LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
October 21/06

 

Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 12,1-7.
Meanwhile, so many people were crowding together that they were trampling one another underfoot. He began to speak, first to his disciples, "Beware of the leaven--that is, the hypocrisy--of the Pharisees. There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed on the housetops. I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows.

 

Free Opinion

Is Hezbollah Rearming?By: Lee Hudson Teslik -Council on Foreign Relations 21.10.06

Can the 'Celtic Tiger' be a model for Lebanon? By Rory Miller

Has the chance for deal on Iran's nuclear program been missed? By David Ignatius

Aoun ups the ante. By: Lucy Fielder AlAhram Weekly 21.10.06

Berry and the Renewal of the Shiite Role. By: Walid Choucair -Dar Al-Hayat 21.10.06

Analysis: Post-Lebanon IDF is humbler-Jerusalem Post 21.10.06

Coalitions of the unwilling-Economist - UK 21.10.06

Ahmadinejad ups the ante with Europe-Times on Line 21.10.06

Abbas and Haniyya can best serve their people with a different kind of courage -Daily Star 21.10.06
 

 

Latest New from the Daily Star for October 21/06

Research center says fish caught off coast is safe to eat despite oil spill
European Commission grants Lebanon $38 million in relief aid
Council of Catholic Patriarchs calls on Lebanese to 'unify ranks and work together in rebuilding'
American envoy praises government's role in securing 'outpouring of support'
Nasrallah, Fadlallah warn against US efforts to instigate strife among Muslims
Hariri asks Chirac for help in ending Israeli air incursions
Resistance: Only unity Cabinet can end crisis in Beirut
Annan renews call for Hizbullah's disarmament
Russia closes book on claim that Hizbullah used its missiles
Turkish peacekeepers arrive for mission in South

Ahmadinejad warns Europe to stop backing Israel or 'you may get hurt'

EU envoy warns Turkey not to use French genocide bill as excuse to restrict speech

Vatican puts special emphasis on Ramadan message to Muslims

Labor minister says war led to huge jump in number of unemployed

Cluster bombs still taking heavy toll on civilian life

Latest New from miscellaneous sources for October 21/06
Israeli overflights in Lebanon "extremely dangerous," French ...-International Herald Tribune
Annan urges Lebanon to establish diplomatic relations with Syria-Khaleej Times

Annan: Hizbullah is key to peace in Lebanon-Jerusalem Post

Israel, US agree: Not the time for Syria talks-Ha'aretz

Israeli FM says July-August war with Hezbollah changes rule of ...-People's Daily Online

Olmert calls on Siniora to meet-Israel Today

Lebanon snubs Olmert talks offer-Peninsula On-line

Annan presses Lebanon on disarming Hezbollah-Reuters

Israel Says Beirut Controls Southern Lebanon-Arutz Sheva

Lebanon mines 'continue to kill'-BBC News

Hezbollah Takes Advantage of Porous US-Mexican Border-John Birch Society

Hezbollah fired cluster rockets-Times Online

Rights group says Hezbollah used cluster bombs in Mideast conflict-JURIST

Israel military probes war 'leaks', press protests-Reuters

US Official In Lebanon To Discuss Reconstruction-All Headline News

'UNIFIL may open fire on IAF planes over Lebanon'Jerusalem Post

Iraq: Mortar attack targets Baghdad Palestinians-Reuters

Turkish peacekeepers arrive in Beirut-USA Today

Turkish troops land in Lebanon to join UNIFIL-Reuters.uk

Gangs of Russian GRU Terrorists Illegally Deployed in Lebanon-Kavkaz Center

Sheridan hits out at Israel on Lebanon visit-The Herald

Israel says Lebanese ceasefire violations necessitate military--Asharq Alawsat

Lebanon: Way-Station to Peace and War-Middle East Online

HM grants $50m in aid to Lebanon-Times of Oman

EU grants Lebanon 30 million euros-Raw Story

Israel Defends Spy Flights Over Lebanon-CNSNews.com

 

Council of Catholic Patriarchs calls on Lebanese to 'unify ranks and work together in rebuilding'
Daily Star staff-Saturday, October 21, 2006
BEIRUT: The Council of Catholic Patriarchs of the Orient has urged the Lebanese people to promote unity and cooperate in rebuilding their war-stricken country. The council closed its 16th conference on Friday with a statement that tackled problem areas including Iraq and the Occupied Territories.
The conference kicked off in the Kesrouan town of Bzoummar on Monday. Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir was on hand for the meeting.
"We hope that the Lebanese will unify ranks and work together in rebuilding what has been destroyed in order to regain their normal life," the statement said. The Council also urged the "Palestinian and Israeli peoples to deploy all efforts to reach a fair and lasting peace."
Emphasizing the need to promote unity among Christians in the region and promote dialogue among religions,the patriarchs' council "expressed its solidarity with the Islamic world in its efforts to consolidate peace and eradicate violence." - The Daily Star

Annan renews call for Hizbullah's disarmament
Daily Star staff
Saturday, October 21, 2006
BEIRUT: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has once more called for the disarmament of Hizbullah and the resistance group's transformation into a purely political party. The outgoing UN chief's comments came in his fourth semi-annual report to the UN Security Council on the implementation of Resolution 1559, handed in late Thursday night. "The eventual disarmament of Hizbullah, in the sense of the completion of its transformation into a solely political party ... is a key element in ensuring a permanent end of the hostilities and a critical provision to be realized in the implementation of Resolution 1701 and in the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence," Annan wrote. However, Annan reiterated that such measures should be done through dialogue. "I continue to believe that disarmament must take place through a political process that will lead to the full restoration of the authority of the government of Lebanon," he said. A Hizbullah official contacted by The Daily Star said the party had no comment on the report at this time. The secretary general, whose term is set to expire in December, said Hizbullah continues to "limit the authority" of the government, "especially in areas close to the [UN-demarcated] Blue Line."
Annan added that his dialogue with several states to secure the disarmament of Hizbullah and other non-Lebanese militia in Lebanon was ongoing.
"I expect to continue my dialogue with such parties, in particular with the governments of Syria and of Iran, which maintain close relations with Hizbullah," he said. "Against this background, I wish to reiterate my call on all parties with the ability to influence Hizbullah to support its transformation into a solely political party," he added. Annan said he had "taken note" of recent comments by Hizbullah's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, that the resistance would not hold onto its weapons indefinitely. Also noted was the fact that an agreement reached during Lebanon's national dialogue concerning the need to disarm Palestinian militias outside of the country's officially designated refugee camps "has not been implemented within the six-month deadline, which ended on August 26." "I continue to believe that the imposition of an arms embargo, which is fully consistent with the Lebanese Cabinet's decision of July 27 that there shall be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state, is a necessary measure given the history of arms traffic bound for Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," Annan said.
"I also emphasized the need for Syria, in particular, to help enforce the provisions of Resolution 1701, given that it shares the sole land border with Lebanon generally open to traffic," he added. Without naming names, Annan said that some countries are continuing to ship weapons into Lebanon.
"It is important that all neighboring states abide by the arms embargo as called for in Resolution 1701," he said, highlighting repeated reports of intercepted weapons shipments since the implementation of the August 14 cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hizbullah.
Annan further called on Syria to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, which he said "would significantly contribute to the stability of the region."
Annan said he had received "assurances" from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of Damascus' desire for a reconciliation process between the two countries "based on an agreed action agenda, which would eventually lead to the establishment of full diplomatic relations."
But in a sign that relations remained strained, Annan said: "The government of Lebanon has informed me that Syrian border police maintained sand barriers and positions inside Lebanese territory in several locations during the last six months ... The apparent uncertainty over the border in the areas concerned highlights, once again, the need for a comprehensive border delineation agreement between Lebanon and Syria, in the best interest of both countries."
Turning his attention to Lebanon's other contested border, Annan called for an end to Israel's "provocative" behavior. "Persistent and provocative Israeli air incursions, occasionally reaching deep into Lebanese airspace and generating sonic booms over populated areas, continued to be a matter of serious concern," he said. "Israeli overflights have also continued since the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hizbullah," Annan said.
"I expect that such air incursions and violations of Lebanese sovereignty, which stand in contradiction to resolutions 425 (1978) and 1559, as well as Resolution 1701 itself, will cease fully." - The Daily Star

Vatican puts special emphasis on Ramadan message to Muslims
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Saturday, October 21, 2006
A top Vatican cardinal said on Friday that the credibility of Christianity and Islam are at risk if believers do not make a stand against terrorism. In a greeting to Muslims at the end of their annual Ramadan fast, the Vatican's head of inter-religious dialogue said the world needed "Christians and Muslims who respect and value each other." Cardinal Paul Poupard said the two faiths, which "give great importance to love, compassion and solidarity," had to fight the "particularly painful scourge" of violence and terrorism. "Without doubt, the credibility of religions and also the credibility of our religious leaders and all believers is at stake," his message said. "If we do not play our part as believers, many will question the usefulness of religion and the integrity of all men and women who bow down before God." Meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak questioned on Thursday whether Muslims had done enough to change the West's "wrong perceptions" about Islam, which he said was under "ferocious attack."He also said Islam needed a fresh religious discourse to promote tolerance and uproot extremist views. "The Muslim world is facing a ferocious attack, describing Islam wrongly and offending Muslims' sacred [symbols and figures] and beliefs," Mubarak said in a speech marking Lailat al-Qadr, the night Muslims believe God started the revelation of the Koran to the Prophet Mohammad over 1,400 years ago. "Don't we Muslims share part of the responsibility for the wrong perceptions about Islam?" he asked. "Have we done our duty in correcting the image of Islam and Muslims?"  Mubarak attributed the decline in Muslim civilization to the decline in the role of independent reasoning in theology and law. "Isn't it the time for a new religious discourse, that teaches people the correct things in their religion ... and promotes the values of tolerance against those of extremism and radicalism?" he said. Uproar swept through the Muslim world after controversial remarks in September by Pope Benedict in which he quoted a 14th-century Byzantine Emperor accused the Prophet Mohammad of ordering that Islam be spread by the sword. - Agencies

Israeli overflights in Lebanon "extremely dangerous," French defense minister says
The Associated Press
Published: October 20, 2006
UNITED NATIONS Israeli overflights of Lebanese air space are "extremely dangerous" because French-led U.N. peacekeepers on the ground could see them as hostile acts and fire in self-defense, France's defense minister said Friday. French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told a news conference that the violations of Lebanese air space could give others an excuse not to obey a cease-fire imposed by the U.N. Security Council to end this summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah. "I remind that the violations of the airspace are extremely dangerous," Alliot-Marie said. "They are dangerous first because they may be felt as hostile by forces of the coalition that could be brought to retaliate in cases of self defense and it would be a very serious incident." Israel contends its overflights do not contradict U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which included the cease-fire that brought an end to 34 days of fighting between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas on Aug. 14. The resolution calls for both sides to respect the U.N. boundary known as the Blue Line drawn by the U.N. after Israel ended its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000. On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz told a parliamentary committee on Monday that French peacekeepers in Lebanon have warned Israel that their jets may not remain immune if they continue to violate Lebanese airspace. Alliot-Marie was explicit that the overflights were violations that must stop. She said they are not in Israel's interest because they "could be used as pretexts for some people so that these people themselves don't enforce the resolution." The defense minister spoke a day after French Maj. Gen. Alain Pellegrini, who leads the U.N. peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, said the overflights are a major concern and a clear violation of the resolution. France has deployed anti-aircraft missiles in southern Lebanon, and at the moment they can only be used for self-defense for French soldiers serving in the U.N. force.

Can the 'Celtic Tiger' be a model for Lebanon?
By Rory Miller -Commentary by
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Over the past decade, Ireland's economic transformation from one of the poorest and least-developed countries in Europe into the fabled "Celtic Tiger" has been held up in Lebanon, as it has across the globe, as something to be envied and, where possible, emulated.
In a keynote address to the "Toward e-Lebanon" conference in Beirut in June 2003, Nasser Saidi, then first vice governor of the Lebanese Central Bank, expressed his vision that "Lebanon should become the Ireland of the Middle East," a view reiterated often in the pages of The Daily Star, which last year argued that Ireland provides "a path for Lebanon's economic rebirth." All this is true, but only up to a point.
The first positive lesson Lebanon can take from the Irish experience is that it is vital to reduce red tape and bureaucracy across the economy. Ireland has excelled in establishing flexible business practices, and the government, with the support of trade unions and employers, has made the promotion of a competitive enterprise environment a key priority of its economic strategy. Ireland's success in modernizing its tax system - both its decision to offer low corporate taxes to inward investors and its use of tax revenues to fund development - is also something Lebanon can learn form. Indeed, a few years back a five-man international committee appointed by the Lebanese Finance Ministry to advise on tax cited Ireland as a case of good practice in this area.
More than anything else, the Irish economic "miracle" has shown just how important both flexible business practices and a competitive tax system are to attracting foreign direct investment (FDI).A June 2004 report by the European Equity and Venture Capital Association rated Ireland as one of the three most attractive EU economies for investment precisely because of its success in these areas. But even this glowing report fails to draw attention to just how successful Ireland has been in attracting investment from abroad. By 2000, 40 percent of all US "green-field" investment into Europe went to Ireland. By 2003, US investment in Ireland was more than two-and-a-half times greater than investment in China. Indeed, over 40 percent of all US overseas software investment has gone to Ireland, while over 300 US entities have been licensed to trade in the Irish Financial Services Center in Dublin.
Given such impressive statistics, it is hardly surprisingly that Ireland was one of the countries studied at the May 2006 conference on technology development in Lebanon, held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the United States. Among the speakers at this event was John Cullinane, an American hi-tech pioneer who has extensive knowledge of the Irish economy and has promoted peace through jobs and economic development both in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East.
Cullinane urged the audience to follow the Irish model of offering a sophisticated and low-cost communications infrastructure - built around call centers and back-office support - which will in turn attract multi-nationals looking to invest abroad.
The FDI that has poured into Ireland on the back of the strategy underlined by Cullinane has undoubtedly played a key role in ending the chronic unemployment that plagued the country for centuries. It has also provided a base for broader growth across the economy. But it also leaves you very vulnerable to the whims of foreign multi-nationals which could abandon the country at any time for cheaper locations.
Moreover, the Irish success in attracting companies like Intel, Microsoft, Google and Dell has done little to encourage the establishment of indigenous world-beating innovative companies. Domestic expenditure on research and development remains low, and Ireland has one of the worst records among developed countries in terms of Internet use and registering patents.
Even in those areas where it leads the way in Europe, the common perceptions are misleading. For example, Ireland may be the second-richest country in the EU on the basis of per capita GDP, (all output produced in Ireland), but on the basis of GNP (output produced by the Irish) its wealth is merely average. In considering the relevance of the Irish experience to Lebanon, one must also remember that the Irish success in attracting FDI has been predicated on the political stability brought about by the Northern Irish peace process that started in 1998. As one leading Irish economist recently put it there would have been "no growth without peace." This summer's conflict highlights just how far Lebanon is from achieving a similar level of political stability. While Ireland has also had the advantage of over three decades of EU membership, which has not only made it increasingly attractive to investors wanting a base in Europe, but has provided the country with billions in aid that was funnelled into developing the nation's infrastructure and facilitating economic growth. It is also true, however, that a number of other EU member states have received similar levels of EU funding to Ireland over the last few decades yet have failed to match its economic success. Where the Irish have differed is their deep understanding of the benefits that globalization can offer a small, peripheral country tapped into the knowledge economy. Hence the fact that between 2001 and 2005, Ireland has come first three times, second once, and third once in the A.T Kearney/Foreign Policy Institute Globalization Index, which ranks political, economic, personal and technological globalization in 62 countries.Despite its weaknesses, the economic model adopted by Ireland has been a success and as such offers hope to Lebanon over what a small country with few natural resources and almost no industrial base achieve. Though there is, of course, one ingredient that of can never be replicated and that's the luck of the Irish. **Rory Miller is senior lecturer in Mediterranean Studies at King's College, London and editor of 'Ireland and the Middle East: The Politics of Trade, Diplomacy and Peace,' to be published by Irish Academic Press in 2007. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Hezbollah fired cluster rockets
By Richard Beeston
Hezbollah fired scores of cluster rockets into northern Israel this summer, raising fears that the use of the indiscriminate weapon is spreading.
According to a report by Human Rights Watch, one Israeli civilian was killed and a dozen were injured after Hezbollah rained cluster rockets down on villages near Haifa. The rockets are believed to have been supplied to Hezbollah by Syria or Iran. Israeli police believe that 113 of the projectiles landed in northern Israel during the conflict. Israel’s use of cluster bombs has been criticised by governments and human rights groups. The Israelis are accused of carpeting areas of southern Lebanon with one million bomblets. Many failed to explode and 20 people have since been killed when they were detonated accidentally. Although the weapons were designed to be used against massed infantry and armour, in Iraq, Kosovo, Lebanon, Afghanistan and now Israel they have been dropped on mainly civilian areas. Britain, America, China and Russia are likely to oppose any restrictions on the use of cluster weapons.

Hezbollah Takes Advantage of Porous U.S.-Mexican Border
By Gary Benoit
Published: 2006-
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Members of the Middle Eastern terrorist group Hezbollah have already entered the United States via our porous Southwest border, warns a congressional subcommittee report.Follow this link to the source article: "Homeland Security Report Confirms Hezbollah "Has Already" Entered Through Porous Mexico-U.S. Border"
COMMENTARY:
According to a new report released by the Subcommittee on Investigation of the House Committee on Homeland Security, "there is an ever-present threat of terrorist infiltration over the Southwest border." The report, entitled "A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border," confirmed that "aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States" and that "Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border."Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) observed that the congressional subcommittee report "confirms once again what the American people have known for years — that our porous borders are a welcome mat for terrorists" in an October 17 press release. True enough — but it does not have to be that way of course. American soldiers guard the borders of Iraq while other American soldiers attempt to secure the interior of that tragic land. They are there, we are told repeatedly, to win the war against terrorism. Meanwhile, back on the Home Front, our own borders are left so unprotected that a U.S. congressman is able to describe them accurately as "a welcome mat for terrorists."

Annan presses Lebanon on disarming Hezbollah
Thu Oct 19, 2006
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the Lebanese authorities on Thursday to take a lesson from the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah and quickly agree on a plan for disarming Hezbollah.
Hezbollah's transformation into a purely political party "is a key element in ensuring a permanent end of hostilities and in the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence," Annan said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. "It is my deep hope that the opportunities borne from conflict will be seized upon and that Lebanon may once again rise from the ashes of destruction and war," he said. Annan's report also renewed pleas that Lebanon and Syria establish full diplomatic relations with each other and work together to mark out their shared border.
He was reporting on progress in implementing a September 2004 council resolution that called on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to disarm all militias on its territory so the Beirut government could control all its territory. There has been "considerable progress" over the past two years in fulfilling the resolution, Annan said. But the 34-day war that ended in an August 14 cease-fire has left Lebanon tense and facing huge challenges to rebuild itself and its shaken economy and political system, he said.
Damascus, which entered Lebanon in 1976 to put down a civil war, pulled its troops out in April 2005 after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, which triggered mass anti-Syrian demonstrations. Many Lebanese blamed the killing on Syria but Damascus has denied any role and a U.N. investigation is continuing. Hezbollah's armed presence in southern Lebanon is linked directly to a controversy over the border between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights. The Lebanese remain deeply divided over its disarmament.
The guerrilla group, which also holds seats in parliament and cabinet posts, maintains it provides resistance in a strip of the Golan Heights known as the Shebaa farms. The United Nations says Shebaa is part of Syria but Syria and Lebanon say it belongs to Lebanon. Annan has urged the two to work out a change if they wish, which they have not done. Syria and Lebanon have not had full diplomatic ties since Western powers carved the two states out of the remnants of the Ottoman empire in 1920. Annan said he is working to expedite the matter.

Israel Says Beirut Controls Southern Lebanon
06:13 Oct 20, '06 / 28 Tishrei 5767
(IsraelNN.com) Israel's United Nations Ambassador Dan Gillerman told the U.N. Security Council Thursday that the Israeli-Lebanon border has stabilized and that Beirut is in control. However, he warned that "success...cannot be prematurely declared.""Today, there is one, unequivocal address in Lebanon, and it is the government of Lebanon," Gillerman told the 15-nation council, which convened to discuss the Middle East. He added that Hizbullah terrorists are re-arming by smuggling weapons from Syria.

Lebanon mines 'continue to kill'
BBC: The UN has criticised Israel's use of cluster bombs
Landmines and cluster munitions are continuing to kill and injure between three and four civilians in Lebanon each day, a campaign group has said.
Landmine Action is calling for an international ban on the weapons. The UN estimates that there may be as many as one million unexploded cluster bomblets in south Lebanon, fired by Israel during the month-long conflict. US-based group Human Rights Watch says Hezbollah also used cluster bombs, a claim rejected by a Hezbollah MP. Hassan Hoballah told the BBC the accusations were false. "We did not use these bombs. We don't have them. And we reject the use of these bombs anywhere in the world because they hurt civilians, especially when dropped on residential areas. Our stance is consistent. It can never change," he said. Cluster munitions are packed with dozens of bomblets which scatter across large areas, often failing to detonate.
A third of those killed or injured by the bombs in Lebanon are children.
"There is no current law specifically on cluster bombs," the director of Landmine Action, Simon Conway, told the BBC news website.
"It is an indiscriminate weapon that serves no military objectives. "They are a relic of the cold war, designed for conflict on an industrial scale on the central European plain and the Korean peninsula. That war never happened. Instead we fight wars amongst the people and if by our choice of weapons we kill large numbers of innocent civilians we will not achieve our political objectives." Israel insists that the munitions it uses in conflict comply with international law and says it is being unfairly singled out while the same munitions have been used for years by Western countries.
Small harvests Pressure group Human Rights Watch says it has found evidence that cluster bombs were also used by Hezbollah militants during the conflict. It says the spread to such non-state actors is worrying because it could indicate that the use of the weapon is proliferating.
Although the weapon, unlike anti-personnel mines, is legal, its indiscriminate and excessive use is not.
In South Lebanon, the BBC's Kim Ghattas describes how unexploded bomblets litter the ground, hang from trees and remain half-hidden beneath the soil.
Activists say that their size and shape - often similar to a can of drink - can make them particularly attractive to children.
Landmine Action says 35% of those killed or injured in South Lebanon are under the age of 18.
It warns that the presence of the bombs across agricultural land, as well as in residential areas, is hampering a return to farming activities for many Lebanese, forcing them to abandon harvests.

Annan urges Lebanon to establish diplomatic relations with Syria
(AP)20 October 2006
UNITED NATIONS - Lebanon should seize the opportunity resulting from the end of this summer’s Israel-Hezbollah conflict by establishing diplomatic relations with Syria and resolving the dispute over Chebaa Farms, the plot of land along its border with Israel and Syria, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a report.The report released Thursday said that Hezbollah, the militia that dominates Lebanon’s south, must become solely a political party to ensure that fighting ends for good and Lebanon’s full sovereignty is restored. The document was assessing the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, which called for Syria to withdraw all military forces from Lebanon and sought the disarmament of all militias in the country. It also called for Lebanon to take full control over its territory. Annan said that while the first of those demands had been fulfilled, the others had not. He said that since the summer war, sparked when Hezbollah crossed the Lebanese border with Israel and captured two soldiers on July 12, Lebanon has suffered a severe setback.’Instead of making further strides toward completing its political transformation and reaping the economic rewards of political progress, Lebanon confronts challenges of a magnitude unseen since the end of the civil war’ of 1975-90, Annan said.
Annan wrote that the United Nations is committed to supporting Lebanon, and that one way to promote peace in the region would be to establish full diplomatic relations with Syria. It should also resolve the dispute over Chebaa Farms, which was captured by Israel when its forces seized Syria’s Golan Heights in the 1967 Middle East war. The United Nations determined that the area is Syrian, and that Syria and Israel should negotiate its fate. But Lebanon claims the Chebaa Farms _ a claim backed by Syria _ and Hezbollah continues to fight over the disputed land, arguing that Israel’s occupation justifies its resistance.’ It is my deep hope that the opportunities borne from the conflict will be seized upon and that Lebanon may once again rise from the ashes of destruction and war,’ Annan wrote. The UN Security Council passed resolution 1559 in September 2004, and has struggled since to get Syria, Lebanon and Hezbollah to implement its main provisions. The withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanese territory occurred only after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a longtime opponent of Syria, provoked an outcry that eventually forced Syria to relent.
Many governments, including the United States and Britain, have accused Syria and Iran of helping finance armed groups in Lebanon.
At an open Security Council meeeting on the Middle East on Thursday, Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari claimed his government had moved many of its guards from the Iraqi to the Lebanese border. He also claimed that electronic devices Syria had requested from Europe to help monitor the boundary had not arrived.

Annan: Hizbullah is key to peace in Lebanon
By JPOST.COM STAFF
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said Thursday night that Hizbullah must become a purely political organization in order to preserve the stability and sovereignty of Lebanon. According to Annan, such a change by the militant Shiite group would play a key role in putting an end to conflicts in the region and bringing lasting peace to Lebanon. Annan also called on Lebanon and Syria to establish full diplomatic relations and resolve border disputes. Annan made the comments came in a report on the implementation of UN Resolution 1559, drafted two years ago. The resolution called on Syria to withdraw all its forces from Lebanon and Lebanon to disarm all militias. Annan reported that significant progress had been made in implementing the resolution, and remarked that Lebanon ought to make use of the opportunities for peace created in the wake of the last war.

Israel, U.S. agree: Not the time for Syria talks
By Shmuel Rosner
WASHINGTON - A few short weeks ago, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter told Army Radio, with regard to talks with Syria, that "if it turned out that there was someone to talk to and something to talk about, the idea would be right." On Tuesday, however, after his meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Dichter sounded somewhat different. He was for talks "in principle," but at the same time presented three conditions amazingly similar to the unbending American ones: the need for the closing down of the terror organizations in Damascus, for cessation of support for Hezbollah and of intervention in Lebanon, and prevention of the entry of terrorists into Iraq from Syria. On the third point, Dichter revealed another element: as long as the U.S. saw a problem with the Syrian channel, "Israel could not ignore it." The U.S. does indeed see a problem, even a few problems, when it comes to the possibility of talks between Israel and Syria. In the continued approaches by President Bashar Assad, they see a clumsy attempt to escape the siege they have instituted, and perhaps also to escape the possible implications of the Rafik Hariri murder investigation. The U.S. is thus not interested in seeing Israel and Syria move ahead with a separate channel. An administration official who recently described possible developments did not discount the possibility of an attempt to talk to the Syrians in the coming months. But the administration's stand is that dialogue with Syria should be coordinated with all those involved. The Americans, he said, wanted talks to take place in such a way that their concerns would be addressed as well.
In any case, most American officials dealing with the Syrian channel say they don't believe the Syrians are sincere. Syria's rulers say one thing to the European media and another to the Syrian press, the assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, David Welch, warned a few weeks ago. Welch called the Syrian position on negotiations "confusing."
Martin Indyk, who held Hadley's job in the Clinton administration and is very familiar with the details of previous talks with the Syrians, said Tuesday he also doubted that Assad was serious. In Israel, too, Assad is not seen has having met any test of seriousness of intentions.
Both the Israelis and the Americans understand the problematic nature of refusing to negotiate. Dennis Ross, former chief Middle East negotiator, said yesterday that the Syrians' true intentions must be understood. Indyk says Israel must examine the seriousness of the intentions of any Arab leader who says he wants peace. On the other hand, as one Israeli official put it, "the days are over in which every meeting with an Arab leader in a closed room is a reason for excitement." The administration also believes that the meeting is not the important thing, since the basis for agreement has existed for a decade.
So why did Israel choose not to negotiate, and why does the U.S. now oppose talks? The administration has been placing emphasis lately on "strengthening the moderates" among the Sunni Arabs against the Iran-led Shi'ite axis. This position was one of the central messages in the speech President George W. Bush gave at the United Nations in September, and Rice's trip to the Middle East two weeks ago had a similar theme. Syria has chosen to link to Iran and Hezbollah, and negotiating with it will serve the wrong side. Strategically, Indyk said, there is good reason to oppose talks with Assad. The administration is also concerned that moving ahead with the Syrians will hold back progress on the Palestinian channel, because it will prove once again that "irresponsible behavior" like Assad's brings about better results than "responsible" conduct like that of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Both Ross and Indyk, both of whom are more experienced than any other American in these issues, agree that moving ahead on both channels simultaneously is impossible, both politically and diplomatically.
The administration believes that the Syrians are busy right now trying to prove that they are "a key factor" to stability in the region, but Ross and Indyk believe this is not the case. Progress on the Palestinian front, they say, will bear more significant fruit.
The U.S. was very clear with Israel: Now is not the time, this is not the way. If negotiations with the Syrians are to take place, they must not only solve the problem of Israel's northern border and the Palestinian terror headquarters, but also persuade the U.S. that Syria has finally released Lebanon from its grasp and will also assist in rehabilitating its neighbor, Iraq. On the matter of Lebanon, the State Department's Welch noted drily two weeks ago that Syria is the only Arab country that still does not have diplomatic relations with Lebanon.
Was American opposition the main reason Olmert decided to spurn Syria's outstretched hand? Indyk believes that is the case, despite denials by Israeli officials. The Israeli position was similar to the American one from the outset, they say, and Israel was never dictated to. However one Israeli diplomat conceded that the U.S. position "must be taken into consideration." In any case, leaders from a number of Arab and European countries, in talks with Americans and Israelis, have shown no special enthusiasm for the opening of the Syrian channel, for similar reasons.
 

Olmert calls on Siniora to meet
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took the opportunity during his speech at the opening ceremony of the Knesset’s winter session on Monday to invite Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to meet with him directly and without any mediators to talk about peace between the two nations.
Siniora was quick to reject the offer and responded by saying that “Lebanon will be the last Arab country to sign a peace agreement with Israel.”
During his speech Olmert also referred to the peace signals coming from Syrian President Bashar Assad and said that Israel wants peace with Syria but it will not negotiate with a leader like Assad who supports terrorism and hosts the headquarters of terrorist organizations.
As to the Palestinians, Olmert said he is intending to take advantage of every opportunity to renew negotiations with the Palestinians and called on Palestinian President Abu Mazen to meet with him as soon as possible. Olmert also announced his wish to act towards changing the system of government in Israel and to adopt a constitution. In addition, Olmert said he is working on expanding the coalition. He also said he will do everything in his power to bring back the kidnapped soldiers.

Lebanon snubs Olmert talks offer
Web posted at: 10/17/2006 8:6:38
Source ::: AFP
BEIRUT / JERUSALEM • Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora snubbed an invitation from his Israeli counterpart Ehud Olmert yesterday to hold peace talks, two months after a ceasefire in a war between their neighbouring states. “Real peace resides in Israel accepting the Arab peace initiative, promoted at the time by prince (now King) Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and agreed to at the Arab League summit held in Beirut,” said a statement from Siniora’s office. “The prime minister has already said more than once that Lebanon will be the last Arab country to sign a peace deal with Israel,” it said, without referring directly to Olmert’s offer. The 2002 Saudi peace initiative said all Arab countries would recognise Israel and sign a peace deal if it withdrew from land captured during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. It was backed by the Arab League at a summit in Beirut in 2003.
“I call on Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to meet with me to establish peace between us and Lebanon,” Olmert told the opening session of Israel’s parliament earlier yesterday. The Jewish state launched a massive military offensive on Lebanon’s Hezbollah on July 12, after the Shi’ite group’s guerrillas seized two soldiers and killed eight others in cross-border raids. The war ended on August 14 under a UN-brokered ceasefire, after fighting had killed 1,287 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 162 people in Israel, mostly soldiers. Israel and Lebanon have not had official relations since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. In mid-September, Siniora ruled out any contact with Israel. “There is no contact and no possibility at all for contact with Israel ... The last war proved that Israel cannot be trusted,” he said.
Ehud Olmert reached out yesterday to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, reiterating a readiness to negotiate peace with the two leaders. Olmert, weakened by Israel’s war in Lebanon and forced to shelve promises to withdraw from the occupied West Bank, also said he would meet the US president in November, in part to turn the screws on arch-enemy Iran.
“I am ready to meet with him (Abbas) immediately if he wants to talk about the roadmap,” Olmert told the Knesset at the opening of its winter session, reiterating frequent calls in recent weeks to meet the Palestinian leader. The roadmap has stalled ever since its 2003 launch. Drafted by the European Union, Russia, United Nations and United States, the blueprint envisions an independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel.Abbas, who has proved unable to persuade ruling Islamist movement Hamas to accept international demands to recognise Israel, has repeatedly said he is willing to meet Olmert provided such talks are well-prepared in order to achieve results. Only on Sunday, however, Olmert said efforts to set up a meeting with Abbas, whom he last met informally in June, were at a dead end because the Palestinian president conditioned such talks on the release of prisoners.
Olmert drew a distinction between Abbas and Hamas, which Israel and the West boycott as a terrorist organisation, saying his willingness to meet the president did not mean the Jewish state was softening toward the Islamists. “As long as Hamas does not recognise Israel, past agreements and does not act to end terrorism, we will not engage with it in dialogue. We will not renounce these conditions,” Olmert told parliament.
Fixing his attention on chief ally the United States, Olmert told MPs he would meet US President George W Bush in November, without setting a specific date, in part to discuss Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme. “The Iranian nuclear menace is an existential menace for Israel, for world peace,” Olmert declared on the eve of leaving for a three-day visit to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A government official said that Olmert will be travelling to the United States on November 13 for meetings with Bush and administration officials.

Is Hezbollah Rearming?
A Syrian commercial vehicle rumbles across the Lebanon border along a possible smuggling route for Hezbollah. (AP/Kevork Djansezian)
October 19, 2006
Prepared by: Lee Hudson Teslik
Even as the Israeli Defense Forces backed out of Lebanon this month, in accordance with an August 11 UN-brokered ceasefire agreement, there were murmurings that Hezbollah might not be honoring its end of the bargain. Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the monthlong conflict this summer, called for the group to disarm and for an immediate cessation of weapons shipments from Syria and Iran—terms which Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, nominally accepted at the time of the agreement. But just this week, tensions heightened after accusations that Hezbollah may be attempting to rearm. This may foreshadow what CFR President Richard N. Haass, writing in Foreign Affairs, describes as a “New Middle East,” in which “outside actors have relatively modest impact and local forces enjoy the upper hand."
On October 15, Israeli General Yossi Baidatz reported to the country’s defense minister that there was “unequivocal proof” (Haaretz) of ongoing weapons smuggling from Syria. Syria’s President Bashar Assad has not denied that arms smuggling still takes place between the countries, but said in a recent interview with the Kuwaiti paper al-Anba that smuggling occurs in all directions, and is beyond the control of Syria’s government. “The smuggling comes from Iraq, Lebanon, and all over the place,” Assad said. “It cannot be stopped.” The Lebanese army has taken a tougher line (AFP) on Baidatz’s statements, saying the northern Lebanese border has been under strict surveillance and that no smuggling has taken place.
Now some experts worry a flare-up between Israel and Syria could undermine the work of UN peacekeepers and the baby steps of progress made since August. Samuel Lewis and Edward S. Walker Jr., two former U.S. ambassadors to Israel, write in the Boston Globe, “Hezbollah’s rearmament could reignite the conflict with Israel and jeopardize UN Security Council Resolution 1701.” This echoed John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, who made similar comments in August. “If the international community applies only a temporary band-aid solution to the problem and allows Hezbollah to regroup and rearm, then the suffering of the people of Lebanon and Israel may very well intensify in the near future,” Bolton said.
Experts say reverberations from the current dispute could undermine the UN’s authority in the region. The UN mission in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, had stationed more than 5,700 troops as of October 13, under the control of a French force commander, Gen. Alain Pellegrini. The force has come under increasing criticism from within Lebanon in recent days. On October 17, Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon’s most senior Shiite cleric, said Lebanese were right to be wary (Daily Star) of UNIFIL’s authority, saying the force had “come here to protect Israel, not Lebanon.” Nasrallah’s remarks are blunter. At a recent rally, he warned the UN not to spy (LAT) on “the resistance,” and declared, “No army in the world is capable of forcing us to give up our weapons.” As UN troops work to stabilize one of the most fragile regions of the world, these are unwelcome signs indeed.
Lebanon, for its part, is not banking on the UN to defend it, and reportedly has struck a deal with Italy (DEBKAfile) to obtain sophisticated air defense missiles capable of bringing down Israeli warplanes in a future conflict. For deeper reading, CFR offers backgrounders on the troubled history of multilateral operations in the Middle East, on the fractured loyalties of Lebanon’s army, and on key UN resolutions in the Middle East conflict. Globalsecurity.org offers this guide to Lebanon’s military.

Aoun ups the ante
Al Ahram: 20/10/06: Aoun's latest rally is forced to take a rain check, but the Christian leader's influence is on the rise, Lucy Fielder reports from Beirut
Ramadan is drawing to a close and with it a truce Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah called in the bitter dispute between the Shia Muslim group and its allies and Lebanon's anti-Syrian government. Next, Nasrallah promised, comes a campaign for a national unity government, which most people think is aimed at bringing Aoun into government. Hizbullah's arms, which dented Israel's armour during its ferocious bombardment of Lebanon this summer, are central to current demands for a stronger Lebanese state.
That a "memorandum of understanding" Aoun signed with Hizbullah in February stood the test of Israel's war and subsequent sectarian tensions surprised many. Not to be thwarted by a Mediterranean storm, thousands of Aounists surged through Christian districts of Beirut Sunday, beeping horns and waving flags, apparently to defy critics who say the presidential hopeful's alliance with Nasrallah has cost him core Christian support. Although rain called off a rally to commemorate the launching of Aoun's ruinous campaign against Syria at the tail-end of the 1975-90 civil war, supporters, huddled under orange umbrellas, the former general's trademark colour, watched Lebanon's most popular Christian leader speak on huge screens at a marina north of Beirut.
As expected, Aoun called for a unity government, accusing Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora's US-backed government of neglect and corruption, saying that international support alone could not lend it legitimacy. Hizbullah and Aoun appear to be aiming for a one-third blocking minority in government. The anti-Syrian parliamentary majority led by Saad Al-Hariri, son of former Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri whose assassination last year many Lebanese blamed on Syria, accuses Hizbullah and Aoun of ultimately seeking to hamper efforts to form an international court to try Al-Hariri's killers.
Aoun did not merely criticise the government, but addressed the key concerns of its supporters as well as his own. Hizbullah's arms were "temporary" he said. "We are looking for a proper framework to end the role of these arms." Relations with Syria should also be corrected, but based on mutual respect, Aoun said. "This calls for emphasising the Lebanese nationality of the Shebaa Farms and a total demarcation of the borders between both countries and monitoring them," he said.
Joseph Semaha, publisher of the influential Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, wrote Monday that many were watching to see how Aoun could square his recent policies with his followers, "to help them crystallise their awareness and realisation of their place in Lebanon and its crises and international and regional relations". Maronite Christians have traditionally belonged to the part of Lebanese society that would rather opt out of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but their newfound support for Hizbullah catapults them to the frontline of resistance against Israel. Aoun's ability to win over his diehard Christian support base was visible during the Free Patriotic Movement's (FPM) efficient relief effort for the million or so mainly Shia displaced by Israel's bombs.
In the 12 months since his return from 15 years' exile in Paris, Aoun has defied expectations by adopting a contemporary political language that is largely absent from Lebanon's public sphere. If he has lost a few per cent of his Christian support, according to polls, he has gained a broader backing for his presidential drive among Shias and some secularists, who increasingly see him as a relatively non-sectarian figure. His latest speech seemed aimed at both constituencies.
"If we wanted a general description for yesterday's speech we could say it was a model speech for the modern Christian middle classes," Semaha wrote. It dealt with concerns such as human rights, democracy, gender equality and solidarity with marginalised, weak minorities. During the 2005 parliamentary elections, too, Aoun's FPM put forward a detailed manifesto on issues such as education and the environment as well as political direction. Nothing unusual in that, ordinarily, but it compared favourably with the ubiquitous "vote for me" mugshots -- unaccompanied by any programme as such -- spread by the other candidates.
"The national unity government is not an aim, it's a means to an end," said respected pollster Abdo Saad, head of the Beirut Centre for Research and Information. "They have a political programme -- a new electoral law, early elections and then a presidential election." Lebanon's sectarian electoral system is often criticised as unfair and its reform has long been on the table. Saad said the Hizbullah-Aoun alliance was a step towards a more secular Lebanon. "Now you have two major sects, which make up 70 per cent of the Lebanese people, who have signed an accord to build a state."
Many observers feared the return of the outspoken former general last year. He is often portrayed as erratic -- even insane by his opponents -- with many Lebanese harbouring dire memories of his failed war with Syria. Critics say his transformation from Syria's archenemy to a friend of its closest allies amounts to an about-face. Aoun says attacking Damascus is no longer necessary since troops withdrew in May 2005.
In the months before the race to substitute isolated Syrian- backed President Emile Lahoud steps up, Aoun is positioning himself as a pragmatic figure able to find common ground between once diametrically opposed Shia and Maronite Christian positions while addressing the fears of both sides.
Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper said Aoun's speech went beyond expected mudslinging. "Aoun not only described the end goal of a modern state, he also identified ways of getting there. He spoke of the need to promote national unity and do away with sectarianism and discrimination in all their forms," read a recent editorial. "No one can deny that Aoun's remarks reflect the opinions of the majority of the country's citizens."
The English-language daily challenged Aoun, whose Reform and Change parliamentary bloc commands 22 out of 128 parliamentary seats, to draft legislation to bring about such changes with its Hizbullah allies, who hold 14 seats. "Then everyone in Lebanon will know which parties are willing to put their words into action," the paper said.
Current wrangles over the nature of Lebanon's government are implicated in such other issues as the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended Israel's aggressive war, an international court to prosecute those who murdered former Prime Minister Hariri, and the search for a new president, says Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Endowment's new Middle East Centre. "Hizbullah feels that it won the war and suffered blows and that shouldn't be followed by disarmament and political emasculation. The objection of 14 March group was: 'Well, if you're just trying to come into the government to be obstructive we can't accept that'."
Given strong external pressure on Lebanon to force the issue of Hizbullah's arms, Salem says Shia parliament speaker Nabih Berri's visit last week to Saudi Arabia, which supports the ruling anti-Syrians in Lebanon, played a role in calming tensions. "Berri's trying to calm nerves and to emphasise common ground," he said. Other analysts said that Berri returned from Saudi empty-handed, having tried to secure a more neutral Saudi policy towards Syria and its allies in Lebanon, so as to reduce Sunni-Shia tensions.

Berry and the Renewal of the Shiite Role
Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 20/10/06//
There is no other path before the Lebanese, whose divisions and differences have escalated, except that which was suggested by Speaker Nabih Berry: return to the formula for dialogue to try to reach an acceptable settlement on the controversial subjects dealing with the many so-called Lebanese constants, where each is looked at from its angle.
It is not by chance that Berry seeks to play this role in dealing with pending political and sectarian tensions, at a time that differences could drive apart the main parties in Lebanon if they continue unabated. In other words, taking advantage of the opportunity to restore stability in the country after the horror it has suffered over the two past years. It is certain that he sensed the need to play a role in calming matters down and reanimating dialogue in order to find common ground.
Berry is ideal for the task, distinguished as he is by his positions as: First, he is the head of the legislative authority and a key partner in the political authority of Lebanon following the Taif Agreement; not to mention his relationship with the other two official partners in Lebanon's political authority, namely, the head of State and head of government. When Berry talks of his fears about a political vacuum occurring in the event of continued calls for removing the government without any agreement on an alternative, he is well aware that the legislative authority's role as a check, balance and supervisor of the administration of the country will itself become inoperative. With a governmental vacuum on one side and a complete marginalization of the presidency on the other, the role of the Speaker will also go their way if matters burst out of control. Albeit the explosion would remain within certain political limits.
Second, this consensus-building role is made inevitable by virtue of his leadership position among the Shiites. Apart from the Speaker's steadfast denials that he has not in the slightest helped lead Lebanon toward the anarchy and dangerous of the vacuum with Hezbollah, which, one way or another, the Shiites will have to face the responsibility of this move.
Berry fears reaching a dead end whereby the Shiite leadership will face a terrible dilemma. Terrible, that is, measured against the catastrophe that Lebanon as a whole will face if the worst case scenario comes to fruition, where the opposition led by Hezbollah succeeds in felling the Siniora government and, with that, create a political vacuum that will not be easily filled. This will compound, once again, any attempt to find solutions to the outlying problems, including those that Hezbollah will be hard pressed to make concessions over. Vacuum, apart from placing the current majority in the position of the loser, will place Hezbollah also in the loser's position, if it comes to pass.
Any settlement necessitates concessions over the presidency of the republic or the issue of weapons or Lebanon's regional role and will become impracticable otherwise. To make matters simpler, Berry's call for dialogue instead of confrontations and explosions adheres to the logic that: if settlement is possible without eruption, then why wait for the eruption to happen for us to take settlement up? Who said that the damages of such an explosion would not weaken the Shiite position along with the whole of Lebanon?
There is an objective foundation for Berry's consensus-building stance, following on quite naturally from his positions as parliamentary speaker and Shiite leader, which go far beyond his personal characteristics that his opponents and friends are keen to reiterate - when talking about his cunningness and political street smarts when it comes to matters concerning dialogue, diplomacy and the art of settlement-making.
This makes criticisms leveled by his rivals, and even some of his friends, completely irrelevant - that he is good at backhand deals and allows the corrupt to hang onto his coattails. The past 14 years in which he has ruled over parliament have allowed Birri to expose the galling repercussions of marginalizing the Christians since Emile Lahoud took office in 1998. His position also allowed him to appreciate, more than any other Lebanese, the extent to which the Sunnis have suffered over the past period, thanks to the incapacitation of the premiership.
Berry may very well have lost the roles played by his partners in authority and this would explain his clinging to PM Fouad Siniora and, with that, the search for a new arrangement for electing the president of the republic. Therefore, Berry's role in the coming period will be to renew the settlement among the Lebanese and, in turn, renew the role given to the Shiites in the power sharing scheme agreed on at Taif. This is particularly true in light of the belief adhered to by some that Hezbollah's victory over Israel means that the Shiites deserve an even bigger share

Analysis: Post-Lebanon IDF is humbler
By ANSHEL PFEFFER
The first reaction to the capture of Cpl. Gilad Shalit near Kerem Shalom four months ago was an impressive massing of force on the border of the Gaza Strip. Long lines of tanks and armored fighting vehicles (AFV) were marshalled for the benefit of the TV cameras, and artillery batteries were set up.
In the end only small-scale incursions took place. The rest of the force was hurriedly moved north two weeks later, where they took place in what was, if anything, an even more hubristic exercise.
After the setbacks in Lebanon and the failure so far to rescue Shalit, the IDF is a much more humble organization.
The largest operation since the Lebanon War, this week's "Squeezed Fruit," is being conducted on a much smaller scale, at least in the media arena. There are no interviews of generals overlooking the battlefield and the forces go in and out quickly and quietly.
It took the IDF two days to even announce the operation, and it wasn't due to the requirements of field security; the Palestinians knew the army was there the moment it began blowing up the smuggling tunnels near Rafah. The top brass, under investigation for mismanagement in Lebanon, is chastened and instinctively keeping a low profile, even though this time they seem to be doing something right.
In the absence of the generals, the soldiers and officers taking part in the operation exuded a quiet confidence, very different from the bombastic behavior during the summer.
"All of us in the army felt in Lebanon that we weren't fulfilling our full potential," a soldier in an elite unit who fought in Lebanon and is now taking part in the operation on the Philadelphi Corridor said this week. "Every one knew that he could do much better in his particular role, if only we had been allowed. It was very frustrating. This week I felt that I was playing my part."
There were also operational lessons learned from the fighting in Lebanon, where soldiers in buildings, tanks and armored fighting vehicles were hit again and again by Hizbullah's anti-tank missiles.
The assumption by IDF intelligence is that although the Palestinian organizations have recently obtained advanced missiles, they are not yet trained in their use, and are nowhere near the level of Hizbullah's proficiency. "We still try and take more precautions than in the past," said an engineering officer. "We used bulldozers to build dirt barriers around our forces to shelter them from missiles."
"One thing we've understood in Lebanon," said a tank officer who fought in Lebanon and now commands an armored unit in the Strip, "is that the new missiles can penetrate even the newest tanks. That doesn't mean we stop operating armored forces, we're soldiers and that's our job. What we can do is use all the tactics we learned in training for avoiding enemy fire that somehow we've forgotten over the last few years and we were painfully reminded of in Lebanon."
In the current operation in Gaza, the IDF is beginning to look like its old self again. Self-confident, focused, light on its feet and concerned more with operational capabilities than with media visibility. It almost seems as if the series of knocks it suffered over the summer have done it some good.
This doesn't mean that all the lessons have been learned. As in Lebanon, the operational area down south wasn't closed off to unauthorized elements, making the media's job almost too easy. Then we found the unguarded parking lot of AFVs, just waiting for someone to drive them off home, and almost despaired of the army ever changing.

Coalitions of the unwilling
Oct 19th 2006 | CAIRO
From The Economist print edition
Resistance to the West, and rejection of Israel, are the pillars of a rapidly strengthening alliance in the world's most volatile region
AP
THE Middle East is no stranger to doom and gloom. The most enduring conflict of the past century, between Israelis and Palestinians, drags on drearily today. The first wars of the 21st century have also unfolded there, in Afghanistan, Iraq, western Sudan and Lebanon.
This being so, the West has a long history of espying new spectres in the region. In the 1950s and 1960s it was Nasser, Egypt's passionate pan-Arabist leader. In the 1970s it was Palestinian terrorism; in the 1980s Khomeini's Islamic revolution; since the turn of the century, al-Qaeda-style mayhem; and now again revolutionary Iran, newly expansionary and perhaps, some day, armed with nukes.
Some of these imagined threats to the global order have been leftist and nationalist, some reactionary and religious, some radical and violent. Yet all have drawn their mobilising power from a single source. They have all been, in essence, resistance movements, inspired by a seemingly unquenchable popular urge to challenge the dominant perceived injustice of the day, whether it be European colonialism, Zionism, American hegemonism or the grip of local governments charged with selling out to the West.
The most reliable populist cry today remains “resistance”. Sudan's strongman, Omar al-Bashir, blasts the proposed deployment of UN troops in Darfur as the spearhead of a new Western crusade. The Shias and Sunnis in Iraq may be fighting each other for dominance, but the call to “resist” the American occupiers and the weak (though elected) government they sponsor wins passionate followers to both camps. Hizbullah rouses region-wide cheers for bloodying Israel's nose. Clearly, although times have changed, this dynamic has not.
What has changed is that the call to resist now inspires unprecedented enthusiasm, galvanising many disparate political streams at once, secular and nationalist as well as Islamist. The religious element, boosted by the great revival that has swept Muslim societies across the globe, adds a scriptural drumbeat to the call. And lately the impulse to resist has also been strengthened by the failing prestige of traditional countervailing forces—America, the moderate governments in the region and the liberal-minded minority of their citizens.
The most obvious sign of the renewed attraction of resistance is the strengthening of a rejectionist front built around the alliance between Iran and Syria. The bond between these countries' very different regimes—one ostensibly secular and Arab nationalist, but in fact an insular, sectarian dictatorship, the other a Shia theocracy—goes back a quarter-century. It was forged in opposition to their mutual neighbour, Iraq, then under the belligerent fist of Saddam Hussein. But the scope of this odd couple's shared interests widened over time. It came to include such goals as keeping Lebanon under Syria's thumb, undermining peace moves between Israel and the Palestinians so as to pressure Israel into disgorging the Golan Heights, occupied in 1967, and making sure America burned its fingers so badly in Iraq that the superpower would not think of similar adventures elsewhere. The Syrian-Iranian alliance also embraces smaller clients who share these goals, such as the main Islamist parties championing “resistance” in Lebanon and Palestine, Hizbullah (the Party of God) and Hamas (which means “zeal”, but is, revealingly, an Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement).
Not so long ago, this ungainly partnership was faring poorly. In 1997 Iranians elected a liberal-leaning president, Muhammad Khatami, who seemed intent on shedding his predecessors' confrontational stance. In early 2000, Syria came close to making peace with Israel. (Very close indeed: the actual area of the Golan Heights that remained disputed was a 150-metre-wide strip.) Though hailed as a victory by Hizbullah, Israel's unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon that spring put into question the need for continued resistance by Lebanese guerrillas. At Camp David that summer the Palestinian issue looked set for a resolution that would have rendered quaint Hamas's stated aim of destroying the Jewish state.
The Iraq factor
The past few years have reversed all these trends. The collapse of the Camp David summit and the eruption of a second, far more violent intifada radicalised the Palestinians, with the result that elections in January of this year produced a landslide for Hamas. Disappointed by the failure of American peace brokerage and America's drift, under the Bush administration, into ever more solid support for Israel, Syria reverted to putting pressure on its Israeli adversary by other means, such as supplying huge numbers of rockets to its Lebanese client, Hizbullah, and offering political sanctuary to Hamas. Radical conservatives in Iran, meanwhile, outmanoeuvred fractious liberals to secure the election, in June 2005, of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hardliner, as president. The supreme leader of Iran's revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who masterminded this coup, quickly proceeded to accelerate the country's nuclear programme.
But it was, above all, American policy that boosted the rejectionist alliance. Seeking targets to retaliate against after September 11th, the Bush administration chose to focus on what it labelled “state sponsors” of terrorism. It also lumped together groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas, whose chief agenda was local and nationalist and did not threaten America, with the global terrorist network of al-Qaeda, which had not only declared war on the superpower and on “Jews and Crusaders”, but had also launched hostilities in the most dramatic fashion conceivable.
In May 2002 the administration added Syria to its “axis of evil” (originally Iran, Iraq and North Korea). This seemed odd at the time, since Syria was providing America with useful counter-terrorism intelligence, and Iran had played a helpful role in the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2003 America rebuffed a back-channel Iranian effort to start a dialogue, and later that year slapped sanctions on Syria. “We would have been happy to play the game with them,” sighed a Syrian official at the time. “But they wanted all our cards with nothing in return.”
America's invasion of Iraq, meanwhile, produced a cascade of responses that bolstered the resistance front. The intrusion threatened to drive a physical wedge between Iran and Syria, and so reinforced their mutual need. It emboldened Iraq's Kurdish minority, so raising fears of unrest in Syria's and Iran's own oppressed Kurdish regions. Yet it also empowered the long-disenfranchised Shia majority, a natural bridgehead for Iranian influence. And obviously it removed Saddam Hussein's army, the main military obstacle to the projection of that influence farther afield.
Click to enlargeFar more important, the invasion massively buttressed the old rejectionist thesis that America's aim was to divide and rule the Muslim world, to control its oil and to impose Western culture. Here, stirring faded memories, was a Christian army overrunning a Muslim land, in pursuit of what George Bush once carelessly called a “crusade” against terrorism. And here, on the ground, was “resistance” in action, visibly humiliating the intruding warriors. In this potent narrative of victimhood Israel, of course, has been held up as a prime example of Western malevolence. But Israel's recent war with Hizbullah added rich fuel. Hizbullah may have provoked the war, but that counted little to the Arab world's television audiences. The tenacity of Hizbullah fighters in defence of their villages added to the lustre of resistance. America's foot-dragging diplomacy, and the hypocritical aloofness of the “moderate” Arab leaders of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who clearly hoped privately for Hizbullah's defeat, seemed to substantiate charges of complicity in the killing.
So entrenched now is the idea of an American-led assault on Muslims that virtually any new development is immediately enlisted as further evidence. The fact that terror attacks on Westerners, carried out in the name of Islam, may have raised some hackles goes without mention. So does the fact that countries such as Syria, under the cloak of resistance to the West, continue to promote agendas in Lebanon and elsewhere that have nothing to do with anti-Americanism, but with cementing their own regional influence.
Even high-minded Western initiatives now arouse suspicion. The effort to deploy a tougher peacekeeping force in Darfur, where some 200,000 people have been killed and perhaps 1m displaced by a government-assisted slaughter of Darfuris, is widely seen as a subterfuge. The head of the Egyptian lawyers' union, a group which might be expected to defend the rights of the weak, recently declared that the true target of UN peacekeepers was Egypt: Sudan was simply “the next stop after Iraq on the road to the heart of Cairo”.
The manner of the ceasefire in Lebanon aroused scepticism, too. To many, the insertion of a UN peacekeeping force was aimed at recouping by diplomacy what Israel had lost by fighting. A recent poll found that 84% of Lebanese believe the war was “a premeditated attempt by the United States and Israel to impose a new regional order in the Middle East”. As for the international siege of the Palestinians until they renounce terrorism and accept the right of Israel to exist (see story), the popular perception is that the West, having claimed to support democracy, is now punishing Palestinians for having elected Hamas in a fair vote.
The shadow of Iran
In the popular mind, attempts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions also mesh neatly with the narrative of Western powers holding back Muslims, or applying double standards. Why can't Iran have nukes if Israel can? Iranian diplomats ably exploit such doubts. So do a growing number of fellow-travellers in regional politics, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Islamist group whose ideological offshoots include Hamas and the main opposition movements in American-allied Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait and Yemen. “Any country should have the right to obtain nuclear technology or even nuclear arms for deterrence, especially if it is being threatened by another nuclear country,” says the Brotherhood's deputy leader, Muhammad Habib.
Such overt support from the most influential Sunni political grouping is telling. Clearly, Iran's vociferous backing of resistance movements has done wonders—outside Iraq—to heal the age-old rift between the two main branches of Islam. Elsewhere, the example of Hizbullah has—among ordinary citizens, at least—largely dispelled looming fears, first voiced by Jordan's King Abdullah, about the emergence of a “Shia crescent” from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf where Iranian mullahs might call upon millions of minority Arab Shias to rise up against Sunni Muslim dominance. Lebanon's Shia resistance has provided what one senior Western diplomat calls a new political paradigm: “an Arab party that actually means what it says and does what it promises.”
Reuters
Khamenei with KalashnikovAyatollah Khamenei, brandishing a Kalashnikov and speaking in his fluent classical Arabic in a Friday sermon on October 13th, put the matter more bluntly. Blasting critics of Hizbullah as “cringing hirelings of the Great Satan”, he said that the Iranian-funded militia's victory had made the group so loved that Muslims everywhere felt they had participated in it. The claim is not far-fetched. In far-off Brunei, by the South China Sea, the sultan issued orders for the obligatory performance of special prayers for Israel's defeat. In Egypt, a solidly Sunni country ostensibly allied to America, the two most popular politicians, according to a recent survey, are the Hizbullah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Understandably, such evidence of a powerful mood-swing on the Arab “street” dismays and alarms pro-Western Arab leaders. It is not simply that the governments of countries such as Egypt and Jordan, which long ago settled their own problems with Israel, fear renewed public pressure to resume “resistance” (ie, war), which is what the Muslim Brotherhood promises if it comes to power. These American allies are hostile to Hizbullah because the group provides a dangerous example of a potent non-state actor armed and supported by neighbours. They abhor the Syrian regime, blaming it for meddling (and murdering) in Lebanon and for undermining efforts to persuade Hamas to recognise Israel. They are spooked by Hamas's electoral success and the possibility of Islamist encroachment much closer to home. The Muslim Brotherhood made impressive gains in Egypt's parliamentary elections last year, and is expected to do equally well in Jordanian polls scheduled for 2007. Morocco, another American ally, also faces elections next year, with analysts predicting a shoo-in for the Islamist opposition.
America's shaky friends
As for Iran, Egyptians have never forgiven its revolutionary leaders for naming a Tehran street after one of the assassins of their peacemaking president, Anwar Sadat. Lebanon's shaky governing coalition, now in a stand-off with Hizbullah, sees Iran as the main obstacle to a deal under which Hizbullah might focus on being a political party and give up its arms. Gulf states feel a more direct threat, since many of them host American military bases.
The rulers of archly Sunni and conservative Saudi Arabia, in particular, have long viewed Iran as a dangerous rival. In the 1980s they blamed it for stirring unrest among the kingdom's large Shia minority, and in response helped bankroll Saddam Hussein's war against the Islamic Republic. During the recent Israel-Lebanon war, when some Saudi youths made the mistake of sticking posters of the admired Mr Nasrallah on their windscreens, Saudi police promptly arrested them.
The Bush administration has belatedly tried to rally its allies and to bolster such beleaguered figures as the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the prime ministers of Lebanon and Iraq. But the response has been half-hearted. This loose collection of accommodationist governments is finding it hard to gain traction against the resistance ideal. One problem they face is Israel, whose increasingly harsh operations against Palestinian fighters in the West Bank and Gaza have made it more toxic than ever. Israeli and Arab moderates both want to cool temperatures over Palestine and Lebanon and to contain Iran. But Arabs are uneasy at any hint of an alliance with the Jewish state. America's own refusal to engage directly with the resistance block has polarised and complicated the situation. Discomfort with America grew particularly acute over the Lebanon war, when countries such as Saudi Arabia were forced, by public outrage at Israel's crushing response, to back away from their criticism of Hizbullah for having started the war.
Yet, although it may lack the rejectionists' unity of purpose and their popular appeal, the accommodationist axis of American friends is not entirely toothless. Gulf countries now have plenty of oil cash with which to win goodwill by, for instance, rebuilding Lebanon and shoring up the Palestinian economy. Such largesse could prove persuasive, too, in trying to coax Syria away from its tight embrace of Iran, since Syria's economy relies on oil reserves that are fast running out.
They might also make progress, with those on the Arab street who are still willing to listen, by posing the question of whether ordinary people really want to sacrifice lives and treasure in an endless fight against Israel. The answer of large numbers of Lebanese during the recent war was a resounding no. Raghida Dergham, a columnist for the Saudi-owned daily Al Hayat, writes sarcastically that if what she calls the axis of extremism is resolved on war, “we hope it is ready to liberate Palestine and not exploit the Palestinians as a tool for the ideology and hegemony of others.”
This comment pricks at both Iran and Syria. Few Muslims elsewhere are aware that Mr Khamenei, aside from being supreme leader of the revolution and running the powerful intelligence services, also styles himself Leader of the Islamic World. This suggests a much wider agenda than simple “resistance”. As for Syria, while it champions Islamist liberation movements abroad, mere membership of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the country remains a capital crime. Arab moderates may be able to convince the Bush administration that the best way to ease tension would be for America itself to be more flexible. That would be wise, because the rejectionist front may not be as intractable as it appears. Syria's president has repeatedly signalled that he would shift his position if only some reward, such as a chance to recover the Golan Heights, were offered. Recent polling among Palestinians shows a similar openness to persuasion. It is also clear that a powerful sector of Islamist opinion is so fundamentally rejectionist that it will never change. The best the West can do may be to ensure that it does not push more moderates into that camp. It could start by remembering that people choose to “resist” when they feel threatened.

Ahmadinejad warns Europe of anger in Middle East
By Devika Bhat and agencies
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the outspoken Iranian President, has accused Europe of stirring up hatred in the Middle East by supporting Israel, warning that it "may get hurt" if anger in the region reached a tipping point. While the President has frequently been vocal in his criticism of the US and Israel, he has rarely directed a specific attack on Europe. In recent weeks however, European nations - previously open to the prospect of negotiations - have been hardening their stance towards Tehran. Last night it emerged that France, Germany and Britain were close to agreeing the finishing touches of a draft UN Security Council resolution on sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt its programme of uranium enrichment. Mr Ahmadinejad’s comments came as diplomats said they expected the resolution to be introduced next week.
"You should believe that this regime (Israel) cannot last and has no more benefit to you. What benefit have you got in supporting this regime, except the hatred of the nations?" said Mr Ahmadinejad, addressing European countries in a speech on state radio. "We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."
Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, said that Mr Ahmadinejad’s comments could be seen a reaction to Europe’s increasingly more stringent attitude towards Tehran and to the looming likelihood of sanctions. "North Korea’s nuclear test has hardened Europe’s position – the proliferation problem has come to the fore now and leaders think they need to take action. Ahmadinejad’s comments are a warning to Europe that if they take him on they shouldn’t think they will escape any consequences," he said. With its influence in the Middle East, Iran could stir unrest in areas in which European forces are located, including southern Lebanon, where militant group Hezbollah have a large presence and where French peacekeeping troops are stationed. Iranian-backed militias in southern Iraq, where British troops are based, are also a source of concern.
Later today, Mr Ahmadinejad returned to familiar rhetoric denouncing Israel and threatening any country which supported the Jewish state.
"You imposed a group of terrorists ... on the region," he told a crowd of thousands at a pro-Palestinian rally in Tehran. "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don’t complain tomorrow. Nations will take revenge." Mr Ahmadinejad said that Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon be no more. "This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence," he said. "Efforts to stabilize this fake regime, by the grace of God, have completely failed... You should believe that this regime is disappearing."He reaffirmed Iran’s refusal to back down over its nuclear ambitions despite the threat of sanctions, which he referred to as "illegitimate".
"Iran is ready to negotiate but will not tolerate the slightest pressure, he said, adding that on his recent visit to UN headquarters in New York he had dared Western nations to close their own nuclear fuel programmes and let Iran supply the material. "I told them ’You shut down (your nuclear programmes) and we will produce fuel from the fuel cycle in five years time and sell it to you at a 50 per cent discount," he said.
While there is agreement amongst the five permanent members of the UN Security Council on the need for sanctions against Tehran, a key difficulty in passing any resolution will be in finding consensus from China and Russia on the exact measures imposed. Both have important economic ties to Iran and have traditionally been reluctant to use sanctions as a diplomatic tool. Today, Li Zhaoxing, the Chinese Foreign Minister, insisted that Beijing would play a constructive role on the issue, but did not reveal the extent to which it would support measures imposed.
Officials in Washington said a first set of punitive sanctions was likely to focus on banning the supply of material and funding for Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Other steps could include the freezing of assets and travel bans on nuclear and weapons scientists.