LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
JANUARY 17/2006

Below News From the Daily Star for 17.1.06
Foreign Ministry requests further UNIFIL extension
EU demands Lebanon implement Resolution 1559
Cabinet rift threatens to turn into major crisis
Students rally against 'U.S. hegemony
Ghazaleh gives fresh evidence to UN probe team
Heavy snowfall on the way to Lebanon
Maronite League urges end to 'political scuffling'
Freed hostage returns home to Cyprus
Palestinians protest over aid reduction
MTC: Lebanese government prefers to keep high rates  
Time to find a way out of the twists and turns of Lebanese politics -Daily Star 17.1.06
Iran's nukes and Hizbullah's rockets -By Patrick Devenny Daily Star 17.1.06
Below news from Miscellaneous sources for 17.1.06
Sfeir: Danger is at our door, let’s stop terrorism -asianews 17.1.06
Security Council backs Annan’s actions on Hariri assassination probe-UN News Centre
The Syrian Messages and "al-Qaeda"-By: Walid Shoucair Al-Hayat 17.1.06
Lebanon PM prefers death to peace-UPI 17.1.06
Analysis: Letter from Beirut-UPI 17.1.06
Cleric made anti-Israel tirade-CNN 17.1.06
Below news from Naharnet for 16.1.06
Geagea Threatens to Hold a New March 14 Demonstration
Saniora Says Government Will not Yield to Hizbullah
2 Syrian Intelligence Officers Give Testimony to U.N. Investigators in Vienna
Hizbullah Accuses Jumblat of Thwarting Agreements with Government
Mehlis Says Hariri Probe May Take Less Time Than Expected
Lebanon Steps up Bird Flu Measures Amid Turkish Scare

Sfeir: "Danger is at our door, let’s stop terrorism”
by Youssef Hourany 16.1.06
From Bkerke, the Maronite Patriarch denounced the “terrorist acts which revive memories among the Lebanese of events already seen in the past”. The government crisis in Beirut is in full swing, while Damascus prepares to welcome Ahmadinejad.
Beirut (AsiaNews) – In one of his most meaningful homilies, delivered yesterday during Mass celebrated at the seat of the Maronite Patriarchate in Bkerke, the Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, admonished those responsible for the “danger which is at the door” after last week’s events in Lebanon.
Expressing his “strong denunciation” against “terrorist acts which have revived in the memory of the Lebanese people events already witnessed in the past”, the patriarch turned to the encyclical of the deceased Pope John Paul II, the Sollicitudo rei socialis. Cardinal Sfeir highlighted the basis of the Church’s social teaching, “based on justice, just compensation and the spreading of social peace based on the worthy life of each human being.”
The cardinal harped on issues which “create sorrow in the hearts of many” because of war, social discrimination and division due to ethnic and religious differences.
Talking about the current situation in Lebanon, the patriarch could not hide his concern “about the latest incidents in the country”, from those between Palestinians and Lebanese last week in the township of El Nahemeh to Saturday’s demonstration, when 11 people were wounded, among military and civilians, outside the government headquarters during the visit of the American delegate. Sfeir condemned these acts which “destroy the image of Lebanon and increase tension.”
The patriarch also had harsh words about recent announcements in the Lebanese and international press, which, between the lines, threatened political and religious leaders with possible attacks.
In the meantime, tension is on the rise in Lebanon and the shadows of a crisis in the government are increasingly taking shape: members of the “Party of God” of Hassan Nassrallah and those of the “Movement of Amal” of the Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri continue to pit themselves against the Druze leader, Walid Joumblatt, and all his allies.
The latest moves in the stand-off were Joumblatt’s statements as he persisted in forcefully calling for the application of Resolution 1559 of the United Nations and, from the pages of Lebanese newspapers, he keeps urging American military intervention in Syria. The response of filo-Syrian leaders has been to reiterate their proposal to freeze participation in government meetings of Beirut.
For its part, Syria is preparing to welcome the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: the visit, slated for 20 January, should be two days long and is aimed at studying the latest developments in the regional and international situation, especially in the light of the stand taken by the UN vis a vis both regimes.
Today, the Syrian press reported the latest statements of President Assad, who stood firm his position against the accusations of the former president Khaddam and expressed his rancour against the stand taken by some Arab countries “who have not learnt anything from the experience of the American invasion of Iraq.”

Lebanon: Security Council backs Annan’s actions on Hariri assassination probe
UN News Centre-16 January 2006 – Members of the United Nations Security Council have voiced their support for recent actions taken by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to advance the investigation into the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed last February in a blast that also took the lives of 22 others.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, the Council’s current President, Ambassador Augustine P. Mahiga of Tanzania, voiced appreciation for the Secretary-General’s decision to name former Belgian prosecutor Serge Brammertz to head the UN International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) probing the murder.
“At the same time we want to express our appreciation to the outgoing investigator, Mr. [Detlev] Mehlis, who did an outstanding job,” Ambassador Mahiga added.
Recalling that Mr. Annan has decided to send a mission to Lebanon to examine the possibility of establishing a judicial tribunal as well as extending the investigation to other assassinations in the country, the Council President said, “We think this is [a] very timely, very decisive decision of the Secretary-General.
Last month, the 15-member Council extended UNIIIC’s mandate for at least another six months and authorized it to give technical assistance to investigations into other terrorist attacks in Lebanon.
The Council took that action by a unanimously adopted resolution which followed on the Commission’s latest report offering new evidence pointing to Syria's involvement in Mr. Hariri's murder and Syrian procrastination and efforts to hinder the probe.
The resolution acknowledged the Lebanese Government's request that those eventually charged be tried by a tribunal of an international character. It requested the Secretary-General to help the Lebanon identify the nature and scope of the international assistance needed for this purpose.

The Syrian Messages and "al-Qaeda"
Walid Shoucair Al-Hayat - 16/01/06//
Before the Arab contacts with Syria intensified to reach the Saudi-Syrian and the Egyptian-Syrian summits on January 8, Syria (and its Lebanese allies) addressed several messages to the active Arab countries, namely Cairo and Riyadh, and to the International Community. It expressed therein its ability to respond to the pressures exerted on it to comply with the requirements of the international investigation on the assassination of Martyr PM Rafik Hariri according to the UN Security Council resolutions 1595, 1636, and 1644.
Some interpreted the events in Lebanon since mid November as some Syrian messages as follows:
- The tottering status of the Cabinet due to the escalating protest of "Hezbollah" and "Amal", first for allowing the Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to respond to the statement of President Bashar Assad accusing him to be a "commanded servant serving another commanded servant", and the withdrawal from the cabinet session. The move was followed by an objection put forth against the PM's proposal to examine the option of an international trial, also by withdrawing from the Cabinet session. The drive was crowned by the announcement to suspending the participation of the Ministers of Hezbollah and "Amal" in the Cabinet sessions in response to a request by the ministerial majority calling the Security Council to set up an international frame for the tribunal and expanding the international investigation to encompass the other assassinations. All this took place in the December 12th session, the day colleague Gebran Tueini was martyred.
This message, according to the interpretation of the opponents of the Syrian role in Lebanon, surely aimed at confirming that Damascus is able, via its allies, to deprive the Lebanese Cabinet from its "legitimacy" by the departure of the Shiite Ministers, if the Cabinet persists in expanding the scope of the international movement to confront it in Lebanon by its Lebanese rivals, who consider that there is no other way to face the assassinations except through more Lebanese legal protection of the international investigation.
- Frezing any dialogue between the Lebanese authority and the various Palestinian groups to end the armed Palestinian presence outside the camps and look into streamlining these weapons inside the camps. This was achieved through the rejection of Damascus' allied groups to form a unified Palestinian delegation under the umbrella of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to hold a dialogue with the Lebanese authority over these two issues. The rejection became clearer when "Hamas" movement and "the Islamic Jihad" expressed their reservation with regard to the decision of the Lebanese government to allow the PLO to open a representative office in Beirut since it serves the unity of the Palestinian representation.
- Shooting Katiocha rockets from the South toward northern Israel by a Palestinian organization on December 27th, according to confirmed information by the Lebanese security authorities.
The interpreters of these incidents and others considered them as Syrian messages based on the speech of President Assad on November 10th in Damascus University, wherein he expressed his decision to face the pressures, cautioning that these pressures will undermine the stability in the region and the world…
Those who interpreted the series of events as such contemplated in depth the two declarations issued by the "Jihad Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia", assuming responsibility for the launching of rockets from the South toward Israel.
If this interpretation turns out to be correct, this means one of two things. One interpretation would be that "al-Qaeda" launched the missiles upon the order of Osama Ben Laden, as stated by Abou Massaab Al Zirqawi in his second report. The message is serious since it implies that the radical organization is moving to a new field of activity in the region, namely South Lebanon. The other interpretation would be that "al-Qaeda" decided to bear the brunt for launching rockets by a Palestinian organization (allied to Syria). This is even more serious, because it means that there is an agreement between this organization and al-Qaeda regarding this issue. Otherwise, the latter would have denied its responsibility.
Many may consider that the ongoing mystery over this matter is part of the game. But, in all cases, it conveys possibilities that the situation on the Lebanese scene and the Lebanese-Israeli scene will intensely develop, especially since it has alerted the great nations, chiefly the US, regarding these possibilities in order to decode the message and take action to face it.
The said "Syrian" letters caused significant damages to the relations between "Hezbollah" and many factions, as it have harmed the relations between the Palestinians and the Lebanese people. These damages were compounded by the stances of "Hamas" and "Jihad." The leaderships of the latter in Lebanon should take some lessons from some "Fateh" leaders on the disastrous effects of similar blunders committed by "Fateh" itself and other organizations in Lebanon in the late 70's and early 80's, especially vis-à-vis the Southern people.
If it is true that "al-Qaeda" has emerged in the South whether in reality or (only) in the media, the damages that will be inflicted on the party [Hezbollah], the South, Lebanon, and Syria are open, the least of which will be on the ability of "Hezbollah" to coexist with this emergence on all fronts.

Foreign Ministry requests further UNIFIL extension
By Lysandra Ohrstrom -Daily Star staff
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
BEIRUT: The Foreign Ministry has sent UN Secretary General Kofi Annan a letter requesting another term extension for the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL). In a letter, delivered by deputy charge d'affaires Ibrahim Assaf, Lebanon requested the UN Security Council extend the peace-keeping forces' term for another six months - until July 31, 2006.
The UN Security Council has complied with similar requests from the Lebanese government every six months since July 31, 2000 when UNIFIL's mandate was extended for the first time. "There will be a recommendation from the UN secretary general to extend UNIFIL's term for another six months. The situation still warrants the UN presence in the South, and has not changed for a reorganization or redeployment of UNIFIL forces to take place," Cornelia Frank of the UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations told The Daily Star.
The international peace keeping force, now numbering 1,994 troops, has been in stationed at the border of Southern Lebanon and Israel since the Israeli invasion of 1978. It was established as part of Resolution 426, which demanded Israel withdraw from Lebanese territory, and called for the creation of an independent military presence to maintain peace and security, and assist the Lebanese government in reasserting their authority. Though the Security Council confirmed Israel's withdrawal to the UN demarcated Blue Line, the Lebanese government has requested the Security Council maintain UNIFIL's presence, arguing political instability necessitates phased redeployment of peace-keeping troops to be replaced by the Lebanese Army.
When contacted by The Daily Star, a Hizbullah official refused to comment on a development he called "routine," maintaining "this happens every six months and we never have a comment." UNIFIL's continued presence in the South does not bode well for Resolution 1559, which demands the Lebanese government disband all militias and deploy its troops to the Southern border. "The situation along the Blue Line right now is quiet, but it's tense. We characterize the situation as fragile," said the head of UNIFIL Milos Strugger.He added: "The decision for the extension is in the hands of the Security Council and they vote for it after reading the secretary general's recommendations," adding it has nothing to do with Resolution 1559.
Lebanese political leaders have been resisting international pressure for the immediate disarmament of Hizbullah, the group credited with forcing Israel's withdrawal, asserting that 1559 is a Lebanese issue that must be dealt with internally.

EU demands Lebanon implement Resolution 1559
By Majdoline Hatoum -Daily Star staff
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
BEIRUT: The European Union's new president, Austrian President Wolfgang Schussel, demanded the implementation of UN Security Council 1559 on Monday, as Lebanon plunged deeper into its own internal political crisis. International demands for 1559's implementation have echoed since U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch paid a visit to Beirut over the weekend, during which he stressed the need to fulfill all clauses of the international resolution.
In a statement, Schussel said: "The European Union reiterates the importance it attaches to the Lebanese government extending its authority to the entire national territory and encourages it to continue the dialogue begun, in accordance with Resolution 1559, with a view to the disarmament of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias."
Resolution 1559, issued September 2, 2004, calls, among other things, for the disarmament of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, namely Hizbullah and armed Palestinian factions in Lebanon. However, Lebanon has identified Hizbullah's arms as a matter of internal dialogue, according to the government's Ministerial Policy Statement. The EU statement also expressed the body's "deep commitment to the stability, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon," and reaffirmed its endorsement of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government.
The EU declaration comes on the heels of Welch's reported urging of the Lebanese government headed by Siniora to take action on the matter of implementing 1559. According to Ad-Diyar, a pro-Syrian Lebanese newspaper, Welch agreed with Druze leader MP Walid Jumblatt on not allowing Shiite ministers to return to Cabinet - which they have been boycotting for the past five weeks - until 1559 is agreed upon. However, in a telephone interview with The Daily Star, Jumblatt denied the report by Ad-Diyar, which has been conducting a rabid media campaign against Jumblatt.
Also speaking to The Daily Star, Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad said the mounting pressure on Lebanon to implement the remainder of UN Resolution 1559's clauses, namely disarming Hizbullah, constituted interference in Lebanon's internal affairs and an infringement of the Ministerial Statement. "The Ministerial Statement we agreed on mentioned that the weapons of Hizbullah will be the center of an internal dialogue," Raad said. "But what is happening right now is that this issue is being debated with all sorts of foreign countries. If that is not international interference in Lebanon's internal affairs, I don't know what is."Raad added that the initial cause of the recent internal political crisis - which only worsened with Welch's visit to Lebanon and Jumblatt's indirect criticism of Hizbullah - was the fact that there is currently no definite recognition of "Hizbullah's situation as a resistance from stigmatizing it with the label of a militia."
He also called on Jumblatt to define his position on UN Resolution 1559, "and decide if he still rejected it."Since UN Resolution 1559 was issued, Jumblatt has repeatedly insisted that he objects to the disarmament of Hizbullah, according to the international resolution, describing the party as a "resistance group" and not a militia. He even engaged in an electoral alliance with Hizbullah during last year's parliamentary election, with one of the titles of the alliance being "the protection of the resistance."However, he has begun to change his position on the matter, calling on Hizbullah to be integrated into the Lebanese Army and hand in its weapons over to the government. When asked, Jumblatt said that he would announce his position on the implementation of UN Resolution 1559 and Hizbullah's arms in an interview with Future TV next Friday.
"When we agreed that Hizbullah's weapon would be the center of an internal dialogue, we wanted to see where we would go with this issue," Jumblatt said. "No one can refuse to implement international resolutions."Jumblatt said Hizbullah's excuse to maintain their weapons, namely the liberation of Shebaa Farms, was no longer valid. "UN Resolution 425 [calling on Israel to withdraw from Lebanese occupied territories] is implemented, and Shebaa falls under UN Resolution 242, which concerns Syria and not us ... unless the Syrian government takes a clear position saying the area is Lebanese through sending official letters to the UN and the Lebanese government acknowledging that," he said.

Cabinet rift threatens to turn into major crisis
Siniora attempts to ease tensions between jumblatt and hizbullah
By Adnan El-Ghoul -Daily Star staff
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
BEIRUT: As the Cabinet crisis entered its fifth week on Monday, threatening to develop into a full-blown crisis despite the efforts by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to ease tensions between MP Walid Jumblatt and Hizbullah, political and religious leaders called for "a temporary truce" to the public row. In the hopes of preventing a further rift in the national fabric, political parties and religious leaders have called on each other to observe the truce to help ease tensions and allow dialogue to prevail.
A separate statement from the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) said Jumblatt had phoned former Syrian Vice-President Abdel-Halim Khaddam to discuss the political situation, after holding a meeting with Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamade. Hamade had met with Jumblatt after returning from Paris to inform the MP of his meetings with French officials.
While in Paris, Hamade met with Khaddam, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, Beirut MP Saad Hariri and several French officials. In a telephone interview with The Daily Star, Jumblatt said Khaddam was "an old friend" and that the two would meet as soon as "circumstances permit." "We discussed the Syrian political situation broadly," he said, "but we will have to discuss the details later. Anyhow, I fully support Khaddam's views and plans regarding the Syrian regime."
Meanwhile, Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah told a delegate of the National Information Council that Lebanon's political parties have "no other option" but to solve their disputes through dialogue to reach an agreement.
Asked about calls for the Army to dispatch troops to the South and the state's responsibility regarding national security issues, Nasrallah said: "The Lebanese government - and not Hizbullah - is the only party responsible for securing the Lebanese border with Israel. I urge the Cabinet to fulfill its responsibilities there because we cannot monitor the whole area."
Asked to explain Hizbullah's continued closeness to Syria, Nasrallah said: "If the investigation led to the conviction of the Syrian regime or any person in Syria in the killing of (former Premier Rafik) Hariri, Hizbullah would have a different stand toward Syria." The secretary general further reiterated the resistance's "sincere efforts" to reach a solution to the Cabinet crisis.
"After reaching an agreement, a third party steps in and spoils it," Nasrallah said. "Regretfully, our friend Jumblatt would be the head of this third party. Nevertheless, Jumblatt's stances are not antagonistic to the extent that they have severed all ties between us."
According to Nasrallah, Siniora rejected the resistance's last agreement with Hariri under pressure from Jumblatt. "Jumblatt must realize that foiling any internal conciliation is part of a U.S. scheme," he said. Meanwhile, members of Hariri's Future Movement said they valued a recent joint Saudi Arabia-Egypt initiative to resolve Lebanon's internal crisis and mend the relations between Syria and Lebanon. Following a party meeting, the bloc called "on all parties to cease the exchange of accusations and embark on real dialogue" before heading to a conclave with Siniora. Another statement from the March 14 Forces said the coalition feared the return of a climate of "accusations and counter accusations," and rejected Hizbullah's attack on Jumblatt, "who is a great patriotic asset against Israel and for freedom and independence."The March 14 Forces also said dialogue must remain within the state institutions. "However, the Cabinet and presidency are currently in a stalemate. Therefore the Parliament is the only body that can sponsor the dialogue." The statement also revealed the Forces' Follow-up Committee has decided to issue a parliamentary petition calling for a special session to resume dialogue. "We will visit Speaker Nabih Berri to work out the dialogue mechanism, rules and the participant parties," it said.
In a separate statement, MP Michel Aoun's Change and Reform bloc emphasized the need to solve national problems internally, "especially in light of the failure of all outside attempts and initiatives." It added: "Efforts to solve the crisis must not limit their aim to resolving the Cabinet dispute. We must establish solid grounds for a general dialogue that aims at solving the main pressing issues confronting Lebanon's future." Meanwhile, the Cabinet will hold its regular session on Thursday without the participation of Hizbullah and Amal ministers, who will continue their boycott "until the government meets our demands."
However, an article published Monday in As-Safir quoted Siniora as having said the government will not succumb to Hizbullah's demands to amend its policy statement in an attempt to shield the resistance from an international resolution calling for its disarmament."The policy statement is very clear regarding the protection of the resistance," the premier was quoted as saying. "The terms used in the statement were enough to reassure Hizbullah that the government would protect its military wing despite UN Resolution 1559."

Students rally against 'U.S. hegemony'
'Anti-march 14' forces to hold protest near american embassy in awkar
By Nada Bakri -Special to The Daily Star
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
BEIRUT: The "anti-March 14" political forces will hold a demonstration Tuesday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Awkar to protest against what they have called "American hegemony over Lebanon." The demonstrators are members of "the Lebanese student force lobbying against the American interference in Lebanon," which includes youth activists from Hizbullah, Amal movement, former minister Suleiman Franjieh's Marada Party, the People's Movement, Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya, the Lebanese Democratic Party and the Popular Nasserites Organization. The head of the People's Movement Najah Wakim said the move comes to protest against U.S. policy in Lebanon. "Lebanon is currently under American occupation and the Lebanese government is run by the U.S. Embassy," Wakim told The Daily Star.
Wakim said the political forces of the March 14 Independence Intifada "want to oppress voices who oppose their policy," describing them as "worse than any security system." Head of the Lebanese Forces Executive Committee leader Samir Geagea has threatened to hold a massive protest similar to the historic demonstration of March 14 if pro-Syrian groups decide to take to the streets in large numbers.  The March 14 Parliamentary Dialogue Committee has said there "is a possibility of holding such a demonstration." Following the committee's meeting Monday, Tripoli MP Mosbah Ahdab said: "Tomorrow's demonstration expresses a point of view and that is a sacred right and no one opposes it, and another point of view should be expressed." But Ahdab added: "What we insist on today is the need to avoid street demonstrations."
He also urged the Cabinet to protect the protesters and their right to express themselves. Interior Minister Hassan Sabaa said Monday he would not ban any demonstrations "as long as the protesters behave in a peaceful manner." Sabaa's comments came three days after riot police were accused of "physically harassing" some 250 young activists from the student force who were protesting Saturday outside the Grand Serail, where U.S Assistant Secretary of State David Welch was meeting with Premier Fouad Siniora. The demonstrators who were carrying anti-U.S. banners and chanting anti-U.S. slogans threw stones and the riot police, who retaliated by firing smoke grenades and spraying water to disperse the crowd. In a statement released Monday the student force said the "repression they were subjected to in front of the Grand Serail was ordered directly by the [American] tutelage embassy."
Hisham Tabbara, representing the student force said "the daily American interference in Lebanon's affairs is unbearable and affects the country's unity." Tabbara, who expected the number of participants to reach thousands, said the protest will be peaceful and safe "under the wise leadership of the Lebanese Army." Sabaa said that until Monday protesters had not issued any requests for a permit for their demonstration, adding "we support freedom and we have no intention of oppressing it."
"Every citizen has the right to express himself within limits but with the condition of respecting people's assets and properties and not attacking anyone," he said. But a Hizbullah spokesperson said that Tuesday's demonstration is authorized and that "the internal security forces will protect the protesters."

Ghazaleh gives fresh evidence to UN probe team
Compiled by Daily Star staff -Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Two Syrian intelligence officers have given further evidence in Vienna Monday to the UN commission investigating the murder of former Premier Rafik Hariri, a Syrian diplomat said. According to Syria's ambassador to Austria Safwan Ghanem, the officers being interrogated are Syria's former head of intelligence in Lebanon, Rustom Ghazaleh, and his deputy, retired colonel Samih Kashaami. Both officers arrived in Vienna on Sunday with a legal team and were heard earlier by the commission in December. "I think it has begun," said Ghanem, adding he did not expect the hearings to last beyond Monday. The precise duration of the interviews, he said, lay "in the hands of the commission." The investigators were expected to ask Ghazaleh mainly about financial issues,the Al-Hayat Arab daily reported on Monday.
A Beirut-based diplomatic source said four Syrians were being questioned but another source later said only two had made the trip to Europe. It is believed that the four Syrians whom investigators want to interview also include Houssam Houssam, a civilian witness who had implicated Syrian officials in Hariri's assassination but then fled Beirut to Syria and retracted his testimony. The fourth is said to be Brigadier Abdelkarim Abbas of the intelligence's Palestine department.
Two other Syrians, Zaher Youssef, the head of Syrian communications and Jamaa Jamaa, another of Ghazaleh's deputies, will undergo other hearing sessions, according to a source quoted by the An-Nahar daily on Monday. The commission, led since last week by Belgian prosecutor Serge Brammertz, also wants to speak to Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Farouq al-Sharaa. In an interview with the German weekly Stern, outgoing UN commissioner Detlev Mehlis said the international commission is still awaiting Syria's response to a request for interviewing Assad and that the Syrian response would indicate how ready the Syrians are to positively cooperate.
Mehlis, former head of the UN probe into Hariri's murder, was described as the person whose life is most in danger in the Middle East by the weekly's interview which was published on Monday in the Lebanese daily As Safir. He said that he was threatened while on mission in Lebanon and that he was still living under tight security measures in Germany. Mehlis added that the assassination of Lebanese MP Gebran Tueni last month was a message to him and to other members of the international commission of investigation just before he was due to hand over his second report to the UN Security Council.
"Tueni's assassination is a personal message to me and the committee members. Their message was the following 'you can do what you want. This will change nothing. You can write as many reports as you want. We will continue in spite of everything,'" Mehlis said. He said he was shocked when he heard the news of the attack on Tueni whom he knew personally and had grown fond of. "The killer wanted to silence the voice of opposition to Syria through Gebran Tueni's assassination. The goal was to threaten journalists and politicians," he said.
Mehlis said the investigation "became especially exciting" after Abdel-Halim Khaddam, former Syrian vice-president, accused Syrian authorities of involvement at the highest level in the Hariri murder. "This was a real surprise. Khaddam is no ordinary person. He was vice president for 20 years. A man in his position has a lot of information that he gave to a reputable Arab media organization," Mehlis said, referring to Al-Arabiyya television station that Khaddam made his revelations to. He said Brammertz may conclude investigations in less time than he had originally expected. Mehlis had earlier predicted that the probe may take years. Meanwhile, Elias Eid, the magistrate overlooking the investigation into the assassination of Hariri, issued Monday formal requests for specific information from the Lebanese security services.
Judicial sources said the Lebanese judiciary postponed a request to the Syrian authorities to hand in Houssam, after it was informed that the international committee will summon him for a second round of interrogation in its headquarters in Monteverde. The sources said the international committee could issue a list of recommendations against Houssam especially since some of Houssam's confession was corroborated by his Lebanese fiancee Tharwat al-Hujeiri. Meanwhile, in Damascus, former Syrian Justice Minister, Nabil al-Khatib was appointed the new head of the Syrian investigation committee into Hariri's assassination - established in November 2005 - according to Syrian official sources. Two new lawyers: Mohammad al-Louji and Hala Barbara, were also appointed as members of the committee. Another source quoted by Future Television said a group of Syrian businessmen had gathered funds to financially support the interviewing of the Syrian officials in Vienna.
- Additional reporting by Raed El Rafei.

Maronite League urges end to 'political scuffling'
By Karen Mneimne -Special to The Daily Star
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
BEIRUT: The Maronite League said on Monday that it regretted the recent "political scuffling" in the country and the level of "defamation in political speeches." In a statement issued by the Maronite League's Executive Council, the Christian body described recent statements by national leaders as "instigating speeches that incite fanaticism."
The League reaffirmed its rejection, and that of the Lebanese people, of such statements.
It called on government officials and political parties to "accept the opinion of the others and solve all issues and problems, no matter how heated they are, through an honest and clear dialogue."It assured that "Lebanon's sovereignty and independence should be safeguarded through this dialogue," adding that the Lebanese people "are politically mature and are keen on strengthening co-existence." It asked all political parties in Lebanon to "renounce any discouraging speeches, especially at this time, as the Lebanese people have a chance for new horizons to reinforce true and permanent co-existence." Stressing the importance of "dialogue and initiatives" in solving the country's disputes, the League said no foreign parties, whether "regional or international," could solve Lebanon's problems. "The solution will only be effective if it is developed by the Lebanese themselves," it said. The League added it "deeply regrets the absence of the presidency and its constitutional role, which are urgent in the context of helping the Lebanese solve their problems."
Concerning the Palestinian file in Lebanon, the League once more emphasized the need for "clear positions regarding all kinds of Zionist projects to settle the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon," including what it called the "gradual settlement."
The League also condemned the "blatant purported attack by Palestinian militants on the people of Naameh," calling for "an end to all Palestinian arms inside and outside the Palestinian refugee camps."
It also restated its belief that "there can be no negligence or retreating from continuing the international investigation into the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri and the other assassinations and assassination attempts."
Until the truth is discovered, the League said, "Lebanon's security, political and economic levels will remain unstable."

Time to find a way out of the twists and turns of Lebanese politics
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Editorial
Over the past few days in Lebanon, a dangerous war of words has been heating up between leader of the Democratic Gathering Walid Jumblatt and Hizbullah. Over the weekend, Jumblatt described Hizbullah's arms as "deceitful" and denounced "the weapons that they are keeping - the tools of betrayal - and the arms they claim are intended for liberation." Although Jumblatt later said that his remarks were aimed not at Hizbullah, but rather at the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Hizbullah officials were unconvinced. The resistance group responded by saying that Jumblatt's remarks "have crossed all red lines and breached values" and that "if deceit were personified, it would be named Walid Jumblatt."
The sudden row between Hizbullah and Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party caught many observers by surprise, especially since the two parties had recently been supposed allies. After the passage of Security Council Resolution 1559 in September of 2004, Jumblatt, who joined the chorus of calls for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, was quick to oppose the resolution's demand that Hizbullah be disarmed. Jumblatt's support for the resistance group was even more steadfast and vocal when he allied with Hizbullah for the parliamentary elections last May. He even went as far as to visit Iran last April, ahead of the polls, to hold talks with top Iranian officials on ways to protect the resistance group from U.S. pressure to disarm.
How easy it is to get lost in the twists and turns of Lebanese politics, where mortal enemies can quickly become erstwhile friends and faithful allies can become bitter opponents. The row between Jumblatt and Hizbullah is proof - if evidence were needed - that political alliances in Lebanon are often born strictly out of convenience. What a pity that the Lebanese citizens are forced to ride this endless merry-go-round of petty politicking.
Fortunately, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has assured that the parties are heading toward reconciliation. But perhaps this is an opportunity for citizens to take the initiative and pressure their leaders to behave. Lebanese leaders evidently need to be told how damaging their style of leadership has become to their public. Perhaps the Lebanese ought to tell them that what they need most in these times of turmoil and instability is calm, level-headed leaders who resort to patient dialogue to resolve their differences.

Iran's nukes and Hizbullah's rockets
By Patrick Devenny -Commentary by
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Lebanon could soon become a battlefield in the war over Iranian nuclear power. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei's warning last year that Iran could be within three months of developing a nuclear capability, and Iran's resumption of atomic research last week, jolted those observers who felt a nuclear Iran was a problem of the distant future. Assuming - as many analysts do - that the Islamic Republic is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, the international community's window of opportunity to deter Iran is limited and rapidly closing.
Some have surmised that, in order to prevent or delay such a capability, Israel may seek to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in a fashion similar to its 1981 attack against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor. Several weeks ago, Western newspapers featured reports of maturing Israeli war plans. Israel did little to deflect the speculation, with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saying: "Israel will not allow Iran to be equipped with a nuclear weapon."
A scenario involving Israeli military strikes is far from academic, as the continuing diplomatic impasse between Iran and the West brings military action squarely into the realm of reality. On September 24, 2005, the IAEA found Iran "non-compliant" with its commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and recommended referral to the United Nations Security Council. In the wake of the IAEA ruling, several Israeli officials restated their unwillingness to tolerate a nuclear Iran. On September 29, Yuval Steinitz, the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, suggested that American and European officials should make clear to their Iranian counterparts there would be "no chance [Iran] will ever see the fruits of a nuclear program."
The fear voiced by Steinitz and other Israeli leaders is hardly unfounded, as opposition to Israel's right to exist lies at the heart of the Islamic Republic's ideology. On December 31, 1999, before tens of thousands at a Jerusalem Day rally in Tehran, Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei declared: "There is only one solution to the Middle East problem, namely the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state."
Unfortunately, much of the debate concerning a hypothetical Israeli strike on Iran remains mired in the dry algorithms of logisticians, who frequently
remind the world just how difficult it would be for Israel to attack Iranian nuclear installations. Take, for example, a U.S. Army-sponsored report last year concerning the geopolitical repercussions of a nuclear-armed Iran. While thousands of words were devoted to the minutiae of the Israel Air Force's operational range and payload figures, relatively little effort was expended on outlining the regional repercussions of such an act.
Suffering from this narrow-minded analysis is Lebanon, which, more than any other local actor, could find itself in an unfortunate strategic position were hostilities to commence between Israel and Iran. Not only does Lebanon abut northern Israel, but it plays host to Hizbullah, which has made no secret of its fealty to the regime in Tehran.
In the event of an Israeli attack, Iran would likely respond with a Hizbullah missile barrage against Israel, thereby exacting revenge while maintaining its own distance. Recent Iranian-supplied
upgrades to Hizbullah's rocket arsenal, including Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets, have placed major Israeli population centers - such as Haifa - within range. With Hizbullah's recent buildup, the aggregate Israeli conventional threat against the Iranian nuclear program has been rendered relatively minor in comparison to a potential Hizbullah response targeting Israel and its economy. Iran's leaders are well aware of this fact, and are likely to view Hizbullah's rockets as their primary deterrent against an Israeli attack.
These same leaders would have little trouble in convincing their allies in Hizbullah to unleash its arsenal, considering that the party's leadership maintains tight contacts with Iran's rulers and its ever-present security apparatus. Hizbullah religious leaders have trained in Iranian seminaries and maintain close connections with ruling Iranian clerics.
While the relationship between Iran and Hizbullah is, in many ways, an outgrowth of this more informal connection, the Iranian government has also instituted a bureaucratic mechanism to maintain their interests within the organization. This institutional bond is bolstered by material and financial connections, which increased following the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 to the tune of an estimated $100 million a year provided by Tehran to the Lebanese party.
Should a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities be considered, the United States and Israel may not be able to limit the conflict to the Iranian theater. Because Tehran may consider Hizbullah to be its best avenue to either deter or retaliate for a U.S. or Israeli attack, any such attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would likely be accompanied by an Israeli ground assault into Lebanon - an event with serious diplomatic and military implications. Israeli raids into Lebanon could serve as an excuse for opponents of the peace process to augment their sponsorship of terrorism. A backlash in Lebanon might undercut the country's fragile political stability. Anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment might dramatically increase across not only the Middle East, but Europe as well.
Iranian ideologues, Hizbullah leaders, and their sympathizers would find such a backlash to their advantage. Some may calculate it in their interest to instigate conflict, even prior to any strike on Iranian facilities. In the fires of a new Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon, Hizbullah would undoubtedly draw new recruits to the banner of armed resistance. The party and its allies in Tehran could take comfort in the fact that they have very little to lose in unleashing their rockets on Israeli cities. Instead, ordinary Lebanese citizens will be the ones to bear the brunt of the violence, largely due to Hizbullah's willingness to convert southern Lebanon into a staging point for the Iranian regime.
One force that would conceivably have much to lose in an exchange between Israel and Lebanon is Hizbullah's other benefactor, Syria. Some have argued that Iran's desire to protect the Assad regime would lessen the likelihood of a Hizbullah rocket attack. However, Syrian President Bashar Assad may indeed welcome such a barrage, as it would rapidly overshadow his current travails regarding his regime's suspected role in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Any Israeli counterattack, no matter how devastating, would only strengthen Assad's position, uniting Syrians in the face of external aggression.
Allowing the Iranian regime to flaunt international regulations and achieve nuclear power status is egregious enough; an Israeli pre-emptive attack which carries with it little chance of success could be much worse. If such an attack were to occur, the world could ill afford to be unprepared for the ripple effects that would batter an already troubled region.
***Patrick Devenny is the Henry M. Jackson National Security Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington. This commentary, written for THE DAILY STAR, appears in a longer version in the Winter 2006 edition of the Middle East Quarterly.

Lebanon PM prefers death to peace
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has said Lebanon won't ever sign a peace agreement with Israel. Siniora was quoted Monday as saying in the Beirut daily As-Safir he "truly hopes to die before being obliged to sign one day a peace treaty with Israel." He stressed "Lebanon will not sign any peace agreement with Israel even after the liberation of the Shabaa Farms from Israeli occupation and the release of our prisoners in Israel." Lebanon and Syria say the famrs belong to Lebanon, but Israel and the United Nations say they belong to Syria. Siniora said, "Lebanon has a truce agreement with Israel which we will revive until a just peace process in the region materializes under which the Golan Heights are returned to Syria and a Palestinian state is set up on Palestinian territory." Siniora criticized local and regional parties for doubting Lebanon's commitment to Arab causes.
"No one has the right to doubt Lebanon because it is the only state which fought and is still fighting Israel for more than 35 years during which the Lebanese people suffered more than any other Arab country could bear," Siniora said.
He defended Hezbollah's armed tactics against Israel, saying his government, which is now being boycotted by Shiite ministers, did not stop defending the organization at international platforms and in meetings with U.S. and European officials.
On relations with Syria, Siniora said Syrian proposals to ease tension were relayed to the Lebanese government through Saudi officials, "but we saw that they did not serve Lebanon's interest and sovereignty, especially the clause on a joint security committee between the two countries." Lebanon rejected the clause on the ground it would give Syria a say on Lebanese security. Siniora rejected accusations his government is pro-American and yielding to U.S. influence, saying "this is shameful talk... We are seeking the country's interest and try to take advantage of our international relations in that regard."

Analysis: Letter from Beirut
By SANA ABDALLAH
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- It is clear the massive bombing that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Valentine's Day last year in one of Beirut's most beautiful streets overlooking the Mediterranean has brought changes here -- at least on the outside. The bombed area on the Ain Mraiseh seafront, still sealed off as an international investigation continues to probe the assassination, apparently caused much bigger damage than the images seen on television screens and the first thought that comes to mind is how only 20 people perished in that explosion. The repercussions of that deadly blast that targeted the man who was credited for rebuilding Beirut and other parts of the country destroyed by the 1975-1990 civil war continues to reverberate. Large murals of Syrian President Bashar Assad a year ago are now replaced with even larger ones of Hariri and his son, parliament member Saad Hariri, who seeks to continue his father's legacy. The walls where the ruling Syrian Baath Party slogans had splattered graffiti last year are now replaced with newer ones screaming "Freedom" and "Independence" -- words hundreds of thousands of Lebanese shouted in the streets of this city after Hariri's death and whose persistence, along with international pressure, led to the Syrian withdrawal from the country in late April after a 29-year military and intelligence presence. Roads that were once virtually unused to avoid Syrian checkpoints and possibly trigger-happy soldiers are now back to life with reckless Lebanese driving.
Yet the most obvious change here is the open and loud criticism of the regime in Damascus, which so many here blame for Hariri's assassination and a series of other blasts that have killed prominent anti-Syrian journalists and a veteran communist leader. The killing of Hariri, whom many Lebanese had previously blasted as being corrupt and accused him of plunging the country into billions of dollars in debts, has clearly unleashed the Lebanese anger at their former powerbrokers.
Never mind that the U.N.-appointed probe commission has yet to finalize its findings. Many have ruled out other possible perpetrators with hidden agendas of being behind what is here described as the "crime of the century."
It no longer seems to be the Feb. 14 assassination they want to avenge, but they appear as if they want to make Assad's regime pay for having repressed them for so long, for overstaying their welcome in "keeping the peace" following the civil war, and for having confiscated their rights. Some even equate Israel's Ariel Sharon, who, as defense minister, orchestrated the bloody 1982 invasion of Lebanon, with Syria's Bashar Assad.
As one Druze woman and supporter of outspoken anti-Syrian Druze leader Walid Jumblatt told me, "there are two Ariel Sharons in the Middle East -- one in Tel Aviv and another in Damascus." A large number of Lebanese want the regime to go, believing that as long as it remains in power across the border, it will continue to fiddle with Lebanon's security and stability, and will continue to maintain influence on its politics. It would be an understatement to say that trying to make sense of Lebanese politics is a challenge. With a national pact agreed to after independence from the French, the president must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni and the Speaker of the House a Shiite. The parliament is divided on a quota basis to ensure that all the country's ethnic and sectarian fabric is represented.
About 400,000 Palestinians, living and breeding in the country since they were forced to flee their homes in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war when the Jewish state was set up, basically have no rights and are confined to their refugee camps.
During the civil war, Christians fought Muslims, the Druze and each other; Syrians fought the Palestinians, Christians and their critics; Shiites fought the Palestinians, and everyone else fought everyone else. Alliances shifted then and they continue to shift today. Today, there is a pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, who remains in power after the Syrians and the former pro-Syrian Parliament early last year extended his presidency for another three years.
He refuses to resign although his chief of the republican guard is one of the suspects arrested in connection with Hariri's assassination. The anti-Syrian Maronites want him out, but they want him to leave on his own, without popular pressure, so as not to threaten the "dignity" of the position held by one of their own. A former staunch anti-Syrian Christian general, Michel Aoun, who lived in exile in Paris for 15 years and returned after the Syrian withdrawal, is now in cahoots with pro-Syrian politicians as he seems ambitious to become future president, elected by the 128-seat Parliament.
Another Christian leader, chief of the previously notorious and Israeli-allied Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, was recently released from the interior ministry's dungeon prisons after 11 years and is now talking sense about national unity and describing Israel as an enemy. The previous anti-Syrian opposition is still called the "opposition" although its members hold the majority of parliament seats today and dominate the coalition government, which also includes the powerful Shiite Hezbollah group, the Shiite Amal organization and other so-called pro-Syrian parties and figures.
No wonder the government is in a crisis and the country is divided and stuck in a cycle of bickering. Last month, five pro-Hezbollah and Amal ministers decided to suspend their participation because the majority in the government demanded an expansion of the international inquiry into other assassinations and attempts against anti-Syrians.
These ministers want to keep the issue at home to prevent American intervention they see as serving Israeli interests, especially that Washington is seeking to dismantle Hezbollah within Security Council Resolution 1559 that calls for disarming the "militias."
"Militia" is a description Hezbollah and most Lebanese reject for the Shiite organization since it is credited as a resistance group that was instrumental in ending the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation.
Then there is the Syrian-allied Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which has a base outside the camps, and, every once in a while, fires a shot here and there, prompting an Israeli air strike, prompting another issue to deal with. At least there seems to be a consensus that the Palestinians keep their weapons within their camps, and as soon as the government kicks off on the other issues, it will deal with the PFLP-GC issue. Whenever there are signs the crisis is on the verge of being resolved -- an effort being done through negotiations among the different political players -- some political leader would say something that triggers the anger of another, threatening to sabotage what little hope this dialogue holds to avoid a much-dreaded return to a bloody sectarian civil war. Dark memories of this war seem to be the obvious factors holding back the politicians in this politically divided country from escalating their confrontations.
But if you don't read the newspapers, watch television or bother discussing politics in Lebanon -- where the Lebanese love to discuss politics for hours on end -- one would not guess the country is in a messy situation that could, God forbid for its people and the Arabs who love Beirut, erupt into violence. During the Muslim Eid al-Adha feast last week, the Paris of the Arab world was bustling with Arab tourists enjoying the lively cafés, clubs and restaurants where beautiful, half-naked women and well-dressed charming men decorated this special city. One can only hope that the political struggle will not turn into an ugly sectarian one that will bring the hell of Iraq into the streets of a city that was rebuilt by the man whose assassination and repercussions threaten to destroy it once again.

The Shiites versus Lebanon
A Strategic Plan or a Case of Misunderstanding?
by Don Quixote*
CDL | January 15, 2006
Many Lebanese are puzzled these days by what is happening in Lebanon particularly vis-à-vis the hard-line adopted by representatives of the Shiite sect in government and society.
What seemed in the beginning as a mere political opposition, to some governmental policies, led by the ministers of Amal and Hezbollah (the two main Shiite parties) evolved into a sectarian crisis as the “Highest Muslim Shiite Council” declared illegitimate all Cabinet sessions held in the absence of the five Shiite ministers of Amal and Hezbollah and banned all other Shiites from bypassing these two groups in dealing with the Cabinet.
On the surface, the problem seems a struggle for power-sharing within the executive branch. The National Reconciliation Charter (colloquially known as the Taif accord) and subsequent constitutional amendments, which organized government functions among the sects in Lebanon, promulgated solutions for power-sharing crises but these seem to have become irrelevant for the Shiite ministers. Why?
Many observers relate the Shiite opposition to a revisionist attitude of the Taif accord prompted by regional changes and demographic considerations. Others fear that the Shiites in Lebanon have become hostages of regional powers, namely Iran and Syria, who over the past fifteen years fueled the Shiite community in Lebanon with money and arms.
Political Shiism and Taif Revisionism
Application of the Taif accord (or misapplication thereof) under Syrian occupation between 1990 and 2005, has given the Syrian occupant unlimited control over every aspect of political, economic, social and military life in Lebanon; a formula that benefited many who accepted the occupation and allied themselves with it; among those are the two Shiite parties Amal and Hezbollah. The Taif accord ended what many described as “Political Maronism”; however, the Syrian occupation that followed prepped the grounds for what many perceive as the substitute: “Political Shiism”.
Political Shiism and all that it represents (allies of Syria in Lebanon of all sects) were neither a Lebanese invention nor a product of the Taif accord and certainly not an expressed goal of the Lebanese Shiite community. Political Shiism is at best a byproduct of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the Iranian expansionist plans in the region. Political Shiism emerged of the corrupt governments that were instituted by the Syrian occupation and that ruled Lebanon since 1990. These successive governments benefited a few Lebanese power-holders who sought to strengthen their grip on the nation by hijacking the state and dismantling its institutions. State institutions were replaced by a system of individual favoritism reinforced by receptivity to the will of Syria and Iran.
The Shiite community through this “Political Shiism” gained tremendous political, economic and military power and assumed command (with the blessing of the Syrian occupation) over most of Lebanon’s governmental institutions and vital harbors from the Presidency of the Republic and all that it controls to the foreign affairs, to the internal affairs, to the Sureté Générale, etc.
Throughout this process, Hezbollah evolved from a radical group of terrorists into a radical organization accepted by mainstream politics in Lebanon under the rubric of resistance but still on the list of terrorist groups in the West. Hezbollah’s power swelled in 2000 as Israel made a unilateral withdrawal from South Lebanon (similar to its withdrawal from Gaza recently) following guarantees to the security of the Israeli northern towns[1]. This Israeli withdrawal gave the so-called resistance movement an opportunity to claim magnanimous role in the liberation of Lebanon and to become the uncontested armed wing of this new “Political Shiism.”
As Syria was forced out of Lebanon following the assassination of former PM Hariri and under pressure from the international community (UNSC Res. 1559) and an outraged Lebanese street (March 14th 2005), the Political Shiism found itself orphaned and its resources (financial and military) threatened. The Taif accord as far as liberating the occupied Lebanese territories from Israel has been fulfilled and UNSC Res. 425 has been fully implemented[2]. Hence the need for the armed resistance movement was legally nullified. Add to that UNSC Res. 1559 requires among other things, the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon, which meant Hezbollah’s. All these nullified claims of legitimacy of the arms of Hezbollah and its need for financial support from Iran and military cover from Syria.
These developments were coupled with unspoken suspicions that Hezbollah’s extensive security and intelligence apparatus was privy to the Hariri assassination scheme. They also explain the Shiite frantic attempts to hold on to power (by holding on to Lahoud) and to derail the international investigations (objecting to the International Court and to the expansion of the investigations) even if that effectively meant doing away with the Taif accord and destabilizing Lebanon. Sayyed Hassan Nassrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, made it clear time and again that the Shiite demographic supremacy will continue to accept the Taif accord only in a context similar to Political Shiism as described above. Against this background, one can explain the Shiite pro-Syrian demonstration of March 8th 2005, the boycott by the Shiite ministers of the Cabinet meetings and the recent riots in Beirut on January 14th 2006 instigated by Hezbollah.
Many analysts express grave concerns over these developments particularly the recent riots in Beirut, during which thugs carrying sticks and rocks attempted to invade the Grand Séraille where Prime Minister Seniora was meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Mr. David Welch and attacked in the process the Lebanese security officers. Observers contrast these riots with the peaceful sit-ins organized by the anti-Syrian groups and with more restrained demonstrations of Hezbollah in the past and wonder whether the pro-Syrian Shiite demonstrators were trying to inflict physical harm on Mr. Seniora and his American guests. Hezbollah has a history of hostage-taking in Lebanon and many Lebanese fear that the Party of God will stop at nothing to maintain its power.
Political Shiism and Regional Powers
Regional changes that took place since 2000 in the Middle East including the war on terrorism and the fall of the Baath regime in Iraq have triggered a cascade of changes in the sectarian balance of powers in the region giving the Shiites a number of political victories at no cost: 1) Al-Qaeda has reclaimed the title of master terrorist from Iran and Hezbollah, giving these two a break from international scrutiny; 2) Iran’s arch-enemy and the Shiite oppressor in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was thrown in jail and his regime in the abyss; 3) The US attack on Iraq has seemingly tied the American military hands in the region and given some the misperception that the American leadership in the world can be sidelined. With allies in southern Iraq (Iraqi Shiites), in Syria (The Assad Regime) and in Lebanon (Political Shiism), there is nothing to stand in the face of Iran’s expansion towards the Mediterranean and its goal to become the regional superpower (rivaling Saudi Arabia and Israel), a goal that Iran is trying to balance by fulfilling its nuclear aspirations.
In light of these regional changes, observers are left to wonder if the Shiite community in Lebanon is free to join its Lebanese counterparts in the independence-from-Syria movement and the rebuilding of a modern state, or if it is owing to Iran and its local brokers (Syria and Hezbollah) and therefore must remain opposed to efforts aimed at bringing Lebanon into the 21st century, or at least remain on the fringes of these efforts.
The Shiite boycott of the Seniora Cabinet has already had its international repercussion and its toll on the Lebanese economy. The international conference of the granting nations that were to take place in Beirut this year has been postponed, many fear indefinitely, leaving the Lebanese market a chip in the hands of Iran to bargain with for Russia’s and China’s support, and also leaving the Lebanese economy at the mercy of a sole source (Iran) whose money trickles to a sole recipient (the Shiites) for a sole purpose, to exert pressure on Israel and the USA. Non-Shiite Lebanese will have to starve to death in Lebanon, emigrate to find jobs abroad and sustain their families back home, or become slaves of Political Shiism.
Political Shiism and the International Matrix
In the international framework, the choice for the leaders of Political Shiism in Lebanon seems clear today as it has always been historically: it is a choice between an eastern camp and a western camp. The eastern camp led by Russia and China, with Iran as the regional broker, is trying to guarantee itself a piece of the global economic pie in the Middle East. The western camp, led by the USA and Europe who won the cold war, feels it is only right for it to claim the world. They prefer the Eastern camp as they believe it represents more their values. This equation may have been valid in the 1980s and early 1990s when China and the former Soviet Union were wooing revolutionary Iran by playing up to Iran’s hostility to the West and offering economic, military, diplomatic, and technical assistance. In the 21st century, the equation has changed. America is firm in its goals in the Middle East; the Bush administration will not waver. China and Russia are concerned over their share of the international global market but realize that the cold war is over. If China’s interests are satiated in the Far East and Russia’s worries are appeased in Chechnya, an agreement over market allocations and oil distribution will be in order. This will render Iran obsolete as a regional broker in the new global equation, and those who bet on it will find themselves short-changed.
For ordinary Lebanese, the choice is simply one between speaking English or speaking Farsi; wearing like Jacques Chirac or like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Most Lebanese, including most Shiites, will chose English over Farsi; they will prefer to study and work in the USA and Europe over Iran and Syria, and given the financial means they will purchase a “Chanel” suit and an “Armani” tie for their socials. For most Lebanese including most Shiites, the choice is clear. The Shiite leadership, however, remains on the other bank.
[1] The understanding of April 1997 masterminded by the late Rafic Hariri
[2] Taif Accord:
Third Section:
Regaining the authority of the State up to internationally recognized Lebanese borders requires the following:
a) Pursuing the implementation of Resolution No. 425 and all Security Council's resolutions promulgating the total elimination of the Israeli occupation.
b) Adhering to the Truce Agreement signed on March 23, 1949.
c) Taking all necessary measures to liberate all the Lebanese territory from the Israeli occupation, extending the authority of the State over all its land, deploying the Lebanese Army along the internationally recognized Lebanese borders and pursuing the reinforcement of the existence of the International Security Forces in Southern Lebanon so as to ensure the withdrawal of Israel and to allow for the return of law and order to the border zone.
* The voice of one… or maybe of thousands.

Cleric 'made anti-Israel tirade'
Monday, January 16, 2006-CNN
Alleged race hate cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri made a speech condemning western leaders for behaving like sugar daddies to Israel because, he claimed, the country kept files on politicians for blackmail, a jury has heard.
Egyptian-born Hamza, former head preacher at the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, faces life in prison if convicted of inciting murder and stirring racial hatred in speeches recorded on nine video and audio tapes made for supporters. He denies all the charges.
A video was played in the Old Bailey court in London on Monday of Hamza delivering a sermon in October 2000. In a loud, emphatic voice he tells his audience: "Now all these dogs of the West they have to go now, none of them have condemned what Israel has done to the Muslims and the Palestinians.
"But as soon as three soldiers snatched from South Lebanon and some of them are being killed in Palestine they all go to their hands and knees -- Robin Cook (late British former Foreign Secretary) to go there on his hands and knees, even (former U.S. President Bill) Clinton.
"Why they act like sugar daddy for Israel? Because they love the Israelis? No way!
"Because they hate them very much, but the Israelis know how to deal with them.
"They got a file for each one of these politicians, how much homosexual you are, how many money he has taken as bribe, whom his wife goes with, which child he has been abusing and they got all this against them.
"Jews know how to control people. This is how they know how to control our leaders."
Hamza said Muslims could not have a peace treaty with Jews. Allah had said that Muslims had placed enmity among them until judgment day.
"They are enemies to one another and Allah has cursed them.
"This is why he send Hitler for them. Jews they have nowhere to go, they are going to be buried in Palestine all of them."
Hamza, 47, from west London, faces nine charges under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 alleging he solicited others at public meetings to murder Jews and other non-Muslims.
He also faces four charges under the Public Order Act of 1986 of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior with the intention of stirring up racial hatred."
Hamza also faces one charge of possessing threatening, abusive or insulting sound recordings, and another charge under anti-terrorism laws.
The trial continues.