LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September 2/06

Latest New fromThe Daily Star for September 2/2006
Lebanon lacks leaders who work to strengthen the state
Initial probe into terror plot in Germany closes
Shebaa residents urge UN to demand Israeli withdrawal
Annan has reason to be pleased with Syria trip
Israel hands over more areas in South to United Nations, Lebanese troops
German foreign intelligence chief arrives in Beirut
Annan: Syria will back arms embargo
Bint Jbeil residents grapple with prospect of long reconstruction
Officials study evidence to sue Israel for war crimes
Wave of support greets Berri's sit-in proposal
Saudi Arabia urges world to help Lebanon reconstruct
Agriculture sustains millions in losses from war damage and unexploded ordnance
Iran's drive will destabilize the region-By David Ignatius
Tehran refuses to give up 'one iota' of nuclear rights
Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 2/2006
UN: Syria Promises Cease-Fire Help-CBS News
Annan: Syria to Enforce Arms Embargo-The Tribune-Democrat
Over 100,000 cluster bombs in Lebanon: UN-Channel 4 News
PA unity government could ask for int'l force-Ha'aretz
Lebanon and Syria combined Situation Report 31 Aug 2006-ReliefWeb (press release) - Geneva,Switzerland
Lebanon at War: Aggression or Terrorism?Associated Content
Lebanese PM: Aid Won't Go to Hezbollah-Guardian Unlimited
Israeli force hands over border area in Lebanon-International Herald Tribune
Huge task ahead to rebuild Lebanon-Euronews.net
Donors make huge Lebanon pledge-BBC News
German spy chief en route to Lebanon-Ynetnews - Israel
Hacker floods Web site with Hezbollah data-United Press International
Syria, Iran Still Try to Smuggle Arms to Hezbollah-Bloomberg
A Hezbollah apologist wins an award for tolerance-New Republic

Lebanon needs an Immediate Peace Treaty with Israel
By: Charles Jalkh
September 1/06 
Prime Minister Seniora has given this week a free and unwarranted gift to the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. He declared that Lebanon will be the last nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Mr. Seniora did not elaborate on the reasons behind such delay. What Lebanese National interests are served by rejecting an immediate final peace for our homeland with our Israeli neighbors?
The Lebanese people and the world community deserve clearer reasoning and better logic from PM Seniora.. In light of the on-going Syrian blockades we must seek an alternate trade route which naturally flows southward, through Israel, then Jordan and down to our gulf markets.  This is the moment for historical courage and frankness. We need to end the conflict permanently, establish cordial and friendly relationships with our democratic neighbor Israel, consequently ushering peace, prosperity, and better lives to our people. This peace is not a concession on Lebanon’s part; it is rather a blessing that we need to cordially seek from Israel. 
Another strange decision taken by the Lebanese government was to refuse the deployment of international troops along our borders with the Syrian dictatorship, an essential move if we were honest about enforcing the arms embargo clause of resolution 1701. This behavior casts doubt on the will of the government to seek a permanent solution to the conflict. After 30 years of Syrian wars of aggression and assault against our democracy, the Lebanese are fully aware of the dangers emanating from the Syrian supply routes. To tolerate porous borders seems irresponsible and requires supporting rationale and clarifications on how would this serve Lebanese national interests and security.
A third observation regards the lax attitude the government has shown towards the criminal behavior of Hezbollah’s leadership. It is time for moral clarity on the subject and we must frankly exercise our sovereign will on our homeland. We must name matters as they are and speak to the enemy; the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis, with firmness and without flattery   The Lebanese government of PM Seniora and its supporters of the Cedars Revolution represent today the will of a vast majority of the Lebanese people. PM Seniora, the Future Movement, the Socialist Progressive party of MP Walid Jumblat, Kornet Shahwan, the Phalanges, and the Lebanese Forces, are all today representing the authentic Lebanese colors. We wish you well, and please be assured that you have the full support of your co-citizens in the Diaspora. We thank the honorable stand the world has taken in Sweden this week, and we thank the nation of Sweden and Scandinavia as a whole, which has shown the world its superb civilization and warm human heart.

Lebanon on the edge
Paul Rogers -OpenDemocracy
31 - 8 - 2006
The intense military inquests and feverish diplomatic activity after Lebanon's war reveal the fragility of the Israel-Hizbollah ceasefire. Soon after the Lebanon ceasefire took hold on 14 August 2006 after the thirty-four-day war, George W Bush declared with conviction that Hizbollah would be seen to have been the conflict's loser. At the time it seemed an extraordinary remark, given the manner in which Israel had evidently failed to achieve its original objectives of disarming Hizbollah or removing the threat on its northern border. Nonetheless, Bush's view persists and provides reassurance for elements within the administration and for some Washington political circles (see Lee Smith, " The Real Losers ", Weekly Standard, 28 August 2006). But it is not shared by the United States military.
The argument that Hizbollah lost draws on what confirmation it can, the latest element being Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's declaration in a television interview on 28 August (significantly, with the New TV station rather than Hizbollah's own al-Manar) that the movement had not expected Israel's massive reaction to its 12 July border attack. The comments, however, probably have much more to do with internal Lebanese politics and Hizbollah's need to consolidate its relative success in the war.
Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001
Hizbollah's advantage
If Israel's determined attacks on the Lebanese economic infrastructure were intended to incite high levels of internal opposition to Hizbollah, there is little evidence that they succeeded. This is in spite of the damage done to the Lebanese economy. Swedish estimates put the direct damage at $3.6 billion, with an immediate requirement for $0.5 billion that is simply not coming from western sources (see "Lebanon 'desperate for new funds'", BBC, 31 August 2006).
In this near-vacuum, the growing success of Hizbollah in dominating the rapid reconstruction of infrastructure, especially in southern Lebanon, is confirming its power-base (see "A phoenix from Lebanon's ruins", 17 August 2006). At the same time, it is essential for Hizbollah to counter the strong feelings that do persist among sections of Lebanese society that the group bears some responsibility for the sheer destruction meted out by the Israeli air attacks. By confessing to surprise at the intensity of these attacks, even to the extent of saying the raids might not have gone ahead if this outcome had been known, Nasrallah accepts some responsibility while still focusing attention on the Israeli actions.
Meanwhile, Hizbollah is clear that it will not seek to break the ceasefire, an attitude reflected in its lack of response to Israel's commando raid in the Beka'a valley on 19 August. It follows that there is now a real chance that the ceasefire will hold and that an expanded UN presence will provide a kind of buffer-zone, even if it has little or no intention of actually disarming the Hizbollah militia. For its own political purposes, Hizbollah is likely to draw back from the area close to the Israeli border, perhaps even concentrating its military capabilities north of the Litani river. But none of this disguises the fact that the war itself evolved in a manner both entirely unexpected by the Israelis and carrying serious implications for the United States as well as Israel itself.
This does have to be put in the perspective of the fact that Hizbollah possessed four advantages. First, it had six years (effectively since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000) in which to develop its system of bunkers, supply-chains, stores and communications systems. Second, its militia were mostly from the immediate area, were defending their own homes and families and had detailed knowledge of the area they were defending. Third, it had considerable support from Syria and Iran. Fourth, it had experience of the tactics and methods of the Israeli Defence Forces going back over two decades.
Even so, a few thousand operatives (at most) were able for more than a month to resist far larger Israeli forces equipped with a remarkable range of weapons – and on the last day of the war, Hizbollah fired the largest number of missiles into northern Israel of the entire conflict.
Israel's troubles
The Israeli agreement to a ceasefire involving a considerably boosted United Nations force is far more significant than is generally appreciated. The disdain verging on contempt that Israel has for the UN in general and for Unifil in particular makes this perhaps the best indicator of Israel's inability to achieve its principal aim of destroying Hizbollah.
In the various western defence journals there is substantial coverage of the Lebanon war which offers revealing information and insight (see, for example, Barbara Opall-Rome, "Mideast Crisis to Drive Future Needs", Defense News, 14 August 2006 and David A Fulghum & Robert Wall, "Lebanon Intermission", Aviation Week and Space Technology, 21 August 2006.
There are even some detailed and thoughtful discussions getting into the open literature; one of the best informed is Anthony Cordesman's report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, Preliminary "Lessons" of the Israeli-Hizbollah War (CSIS, 17 August 2006). All this reflects an even more intense analysis going on in defence ministries from Jerusalem to Washington and Tehran to Damascus.
Three examples of the Israeli experience during the Lebanon war give some indication of the problems the IDF encountered.
The first is that Hizbollah had a wide range of lightweight yet effective weapons, including portable anti-tank missiles of Russian, French, Italian and even US origin, albeit some of them manufactured in Syria and Iran.
The second is that the Syrian connection was actually much stronger than the Israelis or Americans appreciated – and, further, that Hizbollah's supplies came too from the grey and black markets. The movement could acquire equipment sourced from many western countries through diverse networks – yet another indication of the ubiquity of the international arms market. Iran, meanwhile, was a significant supporter but almost certainly not on the scale claimed by the Israelis or the Bush administration.
The third problem is that the Israelis had continual problems with Hizbollah's sophisticated communications systems. It was easy enough for the Israeli air force to destroy communications towers, but a consequence was that Israeli surveillance systems could no longer "listen in" to Hizbollah operatives' mobile-phone calls. In any case, the Hizbollah planners had already thought this through and were relying much more on a cell structure of paramilitary units using short-range walkie-talkie systems and hardened land lines that had been laid over a number of years.
In essence, it is now accepted that a well-armed, motivated and organised force numbering just a few thousand paramilitaries held down one of the best-equipped armies in the world for more than a month, and was not defeated by the time political necessity required a ceasefire from Israel. The many lessons to be learned by the Israelis, Americans, British, French and others are already permeating the planning cells in these countries' defence ministries, as well as the lecture theatres and seminar rooms of their defence colleges.
Iran's, and the world's, learning
What is probably even more significant, though, is that the war is also being studied in great detail across the rest of the world, especially in Tehran and Damascus – let alone Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad's Sadr city. A number of earlier columns in this series have tracked the evolution of the Iraq insurgency, including the manner in which Iraqi paramilitaries have evolved their tactics at a speed often exceeding American countermeasures. For them and for the planners in Tehran and elsewhere, the experience of the Lebanon war will be scrutinised with great intensity.
There is an extraordinary irony here – although one not widely recognised in the United States or Britain. An intimate connection has long existed between the US army's Training and Doctrine Command (Tradoc) and the Israeli army in relation to counterinsurgency operations in Iraq. The difficulties facing the US forces in trying to control the Iraqi insurgents have made these forces more heavily reliant on the experience of the Israelis in controlling the occupied Palestinian territories. This has included training methods, surveillance equipment and even weapons, with much of the latter bought from Israel or made under licence. Just as the Americans have sought to learn from the Israelis, now many of the Iraqi paramilitaries and the Iranians will be working hard to learn from Hizbollah's experience.
At the very least, this means that one of the original motives for US support for Israel may have backfired in a quite spectacular way. The Lebanon war was seen within the Bush administration as an opportunity for Israel to defeat Hizbollah and, indirectly, decrease Iranian influence in the region. This would put Iran on the defensive in relation to its nuclear ambitions and would remove any Iranian capability to utilise Hizbollah in responding to a US or Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. Instead, the political effects of the war have been to embolden Tehran, and the military effects will be to increase Iranian capabilities to cause major problems for the United States in Iraq.
This is well known in Washington and Jerusalem and is a source of considerable unease. It also means that no one should rule out a collapse of the ceasefire in the coming weeks. There are unconfirmed reports of a substantial re-supply of weapons and equipment from the United States to Israel, and it has to be remembered that Israel is continuing its air and sea blockade of Lebanon.
The intense diplomatic efforts made by Kofi Annan to smooth the way to implementation of the Security Council resolution of 11 August 2006 reflects the huge concern in United Nations circles that there could be a sudden outbreak of violence leading to a new phase of the war. The next month is crucial. If the ceasefire does hold then there is a real hope that there could be a progressive easing of tensions in southern Lebanon, but to take that for granted would be highly dangerous.

Comparing Israel to Nazi regime is a grotesque distortion of history
says B’nai Brith Canada
MONTREAL, August 31, 2006 - B’nai Brith Canada has characterized as “beyond the pale” comments made last week to a Quebec newspaper, likening Israelis to “modern day Nazis”. Huntingdon Mayor and radio host Stéphane Gendron made these comments in an interview to Le Soleil newspaper.
“Although Mr. Gendron subsequently tried to qualify his remarks by saying that he was referring to the Government of the Jewish State, but not its people, this does not alter the racism inherent in his message,” said Allan Adel, National Chair of B’nai Brith Canada’s League for Human Rights. “Comparing modern day Israeli policy of defending itself against terrorism to the Nazi policy of seeking world domination and the annihilation of the Jewish people is a grotesque distortion of history.
“The denial of individual Jewish rights that we have experienced throughout history has now been replaced by its modern-day version, which denies the legitimate right of the Jewish people to self-determination and self defense in their own homeland – rights ascribed to all other peoples.”
The Jewish human rights organization has called on Mr. Gendron to retract his remarks and offer a public apology.

Symbolic transfer underway in Lebanon
By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer
The Israeli army turned over a small border area in south Lebanon to Lebanese and foreign troops Thursday, a symbolic move paving the way for U.N. peacekeepers to go into the volatile area. The pullback came as an international donors conference in Sweden pledged nearly $1 billion to help Lebanon rebuild, after the country's prime minister told the gathering that Israel's war with Hezbollah wiped out "15 years of postwar development."
Israel sent up to 30,000 soldiers into Lebanon during the 34-day war, and when the fighting ended they occupied a zone extending about 10 miles north from the border. Since the U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect Aug. 14, Israel has been slowly transferring control of the area to Lebanese troops, who will be bolstered by U.N. troops equipped with tanks, howitzers and other heavy weapons not usually seen with a peacekeeping force.
The armament is meant to deter all parties from resuming the conflict, and particularly is seen as a warning to the Shiite militants of Hezbollah, who effectively ran southern Lebanon for two decades and used it as a base to launch sporadic attacks on Israel.
On Wednesday, Israel's army withdrew from a small area of the border near the Israeli town of Metulla, putting Lebanese and U.N. troops in control of a section of the border for the first time since the early 1980s, the Israeli military said. The area was roughly 12 square miles.
Lebanon said its army sent reconnaissance teams to the area Thursday and had begun deploying troops there. The peacekeeping force, known as UNIFIL, confirmed Lebanese troops were moving into the area and said small numbers of international soldiers also were deploying.
"Over the past 24 hours, UNIFIL established checkpoints and conducted intensive patrolling confirming this morning that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force troops) were no longer present there," a UNIFIL statement said.
Lebanese security officials said about 8,500 government soldiers were now in southern Lebanon, and the United Nations says nearly 2,200 international peacekeepers are on the ground. Under the cease-fire, 15,000 Lebanese soldiers are to be joined by a similar number of international peacekeepers in patrolling the south. Israel, which won't say how many of its soldiers remain in Lebanon, rebuffed a request this week from the visiting U.N. secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to fully withdraw once 5,000 peacekeepers are deployed. Israel also turned down a request to immediately lift its sea and air embargo on Lebanon, which it says is needed to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.
After initial European hesitance over committing troops, the international force was quickly taking shape. Some 1,000 Italian soldiers are expected in Lebanon over the weekend, the largest addition so far to the force, U.N. spokesman Alexander Ivanko told The Associated Press. Italy has pledged to send 2,500 in all. In Paris, Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said France would send its first battalion of soldiers, along with tanks and heavy artillery, next week. The troops will be operational Sept. 15, she said. France, which will initially lead the strengthened U.N. force, has about 400 soldiers in UNIFIL now and plans to expand that to 2,000.
France's contribution is expected to include Leclerc tanks, howitzers, short-range anti-aircraft missiles and radar. Alliot-Marie said the heavy weaponry — rare for a U.N. force — is meant to send a signal that the cease-fire will be enforced.
The weapons "has a dissuasive character and guarantees the freedom of movement and the security of the troops," Alliot-Marie told lawmakers at a closed session Thursday, according to excerpts released by her ministry. The veiled warning was one of the strongest statements yet from the peacekeeping nations, which have said they don't want armed conflict with Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Turkey's premier defended his Cabinet's decision to send peacekeepers to Lebanon, warning in an address to the nation that "if we shut our doors, we can't escape the flames that are surrounding us."
Europe, the United States and Israel are keen to see peacekeepers from Muslim Turkey in Lebanon, hoping strong Muslim participation would avoid any impression that the U.N. force is primarily Christian and European. But many Turks fear their soldiers could end up facing hostile fire or clash with their fellow Muslims. The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah devastated parts of Lebanon, which was still recovering from an earlier conflict with Israel and the country's 1975-90 civil war.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora told the donors conference in Sweden that the damage totaled billions of dollars. "Moreover, Lebanon's well-known achievements in 15 years of postwar development have been wiped out in a matter of days by Israel's deadly military machine," he said.
About 60 governments and aid groups attended the meeting in Stockholm, pledging more than $940 million for reconstruction and calling on Israel to lift its blockade. Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson said that far exceeded the goal of $500 million. Adding previous pledges for longer-term reconstruction projects, he said a total of $1.2 billion was being made available to rebuild Lebanon. "This is a very important accomplishment that we have made today," a triumphant Saniora told reporters after the conference. "We will build on it."
He stressed that none of the aid offered was tied to any conditions. "From day one we have not taken any support from any country, any institution that is linked to any condition," he said. Annan, who is on an 11-day Mideast trip to shore up the cease-fire, arrived in Syria to press the Damascus regime to join efforts to stop the flow of arms to Hezbollah and win the release of two Israeli soldiers captured by the guerrillas July 12. That raid sparked the fighting.
There was no immediate comment from Syria, which along with Iran is a major backer of Hezbollah. Addressing Syria without naming it, Annan said he "would want to see the neighboring states extend their full cooperation to resolve all outstanding issues related to the border."
Relations between Damascus and the United Nations have been tense since late 2004, when the Security Council told Syria to withdraw its army and stop interfering in Lebanon. The assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri in February 2005 forced Syrian troops to leave two months later, ending three decades of domination in its neighbor. Tens of thousands of Israelis thronged a central square in Tel Aviv late Thursday in support of the two soldiers held in Lebanon as well as a third soldier captured June 25 by Gaza militants.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Lebanon's next chapter
Al Ahram August 1/06
As the military dust settles, big questions on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border are begging to be asked, writes Ayman El-Amir
With the jittery ceasefire in Lebanon holding and the deployment of the authorised 15,000- man robust international force in progress, both parties to the month-long war are hunkering down for stocktaking. The Ehud Olmert-led Israeli government and the Israeli army are under pressure for failing to make a military clean sweep of Hizbullah the way they used to do with Arab armies in past wars. On the other side, Hizbullah is being targeted by Lebanese minority- interest sniper-politicians for taking matters into its own hands and drawing the wrath of the over-equipped Israeli military machine. Politicians on both sides are trying to make capital of the war while the military is studying everything that went right, or wrong, for the benefit of the next confrontation.
Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, the US has mobilised every willing European country in a heavy-handed deployment of men and materiel to ensure that Hizbullah does not challenge Israel again. Because of the dire situation in Lebanon and the desperate need for a ceasefire, the Arabs did not want to prolong the agony of the Lebanese people by demanding a linkage between the cessation of hostilities and a political settlement. The Lebanese government requested but failed to have the disputed Shebaa Farms placed under the supervision of the UN pending final resolution of its status. So the situation in Lebanon is back to the status quo ante that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice so persistently argued against, but with a difference: Hizbullah will be watched by two armies -- a Lebanese and European one -- potentially consisting of 30,000 men. What the Bush administration and Israel want more than anything now is to have another Security Council resolution for the enforcement of Resolution 1559, in order to disarm Hizbullah once and for all and put Syria on notice of mandatory sanctions if it tries to replenish Hizbullah's arms.
Lebanon is more fragile than ever after the devastating Israeli offensive. The duress of the war has unified ranks and elevated Hizbullah fighters to the status of national liberation heroes. However, before the clearing of the rubble even started, Lebanese small-faction politicians started bickering, echoing pro-Israeli Western politicians, and some US-backed Arab leaders, who blamed Hizbullah for provoking Israel into a confrontation that wreaked so much havoc on Lebanon. Was it necessary and who authorised Hizbullah to fight Israel in the name of Lebanon, were among the questions. Only the urgent need for the repatriation of the displaced Lebanese population, the reconstruction of roads, bridges, houses and hospitals, the withdrawal of Israel and the deployment of an international force to beef up UNIFIL, is delaying the more animated squabbling some Lebanese politicians are yearning for.
The trouble with Lebanon is that it is a small, peace-loving country delicately poised on multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian stilts, ready to fall down at the slightest jolt. Lebanon's politics is balanced on the interests of ethno-feudal lords that command fragmented followings and small militias to defend those interests. This has long precluded a genuine national debate and consensus, and has been Lebanon's Achilles heel since the Druze massacre of Maronite Christians in 1860. It has also given the world's imperial powers of the past, global powers of the present and regional powers in the area opportunities to manipulate Lebanese politics to their advantage. The just-ended war has fostered among most Lebanese a spirit of unity rarely experienced. Politicians who place the survival and prosperity of Lebanon above their narrow interests have a unique opportunity to build a national, non-ethnic-driven consensus. Hizbullah has made this possible.
Israel, forever backed by the US, will never forgive Hizbullah the blow it dealt its image as a state and as the region's uncontested military bully. The war has created a singular momentum for reviving the peace process the US has frozen since 2000 when Ariel Sharon sold George W Bush and his neo-cons the concept that the fight against terrorism, not the Palestinian problem, is the panacea for America's troubles in the region. So, instead of seizing the opportunity to work out a political solution that would open the way for a wider peaceful settlement with Syria and the Palestinians, the US and Israel are preoccupied with how to outflank and destroy Hizbullah, using the UN, regional allies and domestic, sectarian Lebanese division to achieve their ends. For Israel, where the political contest between Benyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert has given the latter a 60 per cent disapproval rating, there is a burning desire for revenge. Israel's military prestige and the standing of the Kadima Party need to be repaired. As the 34-day war demonstrated Israel's deficiency in fighting guerrilla warfare, the Israeli command is now recalling the 91st brigade of reservists for retraining on guerrilla warfare. An anti-guerrilla warfare Israeli training centre was created in 1997 to train reservists in combating Hizbullah but closed down after the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon six years ago.
For Hizbullah, which has maintained a low profile since the end of the war, the stakes are even higher. Politically, it will have to help build a consensus among different Lebanese factions on the need to maintain political unity as a substitute for ethnic rivalry. It would be naïve to pretend that implacable Israel will leave Hizbullah or Lebanon alone. It would also be cynical to believe that Hizbullah is redeemable for a peaceful Lebanon. Dismantling and crushing Hizbullah will always be the cherished goal of the US and Israel as a way to subdue Lebanon. Lebanese politicians of all shades should avoid this trap.
Hizbullah has the paramount military responsibility of reviewing its weaknesses and rebuilding its strength. In all wars with Arab countries, Israel depended on air supremacy to achieve a quick victory. Hizbullah will have to acquire the means to neutralise the Israeli air force that had caused so much destruction and casualties during the war on Lebanon. Egypt had experience with that during the October 1973 War when its troops used the shoulder- fired Soviet-made Strella (arrow) missiles to shoot down Israeli jets. This provided ground- to-air cover for Egyptian troops as they advanced into Sinai beyond the coverage area of land-based anti-aircraft missile batteries.
There is little doubt that the ultimate US-Israeli objective now is to strangulate Hizbullah and dismantle its infrastructure, either by mobilising international political pressure, economic blackmail or covert military operations. The deploying international force has a vague mandate that is subject to various interpretations by all sides. One possible way of defusing post-war tension is for Israel to accept mediation efforts for the exchange of prisoners and starting negotiations for the settlement of the occupied Shebaa Farms. However, if the Olmert government should face, and lose, a vote of confidence in the Knesset, a new hawkish government that would make the prospects of peace even dimmer could potentially replace it.
Hizbullah has many odds lined up against it. The most mortal of them are domestic and Arab politics. It is caught up in the US definition of all movements of national liberation as "terrorist organisations", to which major powers, including the Russian Federation, are subscribing for domestic reasons. The luminous era of national liberation has been replaced by the global war on terrorism. However, during the month- long war with Israel, Hizbullah has demonstrated stamina, discipline and political acumen that should ensure its future survival.
Saving Lebanon

A national unity government will end Lebanon's political impasse, Lebanese leader Michel Aoun tells Omayma Abdel-Latif in Beirut
Al Ahram August 1/06
The head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) that leads the Lebanese opposition has called on the Lebanese government to step down to allow for a national unity government to take over. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly at his headquarters in Al-Rabyia, north of Beirut, General Michel Aoun held Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora's government to be solely responsible for Israel's 34-day war on Lebanon that left more than 1,000 dead and hundreds injured.
"This government did not act responsibly during the war. It is the worst government Lebanon has seen in its recent history," Aoun said. He pointed out that during the war the state "was absent". It failed to address "the catastrophic situation" of at least one million refugees. "I think the choices they made in terms of their approach to the resistance and the way they ran the political and diplomatic battles were an utter failure." Further, "if [the Siniora government] had adopted the declaration of understanding we signed with Hizbullah, this war could have been avoided," he said. "Our agreement had a clear- cut exit strategy for the issue of Hizbullah's arms. They instead chose confrontation and were so aggressive in dealing with a movement that is an essential party in the political process," Aoun added.
Aoun, 73, who heads a secular party with 21 seats in the Lebanese parliament, came under intensive pressure for his pro-resistance stand during the 34-day war. His decision to stand by the resistance movement was a collective one, he said. "There were two options: either Hizbullah wins or loses the war. But it was not just a war against Hizbullah. The Shia community was also heavily targeted. In both cases, we have to co-exist with them. We could not live with an Israeli victory."
Aoun defended Hizbullah rejecting claims that the resistance movement was part of a Syrian- Iranian axis or that the movement was acting as a state within a state. Aoun's support for Hizbullah during the war came at a personal price. Sources close to the FPM leader spoke of "weeks of terror" when Aoun's headquarters was showered with leaflets dropped from Israeli planes warning that his headquarters would be bombed. Aoun was also subject to what he described "a vile campaign" from his detractors who claimed that his popularity rates within the Christian street went down during the war. Aoun, who sounded confident of his status, said that different polls carried out by the FPM suggested otherwise. Indeed, many reports speak of his rising popularity among larger sections of Lebanese Sunnis and Shia.
In response to Aoun's call, Saad Al-Hariri, head of Tayyar Al-Mustaqbal and leader of the majority in parliament, dismissed the need for a new government. "It is this government -- the Siniora government -- which brought the war to an end. It will drive the Israelis out of Lebanese territory and will carry out reconstruction work. I see no need to change it," Al-Hariri told reporters Monday.
Aoun dismissed Al-Hariri's remarks as "irresponsible" and lacking "any sense of wisdom or political maturity". Further, Aoun warns that if a new government is not formed soon, "it will lead to a big crisis in Lebanon."
One of the factors, according to Aoun, making a change of government essential is "information" he received which suggested that some members in the Siniora government "knew beforehand" about Israeli plans to disarm Hizbullah. In interview Aoun declined to elaborate further on this suggestion that some Lebanese forces were complacent about (or perhaps even complicit with) the Israeli war on Lebanon. "Valuable information," he said, "will be made public at the right time."
As to whether the Siniora government is genuinely working towards lifting the Israeli blockade of Lebanon imposed since the beginning of the war, Aoun is doubtful. "The current government is no more than a tool of pressure on the Lebanese people to accept any rough deal the international community and Israel are offering them." In particular, Aoun said statements by French President Jacques Chirac and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan about a possible "second round" of hostilities were no more than "psychological warfare aimed at terrorising the Lebanese people into accepting whatever is given to them." Aoun concluded: "this is going to cost Al-Siniora and his team much."
Aoun's calls for a national unity government came only days after Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah's secretary general, spoke in a television interview aired Monday about the need for a national unity government to put an end to what he described as "the sense of frustration prevailing among a large section of Christians" who feel that their representation is not reflected in this government.
It is point that Aoun acknowledges: "True, the Christians are not well represented in this government. We have one third of the Christian votes and 21 seats in parliament but no members in government." The FPM head added: "There is indeed an imbalance in representation of not just the Christians but the nationalists in general, because the parliamentary majority does not necessarily reflect the popular majority."
Some pro-government commentators viewed Aoun-Hizbullah stand on a national unity government to be the beginning of a bigger sea change that could extend throughout the political system in post-war Lebanon. Dori Shamoun, a Lebanese Christian politician, has suggested that Hizbullah wanted to "capitalise on the victory to set up an Islamic Shia state in Lebanon'. Aoun explained: "some politicians use Hizbullah as a card to create an atmosphere of fear among Christians to cover up for their own mistakes and misdemeanours."
Aoun dismisses that civil strife in Lebanon is "an option" for any force.
Aoun, who headed the Lebanese army during the early 1990s and fought hard against Syria's presence in Lebanon for over 15 years, said that from a military point of view Hizbullah was victorious. "The fact that we did not succumb to Israel's brutal force and deterred it from continuing its aggression on Lebanon is in itself a victory."

Terror Threats
August 2006
Ryan Mauro - 9/1/2006
The big news is non-news. August 22, the big day Iran picked to respond to the UN's nuclear deal, went by without a shot being fired. That date, as we've discussed, had religious significance for Ahmadinejad. It was the anniversary of when, according to the faithful, Mohammed purportedly ascended into heaven from Al-Aqsa (Jerusalem). No analyst has yet developed a definitive explanation as to why the Iranian leaders had issued so much rhetoric regarding their response, causing considerable consternation and rumor-mongering in the West—and then nothing significant occurred. Here are some possibilities for why nothing significant happened on August 22, as so many had predicted:
The Iranian leadership decided after issuing the rhetoric that circumstances were not favorable for them to continue their plans for the day.
This was a trick to make the right-wing political blocs (the most hawkish on Iran) in the West seem foolish, and paranoid.
This was simply a psychological trick with an aim to test the West's reactions.
The media coverage of top Iranian officials' statements made it clear that any move by Iran would be pre-meditated, and any terrorist attack would be traced back to Iran. It would end Ahmadinejad's quest to lead a confrontation against the infidels yet appear as a victim.
It has been reported that Iran freed Saad Bin Laden, Osama's oldest son, from house arrest in late July to help Hezbollah wage a war against Israel by moving to Lebanon, however, no sources confirm this. Reports soon after claimed Saad was in Iran consulting with representatives of the regime.
Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program continues. A United Nations report revealed that on October 22, 2005, a huge shipment of U-238 was seized in Tanzania emanating from Lumbumbashi mines in Congo, destined for Iran’s Bandar Abbas port. Of course, some blogs that are routinely critical of any evidence against an enemy has mocked the evidence as being reminiscent of the claims of Iraq seeking uranium from Africa.
Fortunately, the Iranian opposition continues to move ahead. More opposition groups are rising up, particularly the Azadegan group led by Dr. Assad Homayoun. Dr. Homayoun is seeking for Western political support, and said he’d refuse financial aid. While this is certainly a positive development, ideally the disparate Iranian opposition groups must become more unified as a bloc, which would enhance its quality, as opposed to quantity. Hopefully, the rumors of talks between the son of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, and the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini are true, and the opposition will become unified and the greatest threat the mullahs can imagine.
Some U.S. military generals dismiss Iran’s role in Iraq’s insurgency, and others are open about it. The evidence is clear regarding Iran’s role, and any U.S. military general downplaying Iran’s role is either doing so for political reasons or is incompetent. In mid-August, for example, the Iraqi al-Zara TV station reported that hundreds of Iranian-made mortar shells and Katyushas had been seized in Umm Qasr.
Fortunately, the average Iraqi Shiite is not supportive of the mullahs. Two Shiite parties issued a strong condemnation of Iran. The Islamic Allegiance Party, led by the cleric Mahmoud Abdul Ridha al-Hassani (who is also anti-Amercian) and the Fadhilla bloc in Basra may have sparked a new campaign issue among battling Shiite parties: Which parties can be trusted to work for the interests of Iraq, and not Iran?
According to Arab publications, the reason Israel had such a tough time detecting (and combating) Hezbollah’s tunnel complexes was because of North Korean assistance. The Al-Sharq Al-Awsat paper quoted a high-ranking Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer as confirming the North Korean role on July 29, 2006.
Much has been made of the intelligence failures on Israel’s part during the war against Hezbollah. The author’s sources indicate that the most significant failure was political. The Israeli political leadership was involved in making military decisions, second-guessing military leaders at every turn. The war plan was scaled back in quantity and quality. As a result, the region now has an emboldened Hezbollah, a devastated Lebanon, and an Israel that has gained nothing. To be fair, Hezbollah may be temporarily weakened, and we must note that, while the Lebanese population is furious at Israel’s campaign, we may see a weakening of Hezbollah’s support.
Amer Taheri has written that the March 14 movement, the dominant bloc in parliament, is calling for an investigation into how the war began (a move meant to blame Hezbollah); why Hezbollah’s Christian political ally, Michel Aoun, has called for their disarmament; and why leading Shiite intellectuals and figures are condemning Hezbollah. Hopefully, Israel’s campaign will have begun the end of Hezbollah’s status as an admired party among the Lebanese Shia.
Africa
The radical Islamic Courts remains in control of Somalia, gaining control over the eastern ports. The benefits to Al-Qaeda from this are hard to over-emphasize. And if he is to be believed, the official prime minister of Somalia (who is in the Mogadishu area, which Ethiopia has threatened to defend) has claimed that the Islamic militants were supplied with weapons by Libya, Iran, and most shockingly, Egypt. The Egyptian role, if true, is confusing as it is difficult to fathom how the developments in Somalia benefit the Mubarak regime, unless he hopes his homegrown Islamic radicals move there. Last month, we reported on how Saudi money played a role in the takeover of Somalia.
Asia
This month, North Korea moved to test a nuclear weapon. It is probably not a coincidence this occurred at the same time that Iran prepared its response to the UN-backed deals to dismantle their uranium enrichment program. In the past, when overtures were made to Iran, North Korea ratcheted up the rhetoric, and vice versa. Given the very close working relationship between the two rogue states, we can’t rule out some sort of coordination in their diplomatic activities.
We also cannot rule out a North Korean nuclear test on behalf of Iran, as a way for Iran to test their jointly developed technology, and North Korea’s potential as a covert supplier of such technology. Such a move would be most intelligent, as it allows the ongoing diplomatic dance regarding Iran to continue, while bringing further attention to North Korea, attention which Kim Jong-Il does not appear to mind.
On the China side of the equation, news reports indicate ongoing preparations for nuclear war. It must be noted that China’s expensive preparations for such an event means the Communist leaders do not see such a war as outside the realm of possibility. Among China’s preparations is the construction of a vast bunker network beneath Shanghai that can shield 200,000 people from a nuclear attack. It is one million square feet in size and connected to subways, apartment buildings, even shopping centers. The site is meant to support life for that number of people for up to two weeks.
Latin America
Perhaps even more significantly than Iran’s relationship with North Korea, is Iran’s relationship with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In late July, Iran gave Chavez the highest state-awarded medal, in yet another example that Islamic radicals have no problem cooperating with radicals of different ideologies. Chavez received it with an anti-American speech, including the line, “Let’s save the human race, let’s finish off the U.S. empire.” Iran is developing the deadliest bloc of alliances since the Axis Powers.
Hugo Chavez also inked a $3 billion arms deal with Russia this month, and continues speaking of a defense bloc similar to NATO, possibly by expanding the scope of Mercosur or using it as a stepping stone to a more formal alliance. Current Mercosur members are Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. The associate members consist of Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. It is unlikely, given the splits among these members that Mercosur will turn into a Latin American NATO any time soon. However, it is possible Chavez will use it to develop an alternate pact.
Increased speculation occurred as Fidel Castro’s health declined and power was ceded to Raul Castro. Despite his statements admiring how China liberalized its economy, one must remember why he admires it—it increased the power of communism. Raul Castro will be little different than Fidel. For example, Raul was identified as the head of a major cocaine smuggling deal in 1993, after a major drug lord, Carlos Lehder, said in 1991 that he met twice with Raul for the deal. Colombian drug lords agreed to pay a fee to use Cuban waters and airstrips to smuggle drugs into the United States. According to the deal, 7.5 tons of cocaine would be smuggled over a decade.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
1. Die Welt, August 2, 2006.
2. Iran Focus, August 16, 2006.
3. Washington Post, August 19, 2006.
4. Associated Press, July 25, 2006.
5. Local6.com, July 31, 2006.
6. ABC, August 14, 2006.
Ryan Mauro is a geopolitical analyst. He began working for Tactical Defense Concepts (www.tdconcepts.com), a maritime-associated security company in 2002. In 2003, Mr. Mauro joined the Northeast Intelligence Network (www.homelandsecurityus.com), which specializes in tracking and assessing terrorist threats. He has appeared on over 20 radio shows and had articles published in over a dozen publications. His book "Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq" is scheduled to be published in the coming months. He publishes his own web site called World Threats. He may be reached at tdcanalyst@aol.com
tdcanalyst@optonline.net

International Concession Over the Need to Stir Up the Status Quo of the "Peace Process"
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 01/09/06//
New York - There are Arab and International attempts for a fresh approach to pull Arab-Israeli relations out of the dark tunnel of wars and confrontations and the cage of the peace process, which failed to put an end to the occupation.
Some of these ideas appear to be immediately heading toward a deadlock. This is especially the case with the proposals to place the entire file under the sponsorship and supervision of the Security Council, or implying re-establishing connections with the Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian tracks in negotiations under the "comprehensive peace" motto.
However, time is ripe for new approaches or old positions that require creative promotion. Israel's approach based on imposing one-sided measures, like unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and the construction of the security fence in the West Bank, has proven to be a failure acknowledged by Israel, who demonstrated willingness to consider alternative options. This willingness should be exploited from Palestinian, Arab, American, and International standpoints.
It is also prudent to avoid subjecting the Palestinian issue to the Lebanese file, or the other way around. Time is ripe to respect the independence of sovereign decisions and forego nonsense and pawning, whether Syrian, Lebanese or Palestinian as the only way to achieving a just and comprehensive peace.
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Security Council his vision of an Arab initiative for an international conference under the sponsorship of the Security Council, and regarding direct negotiations between Israel, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, starting by the end of 2006 within the framework of this conference (Al-Hayat Aug.27.2006).
Deputy Secretary General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Ghambari has endorsed this vision and circulated among the Security Council, calling for "fresh international effort that deals with the region's different crises, not on an individual, or bilateral basis, but rather as parts of an integrated and comprehensive effort under the supervision and leadership of the Security Council, and with the objective of introducing peace and stability in the entire region."
Ghambari also floated the Arab initiative before the envoys of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council this week, and upon realizing that it was unknown to all but few, he judged it was expedient to meet with ambassadors of these countries individually to discuss the essence of Moussa's vision and generate feedback.
The vision in Moussa's 'non-paper' gives the Security Council a leading and supervisory role in an international conference to be held (before the year's end) at the time and place set by the Security Council when it convenes in October. The international conference aims at achieving a compressive Arab-Israeli peace within a year's time. This vision starts with a Security Council ministerial meeting by mid-September and ends with a mechanism to deal with the possibility of the failure of any of the parties involved in adhering to set timelines, and providing guarantees by third parties in the event of reaching executable agreements.
The undertaking of the Moussa-Ghambari tandem is considered an ambitious project, taking into account the conflicting timelines of the Arab initiative and the US mid-term elections in November, which renders the US administration unenthusiastic in dealing with this initiative, whether as a matter of procedure or an essentiality.
Also to be taken into consideration is the European and Russian reluctance to give up their roles in the Quartet which proceeded from the peace process to monitor the implementation of the Road Map that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian State alongside the Israeli one.
Despite the cool welcome reserved to the Arab League initiative and the Moussa-Ghambari efforts, there is an international concession on the need to stir up the status quo of the peace process and remove it out of a deep and dangerous slumber, either by injecting it with renewed vitality or scrapping it altogether for a more effective alternative. For while differences surrounding the form and essence of this initiative dominate the international scene, other attempts are in the making, surrounded by secrecy.
The main objective of these attempts is to prod George W. Bush's administration to realize that it is expected to exercise its influence and exert pressure on Israel with the aim of introducing a fundamental change in its handling of the Lebanese and Palestinian files.
This war of the defeated fighters in Lebanon carried with it significant lessons, among those were the hefty bill, sliced out of US tax money, to guarantee Israel's qualitative edge over the Arabs in the balance of strategic armament.
This is money spent and squandered and the reasons are many; most important is that the strategies of camouflage and weapons concealment among civilians offset the strategic advantage of acquiring qualitatively superior weaponry.
These strategies were employed by Hezbollah, and are applicable to any armed group in the Arab world provided it hijacks a society and sets itself as a state within a State.
Another reason concerns missiles as a weapon, not against aircraft, but for proving the ineffectiveness and infeasibility of the security fence Israel believed would protect it and bring calm and peace.
These miscalculations became obviously naïve and dangerous not only to the Israeli government, but to the US administration as well. And due to the current concession on a need for an alternative, certain parties see this as an opportunity to work to push Washington and Tel Aviv toward pursuing an Arab-Israeli peace.
The revival of the Arab initiative which had stemmed from the Beirut Summit which involved Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for its withdrawal to the 1967 boarders and ending the occupation is attracting renewed interest and creative attempts to update it to replace the failed Israeli unilateral solution.
Another idea along the line of renewed and creative handling of Israel's obsession and its priorities namely: security guarantees; points to Lebanon, which will act as source for new ideas based on material, on-the-ground international guarantees through the international presence in resolutions and troops on the ground.
The principal problem with these concepts is that Israel is not willing to pay for its share of the peace bill. A spoilt child that has depended on the US for decades to pick up its war bills in the name of its 'fragility' in a 'hostile' environment, depends on the US to exempt it from the expense of peace, even at the risk of being a burden. But the current circumstances call for Israel to reconsider.
The Israelis know well what is expected of them with regards to the Palestinians if they wanted peace. The Palestinians, too, know what they should do among themselves and toward Israel if peace was their option.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas represents the highest-caliber vessel to the desired destination. However, he is expected to be more firm with Hamas if he plans to be the driving force for peace for the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas movement in the face of an endless inferno of destruction. For those who count on their ability to rob Israelis of serenity and sleep as punishment for the occupation and their oppressive practices, overlook the fact that this option also denies Palestinians the right to the simplest forms of normal life due to exhausting wars that have not brought an end to the occupation.
The Palestinian president was right to draw the line between the issues of Palestine and Lebanon. He was also right to remain at the helm to cater to Hamas's needs, since it is critical for everyone, especially the US administration, to realize that coaxing Hamas into moderation calls for a fundamentally different policy based on denying Iran and Syria a chance to hijack the Palestinian issue.
Recently, Lebanon has become the international center of attention, and is now a wide scale international workshop after it departed from the regional schemes through Resolution 1701, which paves the way for Lebanese-Israeli peace without the need to wait for a Syrian-Israeli one, for which Lebanon has been held hostage by Damascus for years.
Despite all its recent attempts to portray itself as a vanguard, Syria is irrelevant to serious discussions of a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Talk of 'Madrid 2' in reference to the early 1990s' peace talks that launched the peace process with Syria as the queen of the negotiations, is mere lip service.
There is no such thing as the 'Madrid 2' project, which satisfies Syrian demands of linking tracks and subjecting the Palestinian and Lebanese tracks to the Syrian one in the name of 'inseparability' and 'comprehensive' peace.
What does exist, however, is the right to a sovereign choice, the right to disengage and the right to not wait or to control tracks, especially the Lebanese track without Damascus's permission.
In other words, all Syrian attempts have failed to restore Lebanon to being a State of domesticated birds, in spite of assassinations, conspiracies, the manipulation of groups within it, fomenting wars inside and against it, instigating civil war, and using it as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Israel on the Golan Heights. Anyone who tries to talk to Damascus about a Syrian role in Lebanon is now viewed as an attempt to open a gap for the Syrian regime to sneak back and resume its pulling on the strings of Lebanon.
Damascus's mission in Lebanon now lies in refraining from smuggling arms to Lebanese and Palestinian individuals and groups with the aim of fomenting wars and confrontations in a revolting exploitation and abuse of the Palestinian issue and of Lebanon.
Furthermore, the role of Hezbollah warrants examination and scrutiny following the destructive outcome of the Syrian-Iranian relationship. Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah stated last Sunday in a televised speech that "The party's leadership did not expect, even a 1% chance, that the abduction operation of two Israeli soldiers would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude; a war that is unprecedented in the history of wars," adding "Had we known that the operations would lead to this result, we certainly would not have carried it out."
Let us consider these words as a pledge against committing the same mistake, a pledge against misjudgment. Let us consider it as a sort of apology for the consequences of the adventure of kidnapping two Israeli soldiers across the Lebanese-Israeli boarders that led to the destruction of the country. Let us say that it is an attempt to comfort and genuinely express condolences.
But Nasrallah's speech is not enough. He is required to show his true character, his identity, and his Party's choices when it comes to the Lebanon of tomorrow through deeds and stands he must take today in a very transparent way.
One of the first things Hezbollah should do through Nasrallah is to stop expecting to be forgiven by the people of Lebanon and to be given the blessing for going into another war because of his insistence on his personal right to resist.
No Party, faction, or militia has the right to resist since resistance and ending occupation is the right of the State. To repeat, Hezbollah has no right to resist, but is required to abandon these very claims after involving Lebanon in a war that killed innocents, displaced thousands and destroyed the infrastructure, not just as a result of the Israeli terrorism, violence, barbarism and lack of morals in using cluster bombs, but also because Hezbollah concealed Iranian-made missiles it received through Syria inside the houses and bodies of Lebanese children.
Hezbollah now has a moral commitment to simply respect the great deal of patience the Lebanese people have exercised in dealing with it.
It also has a clear choice if it wants to prove its Lebanese identity and get rid of its reputation that it agrees to be used to satisfy Syrian and Iranian ends. The choice is to truly shift into being a political party, and instead of ingeniously hiding arms, to surrender them to the Lebanese army, as Nasrallah knows more than anyone else the outcome of not surrendering the arms to the army, and the outcome of his continuous effort to overthrow the government of Fouad Siniora, and the outcome of his opposition to international aid to the Lebanese army in policing the boarders with Israel.
Misjudging once could be a mistake, but adopting a strategy that clearly provokes another war is a conspiracy.
The people of Lebanon deserve comfort and peace and do not want to be used as a bargaining chip.
The Arabs' celebration of 'victory' is a delusion conjured by those who use selling-words and shout them over the remains of Lebanon; including Hezbollah.
Now that we all, including Nassrallah, know that this war was not a war of strategic victory, but a war of miscalculation, then it is safe to say that it is unfair for Lebanon to be embattled for walking the road toward peace, following the footsteps of Egypt Jordan, and Syria, which would have liked to do that itself. It is unfair for Lebanon to be embattled for seeking to achieve its aims separately from those of Palestine efforts to end the occupation, or Syria's efforts to reclaim the Golan Heights.


Profile: Ehud Olmert
BBC: Olmert is one of Sharon's closest political confidantes
With Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a serious condition in hospital, his powers have been transferred to his deputy, the Finance Minister Ehud Olmert.
He can serve as prime minister for 100 days, before the president must meet with political leaders to agree on a coalition government.
However, an election is already scheduled for 28 March.
Mr Olmert, 60, is widely seen as one of Mr Sharon's closest allies.
He unequivocally supported Mr Sharon through every step of the Gaza evacuation process.
He also followed Mr Sharon in November when he left the right-wing Likud party to set up the more centrist Kadima.
Mayor of Jerusalem from 1993 until he joined the cabinet in 2003, Mr Olmert has adopted a slightly more dovish line in recent years, relative to senior figures in his former Likud party.
As deputy prime minister, he has gained a reputation for floating controversial ideas, allowing Mr Sharon to gauge reaction and develop his strategy.
Disengagement uproar
While still mayor, Israeli press reports say, Mr Olmert and Mr Sharon began getting close in 2001, six months prior to the soon-to-be prime minister selecting his new cabinet.
As a reward for his support for the disengagement plan, Mr Sharon promised him a senior ministry post, starting with the deputy minister brief in February 2003.
POLITICAL CAREER
Born in Binyamina in 1945
1973: Elected to the Knesset
1988-1990: Minorities minister
1990-1992: Health minister
1993-2003: Mayor of Jerusalem
Feb 2003: Deputy prime minister
2003-2004: Communications minister
Aug 2005: Finance minister
He caused uproar in political circles in December 2003, when he suggested Israel should pull out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
He said in a Yediot Aharonot newspaper article, that a withdrawal was the only way for Israel to stay democratic and Jewish.
He warned that the high Palestinian birth-rate meant Arabs would soon out-number Jews in Israeli-controlled territories.
For Israel to remain a Jewish state, he said, a new border would have to be created, with as many Jews as possible on the Israeli side.
At the time, cabinet colleagues from parties representing Israeli settlers accused him of giving in to terrorism.
Despite the initial controversy, the idea of disengagement became government policy, with a majority of Israelis backing the process.
Former officer
Mr Olmert is a long-standing rival of Benjamin Netanyahu, who he replaced as finance minister in August 2005 when the latter stood down in protest at the Gaza pull-out plan.
Despite their rivalry, observers say both men have several common traits. Both are natural leaders, gifted speakers, photogenic and handle the press well.
Mr Olmert was born in Binyamina in 1945 and trained as a lawyer. His father was also a Knesset member.
Before being elected to parliament in 1973, aged 28, he served with the Israeli Defence Forces as an infantry unit officer.
As mayor of Jerusalem between 1993 and 2003, he invested substantial resources on developing the city's road, water and sewage infrastructure.
He was also a strong advocate of the expansion of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank surrounding the city.
He is married with four children.