LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September 22/06
Biblical Reading For Today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 9,9-13.
As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him. While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples. The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' I did not come to call the righteous but sinners."
Opinions
Bypassing UNIFIL-By:Hassan Haydar - Al Hayat 22.09.06
Investigating the Hezbollah War. By David Bedein-FrontPage 22.09.06Keeping Lebanon cool-Al-Ahram Weekly - Cairo,Egypt 22.09.06
Latest New from the Daily Star for September 22/06
Nasrallah owes all Lebanese a clear statement of his bottom lines
German warships set sail to help police Lebanese waters
Hizbullah supporters gear up for victory rallyPoorly equipped army struggles with new role
Lahoud questions UN's credibility on enforcing 1701
Cabinet: Victims of war will wait no more
Franjieh summoned for questioning in libel case
Higher Judicial Council proposes new line-up
MPs head for Kuwait to express gratitude
March 14 members lash out at Assad for criticizing Resolution 1701
Hizbullah assails Fatfat over security reformPolitical divisions threaten Lebanon's reform drive
Rebuilding the Fidar Bridge shapes up as a key test
Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 22/06
Vale Of Tears-New York Jewish Week
Syria/Jordan/Canada/USA: Canadian inquiry underlines need for-Amnesty International USA - USA
RCMP gave US erroneous information about Arar: report-Ottawa Sun
Hezbollah adopts Chavez as hero-Khaleej Times
Who Won The Israel vs. Hezbollah War?The Daily Titan
Hezbollah Claims To Have Never Hidden Plans To Snatch Soldiers-All Headline News
Canadian linked to US smuggling ring pleads guilty-International Herald Tribune
Israel postpones Lebanon pullout-Chicago Tribune
Israel to stay in Lebanon passed Friday; UN force at 5,000-Monsters and Critics.comLebanon Begins to Clean Ravaged Coast-Washington Post
German warships sail for Lebanon on UN mission-USA Today
Assad: Israel may attack, Syria will stand strong-Ynetnews
World Bank Grants Lebanon $70 Million for Post-Conflict Recovery-Naharnet
Chavez Calls Bush 'Devil,' Assails US Policies-NPR
Security Council's Lebanon resolution must be carried out-UN News Centre
Lebanon just beginning to clean ravaged coast after war-time oil-International Herald TribuneIsrael calls Iran its greatest threat-AP
Man tortured in Syria seeks apology from Washington and Ottawa-Gulf News
Peretz: We won't close our eyes to Iran, Syria-Ynetnews
Did America Rendition A Canadian Man To Syria For Torture?Reiten Television
Lebanon would be last Arab country to forge peace deal with Israel-People's Daily Online
Bar-On asks Mazuz to bar Arab MKs' Mideast trips-Jerusalem Post
In Reversal, Germany Will Join Lebanon Force-New York Times
Pope Backlash Deals Blow to Interfaith Ties-Los Angeles Times
Pope hopes that controversy will lead to dialogue
Times Online Pope: Islam Quote Not My Views
CBS News EU justice chief condemns threats made against pope-International Herald Tribune,
Pope, in New Step to End Crisis, Pays Respect to Islam-Los Angeles Times
Investigating the Hezbollah War
By David Bedein
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 20, 2006
A panel set up by the Israeli government to look into incompetence in the recent war with Hezbollah may and should draw on American testimony to determine the truth. It is now official: On Sunday, September 17, 2006, the Israel Cabinet Secretary Yisrael Maimon announced that the government of Israel convened an official judicial panel to examine the Israeli government's “ill preparedness” in the wake of the war in Lebanon during Summer 2006. This falls short of an official government commission of investigation that some Israeli reserve officers and families of fallen soldiers have demanded. However, the Israel Cabinet Secretary added that the chairman of this judicial panel, Judge Eliyahu Winograd, has been mandated by the government of Israel to “operate autonomously and independently,” and to make recommendations that will resonate in the public domain in Israel. To give it some teeth, the “Winograd panel” has been invested by the Israeli government with judicial power to subpoena witnesses and to recommend prosecution of any Israeli public official whom it finds was involved with willful or negligent criminal behavior. One area that the investigation panel will examine will be the “management of the political echelon as it related to the…preparedness and readiness of the threat from Lebanon, including intelligence preparedness and the force building and its readiness…” (Clause C)
In that context, American citizens who witnessed security briefings from Israeli officials over the past few years may be called upon to testify at the Winograd panel.
A case in point:
On February 18th, 2005, during a public presentation for the annual Jerusalem meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert faced a question from Morton Klein of Philadelphia, who is the president of the Zionist Organization of America. Klein asked Olmert how he could trust the intentions of Abu Mazen, since Abu Mazen had been allowing terrorists under his jurisdiction to arm themselves to the teeth.
Olmert pounded on the podium and exhorted his questioner to examine “Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon as a model which Israel would apply to Gaza and Samaria.” Olmert went on to say that although Hizballah terrorists had stationed 15,000 missiles and mortars in Lebanon that “they have never, never, never used missiles against Israel on the northern border since Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May, 2000.”
Olmert’s response was incredible. This reporter’s oldest son served on the northern border in an IDF combat unit for three years, 2001-2004, and was under fire the entire time. He was not at some kind of summer camp.
A few days later, this reporter dispatched a colleague to a press reception on February 23rd, to ask Olmert if he stood behind his statement that the Hizballah had not fired any missiles into Israel since Israel’s withdrawal in May, 2000. The reporter showed Olmert the declassified IDF situation report from June 8th, 2004, the day that this reporter’s son completed his IDF service in northern Israel.
The IDF document contradicted what Olmert had reported to 57 American organizations:
“In the four years since the IDF unilaterally redeployed its troops from Lebanon, the following attacks on Israel took place from the north: 34 attacks with mortar shells and anti-tank missiles into northern Israel; 7 shooting attacks with light arms fire into northern Israel; 8 roadside bombs that were planted in northern Israel; 127 times when anti-aircraft missiles were fired into northern Israel; 5 Katyusha rocket attacks into northern Israel; 10 infiltrations into northern Israel; 11 soldiers killed in northern Israel, while three IDF troops were kidnapped and murdered; 50 soldiers were wounded in northern Israel; 14 civilians were killed in northern Israel.” However, Olmert glanced at the IDF report, and, surprisingly, stood his ground, and reiterated his stand that “I meant to say that they have not fired into Israel in the last five years.”When the reporter showed Olmert that the IDF report demonstrated that the Arab terrorists had continued firing missiles into Israel, killing 28 people, Olmert walked away, saying that he did not want to discuss it. In other words, representatives of 57 American organizations heard Ehud Olmert, in his capacity as the “heir apparent” to the Israeli Prime Minister, present a false picture of what was occurring on the Northern Border that contradicted official Israeli security reports at the time of continuing attacks from the North. Since Olmert assured American supporters of Israel that there were no attacks from the North, that is the message that they conveyed to the U.S. Congress and to the White House.
These representatives of 57 American organizations who heard Deputy Prime Minister Olmert in February, 2005 can now provide evidence to the Winograd Panel about how Israel’s political echelon misrepresented the attacks that were then emanating from Lebanon. It will be instructive to see if representatives of these American groups will come forth to testify to the Winograd Panel. The question remains: Do these American citizens not owe it to the people of Israel to report the distortions of what their leaders reported less than two years ago? If these Americans do testify, the Winograd Panel will then be obligated to cross examine Olmert and ask him why he chose to misrepresent Israel’s security situation in the North, as reported by the IDF at the time.
Nasrallah owes all Lebanese a clear statement of his bottom lines
riday, September 22, 2006
Editorial-Daily Star
Lebanon stands on the verge of yet another crossroads that figures to determine the country's fate for years to come, and this time those directing the traffic have to take into account a powerful vehicle called Hizbullah and a single-minded driver known as Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. The resistance leader has built up a well-deserved reputation as a man of his word, but he also has a penchant for secrecy that has limited his ability to win the full trust of all of his compatriots. The words Nasrallah keeps to himself, in essence, are what cause would-be allies to withhold judgment and suspect him of harboring a hidden agenda. The time for vague musings is over, and many Lebanese long for a clear articulation of Hizbullah's vision for the future.
It is not enough, for instance, that Nasrallah expresses belief in a "strong state" as a prerequisite for the laying down of his party's weapons. What is required is a detailed set of benchmarks so that other stakeholders in this diverse country can breathe easier in the knowledge that they have a commitment to which they can hold the resistance movement at a later date. It is unusual to expect this kind of behavior from a Lebanese political figure, but it is not unfair: If anyone on the national stage can live up to such lofty expectations, it is Nasrallah.
In addition, the extent and the nature of his influence make it incumbent on him to issue a clear statement of principles that defines his views on the future shape of the Lebanese state - and his party's role within it. This is asking more of Nasrallah than any of his domestic interlocutors, but so be it. The governing parliamentary majority has tragically forefeited the opportunity to articulate a clear view of Lebanon's future and produce a political program that would move the country in that direction. But this is not the time for pointing fingers at the ruling majority for all its failures. It is Nasrallah's responsibility to encourage his party to participate in a democratic political process that would help set things right.
Hizbullah differs from other Lebanese parties for a variety of reasons, almost all of them undeniably positive. Its members are virtually untouched by the taint of corruption, its organizational capabilities are unparalleled, and its discipline is fast becoming legendary. What has been missing is a clear program that demonstrates the party's willingness to synthesize its Islamic values with the practical realities of a multi-faceted population with a rich but truncated tradition of democracy. Nasrallah is the right man to affirm and demonstrate the compatibility of these and other elements, and now is definitely the right time to do so.
Franjieh summoned for questioning in libel case
Daily Star staff
Friday, September 22, 2006
BEIRUT: Former Minister Suleiman Franjieh is to be questioned on October 4 concerning a lawsuit filed by MP Saad Hariri, according to an announcement Thursday by Beirut Investigating Magistrate Abdel-Rahim Hammoud. The majority leader filed a libel and slander lawsuit against Franjieh for comments made during a television interview two months ago.The former interior minister alleged that the Hariri family had asked him to say the bomb that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005 had been placed underground so the family could collect on an insurance policy. Hammoud also summoned Mariam Bassam, news director at New TV, for questioning (also on October 4) over a separate lawsuit filed by Adnan Baba, a friend of the Hariri family.That suit was filed over a report aired in July on New TV alleging that, at the request of the Hariri family, Baba had paid Syrian witness-turned-suspect Mohammad Zuhair Siddiq to testify against the former Lebanese-Syrian security regime.In sworn testimony to UN investigators, Siddiq said Syrian President Bashar Assad and President Emile Lahoud were behind Hariri's assassination.A source within the Presidential Palace told The Daily Star that Siddiq's re-emergence in the case was "part of the work of the temporary majority [in Parliament], which is using the suspect in its battle against the president." - The Daily Star
Hizbullah assails Fatfat over security reform
Raad says proposal 'violates the law'
Daily Star staff
Friday, September 22, 2006
BEIRUT: Hizbullah lashed out at acting Interior Minister Ahmad Fatfat on Thursday, accusing him of attempting to sneak through a "secret security network" that would grant unrestricted access to intelligence and security files for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
Proposal 2403 stipulates providing tUNIFIL free access to all security-related information, in addition to information on foreigners entering and leaving the country. The plan would group General Security, State Security and the information unit of the Internal Security Forces. If the proposal is approved, UNIFIL will be able to access security and intelligence data via the Internet.
"This decision can annul the work of certain institutions and is another attempt by the parliamentary majority to control all governmental institutions and use them to ensure their interest," Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad told The Daily Star.
"[Fatfat] had discussed this issue with everyone and everyone asked him to be patient with it and expressed objections to it. In addition ... such a proposal requires a decision by the Cabinet because it involves more than one security apparatus," he added.
Fatfat issued a statement Wednesday denying that the proposal aimed to create a "secret security network" and insisting it had been previously adopted by the Central Security Committee to increase coordination among security bodies.
Raad said the decision also violates the Constitution and Lebanese law.
"It violates the law because it can place a senior officer from one apparatus under the command of a junior one from a different apparatus," Raad said.
The "acting interior minister and all his decisions are subject to be challenged because the resignation of the interior minister was not accepted," he added. He also accused the security apparatus of maintaining "complete coordination with the FBI."
Sources quoted by Al-Akhbar newspaper on Thursday described the plan as "a revolution led by the parliamentary majority to put Lebanon under the international community's tutelage."
"This majority has to realize how dangerous this proposal is and has to drop it," Raad said.
Speaker Nabih Berri told Al-Akhbar: "What is suggested under Proposal 2403 cannot be accepted. I looked closely and ... it cannot go through."
"We never opposed expanding the margin of coordination among all governmental institutions but I don't know why they are trying to impose this mechanism on the coordination process," he added. "Why not put the information network under the service of General Security and not vice versa?"
Al-Akhbar also quoted "senior sources" as saying that in last-minute discussions, stipulations that all security networks be placed under the interior minister were dropped. Fatfat was not available for comment. - The Daily Star
Lebanon evacuation costs hit $85m
By Daniel Nolan
The Hamilton Spectator
(Sep 21, 2006)
The evacuation of about 15,000 Canadians from Lebanon during the Hezbollah-Israel conflict is reported to have cost taxpayers $85 million.
Canada hired several ships and chartered aircraft to ferry about one-third of the estimated 50,000 Canadians living in Lebanon to safety between July 19 and mid-August. But sources have told CTV News about the cost and also that about 7,000 evacuees have returned to Lebanon since hostilities ended between Israel and the guerrilla group. The government won't comment. The revelation has led Halton Conservative MP Garth Turner to call for revamping citizenship rules because taxpayers "have every right in the world to be ticked at what happened." The head of the Hamilton Council of Canadian Arabs, who is from Lebanon, said Turner's comment have racist undertones and that he wouldn't be making any remarks if "it wasn't Arabs/Muslims."
"Some of these people want to treat us as second-class citizens," said Ali Cheaib, who was visiting Lebanon at the time of the outbreak of hostilities and was evacuated by ship at the end of July. Last night, Turner dismissed the accusation that his comment was racist with a profanity. "There's nothing racist about this at all," he said. "This is an issue of dual citizenship that we haven't looked at before because we have never run into this kind of problem before. It could have been a number of countries where we have dual citizens." About 50 families -- 200 people -- made their way to Hamilton from Lebanon. The Settlement and Integration Services Organization made plans to deal with 1,000 evacuees.
Cheaib said he's aware of one man returning to Lebanon since hostilities ended because he had unfinished business.
As a rule, Canada asks citizens to reimburse the government for their evacuation from foreign lands but decided in this case taxpayers would foot the bill.
Turner noted he'd raised questions about spending taxpayers' money to rescue those in Lebanon during the evacuation. He said the latest revelation raises new questions. "Do we have a responsibility to rescue anyone with a maple leaf passport, even if they have moved out of Canada and will never return?" he asked.
"The money is gone. Let's move on. Let's examine this issue of dual citizenship so we don't have this situation happening again somewhere else in the world. I'd say the course of action now is to get this issue into a House of Commons committee ." Cheaib said many Lebanese-Canadians try to maintain a home or apartment in Lebanon because of an attachment to their mother country. He said many make one or two return trips a year. Cheaib said evacuees were not put up in luxury hotels, but spent nights in gyms on mats. He said they were crammed in ships, transferred from one location to another and returned to Canada on cheap flights.
He said he travelled to Cyprus on a vessel chartered by the Canadian and Australian governments. The ship could only hold 250 people "and it was not a luxury cruise by any stretch of the imagination." "That was fine with me," he said. "I'm very thankful to the government for doing what they have done."
Cheaib said if anyone questions the cost, maybe Canada should look at billing Israel, which shelled and bombed Lebanon to get at guerrillas.
"They should not only be given the bill for this, but for the rebuilding of Lebanon," said Cheaib.
"I think our friend Garth should maybe try to find a creative solution along those lines."
dnolan@thespec.com
905-526-3351 With files from Canadian Press
Bypassing UNIFIL
Hassan Haydar Al Hayat - 21/09/06//
After the adoption of Resolution 1701 and since then, there have been a lot of speculations and controversies concerning the international forces which will spread by the virtue of the resolution; their competence, areas of deployment, and their means to handle any breach in the areas south of the Litany, that the Resolution stipulates to be free of any arms of both the army and UNIFIL. The forces are also required to ensure the implementation of a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel that has not been announced yet, due to the incomplete withdrawal of the occupation forces. Then this controversy extended to include the issue of international observers at the airport, the sea ports and the border crossing points. Later, it transpired that these observers will be training elements of the Lebanese authorities on means to control and seize smuggled arms and to enhance their work upon the request of official authorities. Many local and regional parties spearheaded by Hezbollah warned the international forces against non-abidance by the task assigned to them. They reminded them of the fate of the multinational forces deployed in Lebanon after the 1982 invasion, which were forced to withdraw after the suicide attacks that targeted them. The common denominator in all these attacks and threats was Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, whose government became easy prey to the allies of Syria and Iran, with all their different sects.
Hezbollah and its allies, who emerged 'victorious' from the last war, were forced to accept the international Resolution and all its consequences, without offering justification, since the military balance was tilted to their side. In spite of all the statements confirming that they still have the initiative and that their arms will not be confiscated or incorporated into the army, the Resolution essentially and definitely means closing the front of southern Lebanon in the face of military activity sponsored by Syria and Iran, regardless of the different statements explaining this, starting from the prudence of the Lebanese government to the excess realism of the German Chancellor. Also, it broadly means ruling out the justification for which Hezbollah was established and enhanced both military and financially for long years until it surpassed the capabilities of the army and the government.
Resolution 1701, which was issued after international and regional tensions, has gone beyond Hezbollah and its supporters, giving the main role in both the current and future phases to the Lebanese official authority represented in the government and its legitimate security forces in the border region with Israel. Moreover, the balance of regional and international forces only allows semi-isolated Syria and Iran to cave in, each for its own reasons, and to announce, even if ostensibly, their support for the international Resolution. Hence, Syria and Iran, along with their local agents, will not spare any means to bypass the conditions and circumstances that they had to abide by and to pounce on them whenever possible. Thus, we can understand the coordinated and continuous violent attack waged by Hezbollah and its supporters against the government, which shouldered the responsibility of implementing Lebanon's international obligations.
The international consensus reflected in the Security Council, the diversity of participation in UNIFIL and the accession of countries like China, made it impossible at the current stage to prevent the international forces from carrying out their task of imposing security in the south and ensuring the application of the Armistice Agreement with Israel. Thus, overthrowing the Lebanese government, disrupting its decision-making ability and dragging Lebanon into an open political crisis could later lead to making the beefed-up UNIFIL appear as 'occupation forces' that enjoy neither Lebanese political support nor consensus on its role and tasks. This means serious possibilities may be raised, certainly including the risk of military confrontations with these forces under various pretexts, which definitely include al-Qaeda. It also means the country may once again plunge into chaos, which will certainly involve the Brammertz Investigation Commission.
Was this not what made the French President issue a warning before the General Assembly of the United Nations, that the fire is still latent in Lebanon?
speech I'd like to hear
Alastair Gordon
National Post
Published: Thursday, September 21, 2006
When Stephen Harper addresses the UN today, Alastair Gordon hopes his remarks might sound something like this...
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here today. Where to start? Let's go to the Far East and work our way round the globe.
- Taiwan is a peaceful, self-made democracy with the world's 17th largest economy. Yet it has consistently been denied entry to the UN. Meanwhile, Iran, a wretched theocracy threatening the world with nuclear Armageddon, is a member not only of the UN General Assembly, but also of the Human Rights Council. Canada will now support Taiwan's full participation in the UN and its agencies. I am also taking this opportunity to announce Canada's withdrawal from the "One China" policy embraced by my predecessor.
- Across the Taiwan Strait, there is mainland China, the largest recipient of Canadian foreign aid. Tell me: Why does a $1-trillion economy send its tax dollars to an $8-trillion economy? Should a manufacturing colossus such as China enjoy the preferential tariffs normally reserved for a developing nation? Are we helping China buy the missiles it aims at Taiwan? Simply put, our aid for China is over.
- Moving south and west, we come to India. India has been independent for less than 60 years, yet has created the world's largest democracy with the world's largest middle class. Canada will sponsor a resolution proposing that India become the next permanent member of the UN Security Council.
- Next, Iran. Attention, Europe: The nuclear missiles Iran wants to build will be able to incinerate your cities. Yet many of you pander to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by demonizing Israel and America, while secretly praying that they neutralize Iran and save your hides. Smart people shouldn't appease an apocalyptic madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If you insist on doing so again, you'll be on your own when Paris is reduced to radioactive rubble.
- Afghanistan. Here, the UN took a principled position. I am grateful to the men and women who make up the UN-authorized forces in that country. But I really do not understand this talk of a "traditional" peacekeeping and rebuilding mission as distinct from a combat mission. Rebuilding Afghanistan while the Taliban remain active is like building homes in the middle of a brush fire, while proclaiming that there is no need to first extinguish the flames. I am proud to tell you that Canada's army is staying the course in Afghanistan.
- And now we come to Israel. In its first 42 years, the UN tabled 370 resolutions condemning Israel and zero resolutions critical of the PLO or any Arab state. When Syria slaughtered 20,000 of its own citizens at Hama in 1982, or when it sponsored the destruction and occupation of Lebanon, or even when Iraq massacred its Kurdish citizens with poison gas ... nothing. So here's Canada's approach: We will vote no on every anti-Israel resolution until we see such reprimands applied even-handedly against all players in the Middle East according to the scale of their misdeeds.
Following the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections this year, Canada stopped funding the Palestinian Authority. Now a contrived "Unity Government" has its hand out for more Western aid. Should we really provide funding to parties whose goal is to obliterate Israel? Maybe if the Palestinians were forced to provide a real education to their children and build a real economy instead of living off Western welfare, they could become a fierce economic competitor, and pummel Israel in the marketplace of goods, services and ideas. (That would do more economic harm to Israel than, say, the United Church Womyns' Collective boycotting Jaffa oranges.)
- For decades, the world's refugee problems have been resolved through UNHCR. Only one group of refugees, the Palestinians, has its own refugee agency, UNRWA. Fifty-five years after its founding, the plight of Palestinian refugees is worse than ever. UNRWA is complicit in an education system that teaches children to hate Jews and glorify martyrdom, and provides Hamas with money for terror. Canada will end its funding of UNRWA, and direct those resources to UNHCR.
Finally, I would like to offer an invitation. There are a few members of the UN who recognize that a brutal global jihad is being waged against the free world, but more who are friends or appeasers of that jihad. Today, I am inviting the leaders of those democratic nations who have proven their commitment to defending freedom and tolerance to join me at a Conference of Free Nations to be held in Canada. There, we will take the historic first steps in forging a Western alliance to defeat this brutal common enemy.
Thank you.
Alastair Gordon is president of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies
Keeping Lebanon cool
Al Ahram Newspaper 21/09/06
If inter-Lebanese tensions can be moderated, despite appearances, Hizbullah has the upper hand over Israel and the US, writes Hassan Nafaa*
UN Security Council Resolution 425, calling upon Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon and for the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, remained unimplemented for 22 years. When, in 2000, Israeli forces were forced to evacuate, Israel claimed that it had done what was required of it under the provisions of the resolution and it called upon the Lebanese government to do the same. But the fact is that Israel did not meet its obligations: it held on to Shebaa Farms. If it had withdrawn from that piece of territory and, also, handed back Lebanese prisoners of war it would have pulled the rug from under Hizbullah and its excuses for sustaining the resistance, holding on to its arms and rejecting the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south. True to form, Israel preferred to keep those issues pending in the hope of being able to use them as a pretext for disarming Hizbullah coercively without having to furnish guarantees against invading Lebanon again.
Israel had other alternatives bar a military offensive for responding to Hizbullah's 12 July operation. It chose, however, to put into effect plans it had drawn up with the US aimed at imposing a new set of game rules on the region. It is sufficient, in this regard, to refer readers to the report by Seymour Hersh that appeared in The New Yorker of 14 August, and to that of Wayne Madsen, portions of which appeared in translation in the Lebanese As- Safir newspaper. These articles chronicle numerous meetings held between Israeli and American officials in the US this spring. Madsen, in particular, discusses a meeting held on the sidelines of a forum sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute 17-18 June in Beaver Creek, Colorado. Attended by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, former Israeli prime ministers Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, and member of Knesset Naatan Sharansky, this meeting allegedly put the final touches to plans for an Israeli military offensive aimed at destroying Hizbullah, leaving open only the question of a suitable excuse and the right timing. In other words, there is no doubt that the decision to invade Lebanon was been taken jointly by the US and Israel well in advance of the Hizbullah raid and that the ultimate purpose, as Condoleezza Rice put it, was to create a "new Middle East" despite any Lebanese "birth pangs".
Although the substance of these meetings has not yet been disclosed, the participants must have agreed on some sort of division of labour, whereby Israel would undertake the war effort, and therefore choose the time and excuse for launching the offensive, and the US would wage the diplomatic battle in a manner that would give Israel the time it needed to accomplish its objectives. Israel's declared objectives were to disarm Hizbullah, destroy its military infrastructure and drive its forces north of the Litani River and to secure the unconditional release of the two Israeli soldiers that Hizbullah forces captured 12 July. The undeclared objectives were much more ambitious. If Israel hoped it could capitalise on its military achievements by altering the political situation on the ground -- so as to ultimately lead to a Lebanese-Israeli peace treaty -- the Americans had their sights set further afield. To hawks in Washington, the Israeli offensive in Lebanon was a "test run" for possible military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The elimination of Hizbullah was to ascertain the neutrality of the Lebanese front in the event of war with Iran, during which Israel would be expected to furnish, at the very least, logistical support. White House officials also believed that the removal of Hizbullah from the Lebanese political map would weaken Syria, Damascus would be forced to relinquish its alliance with Iran and, perhaps, the Palestinian resistance as well, and accept "reasonable" conditions for a peace agreement with Israel. If Iran's nuclear programme could be destroyed, the Middle East would be on the threshold of that rebirth that Washington has been so ardently anticipating.
Everything was set on the diplomatic stage and, particularly after the Hizbullah raid of 12 July, there would be no obstructions of the sort that preceded the invasion of Iraq. The EU was ready to cooperate with the US to the fullest extent, especially with a new government in power in Germany, warmer Franco-American relations following the passage of UN Resolution 1559, and with key Arab states ready to back the diplomatic cover by casting the blame for an Israeli offensive on Hizbullah. Because all the US had to do was to keep the Lebanese crisis out of the Security Council for as long as possible, the US fully expected a smooth drive through international diplomatic circuits. So things transpired at first. Washington had no difficulty in persuading its fellow G8 members, meeting in St Petersburg 16 July, to hold "Hizbullah and its allies in Iran and Syria" fully responsible for the war and to regard them as "a source of instability in the Middle East". At the same time, Washington blithely turned a blind eye to all appeals to end the hostilities and call for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, the US secretary of state said, "there should be a ceasefire only when it is determined that the circumstances are such that there will be no return to the unstable situation that existed beforehand."
The success, however, of the American diplomatic drive was contingent upon the realisation of two conditions: the destruction of Hizbullah's military infrastructure within a reasonable period of time and the political isolation of Hizbullah inside Lebanon for having courted the Israeli offensive. Neither of these conditions came to fruition, the first because of the steadfastness and efficacy of the defences of the resistance, the second because of the brutality of the Israeli bombardment. As a result, the American-Israeli plan went awry. The Lebanese rallied behind the resistance with a resolve that helped isolate those forces or bodies of opinion that might have otherwise supported American plans and the Sunni versus Shia card failed in the face of the massive public outcry in the Arab and Islamic world against Israeli aggression, compelling Arab and other governments to change tack and begin to urgently press for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
Then came the Rome conference, which the Americans had expected to be a forum for international support for the deployment of Lebanese forces in the south and the dismantling of Hizbullah, which Washington had branded a terrorist organisation bent on forcefully preventing the Lebanese central government from exercising its sovereignty over the whole of Lebanese territory. Instead, the US suddenly found itself presented with Fouad Al-Siniora's seven point truce plan, forcing Washington to scramble for an excuse to buy Israel more time in the hope that Israel would still be able to resolve the situation militarily and impose its own conditions for a ceasefire. However, the Americans could only procrastinate for so long. In the end it could not continue to obstruct and resist pressure for the passage of Security Council Resolution 1701.
When considering this controversial resolution, it is important to distinguish between a technical reading and a political one. Technically, Resolution 1701 comes down heavily on Israel's side, granting it the prerogatives it had failed to achieve militarily on the ground. Politically, however, the balances of power on the ground oppose the implementation of the American and Israeli interpretation of 1701. Thus, all is now contingent on future developments. The resolution may have brought an end to a round of military showdown between Israel and Hizbullah, but the war isn't over yet. Indeed, as Robert Fisk points out in The Independent of 17 August, the real war may have only just begun.
Any reading of the situation on the ground has to take into account the fact that Hizbullah was not defeated, regardless of what one might infer from the wording of 1701. In fact, one could actually argue that Hizbullah scored a victory. After all, it still holds the two Israeli soldiers; it still retains its militia (in spite of the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south and the arrival of large numbers of international forces); Shebaa Farms is officially being regarded as occupied, or at least disputed, territory; and the international community now officially recognises the sensitivity and urgency of the Lebanese prisoner of war question. So long as Israel does not decide to attack again -- and it is highly doubtful that it could with the presence of so many international forces on the ground -- any prospective political settlement must provide for a prisoner exchange and the return of Shebaa Farms to Lebanese sovereignty. It is now almost impossible to conceive the disarmament of Hizbullah outside the framework of a Lebanese national accord, with Hizbullah voluntarily disarming in exchange for a commitment to build a strong national army, an international guarantee against future Israeli aggression and, perhaps, a solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Clearly, such an accord would be a long time in coming and, undoubtedly, entail the participation of other regional and international powers, which, in turn, will seek some linkage to the other facets of the complex Arab-Israeli struggle.
At the same time, however, we must not forget that 1701 is based on the premise that Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation in the face of which the international community is duty bound to come to the rescue of the Lebanese government. The logic -- determined, of course, by an international balance of power skewed heavily in favour of the world's sole superpower -- flies in the face of the important reality that Hizbullah is a legitimate Lebanese political party with a bloc in parliament and members in government. In other words, Hizbullah is part of the government that the international community is supposed to be supporting. Ultimately, therefore, the implementation of 1701 depends on the actions and attitudes of the Lebanese government, which cannot be forced to do anything against its will regardless of how the US and Israel interpret the resolution.
As long as this remains the case, one can envision the situation reaching a danger point only under one condition, which is that the Lebanese government takes the view that Hizbullah is an organisation operating outside of the law and whose militia needs to be disarmed by force. As 1701 gives the Lebanese government broad powers to determine the nature of the duties incumbent upon UNIFIL (the UN Interim Forces in Lebanon), theoretically it can ask these forces to assist it in stripping Hizbullah of its arms. This, naturally, is a recipe for civil war, which one would think that all parties would do their utmost to avert. Therefore, one can not help but to feel troubled by some of the statements issued by various Lebanese officials and Hassan Nasrallah's angry responses. Surely, Lebanon's past experience should be sufficient to alert the Lebanese to the need to keep cool and rational heads so that 1701 does not turn into a tool for tearing Lebanon apart politically, especially after all the destruction Israel wrought militarily.
* The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.