariri's coalition has 60.
Concerns about sectarian violence increased this week when dozens of black-clad, unarmed Hezbollah supporters reportedly grouped in various West Beirut neighborhoods Tuesday morning, prompting schools to close and the army to bolster its presence.
jeffrey.fleishman@latimes.com

Shalom says 'Iranian government' in Lebanon possible
Vice PM says Druze leader Jumblatt's support for Hezbollah in political crisis 'dangerous development' Attila Somfalvi Published: 01.22.11, 13:40 / Israel News
Druze leader Walid Jumblatt's decision to join forces with Hezbollah against Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri increases the risk that an "Iranian government" will be established in Lebanon, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom (Likud) said Saturday. Speaking at a cultural forum in Bat Yam, Shalom said, "This is not just about a terror organization which operates with Iran's support and inspiration any more, but rather a real sovereign government. "There is no doubt this is a dangerous development which forces us to follow (Lebanon) closely. We will be prepared for any future development," he said. On Friday Jumblatt threw his support behind Hezbollah, a major boost to the Shiite group that brought down the country's Western-backed government last week. He refused to say exactly how many lawmakers are with him, but his support is key for any candidate trying to form a government.
Ministers from Hezbollah and its allies walked out of the government, forcing its collapse, last week when Prime Minister Hariri refused to renounce the tribunal investigating the assassination of his father, former PM Rafik Hariri. The tribunal prosecutor issued a draft indictment on Monday. Its contents were not revealed, but it is expected to accuse members of Hezbollah, which denies any role in the assassination and had accused the tribunal of being an "Israeli tool."Once one of the most ardent supporters of the tribunal, Jumblatt launched a scathing attack on the court, saying it poses a "threat to national unity and national security." According to reports in Lebanon, the opposition's candidate to head the next government will likely be Omar Karami, a former PM who was accused of being "Syria's puppet." Reuters, AP contributed to the report

Lebanon's rumor mill at full throttle
As political crisis over Hariri probe deepens, citizens transfer savings from local pound into dollars, international students advised by some embassies to leave country. Bus driver: There will be a war, and it will be soon
AFP Published: 01.22.11, 08:15 / Israel News
Lebanon's rumor mill is at full throttle, sparking panic and spreading a sense of foreboding, as a seemingly insoluble political deadlock that has left the country without government deepens.
A gathering of Hezbollah supporters in many western Beirut neighborhoods on Tuesday sparked rumors of a dry run in preparation for a takeover of the capital.
Potential Lebanon kingmaker supports Hezbollah / Associated Press
Support of Walid Jumblatt crucial for any candidate trying to form new Lebanon government
Anonymous mobile telephone text messages and even printed fliers this week have warned citizens to flee the city before all hell breaks loose.
"I got a BlackBerry message yesterday saying that the situation was bad and that we should leave Beirut," said one marketing student at the Lebanese American University.
"A lot of my friends got the same message."
Television channels have been feeding the psychosis, flashing any minor incident or loud sound as latest news.
Even the scheduled departure from Lebanon of a Western ambassador this week also sparked rumors she had packed her bags and fled. "Our nerves are frayed," said a resident of Achrafieh, a Christian quarter in eastern Beirut.
"Everyone is jumpy and any rumor sends us into frenzy."
One woman, whose family is loyal to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, an ally of Lebanon's powerful Hezbollah, said she had been called home this week after a relative received a tip-off.
"My brother called me yesterday in complete hysterics," said the 25-year-old, who requested anonymity.
"He said he had gotten news that something was going to happen that afternoon, and I left my office in Hamra (in western Beirut) and went home," she told AFP.
"Nothing happened."
Lebanon's rival parties are headed for a showdown Monday, as MPs head to the president's office to appoint a new premier after the Iranian-backed Hezbollah last week toppled the government of pro-Western premier Saad Hariri.
The government's collapse capped a long-running standoff over a UN investigation into the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Saad's father.
The deadlock has sparked fears of a repeat of the events of May 2008, when a protracted political crisis spiraled into sectarian fighting that left 100 dead and saw the Hezbollah camp force the closure of the Beirut airport.
Alarmed Lebanese have also begun to throng banks across the country, transferring their savings from the local pound into dollars and withdrawing massive amounts, bank officials told AFP. A UN official in Beirut said the organization's staff had also been advised to take extra precautions.
"It's incredible how panicked people are, withdrawing money and stocking up on water and food staples," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
"They have created an atmosphere that is unbearable. The rumor mill is at full steam."
While embassies have not yet sent out travel warnings to their citizens in Lebanon, international students have been advised by some embassies to leave the country before the situation worsens, university officials said. "Some Arab embassies including Jordan and Saudi Arabia called their students yesterday and advised them to leave the country given the current situation," an American University official told AFP on condition of anonymity. "Up until now, no one has left, but the university has asked all students to stay in their dorms and remain in contact with the dean of students." Meanwhile, Lebanese across the country are doing their best to carry on with their daily lives. But they cannot shake off the hovering fear that the next round of deadly violence is just around the corner. "It's obvious that something is going to happen. After so many years, you learn to read the signs. All these feuding politicians are definitely not going to sit down and say a prayer together," said bus driver Hussein Ezzedine. "There will be a war, and it will be soon. That's what I believe," the 56-year-old told AFP.
"Our rich leaders have the luxury to send their kids abroad, while we have to struggle with gas and bread prices on a day-to-day basis and worry about war and the safety of our children on top of that."

Iran balks at nuclear discussion. Military option aired
DEBKAfile Special Report January 22, 2011, Refusing to discuss his own country's nuclear program, Iranian delegation leader Saeed Jalili was only willing to talk about Israel's reported nuclear arsenal when he met with the delegations of six world powers in Istanbul Friday, Jan. 21. Our sources report that European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, head of the multi-power delegation, physically blocked the exit of the conference chamber to prevent Jalili from walking out. He finally agreed to stay another day in response to Ashton's pleas but refused to change his position.
Western diplomats used very undiplomatic language to describe how "very angry and frustrated" they were with Iran's attitude to yet another US-led bid to solve the nuclear controversy with Iran by diplomacy and dialogue..
One Western diplomat recalled anonymously how on Oct. 5, 2000, Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State, locked the gates of a venue in Paris to stop Yasser Arafat walking out of a meeting with then prime minister Ehud Barak that Washington had called to try and avert the Palestinian uprising.
In London, Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair issued the strongest call yet from any Western statesman to take the gloves off with Iran.
"I say this to you with all of the passion I possibly can – at some point the West has to get out of what I think is a wretched policy or posture of apology for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing, or what these extremists are doing," he said. "We are not. The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they'll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and if necessary, force."
From his experience as Middle East peace envoy, Blair said, "…the impact and the influence of Iran is everywhere. It is negative, destabilizing, it is supportive of terrorist groups and it is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East process."Blair said bluntly that US President Barack Obama is "too soft" with Iran. His critical remarks were directed equally at the Netanyahu government in Jerusalem, which closely aligns its Iran policy with that of Washington. debkafile's sources report that opponents of military force against Iran have lately gained ground in Israel's top military and intelligence ranks. Iran's state media do not even use the word "nuclear" in reporting on the talks taking place between the head of its national security council and a group made up of the US, China, France, Germany, Russia and the UK – calling them only a search for "common grounds for cooperation."
Ahead of the Istanbul meeting, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared: "100,000 resolutions (sanctions) will not divert us from our course."

Tony Blair: West must be prepared to use force against Iran
By Haaretz Service /Published 09:26 22.
As six world powers enter second day of talks with Iran in Istanbul the former U.K. prime minister warns that Iran is a 'looming and coming challenge' which preaches 'against our way of life.' Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged the West to be prepared to confront Iran with force in order to face the "looming and coming challenge" from the Islamic republic, French news agency AFP reported on Saturday. "It [Iran] has to be confronted and changed. Iran is a looming challenge. It is negative and destabilizing. It supports terrorists," Blair, who currently serves as the Quartet envoy to the Middle East said at the Chilcot inquiry, the U.K. inquiry into the war in Iraq. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair leaves after giving evidence for the second time to the Iraq Inquiry in London January 21, 2011."I say this to you with all of the passion I possibly can -- at some point the West has to get out of what I think is a wretched policy or posture of apology for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing, or what these extremists are doing," the Quartet envoy said, adding that "we have to get our head out of the sand. They disagree fundamentally with our way of life and will carry on unless met with determination and, if necessary, force." Blair, who regularly visits the Middle East as the Quartet envoy, said that he could see the "impact and the influence of Iran everywhere." Blair's comments came as Iran began talks in Istanbul with six world powers over its disputed nuclear program. World powers entered a second and final day of talks with Iran on Saturday, having made scant progress toward persuading the Islamic Republic to curb its nuclear program on the first day of the meeting in Istanbul. There was some relief that Iran was ready to continue, as diplomats expressed concern that talks could have collapsed on the first day as both sides dug in around old positions. While the six powers would like to kick start talks focused at freezing Iran's uranium enrichment program, Tehran has repeatedly said that the subject is not up for discussion. Instead, Iranian officials are pushing an agenda that covers just about everything except its nuclear program: global disarmament, Israel's suspected nuclear arsenal, and Tehran's concerns about U.S. military bases in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
The U.S. State Department spokesman said following talks with Iran and world powers in Istanbul that they were willing to engage Iran but they remain realistic.

Michele Alliot-Marie: 'Syria has role of much importance in stabilizing Mideast'
By Adar Primor /Haaretz
Published 14:14 21.01.11
The first lady of France arrived in Israel on Wednesday night, but not the one named Carla Bruni. Forgive us, Mrs. Sarkozy, but in the eyes of more than few French citizens, Michele Alliot-Marie, or “Mam,” as everyone calls her (her initials), is the true first lady.
She was the first woman defense minister of France; the first woman to lead a neo-Gaullist party (RPR, now transformed into the UMP); the first woman interior minister and in November became the first woman Foreign and European Affairs minister. Alliot-Marie, who also holds the title of vice prime minister, served until recently as the French minister of justice and in the past as the minister of sports and youth affairs. The fact that her domestic partner Patrick Ollier sits with her in the government, is also unprecedented in French political history; another “first” to add to her collection.
Jacques Chirac persuaded her to enter politics, and while this led to her being honored as “the most beautiful pair of legs in the cabinet,” Alliot-Marie long ago proved that she is worth far more than a sexist epithet. People who have met her, including Israeli interlocutors, describe her as a most impressive woman, tough, sharp and super-smart. The daughter of a former Biarritz mayor and international rugby referee, Alliot-Marie effortlessly became accustomed to the hard life of a defense minister, to tours of combat areas and the dusty roads of Afghanistan which she visited no fewer than ten times. She had no problem sleeping in the desert, in a tent, near French special forces, and even parachuted with a Paratroop unit. She was called “a woman with balls” by - quelle surprise - the army brass.
At Quai D’Orsay headquarters, the staff has been breathing easier since Alliot-Marie was appointed minister of Foreign and European affairs. “The period during which the foreign ministry thrashed about like a ship without a captain is over,” said a recent article in the leading French newspaper Le Figaro. While her predecessor in the job, Bernard Kouchner, was impulsive and tended toward unpredictable outbursts, she is calculated and extremely self-controlled. While Kouchner often complained that the doors of the Elysee Palace were closed to him, Mam, commentators surmise, will have the attentive ear of the president.
Nonetheless, the woman who frequently joins Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey on lists of the world’s most influential women got caught in the crossfire this week following remarks in the French parliament. At the height of the Tunisian revolt, the French foreign minister suggested giving aid to the Tunisian security forces to return order to the streets. “Paris remembered to move over to the democracy camp only after [Tunisian President] Ben Ali fled,” was the complaint leveled against French diplomacy. And there were also those who recalled that on his last visit to Tunis, in April 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy complimented Ben Ali on “advancing freedom and human rights” in his country.
Alliot-Marie defends herself. In an exclusive interview with Haaretz the evening of her first visit to the area as foreign minister, she explains that France’s international diplomacy is based on three principles: non-intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries; the advancement of democracy and freedom; and the application of the principle of government by civil law.
With regard to Tunisia, France must take special care. “History obligates us,” she says, referring to the fact that Tunisia was once a French protectorate, and any intervention is likely to be perceived as a step on the road to resuscitation of colonial aspirations. “We respect the freedom of nations to choose their own policies and the government they desire. In the Ivory Coast, too, we have acted according to this principle.”
‘There is no disharmony between the Muslim world and democracy’
The Ben Ali regime’s tough stance against any possibility of the Islamization of Tunisia is no doubt one of the most important factors for French support. All French governments have shared this policy, including that of Socialist President Francois Mitterrand. If the choice is between an Islamic regime and a police state such as that of Ben Ali, France has no hesitation.
“We are following closely all developments that could lead to Islamic extremism,” Alliot-Marie says. “The regimes that particular Islamic movements wish to establish are opposed to the values of freedom at the basis of our democratic governments.”
While Alliot-Marie prefers not to relate directly to statements by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu that the upheaval in Tunisia shows “how unstable Israel's region is,” she does so indirectly when she chooses to respond with a compliment that “the Tunisian nation has proven its maturity and great wisdom by seeking order and stability.”
But is it realistic to believe Tunisia will become the first Arab state based on a liberal democratic government?
“There is no disharmony between the Muslim world and democracy and human rights,” the foreign minister says. “Religious identity cannot be the sole defining element of a society. Our societies are based on a common foundation of universal principles, including human rights, and international humanitarian law first and foremost. The challenge we face is to imbue these principles in all civil societies, and have all countries apply them effectively.”
“France has always had a special interest in the stability, security and sovereignty of Lebanon,” Alliot-Marie says. France conducts activities for Lebanese sovereignty within the international community, and does not intend to take an independent position. But it will stand by at a time when the Land of the Cedars awaits the report of an international tribunal on the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, and is in the throes of such a severe crisis.
Asked whether it is possible that the complex country’s stability (that is, achieving a compromise with Hezbollah) is more important than honoring international law, the one-time justice minister says: “We are convinced that the efforts to ensure that international law is respected and those to ensure Lebanon’s stability complement each other. We have worked tirelessly for international justice and fought to bring those responsible for the murder to justice. We call on all sides in Lebanon and the region to respect the independence of the court and prevent any attempt to use the results for political purposes. We are acting at the same time with the central figures in the area to solve the crisis and prevent the situation from deteriorating.”
Alliot-Marie’s approach to Syria in this context shows the long way French diplomacy has come since Chirac boycotted then Syrian President Hafez Assad. Syria is no longer a negative element in France’s eyes. On the contrary, “it is an actor of much importance in the region that can and must play a constructive role on the area’s stability.”
She prefers not to state directly how France will act if the report of the Hariri tribunal determines that Hezbollah and Syria were behind the murder. “We believe in the Syrian channel. It is vital to strive for a peace agreement with Damascus,” she says. France does not intend to take on the role of mediator between the sides but, “President Sarkozy has appointed an envoy, Ambassador Jean Claude Cousseran, to examine the appropriate conditions for a renewal of contacts between Israel and Syria.”
When the conversation turns to Iran and its participation in what the American government once branded the “Axis of Evil,” Alliot-Marie’s tone changes, becomes more aggressive. It appears that remarks by the outgoing head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, that Iran will have nuclear weapons by 2015, have not made much of an impression on her.
“Iran’s arming with nuclear weapons is a severe threat to the international community,” she says. “Our determination to prevent this, and to bring Iran to respect the decisions of the [United Nations] Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency is total. This is in order to prevent a situation, as President Sarkozy defined it, in which we are forced to deal with the catastrophic need to choose between an Iranian bomb or bombing Iran. The European Union will not hesitate to stiffen sanctions against Iran, if it does not answer the international community’s concerns and the responsibilities it has taken on in a concrete manner.
‘A profound and historic friendship’
Alliot-Marie emphasizes France’s “profound and historic” friendship with Israel again and again. France’s obligation to Israel’s “existence, security and peace”- three elements which she terms “obvious and not subject to negotiation.” She also stresses the importance France ascribes to bilateral relations between the countries and the great importance she herself ascribes to her first visit to the region as foreign minister.
On reputed tensions between Netanyahu and Sarkozy, described as “the most pro-Israeli French president in the history of the Fifth Republic,” against the background of the question of extending the construction freeze in the settlements, she says, “The president of France is a friend of the Israeli prime minister, and there must be a possibility for talking openly and honestly among friends. We have disagreements in the matter of settlements. The Israelis are familiar with our position on this issue.”
Alliot-Marie expresses support for Netanyahu’s 2009 policy speech at Bar-Ilan University, and accepts his position that there must be direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in which “all questions of a permanent settlement are discussed.” She even suggests that Europe accompany the process and supply security guarantees that will allow this to be fulfilled.
She is asked whether, in light of the current stalemate in the peace process, France and Europe might follow the lead of several Latin American countries and recognize a Palestinian state within 1967 borders. The question comes up twice, and both times she sidesteps an answer which could cause concern in Jerusalem. “Everyone is aware today of the need to establish a Palestinian state that will exist beside Israel in peace and security.” She prefers to say laconically, “This is the best guarantee for Israel’s security.”
Alliot-Marie’s diplomacy is based on Gaullist philosophy and its support for a multi-polar world. She expresses “full support for American efforts” to find a solution to the conflict. And while it may be interpreted as disappointment over the failure of those efforts, she adds that “nonetheless, it seems vital to us that the international community, mainly Europe and the Quartet, be more involved in the process.”
As justice minister, Alliot-Marie worked diligently against efforts to boycott Israel. She
instructed the prosecution in France to report any steps taken to boycott Israeli products and requested that those responsible be brought to trial. She strongly condemns calls for a boycott, which she says break French law.
She had, of course, also heard of the cancellation of a concert in Israel by French singer Vanessa Paradis, but says that “there is no reason not to believe the producers, that the cancellation was made for reasons of a professional nature. I certainly hope that she will soon perform in Israel.”
‘Israel preferred Germany’
When she became foreign minister, Alliot-Marie promised to place the release of French
prisoners high on her list of priorities. In this context she came out sharply against Hamas, who have been holding Israeli soldier, and French citizen, Gilad Shalit captive in Gaza since 2006.
“Gilad Shalit has been held hostage for more than four years now. His complete isolation and the refusal to allow any sign of life to be received from him for such a long time is a completely inhuman situation. We demand his immediate release.”
Shalit, she says, is a French citizen and therefore France “is using all its connections in the region to advance his release.” She rejects claims that France was much more determined in its efforts to release Ingrid Betancourt from Columbia; she also rejects the criticism that her country is acting in a merely supporting role by allowing negotiations led by Germany.
This stems, she says, from the fact that Israel and Hamas chose Germany as an intermediary, because of its previous success negotiating with Hezbollah. She indicates that France “is playing an active role” in coordination with Germany, but in light of the particular sensitivity of the
issue, she requested to maintain “great discretion” with regard to this activity and reports of a new agreement currently in the works.
Not worried by the Socialists
The governing party of France (UMP) was recently shaken in light of the handover of the reins of the extreme rightwing National Front Party to Marine Le Pen, and in view of surveys showing that she enjoys 17- 27 percent support from the public. The head of the Jewish community of France, Richard Prasquier, recently told Haaretz that “Jews who are disappointed with Sarkozy for his interference with the peace process and the pressure he exerts on Netanyahu may join the circle of Le Pen voters.”
According to predictions, Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie’s party should be concerned with the
other side of the political map as well. If elections were held now, and the leftist candidate was the president of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, he would easily beat Sarkozy. According to a new and surprising poll released yesterday, two other leftwing candidates, Martine Aubry and Francois Hollande, would also beat the incumbent president in a second round of voting.
Alliot-Marie does not share this worry. “In politics, one does not have to be concerned about one’s enemies but struggle with them in the arena of ideas and values. We are familiar with all the ideas of the National Front, which have been expressed till now by Jean-Marie Le Pen and currently by his daughter Marine: they have nothing at all in common with my party. As to the Socialist Party, it has still not offered any plan to France and the French people. Its leaders have not yet decided whether to adopt the modern socialist vision that exists today in every European country or return to the old concepts of social-communism. The truth of the matter is that the socialists are mainly occupied with internal squabbles over the question of which candidates will run for office.”
Alliot-Marie’s name was mentioned as far back as 2007 as a possible UMP candidate for president. Is she likely to run against Le Pen in 2012? “If you are looking for a woman, you will find many potential candidates in the opposition,” she answers. “In our camp, if Nicolas Sarkozy wants to run again, he will be the natural candidate.”
a petite Michele
Alliot-Marie is 64 years old, a divorcee who does not have children, the holder of two doctorates, one in law and one in political science. Her father, Bernard Marie, served as mayor of the Basque shore town Biarritz and as an international rugby referee. Jacques Chirac convinced her to enter politics and nicknamed her “ma petite Michele.”
Her domestic partner Patrick Ollier serves as the minister responsible for contacts with
parliament. They met in 1984 and managed to keep their liaison a secret for 15 years, until a paparazzo climbed a tree near her home and exposed their affair.
She uses the title “Madame le Ministre” despite its grammatically masculine form, and in opposition to attempts by feminists to change the anachronistic term, but also insists on not covering her head during visits to Islamic countries. Her name was mentioned in 2007 as a candidate for the presidency; in the past she has declared that “it’s about time a woman led France.”