LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September 6/06
Latest
New from the Daily Star for September 6/2006
Annan expects siege to end Thursday
Government submits complaint on Israeli blockade to
Security Council
Paris agrees to naval patrols, Turkish MPs approve troop deployment, Lebanese
Army reaches Bint Jbeil
Senior security officer survives bomb attack
Siniora reaches out to build support against blockade
LBC focuses on Israeli missing since 1986
Legal expert says 1923 maps show Shebaa Farms in Lebanese territory
UNICEF floats safety lessons on water shipments
Nasrallah: Build a strong state, then discuss arms
Kuwait Airways plans resumption of Beirut flights
Phoenicia Village won't rise just yet
Foreign relief agencies get down to work in Dahiyeh
Not even war can blunt South Lebanon's charms
Ahmadinejad's latest move threatens major setbacks for his people
Israel's economy is strong, but the war took its toll
Learning Lebanon's lessons, once again-By
Rami G. Khouri
Round by round: winners and losers in the post-9/11
era-By Joseph S. Nye
Ahmedinajad vows education crackdown
Investigation indicates Jordanian gunman acted alone
Olmert offers Abbas summit if soldier is freed
Latest
New from Miscellaneous sources for September 6/2006
Annan expects
Israel to lift Lebanon embargo within 48 hours-AP
Remote bomb strikes southern Lebanon-Globe and Mail
Bomb targets Lebanon police convoy-CNN
UN: IDF withdraw from five s.Lebanon villages-Jerusalem Post
Israel vacates positions in south Lebanon-United Press International
The Footrace to Rebuild Lebanon-New York Times
Annan taking action on Lebanon blockade-International Herald Tribune
Nasrallah: Hizbullah will not disarm-Al-Bawaba
Aziz-Saniora Talks: Pakistan Plans to Send Troops to Lebanon-Pakistan Times -
Lebanese troops move into Hezbollah bastion-Mail
& Guardian Online
Annan to appoint 'secret' Middle East mediator-Scotsman
Annan Working to Lift Israeli Blockade of Lebanon-New
York Times
UN ranks begin to swell in Lebanon-Christian
Science Monitor
UN says Israeli pullout of Lebanon on track-Mail
& Guardian Online
Lebanese Government Seeks Control of Border-Washington Post
Lebanese Government Seeks Control of Border-Washington Post
General Lebanese Equations.By:
Hazem Saghieh 05.09.06
What Next? Reflections for the Children of the Lebanon.By:
Anthony Barnett 05.09.06
Annan's Role: At What Price? By: Zuheir Kseibati
05.09.06
The Danger of Iran's Petrodollar! By: Jamil Ziabi 05.09.06
Olmert:
Fighting in Lebanon will deter Syria-Ha'aretz
Explosion in south Lebanon critically wounds Lebanese police-Calgary Sun
Turkey to vote on sending troops to Lebanon-Jerusalem Post
Kofi Annan, United Nations, Hezbollah
'Bugged' Blue Helmets dog Kofi
By Judi McLeod
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
The Canadian Lebanese Coordinating Council (LCCC), among others worry about the
prospect of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan meeting personally with terrorist
Hassan Nasrallah during his recent 11-day tour of the Middle East.
"Any meeting between Mr. Annan and Mr. Hassan Nasrallah that takes place outside
the framework of Hezbollah scheduling the surrender of its weapons and
abandoning its culture of hatred, violence and terror is a prelude to scuttling
the efforts of the United Nations, voiding the UN resolutions of their
substance, and legitimizing a fundamentalist organization," LCCC chairman Elias
Bejjani and Political Adviser Charbel Barakat state in a media communique.
Given that UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon), a 2000 man
strong blue-helmet contingent, was discovered to have openly published what the
Weekly Standard describes as "daily, real-time intelligence, of obvious
usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of
Israeli troops in Lebanon," anything remotely UN bears watching.
Double-dealing is hardly a new characteristic of the world's largest
bureaucracy.
"Annan's words--"I think I can do business with Saddam" have never been
forgotten.
"I think it's important that I come here myself to discuss with the Lebanese
authorities the aftermath of the war and the measures we need to take to
implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and to underscore international
solidarity," Annan said after being met at the airport last week by Foreign
Minister Fawzi Salloukh.
The resolution ended 34 days of fighting between Hezbollah and Israeli forces on
August 14. It calls for deployment of 15,000 peacekeepers in Southern Lebanon
and an equal number of Lebanese troops to patrol the border region when Israel
withdraws.
Given UNIFIL's spying on Israel for Hezbollah, isn't that akin to sending the
fox into the henhouse?
In its media communique, LCCC is specifically asking the Secretary General "to
remain within the bounds of his mandate and not graft onto resolution 1701
similar mechanisms to those he employed in the oil-for-food program in Iraq."
"We draw the attention of the international community, the Arab countries, the
Lebanese government and all those concerned with Lebanon to the following facts,
cautions and demands: "Since the independence of Lebanon, Syria never recognized
the right of Lebanon to exist as an independent sovereign State. Syria,
continuously and without exception, related to Lebanon from a standpoint of
superiority, hatred, envy and meanness. Syria has been, and continues to be,
behind all of Lebanon's problems and crises, the big and small wars on its soil,
and the suffering of its people. Syria continues to nurture outlaw organizations
operating on Lebanese soil and seeks to destabilize and maintain insecurity,
while holding in its prisons hundreds of Lebanese nationals who were seized
illegally in Lebanon and held without due process.
"Therefore, the deployment of international forces along the borders of Lebanon
with Syria to support the Lebanese Army in monitoring and interdicting the
cross-border infiltration of people and the smuggling of weapons is of the
utmost importance, if not the most important element in stabilizing and
pacifying Lebanon. Without such a deployment, there will be no stability or
security in Lebanon, the country will remain an arena for the wars of others,
and its people will remain the fodder for these wars."
In the LCCC communique, Bejjani and Barakat accuse Annan of operating with his
own agenda.
"Mr. Annan took the unwarranted and dubious step of declaring that the
international force is not mandated with disarming Hezbollah, as if Mr. Annan is
operating according to his own private agenda that includes the protection and
the legitimization of the military role of the fundamentalist party.
"We strongly denounce this position which requires clarification by Mr. Annan."
Nor did Annan inspire much confidence with Israel on his Middle-East tour.
The Israeli officials with whom Annan met last week made it clear that when he
travels next to Syria and Iran, two nations who have clout with Hezbollah, he
should press both regimes to order the release of their two captives.
For appeasers, the rocky road seems to be getting rockier.
** Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist
with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she
also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard.
Judi can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
Nasrallah: Hizbullah will not disarm
© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Posted: 05-09-2006 , 08:59 GMT
Hizbullah chief, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, speaking in an interview published
Tuesday by the Lebanese A-Safir daily, said his group would not relinquish its
missile and rocket arsenal. Nasrallah added that Hizbullah would use the weapons
only if Lebanon was attacked again on a large scale by Israel.
"We have just finished the war and are in no rush to conduct operations in the (Shebba)
Farms, although we withhold the right to do so. No one can send Israel
reassuring messages on this matter for free," he said.
According to Nasrallah, the once legendary Israeli army "became an example of
failure and embarrassment in this war. "It used everything it had, except for
nuclear weapons, but failed to reach the goals it set - to destroy Hizbullah and
its rocket infrastructure, and to release the two soldiers who were captured.
Olmert's main success in this long and wide-ranging war was to force me into a
bomb shelter," Nasrallah told the newspaper.
Regarding a future confrontation with Israel, Nasrallah said that Israel would
need to consider "a thousand considerations" beforehand.
The Hizbullah leader also hailed Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud, Parliament
Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. He also stated that there
was room to improve Hizbullah's relations with Arab nations, especially with
Saudi Arabia. Additionally, he urged all political parties in Lebanon to return
and discuss a new defense strategy.© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Bomb targets Lebanon police convoy
September 5, 2006
Adjust font size:
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- A remote-controlled bomb on Tuesday wounded a senior
police intelligence officer who played a key role in the investigation into the
slaying of a former Lebanese prime minister.
Security officials said four of the officer's aides and bodyguards were killed
in the sophisticated attack in south Lebanon.
Lt. Col. Samir Shehade, deputy chief of the intelligence department in Lebanon's
national police force, was taken to the Hammoud hospital in Sidon, and hospital
officials said his condition was stable.
The four dead were Shehade's aides and bodyguards, and another five were wounded
in the attack, which occurred as Shehade's two-vehicle police convoy drove by
the village of Rmaile, near the southern port city of Sidon.
Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat told the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation that
the blast was caused by a roadside bomb loaded with nails. He said it targeted
the car normally driven by Shehade, who was traveling in the other vehicle at
the time.
Fatfat did not say who might have been behind the attack but said it could have
been aimed at Lebanese security forces, who are deploying to south Lebanon under
a U.N.-brokered cease-fire deal that ended a month of fighting between Israel
and Hezbollah guerrillas August 14.
Lebanese army troops are supposed to deploy in the south with a beefed-up U.N.
peacekeeping force as Israeli troops withdraw.
Shehade also was involved in the arrest last August of four pro-Syrian Lebanese
generals in Lebanon. The four were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the
February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Security officials said Shehade was involved in the interrogation of several
witnesses in the Hariri probe, including Syrian intelligence operative Husam
Taher Husam.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of
the case, said Shehade had received threats because of his work in the Hariri
probe. Hariri's son, Saad Hariri, a prominent lawmaker in Lebanon, called the
attack a terrorist act. "This is a message which we reject," he told reporters
in Beirut. The roadside bomb was detonated by remote control as the convoy
traveled on a highway between two bridges, said other security officials,
speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to
the press. Two of Shehade's bodyguards, Chief Sgt. Wissam Harb and Chief Sgt.
Chehab Aoun, were killed. Two others later died of their wounds at a hospital.
Shehade's convoy was riddled with shrapnel and TV footage showed at least one
bloodied man slumped on his seat in one of the cars. Police sealed off the area
and began an investigation. The Tuesday explosion came 10 days before U.N. chief
investigator Serge Brammertz was to submit a report to the U.N. Security Council
updating his findings on the Hariri investigation. Previous reports have
implicated top Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the killing, which
rocked Lebanese politics and led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from
Lebanon, ending a 29-year-military presence.
Syria denies any role in the Hariri slaying or the subsequent bombings.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
“Lebanese Security” Is the Pretext for the Naval Babel
around Lebanon’s Shores
DEBKAfile Exclusive Military Report
September 4, 2006, 11:37 AM (GMT+02:00)
The extraordinary buildup of European naval and military strength in and around
Lebanon’s shores is way out of proportion for the task the European contingents
of expanded UNIFIL have undertaken: to create a buffer between Israel and
Hizballah.
Close investigation by DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources discloses
that “Lebanese security” and peacemaking is not the object of the exercise. It
is linked to the general anticipation of a military clash between the United
States and Israel, on one side, and Iran and possibly Syria on the other, some
time from now until November
This expectation has brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe has
ever assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with
75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15
warships of various types – 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Green, 3-5
German, and five American; thousands of Marines – French, Italian and German, as
well as 1,800 US Marines.
It is improbably billed as support for a mere 7,000 European soldiers who
are deployed in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000
soldiers and some 15-16,000 Hizballah militiamen from coming to blows as
well as for humanitarian odd jobs.
A Western military expert remarked to DEBKAfile that the European naval forces
cruising off Lebanese shores are roughly ten times as much as the UNIFIL
contingents require as cover, especially when UNIFIL’s duties are strictly
non-combat. After all, none of the UN contingents will be engaged in disarming
Hizballah or blocking the flow of weapons incoming from Syria and Iran.
So, if not for Lebanon, what is this fine array of naval power really there for?
First, according to our military sources, the European participants feel the
need of a strong naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to prevent a
possible Iranian-US-Israeli war igniting an Iranian long-range Shahab missile
attack on Europe; second, as a deterrent to dissuade Syria and Hizballah from
opening a second front against American and Israel from their eastern
Mediterranean coasts.
Numbers alone do not do justice to the immense operational capabilities and
firepower amassed opposite Lebanon. Take first the three fleet flagships.
From France’s nuclear-powered 38,000-ton Charles De Gaulle carrier (see
insignia), 40 Rafale M fighter craft whose range is 3,340 km can take
off at intervals of 30 seconds. The ship also carries three E-2C Hawkeye
surveillance craft. The combat control center of the French carrier can handle
2,000 simultaneous targets. The carrier leads a task fore of 7 warships
carrying 2,800 French Marines.
Charles De Gaulle s also a floating logistics center operating water
desalination plants for 15,000 men and enough food to feed an army for
90 days.
The USS Mount Whitney (the tallest snowcapped peak in the United States), has
the most sophisticated command and control suite in the world. Like the French
Charles De Gaulle , it exercises command over a task force of 1,800 sailors,
Marines, Air force medical and other personnel serving aboard the USS Barry,
the USS Trenton , HSV Swift and USNS Kanawha .
Available to the fleet commander, US Vice Admiral J. “Boomer” Stufflebeem,
formally titled commander of Joint Task Force Lebanon, is the uniquely advanced
C41 command and intelligence system through which he can flash intelligence
data to every American commander at any point between the eastern Mediterranean
and the Persian Gulf and Iran. USS Mount Whitney communications are described as
unsurpassed for the the secure transmission of data from any point to any other
point in the world through HF, UHF,VHF, SHF and EHF.
The third carrier joining the other two is the Italian aircraft-helicopter
carrier Garibaldi , which has launch pads for vertical takeoff by 16
AV-8B Harrier fighter-bombers or 18 Sikorsky SH-3D Seak King
sea-choppers (or Italian Agusta Bell AB212 helicopters), designed to attack
submarines and missile ships.
Military experts estimate that the Garibaldi currently carries 10 fighter
planes and 6 helicopters.
The new European naval concentration tops up the forces which permanently crowd
the eastern Mediterranean: the Italian-based American Sixth Fleet, some 15
small Israeli missile ships and half a dozen submarines and the NATO fleet of
Canadian, British, Dutch, German, Spanish, Greek and Turkish warships. They are
on patrol against al Qaeda (which is estimated to deploy 45 small freighters
in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean). The British have permanent air and sea
bases in Cyprus.
This vast force’s main weakness, according to DEBKAfile’s military sources, is
that it lacks a single unified command. A sudden flare-up in Lebanon, Syria or
Iran could throw the entire force into confusion.
On paper, it has three commanders:
1. French General Alain Pellegrini is the commander of the expanded UNIFIL
ground, naval and air force in Lebanon. In February 2007, he hands over to
an Italian general who leads the largest of the European contingents of
3,000 men. It is hard to see France agreeing to place its prestigious
Charles De Gaulle flagship under non-French command.
2. The American forces opposite Lebanese shores are under direct US command.
Since the October 1993 debacle of an American peace force under the UN flag
in Somalia, Washington has never again placed its military under UN command.
(There is no American contingent in the UNIFIL ground force either.)
In other words, USS Mount Whitney , while serving the European fleets as their
operational and intelligence nerve center will stay under the sole command of
Vice Admiral Stufflebeem in all possible contingencies.
3. Similarly, the NATO fleet will remain under NATO command, and Israel’s air
and naval units will take their orders from Israeli Navy Headquarters in Haifa
and the General Staff in Tel Aviv.
The naval Babel piling up in the eastern Mediterranean may therefore find itself
at cross purposes when action is needed in an armed conflict. Iran, Syria and
Hizballah could be counting on this weakness as a tactical asset in their favor.
The Danger of Iran's Petrodollar!
Jamil Ziabi Al-Hayat - 04/09/06//
Some Arab countries are trying to achieve a lasting and comprehensive peace in
the Middle East. They are trying to rid the region of the specter of fierce wars
that would divide them into colonies and settlements. These countries are
willing to achieve greater development, increase the level of their citizens'
welfare and maintain their security and stability. However, neighboring Iran has
been, since the outbreak of the Khomeini's revolution, threatening the stability
of this region which 'undergoes crises from time to time'.
Iran's ambitions do not stop at destabilization. It aims to settle in the Arab,
especially the Gulf, region, hoping to export the revolution and rouse people
who would support and defend it. To that end, it supports and builds armed
groups. It even uses the disparity in religious doctrines in some Arab
countries, such as Lebanon and most recently Yemen through Al-Hawthi group.
In Palestine, Iran is now drawing Hamas. In Iraq, it supports some Shiite groups
in the southern governorates to destabilize Iraq and covertly interfere in its
internal affairs. Iran is trying to drag Syria into the Iranian fold. The
question then begs to be asked: do the Arab peoples accept the presence of
organizations, movements and militias which operate inside their countries to
destabilize the region? Do they accept these organizations even though they
adopt other countries' goals and stances which are far from the aspirations of
the majority and the will of the States concerned, at the price of the peoples
themselves, their security and stability?
This is what Iran is doing to the region using armed groups which are in line
with its sectarian policies and ideas. It makes use of some Arab attitudes and
exploits the Arab street which is enraged by the US blind bias for Israel.
It has been evident that smart diplomacy is the only way to resolve conflicts
rather than jumping to the term 'resistance' and its meaning. The latest
Israel-Lebanon war did not end because of Hezbollah's missiles, as some people
believe. It was not the Party that compelled Israel to stop bombing and shelling
Lebanon. It did not force Israel to stop slaying hundreds of the Lebanese and to
stop destroying the infrastructure of the Cedar country. And with the Iraqi
Resistance, the tragedy of death has risen due to the increase of car bombs and
explosive belts. This has furthered the burning rage and heartbreak of Sunni and
Shiite fathers and mothers which portends an Iraqi civil war that will not cease
unless Iran stops arming, training and providing the Shiite groups with money
and equipment; and stops interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. Iran is behind
the scourge on the region, while any progress in the region is the result of the
diplomacy of the Arab States and the international community.
We should remember that the Arab masses, which applauded Hezbollah's adventure
to which Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah later admitted to, are the same masses that, in
the past, applauded Taliban and al-Qaeda for bombing the World Trade Center.
They praised Saddam Hussein for occupying Kuwait. Naturally, the Arab masses are
emotional and not politicized. They cannot be a realistic measure in planning
moderate policies and determining attitudes. They may commend a certain party,
sect or State today, and then curse them all tomorrow. Why does Iran try to
appropriate the steadfastness of the Lebanese people and their heroism? Why is
Iran trying to draw Syria and Hamas to its political stances?
What Iran wants from the Arab countries, especially Iraq, is not limited to
political gains. It has ambitions to settle in southern Iraq, like Israel in
some Palestinian territories. It may go beyond that to penetrate Iraq's social
fabric to trigger sedition. Why will Iran not return the UAE islands it has been
occupying since 1971?
Iran does not care much about all that. It faces the US, standing on the
shoulders of the Arabs, and on account of their blood, security and stability.
Iran, however, uses immoral cosmetics to beautify its true and ugly face and
markets its policies in the region by buying intellectuals, media people, and
people of no conscience. Many, who once deemed Iran as a criminal and enemy, are
now applauding, glorifying and promoting Iran's stances. It is no surprise
because the Petrodollar changes people, and Iran is generous in this aspect.
Iran's interests threaten Arab unity. Iran's intentions have become equal to the
threat of Israel. Unless the Arabs stand together in word and deed, Arabism and
Middle East security and stability will perish.
Israel fears war crime trials
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Three weeks after a cease-fire ended its war against Hezbollah guerrillas,
Israel is increasingly worried that government officials and army officers
traveling abroad may face war crimes charges over the country's actions in
Lebanon. A Foreign Ministry official said a legal team is preparing to provide
protection for officers and officials involved in the 34-day conflict. Some
1,200 Lebanese and 200 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died in operations
launched in Lebanon and Gaza after three Israeli soldiers were abducted in two
border raids. Israel has said all its actions were legal and accused Hezbollah
of hiding among civilians and targeting Israeli civilians with rocket attacks.
The fighting also left 159 Israelis dead, including 39 civilians hit by rockets
in Israel's northern cities. The Foreign Ministry official said the legal
defense team, which includes representatives from the Justice and Defense
ministries, is maintained by the government to help officials facing the
possibility of war crimes charges abroad. It was first put together to deal with
charges related to Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza.
Israel, which insists its armed forces act within international norms and
accuses its foes of inviting civilian casualties by operating within populated
areas, is also warning civil servants and military officers to watch what they
say about the Lebanese and Palestinian conflicts. Some talk, it fears could
invite war-crimes lawsuits. A ministry memorandum issued to Israel's military
and other government agencies urges officials to avoid belligerent remarks that
could potentially be used to back up allegations they were complicit in
excessive use of force. "The type of language now considered off-limits includes
`crushing' the enemy, and `cleansing,' `leveling' or `wiping out' suspected
enemy emplacements," said a source who saw the memo. The memo also censures an
official who called for Israel to respond to rockets on the port city of Haifa
by "getting rid of a village in Lebanon."
The memo says numerous war crimes lawsuits against Israeli officials are being
prepared. It cites venues such as France, Belgium and Britain. Three Moroccan
lawyers said last month they were suing Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz
over the recent offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. And Israel Radio reported that a
Danish lawmaker tried to have Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni detained and
prosecuted during a recent visit to Copenhagen, but a request for an arrest
warrant was rejected by prosecutors. Israeli fears of prosecution abroad are
also based on earlier experience.
Arriving in London last year, Doron Almog, a retired general who had commanded
Israeli forces in Gaza, was tipped off by an Israeli diplomat that he was about
to be arrested by British authorities over a 2002 airstrike that killed a Hamas
leader and 14 others, nine of them children. Almog remained on the aircraft and
returned to Israel. In 2001, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon faced a lawsuit in
Belgium over his role in a 1982 massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps
in Beirut. Several former Israeli army chiefs of staff have also been
targeted. But none of the cases have succeeded.
Daniel Machover, a British attorney involved in attempts to prosecute Israeli
officers said he knew of "at least two" teams compiling evidence in Lebanon.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, REUTERS
Tehran suffers fatal arrogance
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
Posted on 9/4/2006 9:31:33 AM
IT appears Iran has opened three fronts in the eastern part of the Middle East
and is increasing or decreasing the heat in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Gulf region
depending on the pressure on its nuclear program. Currently all these fronts are
on high alert as Iran’s confrontation with the international community has
reached a peak and the deadline for imposing sanctions and punishment has come
close.
Tehran’s battlefront in Iraq extends all the way to the south. The recent firing
along Kuwait’s borders with Iraq, coinciding with the visit of UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan to Tehran and his warning to Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is raising suspicions. Ahmadinejad’s choice of the Cold War
language indicates Iran’s internal situation is dangerous because of its
economy, which is in crisis.
With his extremist methods and by creating international and regional disputes
the Iranian President is trying to divert the attention of his people from the
internal crisis. This was evident when Ahmadinejad accused Gulf states of
standing with the international community and threatened to burn the entire Gulf
region if people of the region dared to stand in the way of Tehran’s nuclear
program.
Ahmadinejad has no right to accuse Gulf states or impose his authority over
them. We see his threats as a “killing arrogance,” which will eventually end
him, because these cannot be considered a politically noble or a wise move. All
of us remember how the Gulf states stood against the Shah of Iran when he was
trying to play the role of a regional policeman. We also remember how the
Ayatollah Ali Al-Khomeini’s Islamic revolution ended the Shah’s dreams.
Now Ahmadinejad wants to play the same role while trying to convince us that the
Islamic Revolution in Iran was not meant to implement the aggressive and greedy
policies of Tehran to expand its influence all over the Gulf. Ahmadinejad, who
represents the peak of Persian ambitions, is acting the role of a regional
policeman with such arrogance that he has challenged US President George Bush to
a debate. The President of Iran wants to debate the issue of reforming the
international system when he is incapable of reforming the system in his own
country.
We say these words because Iran is an important neighboring country, which
should play a cooperative role in tune with the importance of this strategic
region. We don’t want Iran to become a victim of its own arrogance and meet the
same fate of Japan, which was defeated in the World War II following the
dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iran should know even a
small spark can ignite a huge fire. World War I was the result of the
assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince and World War II was sparked by the
ambitions of Adolf Hitler.
We don’t want Ahmadinejad’s name to be included in the list of those, who caused
the killing of their own people or participated in crimes against humanity. We
are sorry to note that in such an important region, which is rich in oil and
natural gas, some adventurous leaders are willing to jeopardize peace by
accusing others of being agents without any proof. These leaders must remember
arrogance is a very dangerous disease.
e-mail: ahmedjarallah@hotmail.com
The release in Gaza of Fox News journalist Steve Centanni and camera man Olaf
Wiig,
By Dr. Walid Phares
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 4, 2006
The release in Gaza of Fox News journalist Steve Centanni and camera man Olaf
Wiig, kidnapped as of August 14 by a group calling itself "Holy Jihad Brigade"
raises a number of salient issues related to the kidnapping and release:
1) "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News.
"Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a
lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because
they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."
Such a statement raises a number of points. First it is not unusual that
Jihadists groups would force hostages to convert to Islam. But at the same time
it hasn't been a systematic behavior. Over the past 25 years, Jihadist
organizations, cells and captors -including al Qaida, Hezbollah, Laskar Jihad,
Jemaa Islamiya, Salafi Combat group, etc have taken hostages. In many cases the
Jihadists either asked the hostages or forced them to convert. But in other
cases they haven't. Statistically, most hostages who have been executed were not
asked to convert, while those who were released were either asked if they wished
or in some cases were told that it would be better for them to do so. Obviously,
hostages -especially if they weren't evangelists - would accept the conversion
as a mean for securing liberation or at least physical security. But there were
cases of Priests, Evangelists and Christian local leaders, who were executed
after they refused to convert. These cases didn't receive the publicity received
by media or secular Western citizens’ hostages. However, there were cases where
hostages were released without being forced or even asked to convert.
The question emanating from these hostage-conversions is two fold: a) is it
considered as legitimate one in the eyes of Islamic law? Under international
law, any forced conversion under threat is null and void. Under Sharia law a
similar verdict could be issued by an Islamic court who would argue that
conversion by force is not acceptable (La ikrah fil deen). But Jihadi
interpretation may argue that the conversion is standing with the immediate
consequence that reverting back from the new religion is punishable by death.
This would play a considerable role in intimidating the ex hostages, and would
allow the Terrorist group to call for sanctions in the future against the
journalists.
2) The group calls itself "The Holy Jihad Brigade." As in previous cases, this
may not be a new organization but a name given by the kidnappers or those who
ordered the kidnapping for this particular operation. There have been many names
that appeared after a Terrorist operation or hostage taking and never heard from
again in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, and Kenya to name few cases. A Palestinian
security official told AP that "Palestinian Authorities had known the identity
of the kidnappers from the start." The source said "the name was a front for
local militants." While indeed the name was created as a front for a local
operation, the question is who ordered it? Hamas-led Government Prime Minister
Ismael Hanieh said "it is not al Qaeda, and there is no al Qaeda in Gaza." In
fact al Qaeda presence exists in Gaza and it was reported in many previous
reports not denied by the Hamas cabinet. However it would be less likely that al
Qaeda was behind the operation because of the modus operandi of the group: Such
as sending a video to al Jazeera, and as in some cases in Iraq or Pakistan,
execution could have ensued. So, who could be behind the kidnapping and the
release? There are strong possibilities that the Hamas organization (which is in
power) could be behind the operation. Why?
3) Hamas has been complaining about the US support to Israel, but more
importantly about Washington's pressures to shut down all economic support to
the US-listed Terrorist organization. In many speeches by Haniya and Hamas
spokespersons, they blamed the US for the "sanctions" against their Government.
It is widely known in the Palestinian territories that the financial conditions
of Hamas' Government is worsening, allowing their opponents in Fatah to
criticize them. An unofficial hostage operation against journalists affiliated
with a media network perceived as close to the US Administration and very
critical of Hamas, could have been authorized by the security agencies of Hamas
as a way to send a message to Washington. Haniya may not want to cut it
completely with the United States yet, knowing that the Mahmoud Abbas forces can
still take advantage of the situation, hence the authorization for a "local"
group to perform a Jihadi-like abduction and release to send a message
Westbound.
4) Another analysis takes the regional situation into account and factors in the
Syrian and Iranian regimes that have a strategic alliance with Hamas with Tehran
funding the group and Damascus hosting its headquarters. Requests from either
one or the other regimes for such an operation in Gaza are not unlikely. Since
the Tehran embassy incidents both Iran and Syria demonstrated that they do not
implicate themselves in hostage taking on their own soil. For two decades at
least, Jihadist groups allied to the two regimes have taken, released, and some
times executed hostages in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories by
proxies.
5) Is that a signal for a developing trend? It could well be. During the
Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, CNN and other media complained from
intimidation and control of the reports by Hezbollah. And as Iran and Syria are
mobilizing for confrontation with the international community over the nuclear
crisis with Ahmedinijad and on the international forces with Assad, Western and
international media should be careful in their planning for coverage in Jihadi
controlled areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Walid Phares is the author of the newly released book Future Jihad. He is
also a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in
Washington DC.
General Lebanese Equations
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 04/09/06//
A prominent Lebanese intellectual, Ahmed Beydoun, wrote that "those who want us
to either be with Iran and Syria, or Israel and the US, do not have the self
respect to be with themselves".
According to this equation, which is both moral and political, the Lebanese are
supposed to give priority to the interests of Lebanon above anything else. This
is not a chauvinistic call according to which patriotism means mounting
aggression against or looking down on another nation. It is nothing more than
claiming the right to live and the right to a small homeland. This is an almost
'natural' demand for every living human being.
But to achieve this, if we survive the current crisis, we must ensure that the
current ordeal will not be repeated: we must be certain that Sayyed Nasrallah
will not misjudge again, and that his 'victories' will not amount to blockading
our land, sea or air. And finally, we must be sure that he will loose the
ability to misjudge.
In the end, and to avert Nasrallah's 'strategic' assessments, it would be
advisable to begin from where real problems begin.
No matter how long we close our eyes to and delay the issue, we will not be able
to continue disregarding Lebanon's military neutrality. This is the natural and
institutional conclusion of the 1949 truce, which everyone(?) says they are
committed to return to.
In fact, anyone who continues to provide pretexts for Israel to destroy Lebanon
in the hope of compensating with a Resistance that scuppers the 'New Middle East
project' is, at best, like someone who resigns from his work and leaves his
family in destitution, because he has been promised that he will win the
lottery.
Nevertheless, some tiny details should be highlighted. Military neutrality
between the US-Israeli and Syrian-Iranian axes does not eliminate the need for
some scrutiny: Syria is the lungs of Lebanon, and there has been a strong bond
between them. In spite of the current regime in Damascus, any military
neutrality cannot be interpreted as emotional neutrality between Syria and any
other party.
It goes without saying that a diplomatically and culturally healthy and active
Lebanon can help Damascus regain the Golan Heights, if Syria really wants to.
Lebanon can also help, much more than today, the Palestinian Authority establish
its own State.
Lebanon now is a permanent cause for cornering Syria. It may become a cause for
implicating and exposing it to an Israeli offensive, backed, of course, by the
US .
On the other hand, we have seen, with a naked eye, how the outbreak of the
latest war distracted attention away from the suffering in the Gaza Strip,
instead of it being in the spotlight. It harmed the perpetual Iraqi tragedy by
concealing it from view, despite the addition of nearly 2000 bodies to the
morgue in one month.
We can also say that the majority of the Lebanese no longer have the luxury to
sympathize with issues other than their own, or to condemn US policies unmindful
of finding a solution to the Palestinian problem, though Israel and Hezbollah
are the only beneficiaries of such heedlessness.
In addition, advocates of a relationship with Iran similar to those with Western
countries have replaced facts and interests with formal equality between
countries. Indeed, there are highly significant cultural and religious links
between some Lebanese and Iran, however, the need of the Lebanese nation for the
West's economy, education and institutional experience is unmatched by a similar
need to Iran that has modest capabilities.
Only permanent war can allow this formal equality between nations. Undoubtedly,
Iran can provide us with a thousand rockets in return for a university from the
US and a hospital from France. It is, as we recall, a case similar to that of
some Arab countries with the former Soviet Union: Whenever Arab countries moved
away from war and confrontations, they moved away from the Soviet Union and
approached Western countries. Lebanon, as far as every one(?) says now, intends
to steer clear of the state of war and ally itself, according to Beydoun's
equation, 'to itself.' Now is the moment.
What Next? Reflections for the Children of the Lebanon
Anthony Barnett Al-Hayat - 04/09/06//
Nearly five years after the 'Axis of Evil' speech, the thing that continues to
annoy is how President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and now Israeli spokesmen,
claim to be the ones who are opposing terrorism. Anyone who does not support
them, they suggest, is soft and permissive of bin Laden and copy-cat gangs of
violent fundamentalists.
If I had a great deal of money, I would take Bush and Blair to court for aiding
and abetting terrorism. They were warned that their so-called 'War on Terrorism'
would make things worse. And it has. It makes them fellow perpetrators of the
current disasters.
Indeed, when I learnt at the start of the recent conflict that an Israeli
general had said on television that it would turn back the clock twenty years on
the Lebanon, I thought this guy is threatening collective punishment on an
entire nation for a guerrilla incident. It is the kind of outrageous thing
retired generals say. I was confident he would be officially repudiated and told
to zip his mouth. But no, it turns out he was Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, the
Chief of Staff directly in charge of the campaign that aerially bombed power
stations, water plants and factories. One definition of terrorism is precisely
that it attempts to deliver collective punishment.
The word "disproportionate" is code for a deep revulsion over such behaviour -
behaviour that makes it seem that Israel believes it has the right to impose on
any society which touches or challenges it what it has already imposed upon
Palestine.
No great wisdom is needed to see that such a strategy dooms all sides to
destruction, perhaps within a generation. Opposition to it, to Bush, Blair,
Halutz and their approach of "making war on terror", stems from a confidence
that there is a better, more effective and lasting way of frustrating terrorism,
a way that also protects human rights, democracy and justice from their hands.
It is an opposition shared by large numbers in the established democracies, in
many of them a clear majority. Most people around the world have been wiser than
the occupants of the White House and 10 Downing Street. This is an important
democratic resource to hold onto in the coming months and maybe years.
II
The masters of the West are not only fighting terrorism the wrong way, they are
screwing up on their own terms. The invasion of Iraq was misconceived, but
having done it, it would have been far better if the US had at least succeeded,
as it might have, in helping Iraq become the democracy that its people wanted at
the time. Instead, it turned itself into an occupying force, apparently trusting
no one.
The New York Times ran a telling article on 16 August. It said that a classified
report by the US Defense Intelligence Agency recorded that the number of
explosive devices in Iraq had risen from 1,454 in January to 2,625 in July (of
which 1,666 exploded and 959 were discovered before they went off). The number
of Americans killed dropped from 42 to 38, thanks to better armor. This may have
encouraged an impression that the only story in Iraq today is a "slide towards
civil war". But in fact 70 percent of the explosions were directed against the
American-led military force. The number of Americans wounded "soared, to 518 in
July from 287 in January". But the most important part of the story was not the
US military's assessment of the growing reach and effectiveness of its
opponents. It is worth quoting the paragraphs in full - they came quietly at the
end:
"…some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush
administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq's
democratically elected government might not survive.
"Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are
considering alternatives other than democracy," said one military affairs expert
who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak
only on condition of anonymity.
"Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect," the expert said,
"but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy."
What does mean it, to "plan" for democracy not "surviving". The mixture of
active and passive should arouse suspicion. If the White House is "considering
alternatives" to democracy, could it be something on the lines of "Better our
dictator than their's"? But wasn't this the very reason why the US supported
Saddam Hussein against Iran in the first place, when Donald Rumsfeld went to
meet and shake the bad man's hand in 1983? Democracy was the last but also the
best reason for the invasion. If Iraq's elected government is replaced by an
alternative at the instigation of the White House then America's defeat will be
complete.
III
America has been defeated - not just the Rumsfeld strategy, or President Bush.
His successor will not be able to pick up the phone and say "Hey, it was them
not me, let's move on" and expect a return to the status quo ante bellum of US
hegemony. America itself, its state and its system of government is undergoing a
defeat. The more it denies this, the greater the danger to us all.
It is a moral defeat, from Guantanamo to the Manichaean unilateralism of good
against evil. It is a constitutional defeat for a system that permitted Bush to
steal an election and whose courts are only slowly establishing fundamental
rights but doing so under a barrage from the right. It is a democratic defeat
because the politics which permitted it is based on a financially suborned,
gerrymandered, often uncheckable, low-turnout voting system that threatens to
reduce suffrage in the USA to government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich
- while it invades countries abroad in the name of democratic self-rule. It is a
defeat for its media that misleads and misjudges. A defeat for its political
class which as a whole has lost the capacity to oppose. And soon, from all
accounts, America is also about to suffer an economic defeat on a global scale.
Above all, perhaps, it is a defeat for American intelligence in every sense of
that word.
IV
Have we been here before? The Defeat of America is the title of a book of essays
written in the early seventies by the distinguished American historian Henry
Steele Commager. In it he wrote, "Why do we find it so hard to accept this
elementary lesson of history, that some wars are so deeply immoral that they
must be lost, that the war in Vietnam is one of these wars and that those who
resist it are the truest patriots?"
We should beware of simplistic comparisons. 'Vietnam' was more an epoch than an
episode, longer even than the ten years of maximum conflict from 1965-75. With
hindsight it also includes Watergate, the opening to China, the US bombing of
Cambodia, the frustration of Nixon and Kissinger's war plan in Vietnam itself,
and then Nixon's ejection from office in the face of certain impeachment for
high crimes and misdemeanours against the United States, as he set out to
subvert an election and then covered up his role, as part of his and Kissinger's
attempt to create an imperial Presidency.
Already at least two major differences can be seen between that war and Iraq. In
Vietnam America's defeat meant there was a worthy and deserved victor - the
Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh's communists. They were promptly punished for their
triumph, by Pol Pot's attacks and above all by the Chinese (whose doomed and
stultifying one-party system they still share). Nonetheless, they were the
leaders of the original national and anti-colonial revolution. They had no
quarrel with the United States and launched no attack upon it. In Iraq by
contrast there is no opposition that can attract support. It is a defeat that
brings only further defeat.
Second, in its defeat America could celebrate itself. As Commager puts it in his
conclusion, the Constitution was "vindicated". The courts stood firm. The press,
the so-called fourth estate, held up its head with pride as it exposed Nixon
against ferocious pressure and did not blink. Opposition to the war removed
President Johnson. The system itself removed Nixon. A renewal of the American
political system as a democracy took place in the wake of the disastrous
engagement in Indochina.
This domestic achievement was undone. America's liberal triumph in the Cold War
masked the roll-back of the liberal gains made thanks to the constitution in the
aftermath of Vietnam. In the quarter century from the US forced evacuation of
Saigon in 1975 to the presidential election of 2000, the US media was suborned,
its commitment to basic objectivity undone. A relentless effort to impeach
Clinton for denying a sexual liaison under oath had as its real target the
constitution itself. The triviality of the issue showed that the Republicans
accepted only the technicality and not the gravity of the charges against Nixon.
A constitutional system designed to provide impartial protection was hollowed
out and made an instrument for partisanship (nominations to the Supreme Court
being a perfect example).
The way was thus prepared for the Bush/Cheney attempt to recreate the imperial
Presidency that had proved beyond Nixon's reach.
V
9/11 offered them the opportunity. They took it extremely well. The important
thing about 9/11 is what happened on 9/12. It was less the attack that will come
to define what the burning towers stand for, than what was then made it.
The rest of world said, "We are all Americans".
What we meant was we had all been bombed and attacked and lost innocents and we
identified with and supported Americans against this appalling assault.
(Paradoxically, even those who callously cheered at 9/11 did so because they
welcomed Yankee imperialism being humiliated and hurt like them.) There was a
profound and justified sense of a need for solidarity. Geopolitically, the
international system as a whole backed the invasion of Afghanistan for
harbouring Osama bin Laden.
It was a never-to-be-repeated opportunity for the United States to create around
itself an alliance of sympathy. We can be sure such an alliance would have dealt
effectively with terrorism on the basis of shared judicial procedures, bringing
the rule of law to the world in a new fashion, as well as further isolating and
soon undermining regimes like those of Saddam.
The generous reaching out to the United States was also challenge. Implicit in
the offer was that America accept that it is a country like other countries,
each special, each capable of being hurt, in need of alliances, having to
participate in relationships it could not simply dictate. What a fantastic
moment, what a wonderful opportunity.
Thanks to Bush and Cheney the USA told the rest of the world to fuck off.
(Only Tony Blair then stepped forward to say "fuck me".)
Bush and Cheney declared war and assumed war-time powers. They threw alliances
to the wind, they formulated a new national security doctrine authorising
preventative attack, they mobilised their military against a global 'axis of
evil', they asserted that if you were not with them you were with the
terrorists, they initiated illegal bugging and interception within America on a
scale even Nixon could hardly have dreamt of.
Why did they do this? To fight terrorism, when every serious expert warned that
an invasion of Iraq was just what bin Laden wanted? To secure control of oil
supplies? To spread democracy (from the creators of Guantanamo and Abu Graib)?
Looking back over the arguments about America's international strategy over the
last five years and its supposed Neo-Conservative nature, perhaps the
explanation is that they did not care about or take any serious interest at all
in the rest of the world.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were recruited as young men into Nixon's 1969 White House.
They surely dreamt of revenge for Watergate. 9/11 offered a wonderful
opportunity for just this, and they unleashed an assault upon the political and
constitutional system which had made Watergate possible. This would explain the
sense of coup which accompanied Bush's declaration of "war" and the "cabal" like
nature of the group that implemented it. More important, it would mean that the
motives driving America's post-9/11 foreign policy have been fundamentally
domestic, using policy towards the rest of the world as a means of achieving
ends within the United States.
The verbiage of neo-conservatism provided a useful cover but was never the
'doctrine' of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. This was an illusion of intellectuals
occupationally prone to the narcissistic belief that their words matter even for
those who seldom read. Bush and his assistants did not seek to rule America in
order to shape the world. When, thanks to 9/11, they declared a world-shaping
policy, they did so in order to rule America all the better.
As domestic policy the Bush/Cheney strategy proved itself a brilliant success.
It had already mobilised the money, built the churches and fixed the media. With
these assets in hand they used 9/11 to appeal to a deep aspect of American
nationalism that they understood and felt at home with (and whose history and
nature has been brilliantly dissected by Anatol Lieven). Politicians who have
the capacity to mobilize and reshape a nationalism are genuine leaders - at
home. This was where they were smart, not stupid, and how they came to be more
than just a cabal.
VI
And abroad? "What you call unilateralism I call leadership", John Bolton once
said, before he became UN Ambassador to the United Nations. The White House
creates reality. It declares victory in advance - because this is what works
with its voters. Which is why the only event to significantly damage Bush has
been Hurricane Katrina, whose reality outspun the President's team.
Israel has been an example, perhaps even an inspiration to them in the creation
of realities. The influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States, now
reinforced by Rapture evangelism and its fantastical, apocalyptic obsession with
the Holy Land, is said to exercise too great an influence in Washington. But
perhaps what has really hypnotised American leaders since 1967 is Israel's
success. This mainstreams with America's 'winner takes all' political culture.
Israel's failure to create the reality it desired in the Lebanon is therefore
especially dangerous for it as the US is not the best ally for those who really
need it.
In Hizbullah Israel has finally created an enemy worthy of itself. The war it
has just waged against it in the Lebanon proved not to be a continuation of the
others Israel has fought since 1948. For all the pan-Arab talk, these were, Fred
Halliday has pointed out, comparatively local engagements. Now, he argues, two
great regional forces are redefining the Middle East, both born in 1979. In
February that year the Iranian revolution lit the torch of Shia fundamentalism,
in October the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan initiated the US arming of Sunni
mujahadin, of whom the most notable was Osama bin Laden. Today, both currents
have condensed onto Israel's conquest of Palestine, and the conflict over
Israel's borders really has become regional.
Therefore, Israel has to make a deal if it is to flourish as more than a
besieged outpost . One reason, it can now be seen, is technical. The Katyusha
rockets that Hizbullah fired at Israel were old-fashioned, kinetic devices
stuffed with ball-bearings that belong to the analogue age. Soon an inexpensive
global positioning system will be replacing some of those passive metal balls.
Sooner or later do-it-yourself drones, with contour-hugging devices to get under
radar, will be constructed, easily capable of making a long-range, one-way
journey, even from a suburb of Amman or Cairo. Fear will return to Tel Aviv
undermining its commercial life. What is a wall? It is a defensive barrier
designed for explosives to be flown over.
But only a culture and a human network, not technology, assembles, hides, and
fires such devices. Previously, defeating Israel meant shouting Allah Akbar,
while firing an AK-47 into the air, wasting ordinance, risking wounding your own
people and giving Israel intelligence. Now it is now cool to be Hiz, to wear
heavy-duty spectacles, speak slowly, not show off and never be photographed.
There is only one way to 'defeat' such a movement. In so far as its grievances
are genuine, these must be addressed. It must be welcomed (whatever the gritting
of teeth) into a legitimate representative process where it can be held to
account for the authority it exercises. In this way it also becomes itself and
ceases to be a puppet of others.
How is this possible if, as with Hizbullah, it is committed to the annihilation
of Israel? Well, only when there is a secure Palestinian state with a leadership
that insists on a ceasefire and tells its allies not to fire on Tel Aviv because
it desires peace not war. A Palestine that looks forward and sees a life for
itself as a country is the precondition for politically isolating and then
disarming those who want to wipe Israel of the map. Without this Israel will
never be secure. Hence the unbelievable folly of spurning a Hamas offer of a
ceasefire when it won the elections in Palestine, the starting point for such a
process.
VII
In this era of international petitions, what should a global patriot call for?
There are two immediate conflicts. One is against the terrorist networks
inspired by al-Qaida. They need to be arrested and they can be. It is not a war,
but nor is it a conflict that can be lost if that means terrorists immolating
themselves with nuclear devices. The second is the 'war on terror'. This should
be abandoned. It is making terrorism worse by playing their game.
At the heart of this "war" is the centre of the so-called axis-of-evil, Iran,
now the most likely candidate for further escalation by the Bush/Cheney White
House as it continues to try and "define reality" for its domestic purposes.
Nothing is more likely to undermine the fundamentalists of Tehran than
diplomatic recognition, trade and tourism. They may be able to do the enrichment
of uranium but they can't do the enrichment of their own people.
Will the reality-shock of this year's Lebanon war make the leaders of Israel and
America see sense? I'm told not. That it is too late. Israel's conclusion after
Lebanon is that it has to stay in the West Bank and further impose itself
unilaterally, is merely a gloomy confirmation that all is lost. For the
settlements are a misnamed, they not a fixed point. They either grow or shrink.
To keep them is to expand them, and to expand them is to further the illegal and
inhuman expropriation of Palestine. It means the parties to the conflict will
never be able to find it in themselves to engage in the agreements and mutual
recognition they need. In which case the outcome will eventually be nuclear war
over Jerusalem while the Chinese and Indians rub their hands in disbelief.
I refuse to believe this.
But what is the alternative, what other direction is there that can set in
motion a different momentum? In an important and deeply responsible critique of
the Bush foreign policy, to be published at the end of September, Anatol Lieven
and John Hulsman call for an inclusive regional conference over Iraq (with
America dropping its childish refusal to talk directly with Iran) and for Israel
and Palestine to be given accession status for full membership of the European
Union. To the latter suggestion we should now add the Lebanon as well.
The European Union is a machinery for creating peace where there was war. This
was its initial impulse with respect to France and Germany. The Northern Ireland
peace agreement was made possible and underpinned by the fact that both the UK
and the Irish Republic were in the Union. Europe has a responsibility towards
all three small countries on the Eastern Mediterranean. None, it could be said,
are fully viable on their own, but the EU is also purpose built to protect
vulnerable small states. Membership would provide the secular framework
necessary for religious societies to live in peace with each other. It would
secure full political and human rights in them all in a way that would be
credible and legitimate. The EU's critics often argue that it purpose is to
become a 'super-state' that threatens the nations its encompasses. In fact the
Union has rescued its member nation states from fratricide and permits their
revival in a context of shared sovereignty and peace. Given what we have just
witnessed we are entitled to ask, if not this what next?
Dedicated to Saqi Books and Dar al Saqi whose warehouse in South Beirut was
twice hit by bombs, 23 August 2006
*Original English
Annan's Role: At What Price?
Zuheir Kseibati Al-Hayat - 04/09/06//
At the Syrian stop off of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's tour of the region,
he made a significant breakthrough in internationalizing the solution of the
Lebanese-Israeli front by declaring President Bashar al-Assad's approval of
Resolution 1701. This means that Damascus has accepted the Roadmap to end the
conflict on this front, after having strongly opposed it. Indeed, the Resolution
practically deprives Syria of influencing the Lebanese course, and concludes the
final chapter of separating the Lebanese and Syrian courses.
Moreover, if the Resolution is implemented, this will put Lebanon under the
international political umbrella. It will also mean the separation of the
Iranian and Lebanese courses through the disruption of Tehran's ability to stir
the front with Israel, as Iran was one of the tools that forcibly aggravated the
regional role of this front.
When Annan announced the Syrian 'surprise', he seemed as though he was reaping
the fruit of a 'reverse' in Damascus' policy, which incessantly rejected its
regional role being diagnosed with the disease of 'isolation'. However, is it
really a 'reverse' in policy, or is it an attempt to break the isolation via the
UN, after Washington had insisted on not opening the door to dialogue with
Syria, and, instead, it takes small steps that it promises and implements
piecemeal?
It is clear that Annan's report on al-Assad first means that Damascus is ready
to repeat the experiment of complying with US demands to control the
Syrian-Iraqi border, despite its disappointment regarding Washington's
insistence on not paying the price of compliance. In the case of Lebanon after
the Israeli war, the price or the Syrian demand is to invest in Resolution 1701,
which stresses that the required objective of the Roadmap to put an end to the
conflict between Israel and Hezbollah's missiles is a comprehensive, inclusive
peace that does not change according to the internal equations of its countries.
Damascus explicitly announced that it wants negotiations with Israel at this
point. This means that it insists on negotiating with the Jewish State, which
has not yet dealt with the results of its war on Lebanon. Militarily, Israel has
not determined a buffer zone in the South void of Hezbollah's rockets; and
politically, it has not yet contained the anger it faces at home, as it has not
been able to claim victory thus far, except in terms of destruction.
Damascus now faces Israeli reluctance. Neither Ehud Olmert nor his political
opponents see a need to abandon the occupation of the Golan Heights in return
for peace with Syria without any Lebanese or Palestinian cards, and especially
without Iranian cards, at a time when the Americans and Israelis talk about the
'Syrian card in Tehran's hands'.
Damascus is like Tehran, which importunes from a different position: the
position of power after making headway in its nuclear program. Now it reiterates
its willingness to negotiate with the Americans. The Iranians see an opportunity
at the height of tension with the Security Council, while the Syrians see an
opportunity at the height of the internationalization of all Lebanese files.
In fact, the Americans, like the Israelis, consider the current stage an
exceptional golden opportunity under the umbrella of an international consensus
on more pressure on Syria and Iran to change their roles. For the confrontation
now moves toward changing the maps of the region and reaching a final
resolution. Kurdistan's flag is hoisted in northern Iraq, that is, the countdown
for the division of this country has started, and a resolution for
internationalizing Darfur launches a kind of conflict that may end in the
division of Sudan.
As for the final map of Lebanon, Syria remains at the heart of the confrontation
with the Americans and the UN, so long as its acceptance of border demarcation
excludes the Shebaa Farms, and its stance toward Fouad Siniora's government puts
off normalization between Beirut and Damascus until the government is toppled!
This view is shared by a large group in Lebanon. The details also point out that
it took several months for Damascus' response to Washington's insistence on
controlling the Iraqi-Syrian border. Regardless of the possibilities whether the
Lebanese government will accept the Syrian offer of joint military patrols along
the border to prevent the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah and Palestinian
factions, that is, to revive the military cooperation between the two countries;
the decisive criterion of the sponsors of Resolution 1701 (the US and France) is
that Damascus should quickly demarcate the border, establish diplomatic
relations with Beirut during the Siniora government, and alter the political
discourse directed to its figureheads. Some Lebanese believe that this discourse
has been instigated to pounce on Beirut when the opportunity arises.
Syria may consider that the understanding with Annan is the beginning to break
French-American inflexibility, which has been strengthened by international
legitimacy through Resolution 1701. It may consider this understanding as the
beginning of an opportunity it can seize before the noose tightens around the
neck of its ally, Iran. However, the perplexing question is: what is in
America's other hand? Is it Lebanon and dismantling courses in order to reach
Syria at any price?
'Replicating' and Cleaning Gaza
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 04/09/06//
The causes of the deadlock in the internal Palestinian situation are many. The
foremost of these reasons is the ongoing Israeli war machine operating in the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip and seeking to destroy, abduct and kill. This,
however, places the Palestinians, with their different categories, before the
dilemma of squaring up to this killing machine. The causes also include the
political siege, which has tightened on the government, as its members are now
in Israeli prisons because they belong to Hamas. There is also the conflict
between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, over how to face the persistent
Israeli aggression, lift the siege imposed on the government and the
Palestinians, and reach bases for resolving internal disputes.
In the darkness of the deadlock, the Palestinian situation takes a further step
toward a serious unavoidable slide. However, what is more serious than potential
internal fighting, the circumstances of which are available to cause it to
explode, is the eruption of poverty in the face of all the Palestinian
leaderships. This also includes the transition of the situation for the
Palestinians, from simply a conflict over power, disbursement of funds, and
negotiations with Israel, to how to provide a means of livelihood at present, an
issue that is becoming complicated.
If the current strikes in the governmental bodies, protesting against the living
standards and non-payment of salaries, may be used in conflicts between Fatah
and Hamas, then this does not rule out that the political and financial
blockade, since the Islamic movement came to power, is increasingly putting
pressure on the residents of the autonomous areas. The solution is to exert
effort to lift the siege, through consensus on the regulatory and political
methodology that can open the way for the restoration of a normal economic
situation in the Palestinian territories, and preserve the political right to
establish an independent State.
While a possible internal Palestinian agreement loomed on the horizon through
agreement on the prisoners' document, Israeli soldier Shalit was kidnapped at
Karam Salem checkpoint, thereby reshuffling the cards in a serious way, and once
more giving the Israeli war machine free rein in the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip in an unprecedented manner of unilateral withdrawal. This stalemate, which
curbs reaching a solution to the problem, raises questions about the reasons
that they were created. This also places Hamas and other related factions in the
face of the key issue that it has not responded to so far, since its decision to
participate in the legislative elections and the victory in these elections.
Moreover, a series of disagreements, and sometimes paradoxes, took place between
what the government was saying and what was happening on the ground.
The EU conditions for lifting the embargo are well-known. Internal Palestinian
negotiations took place for weeks to reach consensus on the formula of the
prisoners' document. During these weeks, tension and confrontations, suffering,
unemployment and poverty rates increased. At a time when the Arab League (AL),
backed unanimously by its members, is trying to refer to the Security Council
the foundations of a comprehensive solution with Israel, statements made by
Hamas' leadership confirm its intent to 'replicate' Hezbollah's experiment in
the Gaza Strip. Regardless of the success of Arab efforts in the Security
Council, and the fundamental difference between southern Lebanon and the Gaza
Strip, the intention to 'replicate' the experiment, which does not have any
chance of practical implementation, reflects a clear effort to obstruct Arab
efforts.
However, while Palestinian trade unions and government officials are determined
to go on strike in protest of not receiving salaries, Haniya regards the
situation as a maneuver by Fatah, and instead of the workers on strike doing it,
he rolls up his sleeves to clean Gaza streets.
In both cases, Hamas has not shown any practical or real concern for the context
of the events. As someone trying to cure a chronic illness with sedatives, or
trying to treat the common cold with surgery. Palestinian reality requires many
things, certainly not including the destruction of the Arab Peace Initiative,
established on the basis of the Arab League move toward the world. Nor does it
require Haniya to personally clean the Gaza Strip's streets.
Senior security officer survives bomb attack
Roadside blasts kill 4 bodyguards near sidon
By Rym Ghazal and Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
BEIRUT/SIDON: Two roadside bombs went off outside the Southern city of Sidon
Tuesday, killing four bodyguards of a senior Lebanese intelligence officer and
wounding four others, including the officer.
Lieutenant Colonel Samir Shehade holds a senior post in the Interior Ministry's
intelligence branch and played a leading role in Lebanon's investigation into
the February 14, 2005, assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The incident came on the eve of the arrival of UN chief Kofi Annan's legal
adviser, Nicolas Michel, who will discuss with Lebanese officials the formation
of an international court to try Hariri's killers.
Tuesday's attack was the first bombing since May 26, when a leader of the
Palestinian faction Islamic Jihad and his brother were killed in Sidon by a bomb
planted in their car.
According to police reports, two bombs exploded simultaneously at around 10 a.m.
Tuesday as two cars carrying Shehade and his companions passed through the
coastal village of Rmeileh, near the Southern port town of Sidon, on their way
to intelligence headquarters in Beirut.
Witnesses told The Daily Star that despite the fact that Shehade had been pulled
out of the car with shrapnel wounds all over his body, he was "conscious and
seemed in control." Shehade was taken to the Hammoud Hospital in Sidon and is
currently under the protection of security officers.
Acting Interior Minister Ahmad Fatfat told The Daily Star that Shehade was in a
"stable and good condition."
"There were two bombs placed 4 meters from each other that appear to have been
triggered simultaneously by remote control," the minister said.
Sergeant Wissam Harb, one of the intelligence officer's bodyguards, was killed
instantly in the blast. Three other bodyguards, Sergeant Chehab Hassan Aoun,
First Sergeant Namir Yassin and First Sergeant Omar Hajj Shehade, were seriously
wounded and later died in hospital.
The wounded, in addition to Shehade, were identified as First Sergeant Zaher
Qadeh, army soldier Jihad al-Dabit and Ahmad Rabeeh, an engineer working on
nearby roadworks.
Asked whether the latest bombing could be linked to a series of attacks dating
back to October 2004, Fatfat said: "No, this one was different. It was more
professional and seems to be an isolated incident." Police reports said Shehade
was traveling in a white "decoy" Nissan Pathfinder followed by a black
Pathfinder. The black Nissan suffered a direct hit, killing all passengers.
During a news conference held after an emergency meet-ing with his security
chiefs, Fatfat said the attack was "a message targeting the security apparatus
that has been making great progress in the past year" into Hariri's murder.
Shehade had been coordinating with the UN investigation commission probing
Hariri's assassination and was directly involved in the arrests of the four
former heads of the country's security apparatus currently awaiting trial in the
2005 murder.
He also interrogated a discredited Syrian witness, Husam Taher Husam.
Fatfat speculated that the attack could be linked to the report due out next
Friday from the UN probe's lead investigator, Serge Brammertz.
"We have to be careful not to turn this incident into a political campaign," he
said.
"I refuse to make any accusations at this point, especially given the sensitive
period Lebanon is going through after the war," Fatfat added.
However, the acting interior minister said preventing "infiltration" during the
recent war with Israel had been difficult and spoke of the "difficulty of
dealing with arms outside of the Palestinian refugee camps." Fatfat repeatedly
said the attack had nothing to do with Hizbullah.
"Security officials, especially those in intelligence, are under constant threat
and have been targeted in the past," he added.
Holding up two pieces of shrapnel from the crime scene, Fatfat said the two
bombs were filled with "hundreds of pieces of shrapnel" and had been "locally
produced and carried out with great precision."
"Luck saved Shehade," the minister added.
Security sources reported a series of arrests of Palestinian and Syrian
nationals at the bomb site who had been selling lottery tickets, a claim
dismissed by Fatfat.
"No arrests have been made. Only witnesses' testimonies have been taken," he
said.
In addition to the Hariri file, security sources said that Shehade had recently
been threatened over his handling of a file on Al-Qaeda suspects in Lebanon. The
intelligence officer had taped the threats, made by Syrian officials and
Al-Qaeda members, they added.
Security sources also dismissed any links to a similar attack on December 12,
2005, that killed prominent journalist and MP Gebran Tueni. Both incidents
involved roadside bombs, the sources said, but very different devices.
Legal expert says 1923 maps show Shebaa Farms in Lebanese
territory
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
BEIRUT: The United Nations is interested in reaching an agreement between
Lebanon and Syria on the Shebaa Farms, UN political affairs representative Julie
Tetar said Tuesday. Tetar's comments came during a meeting about the disputed
territory held at the Bristol Hotel in Beirut.
During the discussion, legal expert Shafik Masri highlighted the fact that the
Lebanese Constitution adopted border lines approved by the French and British
parties in 1923.
"According to those lines, the Shebaa Farms are part of the Lebanese region of
Hasbaya," Masri said.
"International law stipulates that two major criteria are needed to prove the
state's sovereignty over a certain area: intention and will from one side and a
true practice of sovereignty on the other. The Lebanese state had been dealing
with the Shebaa Farms continuously since 1926 ... According to international
law, the Syrian approval conveyed by some officials is enough, on the condition
that it is approved by the Lebanese government."
Organized by the Antelias Cultural Movement and the office of the
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Lebanon, the meeting was attended by
representatives from the German, Greek and Saudi Arabian embassies, as well as
several political and academic figures.
FES was founded in 1925 as a political legacy of Germany's first democratically
elected president, Friedrich Ebert. The Lebanese office was established in 1968
and is dedicated to "developing and strengthening democratic structures at the
political and social levels."
- The Daily Star
Nasrallah: Build a strong state, then discuss arms
Resistance chief says his party has been 'filling a governmental vacuum'
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon will be one step closer to resolving the issue of Hizbullah's
arms once a strong government capable of protecting the people makes its
presence felt, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah says.
In an interview with As-Safir published Tuesday, the resistance leader said
Hizbullah had "filled a governmental vacuum," but vowed that once "a strong and
steadfast government capable of providing guarantees and protecting the people
is established, then this could constitute a step toward determining the fate of
Hizbullah's arms." Nasrallah said it should be a "national priority" to preserve
the resistance's recent victory over the Israeli forces, but cautioned against a
"premeditated" plan to "tarnish the image of victory gradually by means of
provocation until it is permanently destroyed."
He said it was the responsibility of "all Lebanese who consider themselves
partners in this victory" to guard this victory against potential ruin from
"confessional, political and sectarian corridors."
"The Israeli Army that was considered a legend has turned into a model of
failure, loss and confusion," he added.
Nasrallah said that despite Israel's powerful arsenal, the Jewish state failed
to achieve its declared goals during the 34-day war: specifically the
destruction of the resistance, its military infrastructure and arsenal, and
unconditional recovery of two soldiers captured on July 12.
Asked if Israel would resume its attacks on Lebanon, Nasrallah said: "This step
would take a long time, although I am not able to deny the possibility of
another war."
"However, if Israel were to launch an operation against Lebanon, it would now
think twice [before doing so], especially if the internal Lebanese arena becomes
secure with the deployment of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL and if the arms of
the resistance that vanquished Israel remain untouched," he added.Asked whether
the resistance would continue to fight for the occupied Shebaa Farms, Nasrallah
said now was not the time for military operations.
"We have just emerged from a war and we are not in a rush to carry out
operations in the Farms, but recovering them remains our right and no one should
provide free security guarantees to Israel," he added.
There will be no armed resistance south of the Litani River, he said, stressing
that the Lebanese Army would be responsible for countering any Israeli
violations of Lebanon's sovereignty once it is deployed along the border.
Hizbullah would then content itself with "backing up" the army, he added.
The resistance will maintain its arsenal of rockets, he said, "as it did between
1996 and 2006." But he vowed that the weaponry would not be used "except in the
case of vast military aggression against Lebanon."
His party would have "no problems" with the army or UNIFIL troops because "the
resistance is honest, disciplined and cherishes its commitments," Nasrallah
said. "The government was clear when it tasked the army with defending the
country and not disarming the resistance, spying on it or raiding the hideouts
where it stores its weapons," he added.
Nasrallah called for the resumption of the national dialogue to discuss and
formulate a national defense strategy "based on the latest experience of war
with Israel." He said Hizbullah was open to mending ties with Arab states that
had been critical of the party during the war, notably Saudi Arabia. "Time will
prove that Hizbullah was the biggest movement toward independence in Lebanon's
history," he said.
Nasrallah denied allegations that he was presenting himself as a leader of the
Arab and Islamic nation, or Lebanon, and praised the roles of Sunni religious
leaders throughout the Arab world that had "succeeded in consolidating the
Islamic arena and thwarting attempts of confessional division."
He also thanked President Emile Lahoud, Premier Fouad Siniora and Speaker Nabih
Berri for their support, adding that he had also maintained contact with MP Saad
Hariri. Nasrallah said he was also open to re-establishing contacts with MP
Walid Jumblatt, his most vocal critic, and highlighted his party's bond with MP
Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement. - The Daily Star
Learning Lebanon's lessons, once again
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Lebanon is in the peculiar situation of having to rebuild after the 34-day war
between Hizbullah and Israel while it is still in the process of rebuilding
after the 15-year-long Civil War of 1975-90. Will this time around be different,
and not lead to another war in a few years? Will the political balance between
Lebanon's 18 officially recognized confessional and sectarian groups regain
sufficient equilibrium and stability to drive a long-term economic revival
anchored in serious political reform?
To find out, I went to the person who had literally written the book on this
subject. By coincidence, as the latest war broke out I had been completing a
recently published book about war and economics in Lebanon by the respected
Lebanese economist and American University of Beirut professor Samir Makdisi,
who also once served as minister of national economy in 1992.
I asked him if this summer's war had caused him to reconsider any of his
conclusions from the Civil War experience. He said that this war, and the
political events that had preceded it, only reconfirmed the central thesis of
his book: that balancing the needs of all citizens in Lebanon's
multi-confessional system requires serious political reforms that can generate
better governance and a new political culture; these in turn would allow Lebanon
to tackle the significant challenges it faces in fields like environmental
degradation, debt, unemployment, corruption, public sector inefficiency, and
shortcomings in urban and rural planning, to name only the most obvious.
Makdisi's book, "The Lessons of Lebanon: the economics of war and development" (I.B.Tauris,
London and New York, 2004) provides a valuable combination of political and
economic analyses of Lebanon before, during and after the Civil War years. The
dual focus on technical issues of finance, trade, regulatory systems, exchange
rates and growth, alongside the larger social and political context of Lebanon
in the half-century from the 1950s to 2000, is especially useful now - because
Lebanon's post-war capacity to overcome adversity again relies heavily on
progress on both the economic and political fronts.
Makdisi's prognosis is mixed. In his book, he notes that sectarianism locally
and constant foreign influences were two reasons why Lebanon's central
government never achieved the sort of diligence that is so evident in the
private sector and civil society in this country. After the Civil War, these
factors led to "the absence of a coherent long-term national policy that focused
on the public good."
"Whatever its merits," he wrote, "the finely tuned sharing of political power
among Lebanon's religious communities is inherently discriminatory." He called
the political system a "constrained" democracy that is imbued with potential
instability. This inherently unstable system always required external hands to
stabilize it, the most recent one being Syria until last year.
The consequence of such a system is "an unstable political equilibrium" that
will continue to prevail unless its underlying reasons are properly addressed.
Among the consequences of this, he wrote a few years ago, are two things we have
since witnessed in recent years: many talented young Lebanese will leave the
country to find work abroad, and a system that swings between stable and
unstable periods will always need external hands to balance it.
The post-Taif era "has not witnessed the creation of genuine political stability
or, for that matter, better governance," he wrote, adding presciently that "open
national dialogue on how to resolve major political and economic issues ...
which seeks broad political consensus has not been a Lebanese tradition."
I asked him if the national dialogue that was launched earlier this year by the
speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, corrected this flawed legacy. He replied
that the dialogue may not have made major gains because it was conducted by
leaders who had vested interests in the "consociational democracy" system as it
has long operated - sharing the spoils among sectarian groups according to
established patterns of weight and influence.
The national dialogue will succeed only when it does what the Europeans did in
the 1980s - bring in others in society (private sector leaders, academics,
technocrats, activists) whose expertise can help generate a truly new system
that is at once more stable, equitable, prosperous and sustainable, he said.
The events of the past two years confirm many of the key points Makdisi makes in
his book. These are more relevant than ever today, as Lebanon once again faces
the reality that successfully rebuilding economically demands a parallel
political reconfiguration.
"One lesson of this year's war," he told me, "is that Lebanon cannot be totally
at the mercy of outside powers, whether from the East or the West, or else we
risk inviting civil war again. We must work for a new political understanding
that acknowledges the dangers of external interference. Iraq sadly is a good
example of what can happen when solutions are imposed from the outside."
What should the Lebanese do now, as rebuilding defines the land once again? He
replied that, "our response should be a greater effort to manage our readjusted
sectarian and confessional system in the short run, so that in the long run it
moves toward a truly secular, liberal, and democratic political system. Such a
system must safeguard the rights of all citizens equally, and not sacrifice the
public interest for private interests."
Sensible thoughts, from a seasoned son of the land itself.
**Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary in THE DAILY STAR.