LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
MAY 17/2006
Below
news bulletins from the Daily Star for 17/05/06
Security Council gears up for vote on Lebanon, Syria
Syria refers prominent activist to court
Lahoud survives dialogue
MP's guard shot at family home: report
Sfeir: Lahoud might resign if linked to bombings
Construction fever sweeps Lebanon
Silverberg rules out deals with Syria on Hariri killing
The Daily Star remembers its slain founder
Iran snubs EU plans to offer light-water reactor
Libya welcomes 'new page' in relations with U.S.
Expect Arab change from a profusion of baby steps.By:
Rami G. Khouri
Genocide: a crime lost in definition-By:
Jerome Mayer-Cantu
Below
news bulletins from miscellaneous sources for 17/05/06
Lebanese Leaders Fail to Agree on Lahoud's Political Future-Voice of America
Lebanon talks fail on president, move to Hizbollah-Khaleej Times
A
new UN resolution is unfortunately necessary, says Sfeir-AsiaNews.i
Lebanon: Disagreement over ousting president-Jerusalem Post
Sfeir: Lahoud May Resign if there is Proof of his Involvement in -Naharnet
PLO Reopens Offices in Beirut Closed Since Israel's 1982 Invasion-Naharnet
Hizbullah, Sunni elements work to strengthen pro-Syrian front -Al-Bawaba
Noam Chomsky's Love Affair with Nazis-FrontPage magazine.com
Syria's deportation scandal-British Ahwazi Friendship Society
Jordan denies accusing Syria in Hamas weapons-Jordan News Agency
National Dialogue Resumes as International Pressure Mounts on-Naharnet
Prominent writer detained as Syria cracks down on dissidents-Financial Times
Syria bans entry of Palestinians arriving directly from Iraq-Ha'aretz
The Hariri-Nasrallah agreement-Dar Al-Hayat
Bouncing Back-Alarab online
Lebanese Leaders Fail to Agree on Lahoud's
Political Future
By VOA News -16 May 2006
Lebanese lawmakers say they have failed to agree on whether to force President
Emile Lahoud to step down before his term ends in 2007. The politicians met in
Beirut Tuesday for the latest round of talks on the pro-Syrian Mr. Lahoud.
Anti-Syrian politicians have been demanding that he resign since Syria withdrew
its forces from Lebanon last year. But anti-Syrian lawmakers do not have enough
seats in parliament to force him out.Parliament speaker Nabih Berri says the
lawmakers will meet again on June 8 for talks on another key issue - the
disarming of the militant group Hezbollah. A 2004 United Nations Security
Council resolution demanded the disbanding of militias in Lebanon, including
Hezbollah. But the group says it needs to be able to defend Lebanon against
Israel. Until last year, Syria dominated Lebanon both militarily and
politically. After the 2005 assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri, Syria withdrew its troops from the country. But Lebanese
politicians say Damascus still wields strong influence over the government in
Beirut.
Security Council gears
up for vote on Lebanon, Syria
Draft toned down to avoid veto
By Leila Hatoum -Daily Star staff
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
BEIRUT: The UN Security Council will be convening Wednesday to vote on a new
draft resolution on Lebanon and Syria sponsored and circulated to the council by
the U.S., France and the U.K. The draft resolution, which demands the full
implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, was revised and edited so
that it wouldn't include threats of sanctions against Syria for not complying
with international resolutions.
Resolution 1559 calls upon all militias in Lebanon to disarm and for Syria to
withdraw its troops from Lebanon and respect its neighbor's sovereignty and
independence.
Lebanese diplomatic sources said the resolution didn't include threats or harsh
orders against Syria because "Russia had threatened to resort to the right of
veto, or abstain from voting on the draft-resolution."
The sources told The Daily Star that Qatar, the only Arab country within the UN
Security Council at the moment, also leaned toward abstention if Syria were to
be threatened.
The Russian, U.S., Qatar and French missions in the UN as well as UN officials
were unavailable for comments.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said late Monday: "It would be our
intention, and I think the intention of France and Britain, to continue with the
draft resolution. There were a number of editorial changes in it. I think the
one that overcomes most of the concerns that were expressed about the boundary
delineation and the exchange of diplomatic representation is to change the
initial words from 'calls upon' to 'strongly encourages.' It was not a mandatory
resolution at the beginning."
He added: "Our understanding is that Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is entirely
supportive of this change."
The revised draft resolution notes that the Security Council "strongly
encourages the government of Syria to respond positively to the request made by
the government of Lebanon in line with the agreements of the Lebanese national
dialogue, to delineate their common border ... to establish full diplomatic
relations and representation."
According to the draft, such steps would "contribute positively to the stability
in the region," and asserts Lebanon's "sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence."
It also "commends" the governments of Lebanon and Syria "for undertaking
measures against movements of arms into Lebanese territory."
Lebanon's Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said Monday that Lebanon and Syria
preferred not to resort to "an international mechanism" to ease tensions between
them, and wanted "to solve the matters on bilateral level, with Arab efforts."
France, the U.S. and Britain had formally submitted the draft resolution on
Friday. The revised draft resolution was to be discussed during the council's
Tuesday's session.
The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Bureau of International Organization
Kristen Silverberg said Tuesday the U.S. "is working with France and the U.K."
which Washington considers strong partners in the UN Security Council.
In an interview with Lebanese Satellite television station LBCI, Silverberg also
spoke of Hizbullah's arms, saying that Washington doesn't believe in a political
party that continues to hold arms and "continues to have strong ties to foreign
capitals."
Lahoud survives dialogue
Participants agree to disagree, leave president in office
By Majdoline Hatoum-Daily Star staff
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
National dialogue: round 7 - only session
BEIRUT: Lebanese rival politicians failed on Tuesday to agree on the forcible
removal of Lebanon's president, effectively keeping the pro-Syrian leader in
office for now and likely until his term expires next year. "On the presidential
issue, the participants did not reach an agreement," Parliament Speaker Nabih
Berri told reporters after a four-hour closed session in the country's ongoing
national dialogue.
The failure to reach an agreement on the contentious issue of the presidency,
though widely expected, is a setback to the anti-Syrian coalition trying to end
Syria's influence in Lebanon a year after the former withdrew its military
forces.
Berri said that "after agreeing to disagree" over the removal of President Emile
Lahoud, participants "moved to the final point on the agenda: the defensive
strategy and the weapons of the resistance." They were deliberating the
formation of a strategic plan to defend Lebanon against Israeli threats - a move
that March 14 Forces hope could pave the way for disarming Hizbullah.
"Disagreement is part of the democratic game, and what is important is that we
are managing our differences in a democratic way," Berri said, at the end of the
seventh round of dialogue.
Lahoud, regarded by March 14 Forces as the last vestige of Syrian influence, has
vowed to serve until his term expires in November 2007 despite mounting calls
for his resignation.
The anti-Syrian coalition has so far failed to oust Lahoud through
constitutional means, and Tuesday's fruitless talks on the issue gave the
president fresh prerogative.
However, Parliament majorityleader MP Saad al-Hariri and several allies said
they were still committed to removing the president from office.
Following the session, Hariri said the March 14 Forces are proceeding with their
campaign to oust Lahoud, adding that he expected Premier Fouad Siniora to have a
hard time dealing with Lahoud in light of Tuesday's talks.
"May God help Fouad Siniora," Hariri said in response to a question about
whether the prime minister would be able to get along with Lahoud in the coming
months.
Sources close to Lahoud said the president welcomed the failure to reach a
consensus over his ouster as a "new breeze of legitimacy" for his post.
The sources added that Lahoud said he will demonstrate his fresh gust of power
as the head of the official Lebanese delegation to the Davos economic conference
in Egypt's Sharm al-Sheikh.
However, sources from Siniora's press office said there will be no dispute over
who will represent Lebanon at the forum. The press office added that the premier
was expected in Sharm al-Sheikh on Sunday to give two lectures.
Lahoud was traveling to the resort city on Friday and staying for the weekend.
"The premier will not be part of the Lebanese official delegation," the source
said.
Speaking to reporters following the dialogue session, Siniora described it as
"very good," and added that he will deal with Lahoud "as stipulated by the
Constitution."
"I believe the whole country wins when we deal patiently with each other," he
said.
With Lahoud's fate off the table for now, Hizbullah's leader Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah addressed the dialogue session, arguing against the disarmament of the
resistance party, whose attacks forced Israel to end 18 years of occupation in
the south in 2000.
Berri described the disarmament talks as "comprehensive, accurate and very
transparent," adding that he was optimistic an agreement would be sealed at the
dialogue's next meeting, set for June 8.
Hizbullah says it needs to stay armed to defend Lebanon against Israeli threats
and to liberate the Shebaa Farms area, which the United Nations say is Syrian
occupied land.
Berri also said he briefed the participants on his recent trip to Syria, where
he met with President Bashar Assad. The Parliament speaker reaffirmed that the
"doors of Damascus are open to everyone."
"I discussed this with the premier yesterday (Monday), and I told him that no
obstacles stood before his trip to Syria," Berri said.
Leaders Fail to Agree on
President's Fate, Dialogue Postponed Till June 8
Lebanese leaders on Tuesday adjourned the latest round of reconciliation talks,
still unable to find a consensus on the future of embattled pro-Syrian President
Emile Lahoud.
The leaders, following nearly four hours of roundtable talks at parliament amid
tight security measures, set the next round of negotiations for June 8 to
continue discussions on the arms of Hizbullah.
"Participants did not reach an agreement on the presidency, so they moved on to
the remaining item on the table: the strategic defense policy" against potential
Israeli dangers on Lebanon, said speaker Nabih Berri.
Berri told reporters that the next round of talks will take place on June 8
"because some colleagues have trips abroad and there are some holidays."
Lahoud's fate has been a key sticking point at the roundtable talks, with the
Damascus protege at loggerheads with the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority
which considers him a continuation of Syrian domination.
"When we fail in a subject, we said that we will come out and say it. We are not
ashamed of it," said Berri, referring to the discussions on the fate of Lahoud,
who still has a year and a half in office.
The seventh round of talks was taking place amid global pressure on Damascus to
stop interfering in its smaller neighbor's internal affairs.
Lebanon has been in political turmoil since the February 2005 murder of
five-time prime minister Rafik Hariri, an attack widely blamed on Syria which
was later forced to withdraw troops after 29 years on Lebanese soil.
The initial euphoria that followed the pullout quickly died out as the country
sank into political wrangling, including the issue of Lahoud's term which had
been extended by three years in late 2004 under Syrian pressure.
The latest round of negotiations comes four days after France, the United States
and Britain formally submitted a draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling
for establishment of diplomatic ties and a demarcation of common borders between
the two neighbors.
Members of the anti-Damascus parliamentary majority have been accusing Syria of
continued interference in Lebanese affairs, while pro-Syrian figures warn their
political adversaries not to resort to Western help.
Berri has warned against maintaining an atmosphere of hostility with Damascus,
and threatened to "uncover the identity of those who are opposing a
normalization of relations with Syria."
The rift among the Lebanese politicians has led Berri's Amal movement and allies
to stage a demonstration against government reforms on May 10, although some of
them are members of the government.
On Tuesday, the leading An Nahar said Lebanese leaders have only continued to
meet at the roundtable talks because none of them wanted to carry the
responsibility of a failure which could eventually lead matters to be resolved
on the street.
Lebanese leaders are also divided over the disarmament of the military wing of
Hizbullah, whose fighters were widely credited in Lebanon for bringing about
Israel's withdrawal from the south of the country in 2000 after 22 years of
occupation.
The group has vowed to carry on a guerrilla war over the disputed Shabaa Farms
border area, which Israel seized from Syria along with the Golan Heights in 1967
but is claimed by Lebanon with Damascus's approval.
In six rounds of national talks since March 2, leaders reached agreement on the
establishment of an international court to judge those responsible for Hariri's
killing.
They have also agreed to dismantle Palestinian military bases in Lebanon, to
work to normalize relations with the former powerbroker Syria and to define
borders between the two countries.
But the last three points have yet to be implemented as they require the
cooperation of Damascus, which has rejected calls to define the border in the
Shabaa Farms area before Israel pulls out of the territory.(AFP)
Hizbullah, Sunni elements work to strengthen pro-Syrian
front in Lebanon politics
Posted: 16-05-2006 , 14:03 GMT
Lebanon's top opposition leaders have recently failed to agree on the fate of
pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, adjourning the nation's 'National Dialogue'
talks until today (May 16.)
Speaker Nabih Berri revealed that discussions in the recent round of talks
concentrated exclusively on the issue of the presidency, despite the fact that
no agreement was reached ultimately. Leaders decided to discuss for one last
time calls by anti-Syrian politicians for Lahoud to step down before moving on
to the disputed issue of disarming Hizbullah in accordance with U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1559. President Lahoud's term was extended by three years in
late 2004 with the full backing of Damascus.
In previous rounds, the conferees agreed to normalize relations with Syria. The
Syrian issue and related fate of the president have created unique coalitions in
terms of the current Lebanese politics. While Sunnis and Shiites remain
entrenched in sectarian violence in Iraq, the situation in Lebanon is quite
different. There has been increasing cooperation between pro-Syrian elements,
namely Shiite Hizbullah movement and former prime minister of Lebanon, Omar
Karameh—a Sunni. Hizbullah, which have seen in recent times its status eroded,
is making efforts to recruit traditional pro-Syrian loyalists, such as Karameh.
The former PM's influence in Lebanese politics has dwindled and he was not even
invited to the National Dialogue sessions.
Lebanese analysts claim that close relations between Karameh and the Shiite
movement are not surprising, since traditionally, Karameh leads a pro-Syrian
line. Karameh, a 72-year-old lawyer from the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli,
is known for his loyal support of Syria. Months before the murder of former
Prime Minister Rafiq al Hariri, Karameh was installed by Damascus to serve as a
Lebanon's premier. He was forced, however, to quit in February 2005 in the face
of fierce domestic pressure sparked by the killing of Hariri. Karameh himself
had been a long political rival of Hariri.
These analysts insist such cooperation between the veteran Sunni politician and
Hizbullah illustrates how the Shiite movement's role has been changed; From one
of the elements which was subjected to strong Syrian influence, it became the
leading representative of Syrian interests in Lebanese politics.
Even Fuad Siniora, Lebanon’s prime minister, recently admitted that Damascus
supporters are aiming at undermining Lebanon's government. During a visit to
London he was quoted as saying, “Groups that used to be on good terms with Syria
are disenchanted with the government and are going along with Syrian influence,”
adding, “It’s a kind of a show of force.”
According to the Lebanese press, Syria is encouraging its Lebanese supporters,
especially Hizbullah, to establish a new political front, which Karameh has
suggested will be named the 'Salvation Front'. As an outsider of the National
Dialogue talks, Karameh took the liberty recently to attack the pro-Western
government for its social failures. "If the government wants to remain a
caretaker government and plan for more impoverishment of the people, why should
it remain in power?" he was quoted as saying.
His call was obviously backed by Hizbullah and welcomed by the Syrian regime.
As things now stand, it seems that despite Syria's military withdrawal from
Lebanon, Damascus continues to be involved in almost every issue presently under
debate in Lebanon—whether directly, or through allies such as Hizbullah and
Karameh.
© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
A new UN resolution is unfortunately necessary, says
Sfeir
Issues such Hizbollah’s disarmament and Syro-Lebanese borders and diplomatic
relations are still unresolved. The country and its Christian leaders are split
into two camps. In light of Benedict XVI’S intuition, a dialogue with Islam is
possible but only at a human and social level, not in terms of doctrine.
Paris (AsiaNews) – The failure to disarm Hizbollah, draw the boundaries and
establish diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria are the reasons that
make another United Nations resolution necessary, this according to Card
Nasrallah Sfeir, patriarch of the Maronite Church.
In a long interview with French daily La Croix in Paris the day after meeting
French President Jacques Chirac, the cardinal spoke about Lebanon’s domestic
situation and the ongoing ‘national dialogue’ which is set to restart today in a
country divided between, on the one hand, Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hizbollah
and General Michel Aoun, and, on the other, the March 14 movement “led by Saad
Hariri and backed by the United States, Europe, Saudi Arabia and Egypt”.
A new resolution on the Lebanese question that the United States and France are
preparing for the Security Council “is a necessity because resolutions hitherto
adopted have failed.”
“Resolution 1559 called on Syrian troops to pull out, which they did, but other
clauses—such as Hizbollah’s disarmament, establishing diplomatic relations
between Lebanon and Syria, and drawing the borders between the two
countries—have not been implemented.”
Hizbollah’s disarmament was a major sticking point in previous sessions of the
‘national dialogue’ and will be so again in today’s session. For the cardinal
though, “we must find a compromise. It can be found perhaps through a frank and
open dialogue or through foreign pressure as long as it is not violent.”
Sfeir reaffirmed in fact his opposition to the use of violence when he talked
about two other burning issues, namely intra-Maronite divisions and the disputed
extension of the current president’s mandate.
“They should find an agreement,” he said when talking about tensions between
Michel Aoun and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea,”who so far have failed to
do”, adding that “past divisions have led to bad defeats”.
On the issue of President Émile Lahoud’s mandate, which was extended in 2004 by
another three years as a result of Syrian pressure, the patriarch said he was
against it “because in the past such moves never brought anything good to the
country”. But “now it’s done,” he said, and although “some have tried to force
him [Lahoud] to resign, I am against it because it is dangerous for Lebanon and
people would get hurt again.”
Cardinal Sfeir also spoke about the repercussions of regional tensions on the
country. “They [tensions] will continue,” he said, “as long as a Palestinian
state is not set up that has good relations with Israel.”
“Relations between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon are at difficult point,” he
explained. “All Lebanese realise that they must live together despite real
difficulties and should not split along confessional lines. Muslims themselves
say that without Christians Lebanon would not be Lebanon.”
“As John Paul II put it, Lebanon is an example of pluralism and democracy, a
country where people can live together and accept one another. It is an example
for Europe as well, since Muslims are already living there, everywhere.”
As for Islam, the Patriarch stressed what Benedict XVI said, namely that “a
dialogue between Christians and Muslims is possible at a human and social level,
but has no future in the area of doctrine since each religion has its own. We
are all believers, but Muslims have their notion of God and we have ours.”
In the meantime, the influential Lebanese daily L’Orient Le jour wrote that the
national dialogue “will resume as always, in a political climate that is highly
charged, despite moderately successful attempts by National Assembly Speaker
Nabih Berri to defuse tensions”.
The issue of the president’s mandate will be on the agenda, “for the last time
according to some”. “In light of previous failures, no one expects anything to
come of it. Now all are turning their attention towards Hizbollah’s
disarmament.”
Lebanon: Disagreement over ousting president
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Rival politicians on Tuesday failed to agree on whether to force Lebanon's
president to step down, and on who would replace him, a participant said - a
move that effectively keeps the pro-Syrian leader in office for now and likely
until his term ends next year. President Emile Lahoud's resignation has been a
key demand of anti-Syrian factions since Damascus withdrew troops from Lebanon
more than a year ago, ending 29 years of political and military control there.
Lahoud has refused to step down, and his opponents do not have enough votes in
parliament to oust him. Fourteen politicians - pro- and anti-Syrian, Christian
and Muslim - have been trying since March to break the deadlock over Lahoud and
decide how to disarm Hezbollah, a militant group allied to Damascus.
Sfeir: Lahoud May Resign if there is Proof of his
Involvement in Past Crimes
Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir has said that President Emile Lahoud may
resign if there is proof of his involvement in recent crimes that have occurred
in Lebanon. Sfeir, in an interview with An Nahar newspaper in Paris published
Tuesday, said that if Lahoud remains in power it would lead to the
"marginalization" of the presidency to the extent that the prime minister's post
would become more powerful than that of the head of state.Asked about the
reasons that may lead to Lahoud's resignation, the patriarch said:
"There are many reasons but there are investigations into these incidents that
occurred in Lebanon. If it is proven that the president is involved then there
may be a reason. But I don't know and I cannot judge."
This is the closest Sfeir, who usually speaks about political issues in indirect
references, came to connecting the president with assassinations in Lebanon.
An international commission investigating former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's
Feb. 2005 killing has questioned Lahoud about a telephone call made by a suspect
to a mobile phone owned by the presidency minutes before the blast. However,
former probe chief Detlev Mehlis who mentioned the call in his report, had said
that Lahoud was not a suspect in the murder.
Sfeir, the head of the Maronite church, has previously said that Lahoud has
linked his fate with Syria and is unable to serve as head of state. However, he
has made it clear that the president should not be deposed by force.
The anti-Syrian parliamentary majority is seeking to remove Lahoud from power
arguing that his mandate, which was extended in 2004 for three years, is illegal
as Syria threatened parliamentarians to amend the constitution in order to keep
him in power.
Discussions over the president's fate, that have topped the agenda for weeks at
national dialogue talks, have hit an impasse as Syria's allies and other
politicians opposed to the majority are blocking moves to replace Lahoud.
Sfeir said that Lahoud is harming the country's top executive post, reserved to
Christian Maronites, which may lead to its decline in favor of the premiership,
occupied by Sunni Muslims.
"If the presidency remains in a position of doubt it may be given up on with
time. Then the prime minister would act as president and people would get used
to the marginalization of the presidency," the patriarch said adding that this
process had already started.
Sfeir, who held talks with President Jacques Chirac during his visit, is in
France to attend a meeting of Catholic Bishops representing the eastern church
with the French leader.
Chirac's spokesman Jerome Bonafont said after the meeting that France is keen on
Lebanon's sovereignty and independence and that it wants to see all
international resolutions related to the country implemented.
France and the United States have prepared a new draft resolution that is now
under debate at the U.N. Security Council. It calls on Syria to respond to
Lebanon's demands to establish diplomatic relations and demarcate the common
border.
Sfeir, in an interview to be published Thursday with the French weekly La-Croix,
said the new resolution is "necessary because the previous resolutions have not
been implemented yet."
The new text calls for the need to fully implement resolution 1559 that was
adopted in 2004. The latter called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from
Lebanon, the disbanding and disarmament of all militias, and the extension of
government authority throughout the country.
"Resolution 1559 called on Syrian forces to withdraw and they did. However,
there are other clauses such as disarming Hizbullah…that have not been
implemented," the patriarch told La-Croix.
"When there is a party that holds arms while others don't, there is no balance.
This situation should be dealt with either through a clear and direct dialogue
or with some external pressure that should not be too aggressive," he added.
Syria withdrew it troops from Lebanon in April 2005 in the aftermath of Hariri's
murder and the street protests that followed, ending 29 years of military
domination of the country. However, it is still accused of meddling in its
neighbor's internal politics through its strong links with Lebanese allies
including Hizbullah, the country's only armed group.
National dialogue talks, that resumed in Beirut Tuesday, are expected to start
discussing Hizbullah's weapons after wrapping up talks on the presidency.
Beirut, 16 May 06, 09:09
Syrian sand walls inside Lebanon being removed
Lebanon and Syria on Monday began removing military posts and sand walls built
by Syria several kilometers inside Lebanese territory, said local media.
Lebanon's Future TV station quoted a Lebanese official as saying that the
dismantling started Monday morning under supervision of both Lebanese and Syrian
officials in the Lebanese municipality of Aarsal near the Syrian-Lebanese
border. The whole process would take about a week, said the Lebanese official.
The operation came after an agreement between the two countries in a meeting
held on May 9 in Bludan, a Syrian town near the Syrian capital of Damascus.
Syria border guards erected the military posts and sand walls in a range between
3.5 km to 5 km inside the Lebanese territory, which was claimed by Syrian
authorities as a measure to block border smuggling.
However, Lebanese farmers complained that the walls had cut through their
fields.
Monday's move came as a bid to improve strained bilateral relations following
the killing of former Lebanese premier Rafik al-Hariri last February and the
Syrian troops withdrawal from Lebanon last April.
PLO Reopens Offices in Beirut Closed Since Israel's 1982
Invasion
The Palestine Liberation Organization has reopened its Beirut offices that had
been closed since the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Monday's ceremony,
however, was boycotted by Hamas and other militant Islamic groups to protest it
having been led by an official of the mainstream Fatah organization. Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas, a political moderate and the Fatah leader, has been
involved in an increasingly bitter power struggle with the new Hamas-led
Palestinian government for control of the Palestinian security forces since the
militant group won January's legislative elections. Abbas has repeatedly called
on Hamas and other radical groups to renounce violence against Israel in an
attempt to revive stalled peace talks with the Jewish state. Hamas has refused.
Abbas Zaki, the Fatah official, flanked by Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh and
Fatah officials, cut a ribbon and raised the Palestinian flag at the PLO
building in the Jnah residential neighborhood in southern Beirut.
The ceremony was also attended by the Lebanese ministers of economy, labor and
tourism as well as lawmakers.
"Today Palestine returns to Lebanon and Lebanon returns to Palestine," Zaki said
in a speech. "I tell my Palestinian brothers that this office represents all
Palestinians, be they in the political process or in the opposition."
Hamas' representative in Lebanon played down the significance of the PLO move.
"The Palestinian representative office to be opened in Beirut represents only
the PLO which does not represent all the Palestinian people," Osama Hamdan said
in a statement issued a day before the ceremony.
He proposed the formation of a joint delegation representing Fatah and all
Palestinian factions to hold talks with Lebanese officials on the conditions of
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
Zaki had been assigned by Abbas to hold talks with Lebanese officials on the
disarmament of Palestinian guerrillas in Lebanon and improving the living and
social conditions of refugees dispersed in 12 teeming and squalid camps
throughout the country.
The Palestinian Authority has supported the Lebanese government's efforts to
disarm Palestinian groups outside refugee camps.
Abbas, in talks with Lebanese officials in Beirut last year, demanded the
opening of a Palestinian embassy in Lebanon to care of refugees. Lebanon has not
yet responded to the demand. Zaki, a former Palestinian Cabinet minister,
arrived in Beirut last Friday and presented his credentials to President Emile
Lahoud, becoming the PLO's first representative in Lebanon in 13 years. He
replaced Shafik Hout, a close aide to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat,
who resigned from the PLO in 1993 in protest against the Israeli-Palestinian
peace accords. Hout had stayed in his post although the PLO never officially
reopened its office after the 1982 Israeli invasion which resulted in the ouster
of Arafat and PLO guerrillas from Lebanon.(AP)
Beirut, 16 May 06, 09:09
Noam Chomsky's Love Affair with Nazis
By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 15, 2006
Rarely has the world been afforded such a clear glimpse into the unholy alliance
between Islamic extremists and secular radicals in the West. That’s exactly what
it got last week when the foremost Imam of the radical Left, Noam Chomsky,
bestowed his blessings on the world’s largest terrorist army, the Shiite jihad
outfit sponsored by Iran and known as Hezbollah (“Party of God.”) Following a
meeting with Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese terrorist group’s “secretary
general,” Chomsky announced his support for Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm. Then,
in an echo of Nasrallah’s recent declaration that President Bush is the world’s
top “terrorist,” Chomsky pronounced his own fatwa on the United States, calling
it one of the “leading terrorist states.” It was a meeting of murderous radical
minds.
In many ways, Chomsky’s newly forged friendship with Hezbollah -- the most
recent entry in a lifetime befriending America’s most deadly enemies -- is the
logical continuation of the professor’s longstanding admiration for global
terrorists and Jew-haters. In fact, Chomsky devoted most of the nineties to
touting Hezbollah as a “resistance” movement (which occasionally committed
misguided acts against civilians) while singing its praises as a crusader for
peace and social justice.
Typical was Chomsky’s 1996 book, World Orders Old and New. Citing with approval
a journalist’s observation that Hezbollah “is not a terror organization,”
Chomsky explained that the terrorist who blew up 243 U.S. Marines in Lebanon and
murdered untold citizens of Israel was only engaging in “legitimate resistance”
against an oppressor and “avoids striking civilians except in retaliation for
Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.”
Elsewhere in his book Chomsky claims that, in launching its attacks against
Israel, Hezbollah “carefully avoided civilian areas” and assured his readers
that Hezbollah attacks were always “retaliatory.” Israel through Chomsky's eyes
presented quite a different story. Dispensing altogether with the studied
euphemisms that marked his descriptions of Hezbollah, Chomsky unequivocally
denounced Israel for using “terror weapons” to commit “atrocities” such as
targeting “civilians” with “no provocation”.
The resulting effort bore little resemblance to fact. Rather than consider
well-documented reports of Hezbollah’s repeated shelling (at its Iranian
masters' prompting) of Northern Israel, killing women and children in the
process, Chomsky rejected the reports as so much American and Israeli
propaganda. How after all, could the Great and Little Satans be telling the
truth?
Rather than reflect on the fact that Hezbollah terrorists deliberately
entrenched themselves among Arab civilians to cause the casualties so that
Chomsky could protest, Chomsky falsely charged that the Israeli military
targeted the civilians, a claim which no reasonable human being could make. Even
the anti-Israel UN felt compelled to acknowledge that “Hezbollah had resorted to
using civilian areas to provide a human shield for its terrorist activity.”
In Chomsky’s version of the Elders of Zion, Israel is always the instigator,
while the attacks of terrorists, whose declared objective is the establishment
of an Islamic state on Israel’s grave, are invariably “defensive.” Chomsky
blames an upsurge in Hezbollah terror, for example, on Israel’s 1992
assassination, of Hezbollah leader (and mass murderer) Sheikh Abbas Mussawi. Yet
Chomsky neglected to mention that Mussawi, speaking on behalf of Hezbollah,
openly proclaimed his genocidal goal: “We are not fighting so that the enemy
recognizes us and offers us something. We are fighting to wipe out the enemy.”
In Chomsky’s writings about Hitler’s heirs, the genocidal roles are always
reversed. When Hezbollah broke an informal 1995 agreement to suspend attacks
against civilian targets, Chomsky condemned Israeli military strikes, again
omitting the fact that the complete annihilation of the Jewish state was
Hezbollah’s stated goal.
In his 2000 book Fateful Triangle, Chomsky complained about media coverage that
described Hezbollah’s shelling of the so-called Israeli “security zone” in
Southern Lebanon as “terrorism.” Chomsky insisted that it was instead an act of
“indigenous resistance to the rule of Israel and its proxies.” As usual, Chomsky
was lying. Hezbollah’s attacks were against civilians inside the security zone
not military targets. In a typical projection, Chomsky maintained in the face of
the facts that it was Israel who was killing civilians, and (another lie) that
Israel’s official policy was to attack “villages and civilians” in Lebanon.
Today, as its Iranian patron calls on the Muslim world to exterminate the Jews
and finish Hitler’s job, Hezbollah is blessed by the embassy of America’s most
prominent leftist, and better still, a self-hating Jew. While the international
community and even the United Nations (whose resolutions Chomsky has repeatedly
used as a sledge hammer against Israel), demands that the terrorist Party of God
– which is an occupying army in Lebanon -- lay down its weapons, Chomsky
provides the occupiers with a moral defense. According to Professor Chomsky
there is a “persuasive argument” that the weapons “should be in the hands of
Hezbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression and there is plenty of
background and reasons for that.” (Many Lebanese are not persuaded. Commenting
on Chomsky’s visit, a Lebanese observer pointed to the professor’s ignorance of
the fact “that the Hezbollah arms scare the Lebanese people more than the
Israelis.")
In fact, of course, the only “potential aggression” comes from Chomsky’s
friends. In 2004, Hezbollah inked an agreement with Hamas – similarly dedicated
to the extermination of Israel -- to continue their joint terrorist attacks
against Israel. Hezbollah has also provided political support and weapons
training to Hamas and al-Qaeda. In 2004, Hezbollah also launched an unmanned
aerial vehicle that crossed Israeli airspace before crashing.
Hitler concealed his genocidal agendas from the German people and from his
Chomsky-apologists. Hezbollah is more fortunate. In pursuing a second Holocaust
of the Jews, it can count on Muslim support and apparently the support of
American radicals as well. Therefore it makes no secret of what it intends. Its
1985 manifesto contains a section titled “The Necessity for the Destruction of
Israel” that spells out the evil it seeks: “Our struggle will end only when this
entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease-fire, no peace
agreements.” Like true jihadists, Hezbollah’s genocidal plans are not reserved
for the Little Satan only but are its agenda for the Great Satan too. In 1993,
Chomsky’s host Nasrallah declared: “Death to America was, is, and will stay our
slogan.”
As his pilgrimage to Hezbollah’s mecca confirms, it is Noam Chomsky’s life-dream
as well.
Jordan denies accusing Syria in Hamas weapons
Amman, May 15 (Petra) -- Government Spokesman Nasser Judeh reaffirmed on Monday
that Jordan doesn't want to escalate the issue of weapons caches discovered in
Jordan. This crisis shouldn't dominate on other issues between Jordan and
Palestinian National Authority (PNA), Judeh stressed.
Judeh underlined the strong ties between Jordanian and Palestinian people and
Jordan's support for PNA in all fields.
In response to question during his weekly meeting with media representatives,
Judeh said Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al Zahar expressed readiness to
come to Amman to settle down the dispute between Jordan and Hamas, Judeh noted
that we listened to his statements as well as to Palestinian Prime Minister
Ismael Hanyeh's yesterday, we affirmed on our stance that Jordanian government
doesn't have the desire to escalate the issue, indicating that there is a
problem and it needs a solution. Judeh added that Jordan has asked the
Palestinian government to dispatch security and political team to look into the
details of this problem. He regretted for the Palestinian government decision
not taking part in the team.
"The Palestinian Government has to dispatch a team to discuss the latest
developments available at security services to solve the problem," Judeh noted.
The delegation should be well informed about the details of the problem to be
able to unveil further information and helps the security services to uncover
some hidden caches, Judeh underlined.
Responding to a question on Islamic Front Action's Secretary General's
statements in which he accused the Jordanian government working pro-Fatah
Movement to undermine Hamas led Palestinian government, Judeh said Jordan is
accustomed to hearing such accusations that come from different sources, noting
that the government and the security services were very clear and transparent in
showcasing the plots, weapons and the involved people.
"Jordan has declared from the beginning its desire to cordon the issue and there
must be an agreement about the problem, but the Palestinian government declined
to participate in the delegation. Due to suspicious news stories that were
reported in some media, the government perceived that the citizens had the right
to get familiar with the information, expressing government's readiness to
receive Palestinian security team.
In response to a question on Syrian Foreign Minister Waeld AL Mualem's
statements accusing Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit, Jude said Jordan didn't want
to engage in battles with any party. The government declares in transparency the
information that it has and its stand is clear and firm about the Palestinian
question. Jordan's support is continuous and unlimited for the PNA and the
Palestinian people to achieve their objectives and establish their independent
state on their national soil, Judeh reaffirmed. On Jordanian-Syrian relations,
Judeh noted when Jordan talked about the uncovered weapons' caches and unveiled
their sources as well as the instructions and orders that some detainees
received.
Jordan indicated that one of the detainee received instructions from a person
existing on Syrian land, some understand this signal as an indication of the
involvement of some countries, which is untrue, Judeh said.
When Jordan talked about the issue it used facts as it was uncovered by security
services, the talks were about the sources and the original of the weapons
without accusing any country.Wardat/Petra 15/05/2006 22:27:37
Syria's deportation scandal
Syria is undermining the Geneva Refugee Convention and the
work of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees by detaining and
deporting Ahwazi Arab asylum seekers and refugees to Iran, the British Ahwazi
Friendship Society (BAFS) has told officials at the Syrian embassy today.
The deportation of Saeed Saki (pictured), a 40-year-old Ahwazi asylum seeker
resident in Damascus, to Iran is not only a breach of his human rights but will
almost certainly lead to his death at the hands of the Iranian regime, which is
seeking to silence opposition. The arrests and deportation come in the context
of growing government aggression against Ahwazi Arabs in Iran's Khuzestan
province, which has witnessed growing anti-government unrest.
Seven other Ahwazis have been arrested and detained by the Syrian authorities,
including Dutch national, Faleh Abdullah al Mansouri (60), who leads the Ahwaz
Liberation Organisation (ALO) (click here for more details).
BAFS has called on the Syrian government to stop deportations and release the
men if there are no criminal charges against them. It has reminded the
government of its duties and obligations to refugees under international law.
BAFS spokesman Nasser Bani Assad said: "We believe that Mr Saki's life is in
danger as a direct result of the Syrian government's actions. Damascus has a
large Ahwazi Arab community, including many refugees and opposition groups, that
has never posed a challenge to the Syrian government. Indeed, it was not long
ago that Syria professed sympathy for the persecuted Ahwazi Arabs of Iran.
"By arresting and detaining Ahwazi refugees, who have abided by Syrian law and
have sought sanctuary in Damascus, the Syrian government is participating in the
oppression and persecution of Arabs. We do not believe that the Syrian people
support these deportations. We think Syria's actions, particularly the
deportation of Mr Saki, could further alienate the government both in the Arab
world and in the wider international community."
Prominent writer detained as Syria cracks down on
dissidents
By Ferry Biedermann in Beirut
Published: May 16 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 16 2006 03:00
Syrian authorities have detained a prominent writer and government opponent in a
crackdown on dissidents. The writer, Michel Kilo, had been involved in drawing
up a petition calling for a halt to his country's interference in Lebanon, from
where Syria withdrew its troops last year after a nearly 30-year presence.
The petition appeared on the eve of the introduction last Friday by the US,
France and Britain of a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council
calling on Syria to respect Lebanon's sovereignty. The draft resolution urges
Damascus among other things to demarcate the border between the two countries
and to exchange ambassadors.
Human rights sources in Damascus linked Mr Kilo's detention to the petition that
was signed by Syrian and Lebanese journalists, writers and intellectuals. Mr
Kilo's family told news agencies that he was called in for questioning by the
security services on Sunday around noon. There was no official word that he had
been held. He has been questioned regularly in recent months but never for more
than a few hours.
While his current detention may be linked to the petition, observers in Damascus
pointed out that the government was cracking down on dissidents. This follows a
perceived lull in the international interest in the UN inquiry into the killing
of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, in which senior Syrian security
officials have been implicated.
"It is a message to the opposition not to get carried away," said Sami Moubayed,
a Syrian political analyst. Mr Kilo and other critics were very vocal last year,
when it seemed that the UN inquiry could seriously undermine the government, he
said. Now the authorities were saying "we are still here, still strong", said Mr
Moubayed.
Among other people recently arrested is Fateh Jamous, a communist leader who was
taken in 10 days ago when he returned from Europe. Ali al-Abdallah and his two
sons were arrested in March. He had earlier been released after having been
detained last year for reading a statement from the banned fundamentalist Muslim
Brotherhood at a civil society meeting.
A prominent human rights lawyer Anwar Bounni last week had his licence to
practise law revoked for up to four years. In March the government closed down a
recently opened human rights centre he led and which was mostly funded by the
European Union. Amnesty International in April warned that "scores have been
arrested from across the social and political spectrum in Syria in recent
months".In a statement, Malcolm Smart, the group's Middle East and North Africa
director, said: "We are also seeing a pattern of intimidation on the part of the
authorities that involves the arrest, usually for a period of up to several
days, of human rights defenders and pro-democracy activists."
Syria bans entry of Palestinians arriving directly from
Iraq
By The Associated Press
DAMASCUS - After allowing in scores of Palestinians fleeing violence in Iraq but
denied entry into Jordan, Syria is banning the entry of other Palestinians
coming directly from Iraq, a foreign ministry source said Tuesday.
The source, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to
the media, said the earlier decision to accept Palestinians stranded on the
Iraqi-Jordanian border "does not cover any other Palestinians."
The ban on others appeared designed to discourage the estimated 34,000
Palestinians who live in Iraq from attempting to leave for Syria, already home
to about 500,000 Palestinians. Earlier this month, 244 Palestinians - including
70 children and 41 women - entered Syria at the al-Tanaf border crossing and
were transferred to the al-Hol Palestinian refugee camp at Hasaka in
northeastern Syria. Soon later, 43 more were allowed into Syria, bringing the
total to 287.
UN High Commission for Refugees representative in Syria, Abdel-Hamid El-Ouali,
told The Associated Press there were 120 Palestinians, including four pregnant
women and a large number of children, on the Syrian-Iraqi border at al-Tanaf
hoping to enter the country. Their number was expected to increase because more
were still arriving at al-Tanaf, he said. The foreign ministry source, however,
said they would not be allowed to enter because they came directly to the Syrian
border from Iraq.
Accepting the first batch last week was a "humane gesture," he said.
The Hariri-Nasrallah agreement covered appointments,
stopping campaigns against Syria, and evacuating Palestinian positions
Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 16/05/06//
Al-Hayat publishes parts of the document after it was aborted by the recent
escalation and demonstration. Hezbollah expected a clarification that didn't
come.
BEIRUT: Political circles are observing the map of stances by Lebanese political
actors in the run-up to the 14 principals' sitting down for dialogue in
Parliament on Tuesday, in view of the many developments since the last session,
on 28 April. These developments have included the Lebanese political arena and
positions taken by those outside the country, such as the ongoing discussions in
the UN Security Council about a new draft resolution dealing with Lebanese-Syria
relations, and relations among the 14 participants in the dialogue.
Regarding the domestic scene, Tuesday's session of dialogue will convene
following new developments in the political confrontations among these principal
actors, developments that will certainly reflect upon them, as will foreign
developments related to the Lebanese situation. In addition to the huge
demonstration organized by Hezbollah and Amal, as participants in the
government, in cooperation with the opposition, led by General Michel Aoun's
movement and other opposition groups outside the government, political circles
are observing the extent of the rift between two important participants in
national dialogue, namely the leader of the Future Movement, MP Saad Hariri, and
the leadership of Hezbollah, and its Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
The rift resulted from statements and positions by both sides; it has violated
both sides' determination over the last year to limit disputes and to seek to
treat them by convening long, regular meetings between the two leaders. These
meetings did much to bring things up-to-date and succeeded in reducing the level
of sectarian sensitivity between Sunnis and Shiites. Regardless of the truth
behind the dispute, in terms of how it began and what it involves, and whether
Hezbollah's opposition to an employment plan in the government's economic reform
program (over which Nasrallah embraced the 10 May demonstration, called for by a
union organization) was the spark that ignited the crisis, statements by both
sides have included language used for the first time. Sayyed Nasrallah, in his
attack on the government and the parliamentary majority in a speech on 4 May,
accused them of "ignoring Israel" and opposing the violation by Syrian earthen
barriers on Lebanese territory (the Syrian side acknowledged the violation and
decided to back down). Nasrallah accused them of provocation and engineering the
explosion of "silly" issues as controversies, and failing to adhere to decisions
on relations with Syria reached during national dialogue. Nasrallah's criticism
covered the ministerial team affiliated with the Future Movement. Meanwhile,
Hariri found the embrace of a demonstration against contractual employment in
the bureaucracy to be a negative signal. In an interview with al-Hayat last
Sunday, Hariri said that the demo "wanted to destroy the country" and coincided
with a resolution by the Security Council pressuring Syria, asking whether the
Hezbollah-Amal-Aoun alliance expressed "a certain thing in a certain place." It
was the first time Hariri made such an announcement, which was followed by
Hezbollah's considering the remarks "dangerous and unacceptable."
While the party believed it has the right to request a public clarification by
Hariri, the latter sufficed by explaining expressions that indicated Amal. He
affirmed the good, "honest" ties between Speaker Nabih Berri and the late Rafik
Hariri, but declined to make a similar clarification regarding Hizbollah, which
has complicated the issue.
A few days ago, the party awaited Hariri's address at a dinner by the Arab
Economic Forum, for a clarification about accusing the demonstration of seeking
to destroy the country. Hariri avoided the matter, affirming repeatedly, during
his speech and the Q-and-A session, that "we will not halt dialogue… the
dialogue table is very important to us for stability, and for ending disputes
that take place," adding that such gatherings usually see reconciliation and
blame take place. With the halt of campaigns by both sides, the party was
certainly awaiting an explanation from Hariri, which did not come. Sources
following the relationship between the two groups say that adhering to dialogue
was the answer in the address to all of Hezbollah's positions (and stances taken
by its allies) by affirming the fixed policy choices of his approach to
relations with all groups:
-He mentioned his father, Rafik Hariri, more than 10 times, and stressed that
his efforts to save Lebanon "are a legacy that we will not abandon, no matter
how great the pressures and difficulties, we won't let anyone bring down Rafik
Hariri's political project." Saad Hariri also linked the future of the Future
Movement to preserving Lebanon's unity and strength, while linking this to
stability, which depends on national unity and dialogue. Sources from the 14
March movement saw Hariri's remarks as a response to the call for a
demonstration, while dialogue about the economic reform program represents the
solution.
The sources said that Hariri's remark that "we have nothing to be embarrassed
about regarding our history, which is bright with building (the country), doing
good works and moderation - no one can sully our history" as a response to what
the 14 March forces saw as a "orientation by 8 March to destroy the symbolism of
Rafik Hariri's assassination and martyrdom, by seeing a number of party allies
come together, from Michel Aoun to former Minister Suleiman Franjieh and other
opposition figures, and the number of distasteful slogans during the
demonstrations, such as earlier accusations about responsibility for the debt,
waste, and corruption, which became seen as reasons for the incitement to kill
(the former prime minister)." The 14 March sources say that while Hezbollah
clearly tried to prevent such slogans at the protest, the party's
political-media mobilization arm promoted a stance against the international
investigation into the crime around a year ago, which converges with the
atmosphere of destroying the symbolism of Hariri's martyrdom, which was one of
the reasons why the public wasn't under control during the demonstration.
-Hariri hinted at the party and the opposition and Syria, saying, "God helps us
in dealing, first with our own problems, then those we have with some of our
brethren, without ignoring the great efforts made by loyal brethren." Also in
this context, Hariri pointed to "individuals and states seeking instability,"
and "the responsibility falling on Lebanese leaders to stop the daily political
and non-political frightening of the public," mentioning "political flare-ups
that are trying to strike at dialogue."
-Hariri defended Prime Minister Fouad Siniora against the campaigns against him
by the alliance of the opposition and Hezbollah on several occasions, saying he
"knew best" what his father had been subjected to, and that what Rafik Hariri
faced "is being faced now by Fouad Siniora." Saad Hariri said that Siniora was
"an indivisible part of the Hariri family and we support every step he takes; we
have full confidence in him." This was a veiled response to Aoun's call for the
Cabinet to resign in the face of the campaigns facing the Prime Minister, which
Hezbollah had a role in directing.
Those close to Hariri decline to explain his taking all of these stances in one
go, although one 14 March figure believes that Nasrallah's attack on 14 March
and embrace of the demonstration meant the party was headed toward reneging on
the agreements reached between the two leaders during a long meeting on 1 May,
which was characterized by a completely different atmosphere. This feeling was
strengthened by a series of campaigns during the demonstration and afterward.
The sources say that the Hariri-Nasrallah meeting arrived at agreements on some
points, but "the party changed its stance which prevented the achieving (of
these goals)," such as:
1-Forming a committee made up of Hezbollah and Future Movement members to
discuss the social aspect of the government's reform program and take a unified
stand on the points agreed to, within the Cabinet, while agreeing beforehand to
reject the idea of contractual government employment, about which Hariri told
Nasrallah that he opposed it and would ask Siniora to drop it.
2-The return by PFLP-GC leader Ahmad Jibril to Beirut for a meeting with Hariri,
in order to form a joint committee made up the Future Movement and the PLFP-GC
to produce a working paper on the possibility of achieving civil and economic
rights for Palestinians in Lebanon, with this to be met by Nasrallah's effort
with Jibril to see him remove his organization from two or three positions
outside Palestinian refugee camps, to implement the dialogue's decision in this
regard, with these positions to be taken over by the Lebanese Army.
3-Working to settle the issue of bureaucratic, diplomatic and judicial
appointments, frozen as a result of political bickering.
4-Halting media campaigns by the Future Movement against Syria and Syrian
officials, whether on television or in the newspapers, in return for Nasrallah's
efforts with Damascus to improve ties and diplomatic representation and
implementing decisions by the national dialogue participants, as a first step.
A leader in the 14 March movement believes that Hariri saw Nasrallah's stances
as an indication of his intention to go back on these points.
Bouncing Back
By Ghayth N. Armanazi*
Just a year ago, in April 2005, Syrian troops completed their hurried withdrawal
from Lebanon. Despite all attempts to dress up that retreat as a mission
accomplished, there was no escaping the view that it was nothing short of a
humiliating reversal of major geopolitical significance. For decades Syria’s
grip on Lebanon was a mainstay of its strategic landscape.
The of repeated mantra ‘the unity of the two tracks’ – meaning the convergence
of the two countries’ policies with regard to negotiating a final peace
embodying the return of the Golan Heights, but also implying the closest
coordination on all foreign policy issues – became irrefutable doctrine. The
late President Hafez Al Assad considered Lebanon a great strategic asset in the
regional game of nations and his patience, perseverance, and tactical shrewdness
paid off. Other claimants to a stake in Lebanon, Arab as well as non-Arab, beat
a retreat, more often than not leaving behind a trail of blood and tears.
Only the Syrians, it seemed, possessed the long-term leverage, and were prepared
to put up with the cost of pacifying Lebanon. President Bashar Al Assad
continued in the same vein, after succeeding his father, but gradually brought
Syrian troop levels down in a bid to counter the growing vociferous protests of
a Maronite-led opposition which became more forceful. These events happened in
tandem with the coming to power in Washington of an administration heavily
influenced by a neoconservative agenda, and, hence, less sympathetic to an
inherited view of Syria’s benign influence in Lebanon.
This attitude was heavily reinforced by the mindset created by the attacks of
September 11 2001, and especially by Syria’s stand regarding the war launched on
Iraq. Nevertheless, until the middle of 2004, there was no serious hint that the
Syrian position in Lebanon was under threat. The events since then are common
knowledge, with France taking a leading role, and with Syrian miscalculations,
such as an insistence on renewing Lebanese President Emile Lahoud’s mandate,
resulting in the passing of Security Council Resolution 1559. In this the
international community, reacting to heavy pressure from the newly re-formed
Franco-US alliance, put Syria on notice that its days of monopoly power in
Lebanon were numbered.
GOING FOR THE JUGULAR
The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri raised the
level of pressure on Damascus, and Syria complied with the demand for
withdrawal, in the hope that by doing so, the heat would ease. But it was not to
be; the Americans immediately pounced on the opportunity to both tighten the
screws on Damascus and thus neutralise its ‘spoiling’ role in Iraq and
Palestine, while simultaneously basking in the glory of a ‘Cedar Revolution’
inspired by United States President George Bush’s vision of a Middle East on the
path to democracy.
France, for reasons of its own, one being the famously close relationship
between President Jacques Chirac and the late Hariri, and another a near
petulant reaction to the perceived dismissal by Damascus of French attempts to
mastermind and co-opt the Syrian reform agenda, also went for the Syrian
jugular. The mechanism for bringing Syria to its knees was the UN Commission
investigating the Hariri killing. When the first of those reports was delivered
to the Security Council last October, it was seen as a devastating document.
The Head of the Investigating Commission Detlev Mehlis pointed the finger at
Damascus and the Americans and French adopted ever more menacing tones about
imminent sanctions, and enforcing international isolation. Meanwhile, despite
Syrian efforts to control the border with Iraq – which neutral observers,
diplomats and even US military spokesmen acknowledged – the barrage of
accusations of Syrian involvement in the Iraqi insurgency continued, not to
mention the standard charge of Damascus’ support for terror and its harbouring
of Palestinian extremist groups and, of course, its links with Hizbollah.
Never in recent years had the situation looked more bleak for the Syrian
leadership. The pressure from outside was formidable. It seemed that an internal
opposition might be gathering pace as well, when on New Year’s eve, the former
Vice-President Abdul Halim Khaddam, announced through the Saudi-owned Arabic
satellite TV station, Al-Arabiya, that he had broken with the regime, which he
accused of indeed being behind the assassination of Hariri.
Increasingly, there was talk in the international and Arab media, as well as in
political circles of a change of regime, as opposed to changing the policies of
the regime – the hitherto favoured solution of Washington and its allies. Echoes
of an Iraqi scenario, while played down by those who understood the folly of
that road, nevertheless found ready resonance, and Syria entered this year
seemingly cornered, friendless and staring at the abyss.
Barely four months on, the picture, at least from the perspective of Damascus,
looks significantly less daunting. Events, even if the Syrians cannot claim to
orchestrating them – at least not all of them! – have given some respite.
Through a combination of playing for time, tactical maneuvering between overt
defiance and pragmatic flexibility, and exploiting the errors and overblown
judgments and expectations of those lined up in the opposing camps, they have
arguably not just survived the worst, but could be preparing a comeback in the
regional arena.
Five crucial developments contribute to a new Syrian mood of confidence:
1. The original UN report has lost a lot of its sting – mainly as a result of
two key witnesses retracting evidence that lay at the heart of the accusations
directed at Damascus, in addition to the exposure of their flawed credibility.
The final outcome of the Hariri investigation is not yet known. But with the
German Mehlis now replaced by – in the eyes of Syrians – the much less abrasive
Belgian investigator Serge Brammertz, there is a growing feeling Damascus may
evade the worst scenarios. The most recent report, highlighting Syrian
cooperation, was welcomed by Syrian officials who commended the chief
investigator’s professionalism and objectivity.
2. Developments in Lebanon have undercut the once broad anti-Syrian front,
united under the banner of expelling its forces and restoring sovereignty.
Political reconciliation is under threat, and alliances shifting again as the
old political feudalisms reveal the brittle nature of the Cedar Revolution.
Despite the heavyhanded drive by the Americans – and the French – to restructure
Lebanese politics in their own image and to suit their Syrianbashing agenda, the
Syrians can once again play the waiting game and seize the opportunities the
quarrelling Lebanese political class invariably presents. The improbable
alliance between Hizbollah, and the once fiercely anti-Syrian Maronite bloc led
by General Michel Aoun, is one glaring example of how Syrian influence can
unexpectedly manifest itself. A sign of the residual power-broking muscle of
Syria emerges most clearly from open acknowledgement that if there is to be any
progress on the most difficult items on the agenda of the Lebanese Conference of
National Dialogue, convened in March under the speaker of the parliament, then
Syrian cooperation and goodwill are essential. These include the future of the
Lebanese presidency, controlling the armed presence of Palestinians, demarcation
of the border in the Shabaa Farms’ area a critical issue which could legitimize
Hizbollah’s continuing resistance to Israel’s occupation and the eventual
disarmament of Hizbollah itself.
3. The Iraqi imbroglio shows no sign of easing the mounting strain on the
American project for the Middle East. While Syria is now increasingly credited
with doing what it can to police its border, and is more forthright in its
support for a political process in Iraq and building bridges with various Sunni
and Shiite factions, it becomes less and less tenable for Washington to blame
Damascus for all that is going wrong in Iraq. In the absence of a serious risk
of American forces reduced to ‘thrashing about’ like a wounded beast in a bid to
avenge the disaster consuming them in Iraq, Syrian anxieties about American
military action are fast receding. There seems to be little prospect of an
Israeli attack by proxy; a scenario that would fuel regional instability, and
complicate and possibly undermine its agenda of concentrating on unilaterally
‘separating’ from the Palestinians, which the newly elected Kadima-led
government is pledged to achieve.
4. The victory of Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections can only
strengthen Syria’s hand as a potential moderating influence on the new
Palestinian leadership. The Europeans – perhaps at some stage even the Americans
– might think it sensible to engage Syria over the future conduct of Hamas. With
Russia restored as an ally of Syria entering into dialogue with Hamas and warmly
receiving the Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid al-Moualem, the American ‘message’
of an isolated Syria is fast losing credibility. Continuing to blame Syria for
‘harboring Palestinian terrorists’ loses its rationale when these very same
‘terrorists’ are sworn in as the legitimate, democratically-elected government
of Palestine.
5. Syria has also managed to summon to its cause other Arab countries,
particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, fearful of a destabilized Syria spreading
out to cause further regional mayhem to exacerbate the running sore of Iraq.
Syria shrewdly, if subtly, invoked the Iranian connection that could only be
strengthened if Damascus was left with no other alternative in its search for
regional support. Riyadh and the other Gulf capitals, would have clearly
understood the strategic implications of pushing Syria irrevocably into Tehran’s
arms.
It may be premature to conclude with certainty that Syria has rebounded
completely, or even substantially, from the heavy reverses and pressures that
have had many analysts write it off as a spent regional force. But recent signs
should lead them to review their rush to judgment.
* Ghayth N. Armanazi is the executive director, of the British Syrian Society.
He is a writer and broadcaster specialising in Arab affairs and a former Arab
League ambassador to the United Kingdom.