LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
NOVEMBER 20/06
Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to
Saint Mark 13,24-32.
But in those days after that tribulation the sun will be darkened, and the moon
will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from the sky, and the
powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see 'the Son of Man
coming in the clouds' with great power and glory, and then he will send out the
angels and gather (his) elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to
the end of the sky. Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes
tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when
you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say
to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken
place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But of
that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but
only the Father.
Free Opinions & Studies
Envisioning U.S. Talks With Iran and
Syria . By MICHAEL SLACKMAN-The
New York Times 20.11.06
General Michel Aoun's Alliance with Hezbollah: A Bizarre and
Groundless Marriage of Opportunismd.By: Elias
Bejjani-World Forum 20.11.06
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for
November 20/11/06
Siniora's nasty little trick-Ha'aretz
Hezbollah plots its battle for influence-The
Australian
Israeli stocks lower; Africa-Israel, Israel Corp. lower-MarketWatch
Nasrallah tells Hezbollah to prepare for protests
PR for Hezbollah-Ha'aretz, Israel
Siniora's nasty little trick-Ha'aretz, Israel
Time to wheel and deal in Washington-Gulf
News
Envisioning US Talks With Iran and Syria-New
York Times
Report accuses nations of aiding, arming Somalian factions-Houston
Chronicle
Could optical camouflage tech have protected Israeli soldiers-Defense
Review
UNIFIL: 17 Katyushas found in Lebanon since Sept.-Jerusalem
Post
Trusting in Syria a dangerous path-Boston
Herald
Syria wants Golan in return for helping US-The
Sunday Times
Political crisis hits Lebanese PM-Green Left Weekly -
Syria and Iran - Axis of Evil or Brokers of Peace?Independent
- London,England,UK
Hezbollah on the ascent as Lebanon comes unglued-Houston
Chronicle
Mitri represents Lebanon at UN session on Hariri Tribunal-Ya Libnan
Can The Center Hold?TIME - USA
Campus election reflects Lebanon's divisions-Los Angeles Times
Hezbollah leader calls for mass demonstrations-USA
Today
Former Palestinian PM Qurei visits Syria for talks-Jerusalem
Post
Israel calls off air raid after Gaza protest-Washington
Post, United States
Israel welcomes India's 'lost tribe'-Scotsman, United
Kingdom
Israel must create peace, official says-United
Press International
Syria on the Move in Lebanon and Iraq-Arutz Sheva
Syria wants Golan in return for helping US
Hala Jaber and Sarah Baxter -19.11.06
SYRIA is to demand American help in securing the return of the Golan Heights
from Israel as the price of co-operation over Iraq. With the White House under
pressure to talk to its adversary, President Bashar al-Assad has resolved that
his assistance will not be cheap.
Assad has been considering how to respond to an American overture following
reports that the Iraq Study Group will recommend that the United States engage
Syria and Iran in talks on Iraq, a position backed by Tony Blair last week.
The Syrian president wants America and Britain to use their influence with
Israel to raise the return of the Golan Heights, seized by the Israelis in the
1967 war. “It will be the top demand,” said Ayman Abdel Nour, a leading reformer
in the ruling Ba’ath party.
Assad has ruled out co-operating with the Americans in return for the promise of
unspecified benefits. “The Syrian leadership is fed up with the Americans and
does not trust their word when it comes to future aid for Syria,” Abdel Nour
said.
“Syria will not do anything unless it has secured guarantees from Washington and
London that every action Damascus takes to help them will be reciprocated. It
will be a step by step scenario: these actions for those actions,” he added.
Assad also insists that any help must be dependent on a timetable for US troop
withdrawals, a move resisted by President George W Bush.
Shaul Bakhash, an expert on the Middle East at George Mason University,
Washington, said: “Neither Iran nor Syria will do a favour for the US without
wanting something back — and what both countries want are things that the US is
not willing to give them.”
The Syrians believe they are in a position of strength. “Already there is talk
that Syria is the winner and will set the new rules of the game in the region,”
Abdel Nour said.
**Additional reporting: Peter Hall, Damascus
Trusting in Syria a dangerous path
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Even as members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group seem inclined to look toward
Iran and Syria for help in stabilizing Iraq, more information has come to light
casting doubt on whether these two supporters of terrorism can ever change their
ways.
Opponents of the war stress that no weapons of mass destruction were found in
Iraq. They have largely ignored the possibility that Saddam Hussein could have
sent his program to Syria, even though a U.S. Air Force general confirmed
satellite observations of a large truck convoy to Syria before the U.S.
invasion. A former Pentagon official and an Israeli general have advanced
similar reports.
A Kuwaiti newspaper, Al Seyassah, reportedly says Iraqi equipment is now being
used by Syria, at a secret complex near the Turkish and Iraqi borders in a
nuclear program of “medium activity.” Granted this is hearsay. The newspaper
attributed its report to “British security sources in Brussels.” Only last week,
a translation of the Sept. 25 article was posted on the Web by a blogger who
admitted he was not familiar with the newspaper.
The Jerusalem Post called attention to the blog. Syria has helped funnel
jihadists into Iraq and has resorted to murder to try to maintain its clout in
Lebanon. If the Bush administration has not lost its senses, it will not ask
favors of Syria until it finds out the truth about Syria’s nuclear work and
ambitions.
Egypt announced in September that it will begin a nuclear power program.
Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates have now
followed suit. Did they all - including the world’s largest oil producers -
suddenly conclude that they are about to lose access to oil and gas? Unlikely.
The better hypothesis is that they, and Syria, no longer believe the United
States is serious about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and are
determined not to be at the mercy of future Iranian nuclear missiles. This is a
huge change from 2003, when Libya gave up its nuclear program for fear of what
the United States might do if it didn’t. When enemies stop fearing the United
States and others doubt our resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous
place.
UNIFIL: 17 Katyushas found in Lebanon since Sept.
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Since the start of September, only 17 Katyusha rockets have been found in south
Lebanon, a UNIFIL spokesman currently stationed in the region said on Saturday
night. The spokesman added that UNIFIL troops were taking all necessary steps to
prevent the presence of illegal weapons south of the Litani River, as was
outlined in UN Resolution 1701.
Report accuses nations of aiding, arming Somalian factions
Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS — The authors of a controversial U.N. report that accused 10
countries of providing weapons, money and training to rival sides in Somalia
briefed a Security Council committee Friday amid denials and complaints from
many of those named.
The closed-door briefing to the committee monitoring a 1992 arms embargo against
Somalia follows leaks of the report, which raised skepticism among experts and
diplomats about some of its allegations.In particular, critics question the
finding that 720 Somali mercenaries fought alongside Hezbollah in its July
battle with Israel and that Iran shipped arms to Somalia's Islamic militants in
return for access to uranium mines.
Qatar's U.N. ambassador, Nassir Al-Nasser, who chairs the sanctions committee,
said the committee will meet again Tuesday to decide whether to send the report
to the 15-member Security Council with or without a recommendation.
"No doubt this is a very complicated report, and that's why I asked for another
meeting for the committee only," he said.
The four-member panel monitoring the sanctions, which includes a Belgian, an
American, a Kenyan and a Colombian, based the report on their own
investigations, interviews and material supplied by embassies in Nairobi, Kenya.
Several participants at the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity because
the session was closed, said some committee members raised questions about
verifying the information.
The panel found that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Djibouti,
Saudi Arabia, Syria and Uganda had all supported armed groups inside Somalia.
Most of the nations denied the allegations in letters to the panel. Al-Nasser
said that "countries are really very upset" and had complained to him and to the
president of the Security Council.
Political crisis hits Lebanese PM
Doug Lorimer-17 November 2006
The US-backed government of Lebanon’s Sunni Muslim prime minister, Fuad Siniora,
has been thrown into crisis after five Shiite cabinet ministers resigned over
the November 10-11 weekend after Siniora refused to change the makeup of his
government to give more cabinet posts to Hezbollah and its allies.
“The government will go”, Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah told
residents of Beirut’s southern suburbs on November 13. Criticising the Siniora
government’s failure to provide adequate compensation to those who lost their
homes during the massive July-August Israeli bombing campaign, Nasrallah told
the residents they would soon have “a clean-handed government” to oversee
reparations.
Nasrallah made his remarks a day after a sixth cabinet member, environment
minister Yacoub Sarraf, a Christian, resigned. Sarraf said he was unwilling to
participate in a Lebanese government devoid of Shiite representation.
The following day, President Emile Lahoud issued a statement saying Siniora’s
government was not legitimate because Lebanon’s constitution, devised by its
French colonial rulers in the 1940s, states that all of the country’s religious
sects “should be justly represented in the cabinet”.
Of Lebanon’s 18 officially recognised religious communities, Shiite Muslims are
estimated to account for 40% of the country’s 4 million inhabitants, while
Christians and Sunni Muslims each account for around 30%.
Hezbollah has demanded that it and its allies — the most influential of which is
the Christian-based secular nationalist Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) led by
former army chief Michel Aoun — should be given one-third of the 24 cabinet
posts in the Siniora-headed “national unity” government.
“Siniora”, the US McClatchy news service noted on November 14, “came to power at
the head of the anti-Syrian [Sunni-Christian] March 14 movement in elections
more than a year ago, but his grasp on Lebanon has been slipping since last
summer, when Israel, with US support, pummeled Lebanon after Hezbollah kidnapped
two Israeli soldiers …
“ The Siniora administration … was unable to stop Israeli planes from pounding
southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut while Hezbollah fighters fought Israeli
forces to a standstill and won cheers throughout the Arab world.”
The FPM was a key component of last year’s anti-Syrian March 14 coalition, but
in February this year it formed an alliance with Hezbollah. The FPM holds 21
seats in the 128-member Lebanese parliament, while Hezbollah holds 14.
A key aim of this Hezbollah-FPM alliance is reform of the electoral law, long
seen as discriminatory against Shiites.
A poll published on November 13 by the Beirut Centre for Research and
Information (BCRI) found that nearly 60% of Lebanese support the Hezbollah-FPM
opposition bloc. This would translate into 69 parliamentary seats, if an
election were held under the existing electoral law, or up to 79 seats if it was
held under a fairer electoral law.
On November 3, US ambassador Jeffrey Feltman allegedly told Aoun that Hezbollah
“is constantly working on destroying and obliterating Lebanon as well as sowing
chaos”. The Lebanese daily As Safir quoted leading sources in the FPM as saying
that Feltman also slammed the “memorandum of understanding” signed by Hezbollah
and the FPM in February.
According to a survey by the BCRI, 77% of Lebanese Christians approved of the
Hezbollah-FPM memorandum.
Feltman allegedly warned Aoun of “grave consequences” over his alliance with
Hezbollah. The paper reported that the FPM has previously received similar
threats from US officials, who have warned Aoun that unless his party ends its
political alliance with Hezbollah it will be “blacklisted” for “assisting
terrorists”.
Both Israel and the US categorise Hezbollah as a “terrorist organisation”,
because Hezbollah members led the armed resistance to Israel’s illegal 1982-2000
occupation of south Lebanon.
In October 1983, a truck bombing of a Beirut barracks killed 220 US marines and
21 other US military personnel. Although several other Lebanese Shiite militant
groups claimed responsibility for the attack, Washington has accused Hezbollah
of responsibility, even though it did not come into existence as an organisation
until 1985.
Argentine prosecutors have also alleged Hezbollah members, acting on
instructions from Iran, carried out a 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural centre
in Buenos Aires, in which 85 people were killed. Hezbollah and Iran have denied
any responsibility.
The investigations of the bombing were marred by incompetence, current President
Nestor Kirchner calling them a “national disgrace” in 2005. Last month,
Argentine prosecutors formally charged Iran and Hezbollah with the bombing, and
called for the arrest of former Iranian president Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani
and seven other Iranian officials.
Speaking on state radio on October 25, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson
Mohammad Ali Hoseyni said the accusations were intended to divert “world
attention from the perpetration of crimes by the Zionists against women and
children in Palestine”.
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #691 22 November 2006.
Envisioning U.S. Talks With Iran and Syria
Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: November 19, 2006
IN Washington these days, an idea the White House once treated as anathema is
suddenly gaining currency: to sit down and talk directly to Iran and Syria.
Tony Blair is recommending it. The Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and
Lee Hamilton may do so, too. With Iran intent on pursuing its nuclear program
and with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia unable to stabilize the region, there
may be no other choice.
But if the White House chose to talk directly to Iran and Syria, what would
those two want, and what possible areas of agreement could there be?
At the core of any negotiation would be a basic demand: Iran and Syria want some
assurance that their regimes are going to survive. This may seem surprising,
since both have been emboldened by American troubles in Iraq and by their ally
Hezbollah’s success against Israel in Lebanon. And both have seemed to do
everything they can to provoke the United States. But political analysts and
diplomats say Iran’s and Syria’s leaders still share a paramount fear that their
regimes are vulnerable to the unequaled economic and military might of the
United States, strained as it is.
The fears have a basis in history. Iran could not defeat Saddam Hussein’s army
in eight years of war, then watched twice as American tanks rolled up Iraq’s
forces in short campaigns. The post-conquest American difficulties there may
have emboldened Iran’s leaders, but the two invasions remain a lesson. Now Iran
fears the prospect of painful economic sanctions, at American urging, because it
will not halt its nuclear program.
Syria’s leaders are said to worry that an international investigation of the
assassination of a top Lebanese politician will reach high into the Syrian
government and shake the regime.
“The main concern for Iran is that it does not want to change the current power
structure in the country,” said Ahmad Zeidabadi, a political analyst in Tehran.
“It will resist any change.”
So far, the Bush administration has said that it wants to solve the Iranian
nuclear confrontation “diplomatically” and that Syria chose the wrong protector
when it threw itself in with Iran’s mullahs. But it has never offered up the
security assurances it has periodically, if half-heartedly, given North Korea.
And Iran and Syria have noticed.
Nevertheless, even if no grand bargain on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and role
throughout the Middle East is in the making, could there be a moment when both
Iran and Syria might talk seriously with the United States about a smaller range
of issues?
While Iran’s leaders have shown no sign of dropping their antagonism toward the
United States and Israel, they have hinted at willingness to help stabilize
Iraq, and perhaps Afghanistan. After all, preventing a complete disintegration
of Iraq would allay Iranian concern that anarchy could one day cross the border
and, perhaps, incite Iran’s own ethnic minorities (Kurds, for example).
Similarly, holding back Afghanistan’s Taliban would block the re-emergence of an
old Sunni enemy that considers Shiites apostates.
In exchange for cooperation in Afghanistan, of course, the Iranians might expect
the United States to abandon what they see as efforts to interfere in their
domestic affairs. Those include American projects that aim to promote Iranian
democracy (but that Iranian officials say foster instability), as well as the
prospect of sanctions as punishment for Iran’s nuclear program.
Syria feels more vulnerable than Iran now, due to both domestic and
international politics and the reality that its slim reserves of oil will soon
run dry. President Bashar al-Assad has drawn closer to Iran since being isolated
by Washington and its Arab allies. But Syria does not want its confrontation
with the West to bring it more isolation and humiliation, or a loss of
legitimacy at home.
This could happen as a result of a continuing investigation into the murder
nearly two years ago of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. A
United Nations investigation has implicated Syrian officials, and the Security
Council has moved to form a tribunal. That scares the Syrians, and they are
eager to block its inception.
“Syrians think that the U.S. can just call up the U.N. and stop it,” said Andrew
Tabler, a consulting editor for Syria Today magazine in Damascus. “That’s not
going to happen. However, where some room to maneuver does exist is over how
high up the food chain the investigation will go. This is what worries Syria
because this is the primary place it is vulnerable.”
Recently, political analysts say, Syria has shown a degree of willingness to
help stabilize the conflict in Gaza — something the United States wants — and
its officials have repeatedly said the government is willing to hold peace talks
with Israel.
“Syria is quite realistic, if proud and stubborn,” said Joshua Landis, an
assistant professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “It
will accept serious American offers and insist that the problems be dealt with
comprehensively.”
Focusing on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestinian conflict might be a
realistic way for the United States to navigate with Iran and Syria. That is
true partly because the Iranians and Syrians both understand, no matter how
reluctant they are to express it publicly, that the United States can help them
stabilize their regimes and help settle regional problems. “You can’t have a
deal in the Middle East without the Americans, regardless of the judgment we
carry,” said an Arab diplomat who spoke on the condition his name and
nationality not be identified because of the sensitive nature of the topic.
But bolstering those regimes is a lot to ask of the United States.
Why, in fact, do anything to boost the prestige of the Iranian mullahs or the
Assad regime, when that would also risk colliding with the aims of America’s
Mideast allies? When Americans agreed to hold talks with Iran about Iraq — talks
that never went forward — officials in Egypt were furious because it confirmed
their own fears that Iraq was now in Iran’s orbit, and not their own.
The administration’s stated position has been that it will join negotiations
with Iran if Iran first suspends the enrichment of uranium. But the Iranians
have rejected any conditions on the talks. There are also few contacts with the
Syrians, with whom the United States still has diplomatic relations.
The president’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, says that talking
alone “is not a strategy,” and that when it comes to talking about stabilizing
Iraq, the administration must be sure the Iranians and Syrians really feel it is
necessary to do so. But that may not happen soon: As long as the violence stays
inside Iraq, it mainly keeps the Americans pinned down and off balance.
In any event, Mr. Hadley said last week, America would never trade away its
determination to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in return for help in
Iraq.
Nevertheless, diplomatic analysts in Lebanon suggest that this is a good time to
recognize that differences between Iran’s and Syria’s positions that could,
perhaps, be played off against each other.
Take the case of Hezbollah.
While Iran feels that the perceived victory of Hezbollah over Israel in the
summer war boosted its own prestige, it does not want Hezbollah’s rise to plunge
Lebanon into chaos; instead, it wants Hezbollah to consolidate power and help
spread Shiite influence and Iranian ideology. Syria, on the other hand, appears
to want chaos in Lebanon, an environment that could stymie the Hariri murder
investigation.
In the end, though, such differences could count for little in the face of the
far larger antagonisms that have so far kept any talks, even over small issues,
from starting.
One factor is Iran’s reluctance to compromise on ideological issues. Its leaders
define Iran’s revolutionary character largely as anti-American and anti-Israeli,
while the United States is seeking to slow the spread of revolutionary Islam.
“The U.S. and Iran are pursuing different policies in the region,” Mr. Zeidabadi
said. “They might have some common interests. But what is obvious is that Iran
considers its survival in spreading a kind of radical ideological Islam in the
region which the U.S. says is its enemy.”
And whatever their differences with each other, both Syria and Iran distrust the
United States far more.
“A lot has to happen first before we see a grand bargain,” Mr. Tabler said.
Time to wheel and deal in Washington
By Osama Al Sharif, Special to Gulf News
This is a good time to be in Washington D.C. if you're looking to make a deal.
The neocons are licking their wounds in the wake of the midterm election
results.
To their shock and awe, the House will now be headed by a liberal woman Democrat
from San Francisco. The new Speaker-designate, Nancy Pelosi, is anathema to
die-hard Republican conservatives.
But as is the case after most political tremors, the mood is ready for a fresh
round of dealing and wheeling, political jockeying and arm twisting. It's still
very civil in Washington; President George W. Bush and Pelosi stood shoulder to
shoulder and talked about bipartisan cooperation on the Hill to help the
administration find new ways on Iraq and other issues.
But this is the time when the wounded administration is expected to offer free
gifts to the rival party that now controls both houses of Congress.
Within 24 hours of their historic win, the gifts started to hail on the
Democrats. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence and a major architect of the
now botched Iraq war game-plan was the first to go.
Bush did not even wait for the Democrats to claim Rumsfeld's head. The
bellicose, arrogant and scheming man heading the Pentagon had become a stigma
for the Bush administration.
The Democrats, dazed by their landslide victory, will want more offerings. Bush
said he will not sacrifice his top man at the UN, John Bolton, who needs to be
reconfirmed in his position by the Senate.
That seems unlikely now since Bolton represents the boorish face of US foreign
policy and manifests one of its main pillars under Bush: unilateralism. There is
a strong conviction on the Hill that unilateralism has done more damage to
America than good.
Moving quickly
Bush will want to engage the Democrats on policies if he is to avoid becoming a
lame-duck president for the remainder of his second term. That's why he is
moving quickly to address concerns on the Iraq issue. His new secretary of
defence, former CIA director Robert Gates, is a member of the bipartisan Iraq
Study Group, co-chaired by veteran politician James Baker.
Both men's views on Iraq, Iran and Syria have been made public through various
media reports. Such stands negate another pillar of US foreign policy:
interventionism as a tool for regime change.
Sure enough the White House announced this week that the Bush administration
will look into options on Iraq, including talking to Iran and Syria, two
important neighbours of the beleaguered country. That is bad news for the
neoconservative eggheads who once considered Damascus and Tehran rogue states
and members of the "axis of evil".
Apart from Iraq, the special deals season could affect the Palestinian-Israeli
issue. Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quick to visit Washington to make
an assessment of the new mood in the US capital. He was under pressure to find
ways to jump-start the stalled peace process and make Palestinian life a bit
easier.
The Israelis will not be happy to hear about the White House's new position on
Iran and Syria. Any softening of US policy towards two of Israel's arch-enemies
will not be appreciated by Tel Aviv.
The Palestinians have lost most of their political capital in Washington.
Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas may need to find an
excuse to travel to the US capital quickly to shop for an opportunity.
If his own deal with Hamas succeeds and a new national unity government is
formed, then he may be able to get some sort of a commitment from Bush. It is
Bush, after all, who backed Abbas after Yasser Arafat's death and promised to
lean on Israel to fulfil its commitments under the roadmap.
But without Arab support, the Palestinians will not be able to get much out of
the Bush administration at this stage. This will be an opportune time for
America's Arab allies to visit the US capital and pledge their case for a stable
Middle East based on the revival of the peace process. A window of opportunity
exists now, but may not stay open for more than two to three months.
This is also a good time for the Europeans to make true on their promises to
help move things in the embattled region. Bush needs Europe now more than ever
in Iraq, Afghanistan and to get the peace process moving.
The reason why the Bush administration may decide to make a new deal concerning
the Middle East is obvious. Its policies in this part of the world, particularly
since 9/11, have been dismal and futile if not self-defeating.
Bush could still save his presidency and secure his legacy. The Middle East
offers an opportunity to do just that. But he needs Democratic support for any
initiative he may decide to propose.
The timing is favourable, but the Arabs need to rally Washington to create the
momentum and woo the new Congress. Unfortunately they lack a game plan of their
own. They need creative ideas on Iraq, battling extremism and reviving the peace
process.
Most of all they need to speak with one voice in order to have half a chance at
grabbing a decent deal in Washington.
**Osama Al Sharif is a Jordanian journalist based in Amman.