LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
NOVEMBER 18/06

Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 17,26-37.
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all. So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, a person who is on the housetop and whose belongings are in the house must not go down to get them, and likewise a person in the field must not return to what was left behind. Remember the wife of Lot. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left." They said to him in reply, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather."

Free Opinions & Studies
US Dialogue With Iran, Syria Would Be 'Disastrous,' Experts Say. By Julie Stahl- 18.11.06
Chaos in Exchange for the Tribunal.By: Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 18/11/06
The Significance of the Global Consensus over the International Tribunal. By: Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 18/11/06
Leadership vacuum threatens both Iraq and Lebanon -Daily Star 18.11.06
The U-word-Al-Ahram Weekly. By: Serene Assir -Al Ahram 18.11.06

Latest New from miscellaneous sources for November 06/06
French UN unit takes "preparatory steps" over Israeli jets flying-International Herald Tribune
US Dialogue With Iran, Syria Would Be 'Disastrous,' Experts Say-CNSNews.com
Lebanese Sunnis urged to confront Hezbollah-Lebanese Lobby, Lebanon
Student vote acts as Lebanese litmus test Globe and Mail
March 14 Determined to Confront 'All Challenges,' Aoun to Defy Government Orders-Naharnet
Israeli Warplanes Overfly Lebanon Despite Warnings by Officials in Jerusalem-Naharnet
Australians probed for Hezbollah links-Ninemsn, Australia
US says has removed 50,000 bombs in Lebanon-Washington Post
Shiite power grab threatens Lebanon's delicate balance-Sydney Morning Herald
Leadership vacuum threatens both Iraq and Lebanon -Daily Star 17.11.06
Lebanese civilians confirm flow of arms to Hizbullah from Syria-Jerusalem Post
US says has removed 50,000 bombs in Lebanon-Washington Post
Safadi: International Aid to Lebanon Coming Slower than Planned-Naharnet
The noose tightens around some necks in Damascus!!Global Politician
Even war can't stop her party-Los Angeles Times
Hezbollah, 10 nations cited in UN report-Washington Times
US Avoids Hezbollah in Aiding Lebanon-Washington Post
Hezbollah instructs followers to disobey-Ya Libnan
Recommendations Made On Hariri Tribunal-Guardian Unlimited
Syria exerts backstage influence on Hamas-Reuters
Leaked Document: Israeli Attack on UN Post in Lebanon -Naharnet
Lebanon's fragility-Boston Globe
US claims progress in removing unexploded munitions in Lebanon-People's Daily Online

US Dialogue With Iran, Syria Would Be 'Disastrous,' Experts Say
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
November 17, 2006
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Pressure is mounting on the White House to open a dialogue with Tehran and Damascus, but including those two nations in efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis would "disastrous," some Middle East experts are saying.
The Iraq Study Group is expected to recommend bringing Iran and Syria into the process when it releases its report next month.
The U.S. Congress tasked the study group -- comprised of foreign policy experts and elder statesmen -- with re-evaluating U.S. strategy in Iraq. The group is led by Former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, both of whom reportedly favor the idea of talking to the enemy.
Both Iran and Syria are isolated as pariahs in the international community.
Iran is currently under threat of United Nations Security Council sanctions for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment. The U.S. and other Western countries believe Iran intends to use the uranium to develop a nuclear bomb -- a charge that Iran denies.
High-ranking Syrian officials have been implicated in the assassination last year of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Both countries are accused of aiding or fueling the insurgency in Iraq, trying to topple the Lebanese government and supporting the Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist organizations.
President Bush has rejected the idea of opening talks with Iran and Syria. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's staunchest ally in the Iraq war, suggested earlier this week that a "new partnership" with Tehran and Damascus was possible.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said earlier this week that Tehran would talk to the U.S. if it "corrects its behavior."
A Syrian government newspaper said the country is ready to meet with U.S. officials, but added that "the ball is in their court." But Baath Party economist Ayman Abdel Nour asked what would be the point of helping with Middle East problems since the U.S. imposed trade sanctions on the country two years ago.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier this week that "multiple overtures" have been made to Iran regarding talks.
But the question is whether "there is anything about Iranian behavior that suggests that they are prepared to contribute to stability in Iraq." Rice later said there is no indication that Syria wants to be a "stabilizing force.""
Prof. Walid Phares, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, rejected the idea of talking to the leaders of those two countries.
If talking to Iran and Syria means talking to the reformers and civil society, then Phares said he favors the idea.
But if it means making concessions to dictators it would be "disastrous," Phares told Cybercast News Service in a telephone interview.
Such thinking represents an old school of thought that brought about the 9/11 terror attacks, that brought Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power and that emboldened Hizballah, said Phares.
Iranian expert Menashe Amir said if Blair's proposal to talk to Iran and Syria was meant to expose the countries as the "bad guys," then it is a "very good idea." But if he really wants to open negotiations and cooperation with them, then it "absolutely wrong."
Iran has set conditions to enter negotiations, but those conditions are too harsh for the U.S. to accept, Amir told Cybercast News Service.
Iran is demanding an American commitment not to interfere in Iran's nuclear program; it wants the U.S. to withdraw any complaints from the United Nations Security Council; it says the U.S. must stop supporting opposition groups in Iran; and it wants the U.S. to stop criticizing Iran's human rights record, said Amir.
(Other conditions include dropping U.S. support for Israel and releasing Iranian assets frozen in the U.S., reports say.)
Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens said both Iran and Syria are "troublemakers." Neither is "interested in helping the U.S," he said.
"It is important for the U.S. to do what is good for the U.S. [regarding Iraq]," said Arens, who was Israel's defense minister during the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq.
But as far as Israel is concerned, he said, a return to a dictatorship in Iraq would not be good for Israel.
Saddam Hussein attacked Israel with at least 39 Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War. Before that, Iraq fought against Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and in the 1973 Yom Kippur war against Israel.

The U-word
Did Israel use uranium munitions in Lebanon, and if so what are the potential hazards? In Beirut, Serene Assir reports on a controversial scientific debate
A Lebanese bulldozer demolishes a building damaged by Israeli strikes in the southern Lebanese village of Hannawiye
As seen from Lebanon, it's been an intriguing few weeks in the debate on radiation. Questioning intensified regarding what kind of weapons Israel had used during its massive summer bombing campaigns in Lebanon, and whether that list included any illegal weapons. All throughout, chief amongst the concerns were the use of uranium-based munitions.
Pending the release of a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report on the effects of the recent 34-day war on the Lebanese environment -- expected to detail, for instance, the magnitude of the now notorious oil spill from the Jiyye power plant -- very little information has been imparted by the agency on its findings. But after the London Independent newspaper published the findings, on 30 October, of a top radiation scientist, Chris Busby, British scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, indicating it was likely that uranium-based -- possibly enriched uranium -- weapons had been used, UNEP responded by issuing a statement in which it indicated that its team had found no evidence of any such thing.
"The samples taken by the UNEP scientists show no evidence of penetrators or metal made of DU [Depleted Uranium], nor enriched uranium nor higher than natural uranium content in the samples," reads the 7 November statement, attributable to UNEP Executive Director and UN Undersecretary General Achim Steiner. It also indicates that all remnants of weapons found by the UNEP team visiting Lebanon were of well-known design. "The team had 32 samples analysed at a reputable laboratory in Switzerland," it adds.
Both Busby and Lebanese radiation safety officer at the American University of Beirut Azmi Imad warn that for a thorough, conclusive investigation into whether or not uranium-based munitions have been used in a given area, time is required. "Teams doing this kind of investigation need at least three months," said Imad. On this point, worthy of note is the fact that the team's work in Lebanon began 30 September and was completed 21 October, according to the UNEP statement. "Teams also require sophisticated equipment, lots and lots of samples, and, crucially, they need to know where to get them from. In Kosovo, for instance, maps were provided to search teams by those who had fired them, enabling searches to be focused," added Imad.
In this case, the likelihood of such maps being provided is extremely small, given the fact that Israel has denied reports of the use of uranium-based weapons in Lebanon. As it is, it took Israel almost three months to admit it used white phosphorus weaponry in Lebanon -- though, given the nature of burns in casualties in south Lebanon, the matter had become almost blindingly obvious. Farmers interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly -- for instance in Aayta Shaab -- regularly point out areas where rockets filled with phosphorus powder were used, weeks before any admission was made by Israel. UNEP's statement indicates that Israel did indeed use phosphorus weapons.
For lack of more leads perhaps, following information imparted by a wartime Daily Star article claiming that a uranium- containing bomb had been used in Khiam, Busby's team indeed found a soil sample taken from the very same bomb crater containing "significant amounts of enriched uranium". His preliminary report, co-authored by Dai Williams adds that "enriched uranium is not natural and does not exist in the environment, unless it has been put there by human activity." According to Imad and Busby, while uranium is found in the environment, it is the ratio of different uranium isotopes to each other in a given sample or area that determines an anomaly. "The existence of a high amount of total uranium and the enrichment signature in the sample LS6 [taken at Khiam] must be a consequence of its use in the weapon that made the crater," Busby's report reads.
As for the mutually contradictory nature of the information on the possible use of uranium-based weaponry in Lebanon, UNEP's communications department declined to answer further questions on the matter pending the release of the final report due in mid-December. According to Imad, the problem may be related to scientific approach. "My son was asked in science class not long ago whether, if he found dead cells on another planet, he could assume there was life on the planet. He answered by saying he would need more time to investigate before being able to conclude," he said. "The teacher told him he was wrong. He had wanted him to focus on the fact that the cells were dead to say that there was no life on the planet."
Perhaps the second approach -- the teacher's approach -- is comparable to UNEP's, not because it hasn't found samples containing abnormal uranium isotope ratios, but rather because it has chosen to make conclusions based on a fieldwork study that lasted less than a month. Unlike cluster munitions or even phosphorus, part of the problem with uranium is that it is invisible, and that any effects it may have in future will take time to surface.
For Busby, "It is normal in military related science to have such contradictions since the contamination of civilians, if proved, would lead to massive political repercussions and possible war crimes trials and at the least litigation." Should uranium in unnatural quantities be found in areas of south Lebanon and not cleared, then the likelihood of it causing eventual serious damage to civilians living in the vicinity of where a given rocket has launched could be great. A World Health Organisation report (dating to 2001), says that depleted uranium would have to be ingested in very large quantities for it to cause any harm, "The report is fairly accurate," says Imad, "but it needs to be understood that people living in the vicinity of high uranium radioactivity should be concerned because the longer you are exposed to it day in day out, the greater the health hazard."
In Kosovo, a clean-up followed detection. In Lebanon, a clean-up, which is all the more expensive for a country lacking the necessary facilities, is unlikely if no further international pressure is brought to bear on the matter. The continued existence of questions is, in this case, simply unacceptable when so much material indicating a likely link between elevated levels of cancer and birth defects in Iraq and heavy United States and British use of DU bombs there in 1991, for instance -- never mind the possibility of new, untested weapons based at least in part on enriched uranium.
It would surely do Israel good too to request the file be reopened internationally, given that dust particles of uranium don't tend to respect borders and would, if they have indeed been dropped in Lebanon in bomb form, readily be swept back across, southwards with the wind.

Leadership vacuum threatens both Iraq and Lebanon
Friday, November 17, 2006
Editorial-Daily Star
Ever since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, leaders around the world have been searching for a panacea that would remedy the war's disastrous consequences. On Thursday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki identified one potential cure his country's maladies: "We must stop foreign intervention in order to ensure Iraq's security."
By mentioning the need to curb foreign meddling, Maliki draws attention to an obvious problem in Iraq that needs to be addressed. A host of outside parties are guilty of inciting violence and instability in the country. By far, the greatest level of interference still comes from the Americans, who despite symbolic "transfers of sovereignty" are still micro-managing Iraq from their offices in Washington. Certainly the United States and other countries will need to scale back their involvement in Iraq before local officials have any incentive to increase their own.
But at this stage, three full years after the invasion, foreign interference is only partly to blame for the state of affairs in Iraq. Local leaders share equal - if not greater - responsibility for the chaotic situation. Until now, there has been relatively little effort on the part of Iraqi leaders to build public confidence, crack down on militias, take decisive action against corruption or reach out to those Iraqis who view the government as their enemy. In short, there is an absence of effective leadership. And so long as a leadership vacuum exists, it is likely to continue being filled by outside parties.
This is a vital lesson that seems to have been lost on leaders in Lebanon, where factions spend more time branding each other as either pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian, or pro-American or anti-American, than they do defining their own agendas. Meaningless labels such as these suggest that Lebanon's two main political camps lack any character of their own and are strictly defined by their relationships with outside parties.
Both the Lebanese and the Iraqis deserve better from their leaders. There is only so much blame that can be placed on outside parties. At some point there must be an acknowledgement of internal failures and an attempt to devise homegrown remedies for homegrown problems. So long as local leaders fail to rise to the challenge of effective leadership, the specter of foreign interference will continue to haunt their countries.

March 14 Determined to Confront 'All Challenges,' Aoun to Defy Government Orders
Naharnet: The anti-Syrian parliamentary majority was determined to confront "all challenges" to thwart U.N. Security Council resolutions, including an international tribunal to try the killers of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, as rival leader General Michel Aoun vowed to defy government orders.
Meanwhile, the daily As Safir said that Iran has stepped in publicly in efforts to reunite the rival political leaders and put the stalled national talks back on track.
As Safir said Friday that Saudi Arabia ambassador Abdul Aziz Khoja held two rounds of talks on Thursday with Mohammed Rida Shibani, Iran's ambassador to Lebanon. While the Iranian spokesman said the talks focused "on developments in Lebanon and the region," Lebanese officials who met with Khoja said the Iranians "expressed readiness to exert efforts with all sides in a bid to find a way out of this political impasse," As Safir reported.
It said that Khoja has also urged Shibani to "join hands in reuniting the Lebanese." Khoja also met Thursday with Speaker Nabih Berri, a close Hizbullah ally, at his Ein al-Tineh mansion, according to As Safir. But it said Berri has informed Khoja that he was not willing to recognize an expanded government of 30 ministers, 10 of whom from the opposition, as suggested by the anti-Syrian March 14 Forces.
As Safir said that Information Minister Ghazi Aridi met with Berri Thursday on behalf of the March 14 camp to present the coalition's new 30-member cabinet proposal. It quoted Berri as warning that unless the ruling majority approved what he dubbed the "one-third representation" of Hizbullah and its allies, "things will stay the same." Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has said he wants his Shiite party, which has two representatives in the government, and allies to comprise one-third of the cabinet. That effectively means that Hizbullah and its allies could veto key decisions.
A two-thirds vote in the cabinet is needed to pass decisions that are not made by consensus. A resignation of one-third of the cabinet automatically brings down the government. Meanwhile, the March 14 Forces assured in a statement released late Thursday that the coalition "was determined to confront all challenges to foil Res. 1701, the international tribunal and Paris-3 at the expense of foreign interests." The Lebanese cabinet approved Monday a U.N. document setting out the legal basis for the special tribunal tasked with trying suspects in the Feb. 2005 bombing on the Beirut seafront that killed Hariri and 22 others. On the other hand, Aoun has vowed to defy Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's government.
"We will not obey government orders from now on because it has lost its legitimacy," Aoun told supporters from his Free Patriotic Movement on Thrusday.
Addressing Saniora, Aoun said: "You need the blessing of the Lebanese to be able to maintain your place, otherwise you should resign." Beirut, 17 Nov 06, 09:46

Chaos in Exchange for the Tribunal
Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 17/11/06//
The Lebanese will have to pay a high price for this ongoing frantic conflict, now that all parties recognize that this state of affairs is a reflection of a major regional struggle. It is a price that will be paid by the Lebanese even if this conflict ends in the next few weeks. This is because meddling with the Constitution and the language used for political mobilization by some, be it intentionally or not, harms the relations between the communities. This will have repercussions on the generation of Lebanese who will not be able to escape the negative effects of this absurdity at the level of national, economic and social development.
Whether the Opposition, which now calls for the reformulation of the governing authority, wants it or not, it was forced to use other justifications and reasons to cover its position regarding the rejection of the Fouad Siniora government's attempt to endorse the plans of the International Tribunal to try those accused of assassinating the martyr, Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri. This can only mean fabricating yet other causes for conflict, and magnifying them. Indeed, causes have their roots, such as participating in the Resolution and confronting the American and International supervision of Lebanon. But this is not the real problem.
The compelling force that drove the opposition to stand in the face of the International Tribunal without the ability to be open about this position is the same that made them exaggerate all of these causes of the conflict. The exaggerations reached the point where these causes were placed over and above the real antagonist, the International Tribunal.
If the Tribunal was not the real reason, then the six ministers who resigned last Saturday would have waited till Monday and participated in what they themselves call the national consensus based on the formula established by the UN. They could have resigned afterward for the reasons they have openly declared and continue to declare. It is absurd to fabricate new reasons, and exaggerate other, existing ones, as the Hezbollah-Amal-Aoun Movement alliance did in cooperation with the other pro-Syrian forces. It compels these forces to resort to demands that cannot be met, or that are unfeasible to the other side. The reason is that the size of this bloc is not compatible with its demand to take over the third, suspended part in the next government; nor is it strong enough for early parliamentary elections to be followed by the presidential elections.
Opposition leaders are already aware that early elections are required if a new election law is to be passed and the mandate of the current parliament shortened. All this needs the approval of the current ruling majority in Parliament and the government. If the majority accepts these two demands, a settlement of some sort will be made that will satisfy the majority. The package of settlements will include the Presidency of the Republic as well as other issues, in the forefront of which will be the Tribunal.
The minority's ambiguous stance in opposing the International Tribunal places it in the position of making snowball demands, threatening to take to the streets, without being able to achieve anything there. In this way, the minority will become a hostage to its own demands: it will not be able to realize them, nor will it be in the position to relinquish them, for fear that it will be said it has sustained a defeat. This snowball of demands will continue to grow as long as the process of establishing the International Tribunal takes time, thanks to these wrangles.
The Tribunal could take a year to be formed, according to the estimates of some experts. This means that the opposition will continue to raise its demands to prevent the Tribunal from being set up for this whole year. There is no room for this escalation, which will only bring chaos to Lebanon, and the whole country will pay for dearly for years to come. If the actual decision is to prevent the formation of the Tribunal or at least delay it to wait on international developments, then the demands used to disguise this opposition will be costly in several fields, including constitutional chaos, which is also being trumped up.
There are those who say that the government's endorsement of the project of a Tribunal during the endorsement meeting in the absence of the Shiite ministers is unconstitutional. They are aware that this is not true. What they say is contrary to the Constitution. They are willing to go all lengths to question the legitimacy of a Tribunal by creating a constitutional dispute so severe that the basic standards are shrouded in mist. There is another cost that will increase in the next stage because of their attempt to appropriate the conciliatory role played by the Lebanese Parliamentary Speaker, Nabih Berry.
Berry was forced to go along with his Hezbollah allies in inventing causes for conflict, the main reason being the Tribunal. He was forced to do what he feared for the stability of the country. It is no coincidence that he first said the decisions of the government were constitutional, and then that they were unconstitutional 48 hours later. Chaos in Lebanon has begun to make itself felt, even before the opposition has hit the street.
In that case, how will things turn out if the opposition leaps forward out of the meshes by hunting down the Tribunal before the Tribunal can hunt down the suspects? The high price that the initiators of this policy will pay, apart from the cost that all the Lebanese will have to face, will reach its peak when they are forced to retreat

Lebanese Sunnis urged to confront Hezbollah
(AFP)17 November 2006
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/
DUBAI - A statement posted on Friday on an Internet website used by Al Qaeda’s branch in Iraq called upon Lebanese Sunnis to confront the Shia group Hezbollah which it accused of wanting to dominate the country.
‘We call on our brothers in Lebanon ... to face up to Hezbollah and the hatred of the rafidha (a pejorative term for Shia Muslims) and prepare for a confrontation,’ appealed the statement from the ‘Mujahedin of Lebanon’.
The tone and wording of the statement is similar to that of messages from the Al Qaeda branch in Iraq.
‘Today they want to dominate Lebanon in its totality, allying themselves with the crusaders in Lebanon, to definitively eliminate the Sunni community. The rafidha should know we are ready to combat them,’ said the statement, which also slammed Iran and Syria.
The statement accused Hezbollah of being under the control of Syria, which it charged had opened the door to Iranian influence in the country.
A message last week purportedly from the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al Muhajer, called on Sunnis to stand up to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

Aoun warned of 'Grave Consequences' over alliance with Hezbollah
Friday, 3 November, 2006 @ 3:43 PM
Beirut- U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Feltman has allegedly warned General Michel Aoun of "grave consequences" over his alliance with Hezbollah, accusing the Shiite group of plotting to obliterate Lebanon.
" Hezbollah is constantly working on destroying and obliterating Lebanon as well as sowing chaos," the Lebanese daily As-Safir quoted Feltman as saying.
It said his remarks were made during a visit to Aoun at his house in Rabieh on Thursday.
The paper quoted leading sources in Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) as saying that Feltman also slammed the so-called "political understanding" between Aoun and Hezbollah.
But Aoun has reiterated his adherence to the "political understanding," the sources said.
They said that Feltman has indirectly threatened Aoun that his alliance with Hezbollah would bear "grave consequences on his political future."
As-Safir said that this was a tortuous reference to the presidency issue, in which Aoun, a Maronite, is eligible for under the Lebanese constitution.
The paper also said that the FPM has previously received similar threats from the American administration warning Aoun against establishing any "material or financial ties with Hezbollah, or be blacklisted" in assisting terrorists.
The sources said Aoun handed over to Feltman a copy of the letter he had sent earlier on Thursday to President George Bush expressing his regret over the recent White House statement which accused Iran, Syria and Hezbollah of "preparing plans to topple" Premier Fouad Siniora's government.
The sources said that Feltman had clarified to Aoun that the White House excluded the FPM from this accusation.
State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack also said on Thursday: "It's sort of interesting that an individual decided to -- singled himself out regarding a statement that didn't single out any particular individuals. So I'm not sure why he thought that was particularly directed at him."
"We would expect that General Aoun as well as others would try to play a positive role in furthering efforts at democratic political reform as well as economic reform," McCormack added.
Sources: Naharnet, Ya Libnan

Anti-, Pro-Syrian Cracks Appear in Economic Sectors
Naharnet: The head of the Labor Union has warned that Lebanese workers will hold Premier Fouad Saniora's government responsible for the worsening political and economic situation in the country.
Ghassan Ghosn threatened after a meeting with Gen. Michel Aoun in Rabieh Thursday that workers will resort to street protests, Al-Mustaqbal newspaper said.
He said the government was responsible for the "deteriorating situation that is becoming worse day by day."
He said the Union will meet to decide when to take to the streets, a threat that has been repeatedly voiced by Hizbullah and its allies in Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement. Meanwhile, economic associations met with Saniora on Thursday to discuss losses sustained from the Israeli offensive on Lebanon that was sparked by a deadly Hizbullah cross-border raid on July 12. Al-Mustaqbal said that they also discussed threats to hamper an international conference on financial aid that will be held in Paris late January.
The newspaper said that the head of the Banks Association, Francois Bassil, said the economic associations will start a series of meetings with opposition leaders, particularly Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Aoun in an effort to find a way out of the current crisis. Bassil urged politicians to go back to roundtable talks in parliament following their collapse on Saturday. Lebanon's top rival leaders were discussing Hizbullah and FPM demands for the formation of a national unity government when the talks failed. He said the banks sector will suffer the most if the opposition continued to press for its demands and threaten to stage street protests. "I see collapse," he said, adding that "if things continue the way they are, Paris-3 will not be held, because the French government has said that the international community will not provide enough help if the Lebanese do not agree on a reform process." Beirut, 17 Nov 06, 15:13

General Michel Aoun reply to president Bush:
the lebanese desire to change government is at heart of America's values
General Michel Aoun Press Office
November 4, 2006
IN RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT BUSH’S STATEMENT GIVING HIS FULL SUPPORT TO THE SINIORA GOVERNMENT, FORMER PRIME MINISTER MICHEL AOUN ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
It is unfortunate that the highest levels of the American government have been penetrated with misinformation alleging that we—those who fought longest and hardest for Lebanon’s independence from Syria—are now trying to bring back Syrian tutelage over Lebanon. It is our sincere hope that America will recognize such misinformation for what it is: Manipulation and deception from former Lebanese operatives for Syria whose only interest is the maintenance of their own positions of power. The history of those who taunt us in foreign capitals would be empty if not for corruption and submission.
We, on the other hand, represent only the interests of Lebanon and the Lebanese people. We refuse the notion that our adherence to our sovereignty, liberty and independence means that we must harbor animosity and hatred toward others. We seek friendship with everyone and submission to no one. We are and will remain truly independent, and we will freely conduct our affairs without any external imposition, neither Eastern nor Western.
Our path toward genuine democracy and freedom in Lebanon will not be sidetracked by those whose real purpose is to defame us.
After 1½ years, the Siniora government has proven that it cannot deliver any worthwhile reform to the Lebanese people, nor any valuable achievement to the international community or human welfare. It is time for the U.S. Administration to realize that the desire for a new government in Lebanon comes from the Lebanese people. If the U.S. truly desires democracy, then let it not lend its support to an unrepresentative government which came about as a result of a Syrian-imposed electoral law, and let it work together with all, I mean all, Lebanese to achieve a government by the Lebanese people, of the Lebanese people, and for all the Lebanese people.
The desire of the Lebanese to replace a government which has brought nothing but instability, corruption, and debt upon the Lebanese people, and to replace it with a new and truly representative government of unity and reconciliation, should not be looked upon with suspicion, but rather, with pride and support. Such desire is at the heart of America’s values. I ought not be the one invoking the American Declaration of Independence, which says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

U.S. Avoids Hezbollah in Aiding Lebanon
By BARRY SCHWEID
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 16, 2006; 12:49 PM
WASHINGTON -- More than a third of the financial aid that the United States promised to help Lebanon rebuild from last July's Israeli war against Hezbollah has been spent, and Washington is steering clear of Hezbollah as it helps, the director of U.S. foreign assistance said Thursday.
About $100 million of a $250-million U.S. aid commitment already has been "put to work" on projects from clearing bombs to helping dairy farmers, Randall L. Tobias told reporters.Dr. Milton Friedman who won the 1976 Nobel Prize for economics poses for a photo in a 1977 file photo. (AP)
Much of the reconstruction is centered on Beirut and in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by the State Department, is virtually a state-within-a-state. Already popular and with two ministers in the central government, Hezbollah spurred postwar reconstruction by offering initial cash payments of up to $12,000 for Christian as well as Muslim families who lost their homes.
Tobias, who recently visited Lebanon, acknowledged Hezbollah was dealing with humanitarian needs. But he said, "We are not working with Hezbollah."
At a conference in Stockholm, Sweden, last month, donors pledged nearly $1 billion to rebuild Lebanon. The government estimates its needs at about $3.5 billion to repair buildings and infrastructure damaged in the Israeli war against the militia. And even before the conflict, Lebanon was under the strain of a public debt of about $38 billion. Another conference to solicit pledges for Lebanon will be held in January in Paris.
Tobias said that U.S. assistance has covered a wide range of projects, including clearing oil spills, assisting fishermen, removing about 50,000 pieces of unexploded bombs and other ordnance, helping farmers and rebuilding bridges. He said the Lebanese people were aware of the U.S. role. "There is appreciation for what we are doing," he said, adding that there are signs the United States is being credited with being Lebanon's partner in rebuilding.
"I think it is making a difference," Tobias said of the U.S. role.

Student vote acts as Lebanese litmus test
Pro- and anti-Western factions square off
MARK MACKINNON
BEIRUT -- Staring across the tree-lined courtyard of her university, Elissar Sweid had a simple explanation for why she and the students on the other side didn't see eye-to-eye. "We want to live in peace, they want to live in war," the 19-year-old shouted, trying to make herself heard above the din of rival protests at the American University of Beirut. These days, the school is a cross-section of a country in crisis.
Ms. Sweid was standing on what could loosely be defined as the pro-Western side of the campus, among students who support Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's ruling coalition and took part in the "Cedar Revolution" that ousted Syrian troops from Lebanon last year after a 29-year stay. On the other side stood a roughly equal number of students who back the Shia Hezbollah movement and its spirited challenge to the powers that be.
The 140-year-old grounds of the American University, perhaps the most prestigious university in the Middle East, have become an arena for testing the strength of the two sides in Lebanon's increasingly tense political standoff. Pro- and anti-government students staged protests yesterday, with both sides claiming to have won the annual student council elections. The elections are seen as an important snapshot of the country's political mood in the middle of a power struggle: Six cabinet ministers have resigned since Sunday and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has vowed to bring down Mr. Siniora's government.
A year ago, the pro-government coalition won control of the student council by the slimmest of margins, taking 51 per cent of the vote. But university officials, who stopped counting the ballots at one point out of fear the results would provoke violence, said yesterday that it may take up to two weeks to determine who actually won this year.
Hezbollah has been demanding greater representation in the national government, pointing to opinion polls that suggest it now has the support of most Lebanese. Mr. Siniora, whose ruling coalition won a majority in elections held last June, has refused the demands, charging that Mr. Nasrallah is seeking an effective veto over government decisions. "The results of the [student] election are seen as a reflection of the politics of the country. Things in Lebanon are very tense now," said Nader Assi, 19-year-old business management student who wore intertwining yellow, green and orange scarves that identified him as a supporter of General Michel Aoun, a Christian leader who has allied himself with Hezbollah.
Outside the university gates, hundreds of non-students representing the various political factions swilled about on Beirut's Bliss Street while the votes were counted, shouting at each other across a cordon of riot police and soldiers clutching M-16 assault rifles. Occasional scuffles broke out, but were quickly broken up by authorities. The stature of the American University adds to the stakes in the campus standoff. Mr. Siniora, a Sunni Muslim, is an alumnus, as are two of his closest allies, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and Christian leader Samir Geagea. During a break in the tension of the campus protests, both sides joined together in a full-throated singing of Lebanon's national anthem.
"We all love Lebanon," 21-year-old Atallah Lucas said as the singing concluded and the partisan shouting resumed. "We just have different ideas about what Lebanon is."

The Significance of the Global Consensus over the International Tribunal
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 17/11/06//
New York - Let the US and Britain hold talks with Iran to facilitate their withdrawal from Iraq, so long as this exchange is directed toward security guarantees to Tehran, not toward making deals for regional hegemony and blackmail alliances in Palestine and Lebanon.
Let Washington and London hold talks with Damascus to secure for the resumption of negotiations with Israel over the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for Damascus's contribution to the relief efforts in Iraq; provided that the price will not be renewing the linkage between Lebanon and Syria in the negotiations with Israel and Lebanon's being subjected to the Syrian 'diktat', after they have been widely disengaged.
We are well aware that the US and Britain will not become involved in unrealistic trade-offs along the lines of extending guarantees to the Syrian regime, exempting it from accountability if the International Tribunal is set up and finds the Syrian regime implicated in the terrorist assassinations in Lebanon.
What we are not sure of, however, is the extent of Israel's determination to sustain and protect the Syrian regime, regardless of the price, as it continues to view it as a key safety-valve.
We also do not know the nature of the deal Israel is seeking to forge with Iran, as both stand to form a historic alliance with their common regional strategic goals. Nevertheless, regardless of the nature of the deal, the US will have to place its interests above Israeli priorities before it is too late. US interests dictate the urgent and just resolution of the Palestinian Cause, liberating the Palestinians from Israeli occupation, and saving them from the Arab or Islamic exploitation of their Cause.
US interests also dictate that it should not succumb to Iran, for this would be a mistake more serious than the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Furthermore, the anger over George W. Bush's policies should not be turned into a dangerous disregard and ignorance of the dangers of the Iranian-Syrian exploitation of the US' mistakes in Iraq and of the Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese for nuclear ambitions and domination to cover up terrorist crimes committed against individuals and States.
The developments so far in the process of establishing an international tribunal to prosecute those involved in the terrorist assassinations in Lebanon is an unprecedented historic event of equally unprecedented proportions. They will impact more than one regime and ideology in the Middle East.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council have agreed on the framework of the Tribunal and its statute. The UN General Assembly also considered the Fouad Siniora government's approval of the document establishing the legitimacy of the Tribunal. In doing so, it has disregarded the attempts by President Emile Lahoud to drag the UN into his suspicious battle to thwart the Tribunal.
All this points to the absurdity of the notions of rehabilitating the Syrian regime and providing it with the means to sign the death warrant of the Tribunal and restore its hegemony over Lebanon in exchange for its cooperation with the US in Iraq.
It is also part of the hype aimed to undermine the confidence in the establishment of the Tribunal, especially since it has taken a number of important legal and political strides. Moreover, it has begun to strike terror in the hearts of those opposed to it, who fear for their existence, as is the case in Damascus; or for alliance reasons, as is the case with Hezbollah; or for strategic alignment reasons, as the case with Tehran.
Discussions over the draft resolution of the Tribunal revealed the extent of the Syrian fear over its creation. The fear was embodied in the political, legal, international and domestic mobilization that strongly attracted attention. It could even be perceived as a self-indictment that precedes the actual legal indictment.
The Syrian government recruited British legal experts to be part of its delegation and exert every possible effort to intimidate the legal department within the UN by making excessive and unreasonable demands for reviewing each and every detail and exerting every effort to influence the process.
The Syrian government also sought to convince Russia to oppose the Tribunal by proposing amendments that were intentionally aimed at thwarting its creation.
For its part, Russia initially tried to convey the Syrian position in the negotiations, but soon realized that the issue at hand is essentially legal in nature, and that the scope for political interference was limited.
However, Russia's political decision to divert the discourse from 'opposition' to 'negotiations' and 'clarification' should, undoubtedly, be perceived as a decision of significant importance that has its indications.
More important is that Russia eventually approved the draft resolution on the Tribunal and its statute without stripping it of its fundamental authorities or hindering it with restrictions. Russia finally approved a Tribunal that would put both commander and subordinate to trial without immunity. Moreover, it approved a trial that is not limited to suspects in the assassination of former head of the Lebanese government, Rafiq al-Hariri and his fellow companions, but also those implicated in 14 counts of systematic assassinations and plots to commit systematic assassinations.
This Russian stance deserves recognition, both in terms of substance as well as timing. Moscow did not resort to stalling or manipulation, but conducted serious, legally-sound negotiations with the UN's legal department.
The legal department, headed by Nicolas Michel, also deserves a great credit for the way it acted, and still acts, in a highly professional approach. It has avoided politicization or being exclusively led by legal considerations.
The progress made in establishing the Tribunal is also a result of significant and remarkable cooperation from China. At the onset, China made it clear that it was on the side of the US, France and Britain, by adopting the text these countries submitted to the legal department, even before the Russian amendments. By doing so, China left Russia with the sole option of cooperating and not obstructing - a critical decision, taking into account the Chinese-Russian alliance within the UN on all files.
French President Jacques Chirac should also be accredited for his determination in discussing the issue of the Tribunal with a heightened sense of urgency, resolve and determination with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.
US President George W. Bush, for his part, brushed aside notions of trade-offs or compromises and gave the go-ahead for arrangements to establish the Tribunal, while Britain backed and still backs the efforts of the Tribunal at all levels. This indicates that the five permanent members have reached an extremely rare consensus, which amounts to a precedent for the Arab region and at international levels. It is a consensus on not allowing political assassination as a means to bring about changes of government to go without accountability or trial.
If the investigation proves the involvement of the Syrian or Israeli leadership in these assassinations, then the leadership will stand trial, and, with it, the entire regime.
What seems striking, however, is that Israel has not lifted a finger to oppose the establishment of an international tribunal. This casts significant doubt on claims of Syria's innocence, as the Israelis would have not left a stone unturned to thwart the establishment of the Tribunal if they were involved.
But this is not the case. The only parties to act in this way are Syria and its allies in Lebanon, led by the President, who has four generals from his security command behind bars on charges of conspiring to assassinate members of his own nation.
Meanwhile, Emile Lahoud is astonishingly nervous, which suggests a sort of self-indictment. His behavior is similar to the attitudes preceding suicide or other actions of the same violent nature. His only hope for safety lies in his deep confidence in his ability to quash the Tribunal, which is becoming like the sword of Damocles over his head and the heads of his likes, depriving them of sleep at night. However, it is anything but a nightmare: it is the reality of tomorrow.
As for the rest of Syria's allies, they have committed great strategic mistakes by pressing for the resignation of their government ministers as soon the government received the draft resolution on the Tribunal statute from the UN. They had counted on the collapse of the government to prevent it from agreeing on the Tribunal.
With this mistake, they committed another act of self-indictment. They revealed their opposition to the Tribunal after pretending to support the establishment of a national unity government in place of the current government.
They exposed themselves even more when they sought to establish an obstructive majority to act as a veto against the decision of the current government, and have exposed themselves even more by their resignations.
These attitudes are not the only proof of the extend of their fear and of the deep rifts within the ranks of the Syrian regime and Hezbollah, but not in the Iranian leadership.
Fear in the heart of the Syrian leadership is obvious, despite the pretense of overwhelming confidence, the need for its assistance in Iraq, and the actual guarantees it enjoys through Israel.
These leaderships are fully aware that the train is on its way. They know that the train carries the Tribunal in it, and that it cannot be stopped, except at some stations, and perhaps through more assassinations.
Syria is the victim of its own actions, whether in Lebanon, in the harm it has done to its position in the Arab World, or in the international consensus that it led to; a consensus that led to resolutions that unanimously condemn it and bar its entry into Lebanon and, consequently, its domination of the Lebanese.
The Syrian leadership's actions in Syria itself are perhaps as bad or even worse that its actions in Lebanon. There was no justification for all the mistakes committed by this leadership as no signs of trade-offs or compromises are looming in the horizon.
The UN and the International Tribunal resolutions have effectively blocked all aspirations to trade-offs. At the same time, the key regional States in the Arab region have stopped thinking of taking Syria away from Iran and bringing it back into the Arab fold.
If Damascus counts on the Arab masses, then it should remember the outcome of the adventure of toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, which was based on the same calculations. The Arab masses are sometimes in a state of total apathy, and sometimes reach a level of intelligence and the ability to judge, which Arab regimes have not yet comprehended - which safeguard them from the exploitation of their leaders.
Iran, for its part, is aware that the appeal to the Arabs of its president, Ahmadinejad, is transitory. Iran also realizes that its alliance with Syria entails major burdens that it would like to throw off.
At this juncture, Iran sees a valuable political asset in Hezbollah, as long as the party remains in the opposition camp, and does not become one of two cases: either a 'legitimate' winner through the victory of its militia in the streets, as it has threatened, or a winner in the government by assuming authority in Lebanon, instead of attempting to obstruct authority.
Hezbollah, however, is incapable of being either. Indeed, the party is beginning to lose its effectiveness and position as an active resistance movement following its adventures across the Lebanese borders, and its violation of Lebanese sovereignty.
Like Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah has its overwhelming appeal for the masses. Its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, is probably fully aware of that appeal, following the ecstasy of victory.
Hezbollah is also content with its position, which enables it to obstruct authority in Lebanon. But it will not be as content at the helm, for Lebanon is a State with many minorities and is not susceptible to the rule of a majority. This is the nature of this country, which has become a sanctuary and home for minorities, and this it is what makes it distinguished and has enabled it to withstand all attempts to recruit domestic elements to execute foreign exploitations.
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah realizes that he will not be able to become the President of the Republic of Lebanon, even if he did transform the country into the 'Islamic Republic of Lebanon', seeing as Lebanon is Iran.
He also knows that even if he prevailed in the street today, he will not be victorious, because tomorrow he will have to rule Lebanon through the militia, and to oppress and kill to maintain his authority. This would be defeat, not victory.
Eventually, Hezbollah's well-known, customary wisdom might prevail over this new defensive outcry that is alien to it. This wisdom would put an end to the fear in the hearts of the Lebanese, regardless of their identity, because intimidation is actually a covert means of deliberately spreading terror and nurturing frustration.
No exchange of the kind being currently promoted will take place. Hope lies in a possible drastic adjustment of US policies in the region as whole, and in a US withdrawal from Iraq that would not double up the bloodshed. If, however, the political decisions of the regional leaderships entail the need of triggering a regional war, then it will be up to others to also fight their own wars.
Until now, at this particular juncture, the Lebanese are sailing toward real independence and democracy at full steam. This merits celebration by the Lebanese, as they won unprecedented support in the cesarean birth of the International Tribunal.
Let the Americans also remember that Lebanon is the doorway to real democracies that are worth encouraging and shielding. Let them determinedly dismiss all notions of trading it off in exchange for an exit from Iraq. Let them remember that Iran is using Lebanon and Syria as commodities to achieve its own aims. It is also using Palestine to stir up Islamic sentiments and nurture feelings of hatred against the US, its interests and troops.
Let the Americans resist the instant impulse to put Iraq, Iran and Syria in one basket and embrace dialogue in the aftermath of war. Let the Americans exert a much-needed effort to invest a little time to understand all the files, one by one.
http://www.raghidadergham.com/