LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
APRIL 4/06
Below news from
the Daily News for 4/04/06
Syria subpoenas Jumblatt, Hamade and Khashan
Beirut talks adjourn to mull fate of Lahoud
Survey analyzes impact of Hamas victory in Lebanon
Pakradouni presents draft electoral law to Sfeir
Politicians still hopeful for dialogue results
Lahoud's enemies insist they won't back down
Beirut begins implementation of EU Association Agreement
'Lebanon is living on borrowed funds and borrowed time'
EU accord can be a stimulus for elusive modernization
A 'soft coup' using bread instead of tanks.By
Geoffrey Aronson
Below news from
miscellaneous for 4/04/06
Lebanon's Military Tribunal continues unjustly persecuting Dr. Mugraby-World
Forum - USA
Top leaders resume dialogue in Lebanon-Alarab online
Lebanon in new talks to break political deadlock-Middle East Online
Syria, Jordan began border demarcation-United Press International
Syria jails rights activist and opposition leader-Khaleej Times
Syrian Border Patrol Shoots Lebanese Farmer
U.S. Experts Say Iran Could Ask Hizbullah to Use Military Action Over Nuclear
Program
A Region Floundering Between Arab and Israeli Delusions-Dar Al-Hayat
What a Coincidence!-Asharq Alawsat
The Key Point: Belonging to the Region-Dar Al-Hayat
SYRIA: Rights groups denounce convictions of Islamist activist-Reuters
Activist In Syria Sentenced To Five Years In Prison-RadioFreeEurope
Association Agreement EU-Lebanon-EurofundingMag
Lebanon leaders set deadline to agree on president-Reuters
Lebanon remembers its friend John Paul II-AsiaNews.it
Syrian Border Patrol Shoots Lebanese Farmer
Syrian border patrol shot at a Lebanese farmer in the eastern region of Zamrani
near the frontier between the two countries, the National News Agency reported
Monday.
"Mohammed al-Hujairi from the village of Irsal suffered four gunshot wounds
while planting trees along with several farmers in the region of Zamrani that is
five kilometers deep into Lebanese territory," the NNA said.
Al-Hujairi, 45, was taken to Dar el-Hikmeh hospital in Baalbeck where he was
admitted to the intensive care unit.
The village's mayor, Mohammed Hassan al-Hujairi, said Syrian border patrol
members shot at the farmer.
"They are erecting sand barriers that are preventing villagers from reaching
their land," he said.
Beirut, Updated 03 Apr 06, 12:21
U.S. Experts Say Iran Could Ask Hizbullah to Use
Military Action Over Nuclear Program
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence
experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its
nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hizbullah teams to
carry out military attacks worldwide, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.
Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian
intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is
also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United
States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.
U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would
undertake such action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout
the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official told the newspaper.
Intelligence experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely
the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its
Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hizbullah -- to be better organized,
trained and equipped than the al-Qaida network that carried out the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks.
The Iranian government views Hizbullah, "as an extension of their state. . . .
operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation,"
Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for
counterterrorism, was quoted as saying.
The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in
recent months by U.S. President George Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he
is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all
options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear
negotiator, warned the United States that "it may have the power to cause harm
and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States
wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll," although he did not specify what
type of harm he was talking about.
Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not
an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a
reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship.
U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to
prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States,
Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic
sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and
China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued
negotiations. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli
air-strike on Iranian territory "would be regarded as an act of war" by Tehran,
and that Iran would strike back with what he called "terrorist" groups. "There's
no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of
Hizbullah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure
to take violent action."(Photo shows Hizbullah soldiers parading) Beirut,
Updated 03 Apr 06, 08:57
Speaker of the parliament Nabih Berri
Top leaders resume dialogue in Lebanon
Lebanon's influential top leaders started the fifth session of the national
conciliation talks on Monday to discuss remaining controversial issues namely
status of the presidency and destiny of the armed resistance. Well-informed
political sources said the discussions would center on the presidential issue,
"though the personalities involved in the dialogue do not appear tending to
reach a breakthrough." The Lebanese politicians have been divided on the
question whether President Emile Lahoud should continue his service in office
till expiry of his mandate in nearly a year and a half. Speaker of the
parliament Nabih Berri said in a statement that the presidential issue "is
complex and its discussion may drag on for a long period of time."
The sources said the participants in the dialogue would discuss prospected
mapping out of a defense strategy to find a solution to the armed presence of
the resistance in south Lebanon. In previous sessions, the conferees approved
the theme of establishing full diplomatic ties with neighboring Syria, affirmed
the Lebanese identity of the border Shebaa farms and "solving the problem" of
the Palestinian arms outside the refugee camps.
"Center for Democracy & the Rule of Law" <info@cdrl.org>
Lebanon's Military Court:
Some Recent News
PLO “General” Speedily Tried and Acquitted in Lebanese Military Court
Beirut, March 30: Sultan Abul-Aynain, a senior PLO and Fatah official in South
Lebanon, who had been sentenced to death in absentia by Lebanon’s military court
in 1999, surrendered Thursday afternoon to the same military court, promptly
received a new trial that lasted thirty minutes and was found not guilty. Soon
he left the court in a military vehicle under escort on his way back to his
headquarters in South Lebanon.
Abul-Aynain holds the PLO rank of brigadier general. He told the press that the
charges against him were politically motivated.
His surprise surrender and quick retrial Thursday conflicted with normal
practices in the military court and appeared clearly to be the result of a
political decision by the Lebanese government. The military court consists
mainly of military officers with no formal legal training who are appointed by
the minister of defense.
PLO officer went to the military court "by appointment", says a Lebanese
newspaper
Beirut, March 31: Sultan Abul Aynain, a "brigadier general" in PLO who was
speedily tried and acquitted by Lebanon's military court on Thursday, received
well-wishers at his base in the Palestinian refugee camp of Rashidiah in South
Lebanon then gave a press conference in which he thanked the Lebanese Government
for his exonerartion and praised the late Rafik Hariri. The Beirut English
language daily, the Daily Star, cited unnamed "sources" in reporting that Abul
Aynain went to the military court "by appointment" and that two earlier
appointments had been set and aborted.
For further information: info@cdrl.org and visit http://www.cdrl.org/.
Lebanon in new talks to break political deadlock
Fifth round of talks resumes to find political solution to presidency issue that
has paralyzed country for months.
By Nayla Razzouk - BEIRUT
Lebanese leaders resumed talks Monday aimed at resolving a long-running
political crisis, including demands by anti-Syrian groups for the resignation of
pro-Damascus President Emile Lahoud.
The fifth round of the negotiations is being held after a public spat last week
between Lahoud and the parliamentary majority seeking to remove him from office
threatened to further aggravate the impasse that has paralyzed the country for
months.
Lebanon has been in political limbo since the February 2005 murder of former
premier Rafiq Hariri that later forced Syria to end its 29-year military
presence and political domination of its smaller neighbor.
Lahoud's fate is among the most contentious issues on the table, along with the
disarming of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim fundamentalist movement Hezbollah and
armed Palestinian groups outside refugee camps in the country.
But despite the public disputes which cut short a cabinet meeting on Thursday,
influential pro-Syrian parliament speaker Nabih Berri said the dialogue would
resume as scheduled to tackle the issue of the presidency.
"This is a difficult issue, and I do not mind that we discuss it until the end
of April, whether we succeed (in resolving the issue) or not," he was quoted by
newspapers as telling the BBC Arabic service.
"What is on the table is not to cut short the term of the president or remove
him under pressure from the street, what is proposed is whether President Lahoud
should resign," he said.
Berri said the issue of replacing Lahoud was further complicated by the fact
that "there are no names (for a new president) on the table of dialogue so
far."In September 2004, the previous Lebanese parliament - under Syrian pressure
- extended Lahoud's mandate by three years in the face of opposition from a
majority of Lebanese and a UN Security Council resolution.
Lahoud has repeatedly rejected calls to step down. As for the disarmament of
Hezbollah, Berri asserted that "we will not discuss this before resolving the
issue of the president of the republic."
He said there were plans for Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, once a close aide to
Hariri, to meet with Syrian officials to discuss relations which have been
strained since Damascus was accused of involvement in Hariri's killing.
Nasri Khoury, head of the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council, told reporters on
Sunday that he had relayed to Damascus a proposal for the agenda of a visit by
Siniora, but still had not received any answers.
Syria's Information Minister Mohsen Bilal was quoted by Beirut newspapers as
saying that "there is no hurry" for Siniora's visit, as "we need to study the
agenda." "The gate to Syria is the resistance... as Syria will not open its
doors to any party that is against the resistance," he told Syrian state
television. Ahmad Jibril, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) which maintains armed bases outside the
refugee camps, visited Lebanon on Saturday, saying: "The road to Damascus has
been paved for Siniora."On the issue of PFLP-GC weapons outside the Palestinian
camps, Jibril said "when the Palestinians will feel safe, the security issue
will not be a problem anymore."
UN Resolution 1559, voted in September 2004, calls for the disarming of all
militias in Lebanon.
Under a tacit agreement after the 1987 collapse of accords that regulated the
armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon, the Lebanese army refrains from entering
refugee camps, where the carrying of light weapons is permitted.
Liste de diffusion du Mouvement SOLIDA" <liste@solida.org>
Subject: SOLIDA Press Release: Violence Against Students
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:14:53 +0200 (la version française suit)
SOLIDA denounces Lebanese Army violence against students
On March 30, 2006, as students affiliated with the Lebanese Forces Party were
celebrating their victory in the student government elections of Lebanese
University-Information and Documentation Section- violent clashes erupted
between the students and Lebanese Army troops.
According to initial accounts, the students who were celebrating their victory
were suddenly attacked and beaten up by soldiers who then arrested 8 of the
students and loaded up on trucks where they beat them again. After their release
later in the evening, the students, who were detained on the premises of the
Military Police in Jisr El Basha in Beirut, were expressly notified that they
were prohibited from expressing their political opinion.
Such abuses by the Lebanese Army, which seems to have yet again been used to
violently repress freedom of expression, represent a step backward to an era we
had thought gone forever in Lebanon and makes us fear
future similar excesses.
The SOLIDA movement (Support for Lebanese Detained Arbitrarily) firmly denounces
the violence perpetrated by military personnel during this incident and the
resulting arbitrary arrests, and demands that the Lebanese government open an
investigation to identify those responsible in this matter.
Beirut
April 3, 2006
__________________________________
SOLIDA condamne la violence de l'armée libanaise à l'encontre d'étudiants
Le 30 mars 2006, alors que les étudiants des Forces Libanaises célébraient leur
victoire aux élections estudiantines de l'Université Libanaise, section
information et documentation, de violents heurts les ont opposés à des éléments
de l'armée libanaise.
Selon les premières informations recueillies, les étudiants qui fêtaient leur
victoire ont subitement été attaqués et passés à tabac par des militaires, qui
ont ensuite arrêté 8 d'entre eux, et les ont embarqués dans des camions où ils
ont à nouveau été frappés. Relâchés dans la soirée, les étudiants qui avaient
été détenus dans les locaux de la Police Militaire à Jisr el Bacha (Beyrouth),
auraient été notifiés de l'interdiction d'exprimer leurs opinions politiques.
Ces exactions de l'armée libanaise, qui a semble-t-il une nouvelle fois été
utilisée pour réprimer dans la violence la liberté d'expression, constitue un
retour à une époque que nous pensions révolue au Liban et nous fait craindre
d'autres débordements à venir. Le mouvement SOLIDA (Soutien aux Libanais Détenus
Arbitrairement) condamne fermement la violence des militaires au cours de cet
incident, les arrestations arbitraires qui en ont découlé, et demande au
ouvernement libanais qu'une enquête détermine les responsabilités dans cette
affaire.Beyrouth, le 3 Avril 2006
Syria, Jordan began border demarcation
AMMAN, Jordan, April 3 (UPI) -- Syria and Jordan recently began to demarcate
their border, ending years of border disputes and occasional clashes.
A border demarcation agreement went into effect after Jordan's King Abdullah
signed the ratification decree for ending Syrian encroachment on an area of 125
square kilometers inside Jordanian land and a Jordanian trespassing on 2.5
kilometers of Syrian territory, an official Jordanian source told United Press
International Monday.
The agreement underlines that the international border between the two countries
was delineated according to effective international accords which were referred
to as a basis in defining border signs.
The two Arab states also agreed to end military and security excesses on each
other's territories, sign an accord of good-neighborly relations and facilitate
investments and ownership of border territory by the citizens of both countries.
Under the agreement the border will be modified in two areas, namely Tabariyat
and Khorbet Awwad, on the basis of trading equal amounts of land on both sides
of the border.
A military committee will be set up under the accord with the mission of ending
excesses of a military and security nature on both countries' territories. It
will start operating after the technical team finishes placing the border signs.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Want to email or reprint this story? Click here for options.
Syria jails rights activist and opposition leader
(AP)3 April 2006
DAMASCUS — A Kurdish human rights activist who was arrested after giving the
eulogy at the funeral of a slain Kurdish cleric was sentenced to five years in
prison yesterday by a security court, a rights group said.
The same court also sentenced a member of the banned Muslim Brotherhood to 12
years in prison.
Kurdish activist Riad Drar was convicted on charges of disseminating false news,
inciting sectarian riots and forming a secret organisation, Ammar Qurabi, a
member of the National Organisation for Human Rights, told the Associated Press.
Drar was detained in June shortly after the funeral of leading Kurdish cleric
Mohammed Mashouk Al Khaznawi, an Islamic scholar who was abducted last year and
whose body was subsequently found in a hospital morgue. Drar gave the eulogy at
Al Khaznawi’s funeral.In his speech, Drar spoke about the rights Syria’s Kurds
should have, including citizenship and equal rights with other citizens. Kurdish
activists blamed state security for Al Khaznawi’s death, saying his body bore
marks of severe torture. Syria’s state-run media said then that Al Khaznawi’s
death was a purely criminal act. Syrian officials routinely decline to comment
on sensitive security matters and such sensitive reports and were not available
to comment on Drar and Qattan’s sentences yesterday. There are about 1.5 million
Kurds in Syria, including about 200,000 who are denied citizenship.
A Region Floundering Between Arab and Israeli Delusions
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 03/04/06//
There is a shared delusion between the Israeli pretense that a unilateral
withdrawal from the West Bank and imposing a unilateral solution will erase the
Palestinian problem, and the Palestinian pretense that non-recognition of Israel
and speaking the language of military solution will erase the Israeli problem.
The other delusion is that of the Arab street, which repeatedly curses the
ruling regimes because they practice deception and violate people's rights;
however, at the same time they remain committed to these regimes when they talk
in the language of resistance and liberation, or "requirements of stability."
Both types of rhetoric are fabricated for domestic consumption.
The victims of Arab delusions are also victims of occupation - in all of its
various national and pan-Arab types - and formulas of stability, which involve
blessings of the survival of these regimes in power, no matter how corrupt or
criminal. There is the "stability" alliance, which rejects change because it
fears consequences that are undesired by the region's leaders. There is the
"destruction" alliance, which groups major government players and the
non-government players who seek power. There is also the "resistance" alliance,
which uses or is used; the majority of its central figures work to strengthen
militias as long as they aren't active on their own territory. Palestine,
Lebanon and Iraq are victims of these alliances; they are arenas for the
detonation of these delusions. The other victims are women and children in
Darfur; they face genocide and a policy of displacement and a policy of rape is
used as a weapon on Sudanese territory, which hosted the Arab Summit with no
shame or apology for what is taking place in Darfur by the Sudanese government.
The Khartoum Summit was a failure to begin with, when it dealt with these issues
in the way that it did. It was a failure because the summit spoke the language
of "solidarity" at any price, and at any expense; it exposed the Arab leaders
and sneered at Arab peoples. It was another in the embarrassing history of Arab
summits, where tyrants are respected and leaders are welcomed who stay in power
despite the clear popular demand for them to step down.
Arab leaders don't want to be a part of the Lebanese battle over President Emile
Lahoud's remaining in office, since they don't want to set a precedent of Arab
government support for a popular movement that removes a leader from power. It
is clear that there is no Arab consensus over the issue of the Lahoud crisis, so
the Khartoum Summit was determined to welcome the man who was seriously isolated
in the international forum of the United Nations six months ago; the summit
returned consideration of Lahoud in Arab terms.
Much of this "consideration" was stripped off by Emile Lahoud's approval of
excluding his Foreign minister Fawzi Salloukh from a meeting with Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad, which was attended by Syrian Vice-President Farouq
al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister Walid Moallem. This reflected the Lebanese
President's weakness in front of the dictates of the Syrian president, who also
acted during the summit based on the idea of returning consideration and
preventing isolation.
Lahoud's behavior toward Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora showed that the
president gave no consideration to the Lebanese government and the Lebanese
Army. He does not trust it to exert its authority and sovereignty over the
entire country. Therefore, Lahoud wanted the summit to support Hizbullah's right
to resistance, instead of assigning the task of resisting any occupation of
Lebanese territory to the Lebanese Army and government, as Siniora called for.
Siniora did well by going to the summit, instead of boycotting it because of the
shortsightedness of Sudanese President Omar Bashir and Arab League Secretary
General Amr Moussa, who couldn't find the necessary means to respect even what
could be called a Lebanese division. Siniora, the Prime Minister, represents the
elected majority, while Lahoud's extension was forced on Lebanese MPs through
Syrian violations of the Lebanese Constitution. Siniora did well to sit among
the guests of the summit, and not behind Lahoud. This was because when a quick
meeting took place between him and al-Assad, the Syrian president expressed his
desire to have a meeting with Siniora. The Syrian president's apology for
failing to meet and setting the condition of an "agenda" before meeting in
Damascus drew attention to Syrian arrogance, while neither reducing Siniora's
self-confidence nor affecting the support the Lebanese PM enjoys on the
Lebanese, regional and international levels.
One of the interesting meetings was held by the Syrian president on the
sidelines of the Khartoum Summit. He met with Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas, in what was described as a "hot" encounter. The reasons for this go back
to the traditional Syrian role vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue. Damascus has
repeatedly considered itself the protector of and "lawyer" for the Palestinian
issue, even though it has refused, since 1973, to open its long borders to
resistance against Israel, which occupies Syrian territory. This is in addition
to the principal Syrian role in erasing Iraq from the strategic equation with
Israel, by entering the first Gulf War as an ally of the US against Iraq. One of
the goals of this war was removing Iraq from this equation.
Traditionally, Damascus has sponsored and financed Palestinian factions and to
challenge the Palestinian position represented in the past by Yasser Arafat and
today by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Syrian now believes that it is in
dire need of these factions, in Lebanon and Palestine, in order to achieve
Syrian goals, first and foremost. This is exactly what made the Assad-Abbas
meeting so hot. The Palestinian President believes that Syrian sponsorship of
Palestinian factions in Lebanon and Palestine involves intervention in
Palestinian sovereignty and in Palestinian decision-making, via the militias.
The Palestinian election process, in choosing Hamas, differs from Syrian
sponsorship of Palestinian militias. Therefore, Abbas is dealing with what was
produced by the elections, but objects to what has been produced by the
militias. In the Lebanese arena, Syrian sponsorship of Palestinian militias is
considered not only a subversion of Lebanese sovereignty and decision-making,
but also a form of intervention in the sovereignty of Palestinian
decision-making and Lebanese-Palestinian relations. Just as the content of
Syrian positions on Lebanon involves a rejection of the country's independence
and sovereignty, this content is replicated in Damascus' positions on Palestine.
Just as Damascus insists on militia control over Lebanon's future, it insists on
the militias' control over Palestine's future. This also applies to Syria's
positions on Iraq. In addition, what irritates the Syrian leadership is that
Lebanon liberated all of its territory from Israeli occupation; thus it brings
in the Shebaa Farms in the equation to keep the "resistance" alive through the
Lebanese-Israeli border, instead of allowing it to come from the Arab street,
via the Syrian-Israeli borders. Israel's ignoring the Syrian-Israeli negotiation
track further irritates Syria, after this track almost brought Syria and Israel
to a peace agreement and normalization; this was obstructed by Israel despite
all of the Syrian concessions.
This desperate Israeli mindset is what stalled an Israeli-Syrian peace; it is
pretending that the reasons for not concluding a Palestinian-Israeli peace is
the lack of a Palestinian partner for negotiations. Israel rejected the result
of serious and useful negotiations with its Syrian partner, and rejected
approval of negotiations because of the lack of a Palestinian partner.
The recent Israeli elections resulted in Kadima, former by the unconscious
current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and headed now by Prime
Minister-elect Ehud Olmert, gaining the majority of Knesset seats, which will
require alliances with other parties.
The most important election results were Ariel Sharon's exacting defeat of the
extremist Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, and seeing the Israeli majority
abandon its dream of "Greater Israel," or Eretz Israel. Olmert alluded to this
in his victory speech, offering the Palestinians the opportunity to negotiation
in order to abandon, in their turn, other dreams. He acknowledged that his party
was ready to give up parts of the West Bank after withdrawing from Gaza.
Olmert's problem lies in the Israelis' love for unilateral withdrawals, without
negotiations with the Palestinian side, while setting up a wall of separation to
announce a divorce from the Palestinians and give "security" to Israelis. This
idea arose after Sharon's successful "Gaza model" for unilateral withdrawal,
even though the successful pull-out took place with Arab assistance and
coordination with Egypt. The international support for the withdrawal increased
its popularity, leaving the dangerous and mistaken impression among Israelis
that they can impose unilateral solutions, such as from the West Bank, without
negotiating with the Palestinians.
Israelis who believe in this idea want to rid themselves of the weight and
burden of a "partner" in negotiations; a partner has a veto right over decisions
that are taken to begin with so doing without a partner is an attractive idea.
The essential problem in Israeli thinking and orientations will become deeper,
if Olmert sticks to the idea of separation and unilateral withdrawal. Following
this path strengthens the idea of laying siege in the name of security; it
contains an unprecedented level of stability if it becomes a permanent strategy.
In the end, closing one's self off via artificial security just means boosting
the idea of a siege, which involves no security whatsoever.
It would be better if Israelis support Olmert in turning Kadima into a true
centrist party, instead of boosting its center-right status; it arose as a
correction of the rightwing path. This means that Israelis must make Kadima into
a center-left party, which will require Olmert to carry out a radical change in
the "usual string of clichés" he is known for; which is likely.
Olmert is interesting in terms of his personality and family, not just because
his wife and children differ with him politically, but because he intentionally
mentioned these differences during his victory speech and appreciates his
family's correcting the twist in his own thought.
Most importantly, Olmert himself can come up with amazing decisions, just like
Ariel Sharon, who pulled an about-face in terms of his history and career,
creating a path and option that were unprecedented in Israeli political life.
The first thing that Olmert should think of, if he wants to make history instead
of being led by it, is to work with the US in boosting the position of
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas by putting forth the carrot of negotiation
instead of raising the stick of threat and moving ahead with a unilateral
solution. This requires an honest readiness to a negotiated solution that is as
close to the 1967 borders as possible, the lines of defeat and victory in the
Arab-Israeli war.
This means that Olmert must radically change himself and go back on the
commitments he made during the election campaign; he must take on Abbas as a
partner in negotiations based on a unilateral withdrawal provided that it is
coupled with an Israeli commitment to complete the withdrawal based on final
status talks on the occupied territories. If the unilateral pull-out is from 80%
of the West Bank, for an example, then 20% should be negotiated on, just like
Jerusalem and refugees, as part of reaching a final settlement of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
This policy will demonstrate the good intentions and test the proclaimed
intentions; the dangers surrounding the region are not limited to the tragedies
and delusions; they also stem form the weakness of the promises of extremism,
with no confrontation or falling due.
The Key Point: Belonging to the Region
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 03/04/06//
Behind the debacle of the Lebanese Cabinet looms the ghost of the victory Emile
Lahoud achieved in Khartoum and the setback his rivals of March 14th felt.
Nevertheless, Lahoud was supported by a conference watching Iraq from a distance
and opposing any UN involvement to stop the massacre in Darfur. This is an Arab
situation, which we are facing some of its effects in the maneuvers of the
"dialogue" between the Lebanese leaders. It stems from functional slowness as if
all the contenders agree to wait and see the developments on the
American-Iranian front that Arabs have nothing to do with. If the two
international and the regional poles agree on Iraq and the rest of the issues in
the region, perhaps even reaching Afghanistan and the role of the Hazara in its
authority, the Lebanese would then be able to reach a solid truce in their
"dialogue" that will hold until the balance of power change.
If the two poles' relationship explodes, Lebanon would inevitably explode. This
is an assessment that belittles the margin of the independence of the Lebanese
and their decision, which is enough to trigger a bitter feeling and taste.
However, what diminishes the bitterness is what the Khartoum Summit revealed:
the Arabs - all the Arabs - are not better than the Lebanese. They too have held
a summit of postponing and suspending issues after increasing the topics of
discussion to an extent that made them less serious.
Accordingly, as many observers noticed recently, the Arabs have fallen in the
category of political nonexistence - or something similar - compared the two
poles whose moves shape the region's orientation: the United States and Iran,
while Israel enjoys the outstanding ability to outline and direct the map of the
conflict.
The Khartoum Summit revealed this aspect. The "the summit institution" since its
inception in 1946 and then Cairo in 1964 was born to tackle the Palestinian
problem and the Israeli challenge. When the points of actual contact in the
Palestinian-Israeli issue subside, the summits become totally helpless in
dealing, even verbally, with the rest of the issues. Summits are incompetent in
dealing with internal issues or bilateral matters no matter how many they were
or how severe they become. Holding the summit this time, at a drop of a coin
from the site of the Darfur massacre was but a scandalous indication,
symbolically and effectively, of the Arab political capability and culture.
The fact that Arabs have lost the points of direct contact with the
Palestinian-Israeli issue is not only due to the post-Oslo (1993) independence
acquired following the set up of an authority, or the potential internalization
after Hamas succeeded in forming the government, leaving them with nothing but
cries of despair. The other important truth is that the Israelis, who went to
the ballot polls while the Arabs were meeting, succeeded in annulling the
Palestinian-Israeli issue by dismantling into two separate issues. This was
clear in the election's focus on the unilateral demarcation of the borders,
which resulted in a vote that increased Labour's shares and punished the Likud
for Netanyahu's financial policy. It also stressed generation identities
represented by the "Gil" party and ethnic identities expressed by "Israel our
Home" (Yisrael Beitenu). Of course, this is a painful reality concerning the
possibility of a fair settlement, especially that it denies the Palestinians any
potential benefits from the progressive turn that might result of liberating
Israeli policies from the security blackmail of the extremist right. The bleak
results of the Likud are an indication of this path that leaves us facing two
languages and inclinations. With the recurrence of the leitmotiv "they are all
the same," the objective alliance between radical Islam in Palestine and
ideological Zionism, represented by the Likud, will further deepen. Indeed, the
interest of the two sides lies in strengthening the link between the Palestinian
and Israeli situations in order to sustain polarization and boycott. Mainly, the
Israeli elections have outdone the Arab summit and further reduced the Arabs'
political weight either in favor of the US interests (in the form of
internationalization) or Iranian ones (the Palestinian radical response).
Returning to Lebanon, it is clear that waiting for what Washington and Tehran
will reach is linked to the region. It might be an inevitable issue, as long as
we call it by its true name: "nationalist" helplessness that only leaves us with
the choice of waiting until the two sides reach an agreement. It is important to
prove, time and again, that we belong to a region that could be abridged by the
personality of Emile Lahoud, who is welcomed on the Arab scene where Lahoudism
reigns as a supreme rule!
Lebanon remembers its “friend” John Paul II
by Youssef Hourany - Pope John Paul II’a post-synod apostolic
exhortation and his 1997 trip, which brought together Muslims and Christians,
are evoked in many religious ceremonies and public statements throughout the
country of cedars. Pictures of the late Pope and his successor are handed out in
Maronite schools.
Beirut (AsiaNews) – Pope John Paul Ii is being remembered on the first
anniversary of his death as a friend of Lebanon who spoke 300 times in favour of
the country, convened a synod dedicated to it and made an historic trip to it.
The late Pontiff, who described Lebanon as a “message”, said that a Christian
presence there “was a necessary condition for the presence of Christians
throughout the Middle East”.
During Sunday mass, Maronite Patriarch, Card Nasrallah Sfeir, said that “the
Pope’s testimony must be kept alive in every heart”. He urged all groups in
society to continue their efforts in favour of a national dialogue and follow
the path laid down by John Paul, which is “necessary to find social peace and
face the crisis that is overwhelming the country”.
Like Fr Abbot Seman Abou Abdou, who remembered the late Pope in his homily
during mass at the Lwaize convent with the members of the Maronite Mariamite
order, the anniversary was remembered in dioceses, parishes and religious
congregations throughout the country.
Abbot Seman stressed the importance of John Paul II’s love and action in favour
of Lebanon, his 300 public statements during Lebanon’s darkest hours in its
recent history, his post-Synod apostolic exhortation “New Hope for Lebanon”, and
his 1997 apostolic visit. In a well-appreciated gesture, the schools run by the
order handed out pictures of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and held prayers in
memory of the late Pontiff and for his beatification. Numerous activities were
organised in order to reawaken spiritual awareness amongst pupils, their
teachers and families.
In a meeting with the press, Mgr Paul Matar, Maronite archbishop of Beirut,
spoke about the efforts made by the Pope and the Holy See to see the Lebanese
model succeed. Archbishop Matar, who organised the 1997 visit, spoke about the
different stops the Holy Father made in the course of his trip. He highlighted
the meeting the Pope had with Lebanese youth in Harisa, and his apostolic
exhortation which could be the country’s constitution.
He stressed how significant it was to meet the Pope during the great open air
mass in downtown Beirut with participants from all of Lebanon’s religions and
regions.
John Paul II can be considered “Beirut’s first builder”, Archbishop Matar said
as he remembered the enthusiasm shown by Muslims as they and their religious
leaders came to Beirut to greet the Pontiff.
Saoud al-Mawla, who was an observer at the special synod of Lebanese bishops in
1994, told AsiaNews that John Paul II “was the prophet of the century who
exhorted men and women in our society to examine their conscience and loyalty to
their history and role in the Middle East”.
Mgr Bechara Rahi, Maronite archbishop of Jbeil, who coordinated the special
assembly of the synod of bishops for Lebanon, said that “it was urgent to
rediscover the meaning of the post-synod apostolic exhortation”, stressing the
wealth of teachings in John Paul II’s legacy, a Pope who preached, wrote,
visited, beatified but especially prayed.
Everyone should discover, Archbishop Rahi said, the mystic in the late Pope, a
man of prayer and suffering, committed to inter-faith and ecumenical dialogue, a
fighter for life and the family, a man who appreciated the rich religious
heritage in the Middle East and the Arab world as best exemplified by his
apostolic trips to different Arab countries such as Morocco, the Holy Land,
Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia.
What a Coincidence!
03/04/2006-Tariq Alhomayed -Asharq Al-Awsat
Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, the youngest person
to be appointed that position. Mr. Alhomayed has an acclaimed and distinguished
career as a Journalist and has held many key positions in the field including;
Assistant Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, Managing Editor of Asharq Al-Awsat
in Saudi Arabia, Head of Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper's Bureau-Jeddah,
Correspondent for Al - Madina Newspaper in Washington D.C. from 1998 to Aug
2000. Mr. Alhomyed has been a guest analyst and commentator on numerous news and
current affair programs including: the BBC, German TV, Al Arabiya, Al- Hurra,
LBC and the acclaimed Imad Live’s four-part series on terrorism and reformation
in Saudi Arabia. He is also the first Journalist to conduct an interview with
Osama Bin Ladin's Mother. Mr. Alhomayed holds a BA degree in Media studies from
King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, and has also completed his Introductory
courses towards a Master’s degree from George Washington University in
Washington D.C. He is based in London.
Imagine this; in the Arab world today, three major conflicts are taking place
over power. Moreover, in all three conflicts, one side is hanging on to power,
while the other is wishing for a swift departure… Who are the three parties?
Herein lies the distinction!
In Iraq, calls are being made for the removal of Prime Minister Ibrahim al
Jaafari from power in Baghdad, while he has announced he intends to remain in
his post, as the people and God’s choice.
In the second instance is Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, who aired his dirty
laundry in public at the Khartoum summit, as Lebanese rivals sought to
internationalize their disagreements. He insists on remaining in power until the
last second, out of respect for the constitution, which he had amended in order
to extend his mandate. In other words, he has tailor-made the constitution
according to his needs! The constitutional amendment was the main battle for
which political and media figures were killed in Lebanon.
The third leader is Dr. Numan Gumaa, the ousted head of the Egyptian Wafd party!
Herein lies the distinction! We are talking about the leader of a political
party and not the president of country who has access to the armed forces! But,
Dr. Gumaa has decided to take matters into his own hands, using weapons to storm
the party’s headquarters in Cairo. Dr. Numaan is a former law professor and the
ex-leader of a 90-year old well- respected liberal party. However, for the sake
of power, he reneged the most important liberal principles of all, the respect
of divergent views and the recourse to the law!
These are examples of the infatuation with power across the Arab world. Here are
a president, a prime minister and a party leader! These are the three highest
summits in Arab politics. Each one wants to cling to his position, going as far
as claiming the leader is the choice of God and the people, or that the
president is in power in the name of the constitution- even if it is him who
amended it- or by supposedly leading a party who believes in the transition and
the respect of the law, while using violence and thuggery.
Unfortunately, this is the situation in our Arab world. Some believe the Wafd
party’s latest clash is symptomatic of the wider crisis in Egyptian politics.
Others claim it is a game by the Egyptian government. The truth is this is an
Arab wide problem. It is a crisis of culture and a crisis of respect for
difference and the people’s interests, as well as a crisis of credibility.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which ran under the slogan “Islam is the solution”
during the Egyptian elections, appeared on our television screens as their
supporters kissed the hand of the brotherhood's candidate, promising complete
allegiance, displaying behavior that is not appropriate for a group who gained
power through the ballot boxes and in the name of Western democracy.
Here is Hamas, lead by the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah leading us
astray with claims “this statement was misinterpreted” or “the Prime Minister
did not mean this”. There is no difference between Haniyah and Arafat’s methods
in playing with words.
This is a struggle for power whose first basis is lying and the first victim's
are ordinary people. Politicians who cling to power claim they are the state and
the state is me. The former Wafd leader claims he is the party and the party and
its ideology are him. Neither does the state have basic features for politicians
who cling to power nor does ideology have an effect for the deposed former
leader. It is not my aim to hurt any individuals. All I want to say is that a
crisis is happening, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf. The Arab
features of the disease have become clear and liberalism and Islamism have
become equal in the tools of the Arab political game.