LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September7/06

Commentary of the day : Saint Bernard
“The crowds went in search of him… But he said to them, ‘I must also go to the other towns.’”
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 4,38-44.
After he left the synagogue, he entered the house of Simon. Simon's mother-in-law was afflicted with a severe fever, and they interceded with him about her.
He stood over her, rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up immediately and waited on them. At sunset, all who had people sick with various diseases brought them to him. He laid his hands on each of them and cured them. And demons also came out from many, shouting, "You are the Son of God." But he rebuked them and did not allow them to speak because they knew that he was the Messiah. At daybreak, Jesus left and went to a deserted place. The crowds went looking for him, and when they came to him, they tried to prevent him from leaving them. But he said to them, "To the other towns also I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this purpose I have been sent." And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea.
Opinions
Attempts to Decipher the 'Victory' Riddle and Its Intricacies.By: Hazem Saghieh 07.09.06
What About the Iranian Project? By: Hazem Saghieh 07.09.06
With war over, Lebanon leaders back at each other's throats-Middle East Online
Blockade Lebanon to Strike Iran?Dar Al-Hayat

Latest New from The Daily Star for September 7/2006
4 officers killed in attack on Shehade laid to rest
War added $1 billion to public debt, finance minister says
Saudi king to cover fees for students at public schools
Syrian delegation visits Beirut to show solidarity with Lebanese
Maronite bishops chastise Hizbullah, back Siniora
Israel to lift 8-week old blockade today
Aoun flays 'corrupt' government
'Siniora-Olmert deadlock' stalls German contribution
Poll respondents give high marks to Nasrallah, Berri, Aoun
Berri says Siniora is optimistic on lifting of blockade
Hariri assassination case has served to re-energize opponents of death penalty
UN to hand over Hariri tribunal plan
Losses from the 34-day war: how to evaluate and minimize them
Lebanon's magazines maneuver in a war-torn landscape
Engage Syria at your own peril -By Michael Young
Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 7/2006
Maronite Bishops: Chronic Disease Embedded in the Presidency-Naharnet
The Christian exodus and Lahoud's fate central to Maronite -AsiaNews.it
As France supplies armor to patrol Lebanon, Chirac mulls deploying-International Herald Tribune
Can the UN Peacekeepers Keep Lebanon Peaceful?TIME - USA
Analysis: Israelis, Arabs mull peace moves-United Press International - USA
Lebanon blockade seen lifted in 2 days-Reuters.uk
Annan lauds Turkey contribution to Lebanon-Houston Chronicle
Threatening Syria comes with price-Ynetnews
Bomb Wounds Lebanese Linked to Assassination Inquiry-New York Times
Egypt summons Israeli envoy over Lebanon blockade-Reuters
Travelling the road to ruin in Lebanon - Part 2-Reuters
Report: Israel 'preparing for possible war' with Syria, Iran-Christian Science Monitor
Syria blamed for attempt on Lebanese official's life-Monsters and Critics.com
US cites Iran, Syria as 'worrisome' threats-Daily News & Analysis
A country under siege-Agoravox - Paris,France
Annan Hopeful on Easing Israeli Blockade of Lebanon-New York Times
Lebanon complains to UN Security Council over Israeli blockade-Xinhua
Turkish Parliament Accepts Motion to Send Troops to Lebanon-Zaman Online
Let a Civilian Team Go to Lebanon, not a Military Force-Zaman Online
War may bring Israel to talks with Syria-Canadian Jewish News
Israel wants international troops at Syria/Lebanon border-Canadian Jewish News
Israeli army chief subjected to criticism for war in Lebanon-People's Daily Online
US blasts Syria in counter-terror report-EastDay.com

Blockade Lebanon to Strike Iran?
Randa Takieddine Al-Hayat - 06/09/06//
Israel's war on Lebanon is not yet over, and, while Resolution 1701 is being implemented and beefed-up UNIFIL forces are taking their position, Israel continues to maintain it presence in Lebanese villages, and insists on blockading Lebanon.
French President Jacque Chirac was among the many Western heads of States calling for lifting the blockade on Lebanon. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the same demand during his recent visit to Israel. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora asked US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to help Lebanon by pressuring Israel into ending its blockade, but Rice did not comply. Meanwhile, Israel continues to claim that Hezbollah is still receiving Iranian arms through Syria.
The Israeli claim, as always is the case with the Israeli government, is false. Israel is determined to subject the Lebanese people to the same conditions as the Palestinians', and seems perfectly content with the enormous economic losses that resulted from the destruction of Lebanese villages and cities, and the large number of war victims, and failed to eliminate Hezbollah, the declared reason for its war on Lebanon.
As the anniversary of September 11, the barbaric terrorist operation against civilians in the US, approaches, has US President George Bush not realized that his support for oppressive Israeli polices against the people of Palestine and Lebanon harms US interests? US diplomacy, as explained by some members of the US administration, is not a non-profit organization, but is based on American interests.
Nevertheless, US interests lie in pressuring Israel to lift its siege of Lebanon. Otherwise, how can it help Fouad Siniora's government, which the US administration claims it wants to support?
It would be fair to ask: is the reason for the US' refusal to move in the direction of lifting the blockade, Israel and the US administration's plan for military action on Iranian nuclear sites, and to keep Lebanon under an air and sea blockade until this is achieved?
Is it possible that the blockade on Lebanon gives Israel the confidence that when it attacks Iran, Lebanon's pro-Iran front would be under control and would not be able to obtain more arms? Could this be the objective of Israel's ongoing stifling economic war on Lebanon?
It is clear that Iran has rejected Western attempts to conduct talks and suspend uranium enrichment, and that Iran is controlled by a hardline regime that is developing nuclear weapons, and while some estimate that it would take Iran at least 10 years to possess nuclear weapons, it is nevertheless on its way to acquiring the nuclear bomb.
While it would be very concerning for the Middle East region for Iranian President Ahmadinejad to be in possession of a nuclear weapon, military action against Iran is also a very serious issue for the region.
Israel needs to work on its internal front after it failed in Lebanon, and after it is unlikely, in taking this risk, to obtain the support of several Security Council members: France, China and Russia.
While the blockade may be an early sign of a possible Israeli-American strike against Iran, the Qatari decision to send Qatari Airways flights to Lebanon, even with Israeli permission, should encourage similar moves by European airlines to save Lebanon from its daily suffering.
A helpful American attitude to Lebanese and French appeals to put an end to this disastrous war in Lebanon is also much hoped for.

Attempts to Decipher the 'Victory' Riddle and Its Intricacies
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 06/09/06//
No sooner had the pelting over 'victory' and its meaning subsided, than it was once again inflamed by Hassan Nasrallah's words, interpreted by some as 'repentance' and by others as 'self criticism'.
It is a continuing pelting between the anti-victorious and the pro-victorious, whose version carries the threat of transcending the country in question, Lebanon, and measuring the conflict through a strictly strategic gauge formulated without taking the State, the people's will, their lives, economy, displacement, or migration into account.
Once again, these tangible values are replaced by rhetoric outcries of inflated dignity, honor and nobility that go hand in hand with cold-hearted strategic analysis.
Conscience and moral principles, at least since Munich on the eve of the Second World War, entail nothing more than defending the interests of small countries and peoples, by snatching them from the fangs of strategic inevitability and deterministic analysis which chew on these interests as crocodiles chew on fish.
The case with the Lebanese war, nevertheless, is a bit more than that, where the country is ignored according to a theoretical, nihilist, and malignant scheme that makes no secret of its desire to surgically eliminate countries, uproot its policies as modals connected with concrete and tangible inhabitants. Policies, according to this scheme, should be produced in a political vacuum which is called the struggle with Israel and the US, where it is impossible for borders to separate land, to classify millions into peoples, and to categorize issues according to their different levels. This is a shortcut to confusion and total anarchy, with savagery waiting at the end of its road.
Even if we accepted the victorious-strategic version, the real danger lies in the fact that the domestic party in concern is incapable, as a national political entity, to capitalize politically on such a 'victory.' Never, in a world that has its structure based on nation-states, has a political party or a movement been able to accomplish such a mission except in two cases:
The first is when the party, as in the cases of national liberation movements and revolutions, contains the seeds of an alternative power that can replace the existing situation or foreign influence. This is not the case with Hezbollah, at least as long as it has not yet overthrown the Lebanese government.
The second case is when the party is closely related to another state and is being used by it to challenge a competing or hostile state, a situation similar to the relationship between the Vietcong and North Vietnam; or when a militia is used, and sometimes created, by any given State to fight another. And even in that case, when it is time for the political harvest, the 'helper' state gets the lion's share. This second case leads to only two possibilities:
The first is that this analysis is inapplicable to Hezbollah, which, subsequently, cannot exploit its military effort politically. And this assumption is supported by all the steps that proceeded from the war's end, starting from the Franco-American proposals to Resolution 1701 and ending with the land, sea and air blockade on the 'victorious' and the Lebanese victims alike.
The second possibility has to do with the assumption of Hezbollah as an Iranian battalion, which means that Iran is solely exploiting its military effort (we leave Syria aside since it is too weak and too ailing to exploit anything). This assumption is also supported by the susceptibility of Iran to profit from the current developments in the region (as proven by the Chatham House's most recent report).
As a matter of fact, Hezbollah possesses the sort of qualities that make it a candidate for both cases, since Hezbollah is an intrinsic part of the Lebanon, except that it hijacks its constituency to amalgam it, without any intermediaries, in the regional politics.
And while it maintains a close relationship with Iran, the world's division into states whose national agendas are different, prevents it from presenting itself as an Iranian battalion.
This is exactly where the dilemma of the 'victory' lies; it is obvious that Israel's losses, as abundantly explained by commentators and politicians, could not be attributed to the Lebanese component, but the Iranian component of Hezbollah.
And this explains the paradox of the destruction of a country and the 'victory' of one of its political parties. It also explains, more eloquently than inconclusive military results, Hezbollah's inability to convince us with its 'victory', since its Lebanese element prevents it from admitting that Iran is the only side exploiting and in a position to exploit Israel's loss.
More reasons for concern lies in the fact that radical forces in the area, whether like Hezbollah or Hamas, the Iraqi 'resistance', or regimes like the Syrian are by definition 'preventive' powers; they succeed in preventing others from achieving victory but never actually achieve it themselves. Haven't some said that the boarders between Israel and Iran are mere Arab vacuum?

What About the Iranian Project?
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 05/09/06//
An American project in the region, whether of a New or a Great Middle East, is beyond any doubt. However, it is an insolvent and contradictory
One, and in some countries it is deteriorating and ailing. A lot has been said and written about this project, but this does not deny the existence of another equally dangerous project: its Iranian alternative.
The worst thing about the American project is marginalizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the extent of disregarding it. What makes the Iranian one even worse is that it is based on this marginalization and disregard. The Iranian project even complements these attitudes and benefits from them. It attempts to employ the regional conflict in the same manner it has employed the two American 'solutions' for the Afghani and Iraqi issues. The Iranian regime invested the fragile Arab presence, or rather the Arab absence, in the Iraqi issue. Similarly, Iran seeks to exploit the Arab impotence in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli issue as a prelude to highlighting this impotence and re-produce it.
Needless to say, the Iranian regime, contrary to its claim, has no sincere 'Islamic' sentiments toward its neighbors. Otherwise, it would not have retained the three occupied islands in the Gulf and it would not have treated the Iranian Arabs the way it did and still doing. In spite of the Iranian anti-Israeli rhetoric, Tehran was not active in combating Israel's influence until the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, when it seemed that a new Arab situation is on the rise, a situation where the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will cease to impede the growth of a healthy relationship with the West and the outside world. Prior to that, the Iran-Gate story is well known, which reflects how far the Iranian regime can go in betraying its anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric.
Now, what is most dangerous about the strong Iranian wind blowing west is: first, undermining the nation-state system as it exists in our region, for the benefit of endless chaos hidden under some false ideological allegations, particularly, the conflict with Israel . Second, mobilizing primordial sentiments and igniting them, as is currently the case in Iraq, thus bringing sectarian conflicts to their maximum level. And, third, besides the conflicts and chaos, exporting some 'political' concepts that only take us back to the Middle Ages. At the top of the list comes the Islamization of public affairs, the rejection of all that has to do with progress and enlightenment and lifting despotism to the ranks of hope and salvation.
If it is true that the above were the features of the Iranian expansion, then it is equally true that the Arabs opposing Iran are invited to enter into a new activity and a new way of thinking. The activity must focus on the revival of negotiations regarding the settlement of the Palestinian issue. This will halt the functional integration between America's disregard and Iran's benefiting from it. As for the new way of thinking, it revolves around developing a modern and dynamic vision of the world that runs contrary to the Iranian medieval thinking and does not allow it to employ the ideological premises that might appear to be common.
The first form of resistance against what Iran is doing and what it intends to do, is to give up the intimidating, 'Saddami' and chauvinistic rhetoric of agitation against 'Persians' and adopt a modern political language while competing with the Khomeini influence. This should come along with tangible plans for serious political and social reforms in the Arab countries concerned.
As far as Lebanon is concerned, it has been turned by Hezbollah and the Syrian 'mediator' to the first battleground for the Iranian expansion westward. Meeting it there would be the only condition for obstructing this expansion.

Maronite bishops chastise Hizbullah, back Siniora
By Maroun Khoury
Daily Star correspondent
Thursday, September 07, 2006
BKIRKI: Lebanon's influential Council of Maronite Bishops barely veiled its criticism of Hizbullah on Wednesday, saying some factions were monopolizing the country's decisions and leading the Lebanese to "unwanted situations."
In a strongly worded statement, the council, headed by Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, called on the Lebanese to take full advantage and "benefit from the international embrace they are enjoying at the moment."
re 18 sects in Lebanon with equal rights and duties," the statement said. "But in reality, we see that some groups are monopolizing the decision-making process and leading the country to unwanted situations."
Referring to Hizbullah, the council said: "A Lebanese faction continues to bear weapons despite the Israeli withdrawal from most of the South in 2000. This continues to be in violation of the Taif Accord."
"This group has become a religious, military and political organization and led us to a war that was launched on July 12, 2006," the council added.
"Powerful countries and regional forces have also interfered more than enough in Lebanese affairs and are backing one sect or another."
The council said that despite the end of Syria's tutelage over the country, there are still many problems and divisions among the Lebanese.
"Each party pretends to seek Lebanon's interests, but it reality it seeks to fulfill sectarian ambitions. This is a chronic disease that has to be extracted," it stated.
Slamming the presidency, the council said: "Sectarianism's symptoms are embedded in the presidential post at this time in particular."
It added that the Christians have become "marginalized due to the absence of an efficient role of the presidency."
"The Christians, particularly the Maronites, are hurt by world leaders and local political figures' disregard of the Lebanese presidency," it said. "This weakens the status of the presidency and needs a solution."
But it cautioned that not any Maronite is eligible to replace President Emile Lahoud, insisting that the future president should be "prepared to sacrifice much to serve the nation as a whole and not use the post for personal gain."
"Lebanon is considered a nation of minorities that coexist in peace and love and thrive for the common national good," the statement said.
Shoring up support for Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's increasingly embattled government, the council also called on the people to back their government "as the sole authority on Lebanese territory."
"Only the government can bring trust and reassurance to the citizens," it stated.
"The state has to be responsible for developing the South
and looking after the villagers there. It has to oversee the distribution of aid through the bodies it is monitoring," the appeal said. "It is the duty of every Lebanese to rebuild the country and swathe its wounds."
The council also called on the Lebanese to respect the country's Constitution.
"The Lebanese should know that any violation of the Constitution will lead to a major void," it said. - With Naharnet

4 officers killed in attack on Shehade laid to rest
Investigators outline likely motives
By Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff
Thursday, September 07, 2006
BEIRUT/SIDON: Four Lebanese security officers killed by two roadside bombs outside the Southern port city of Sidon were buried on Wednesday. The probable target of the Tuesday attack, Lieutenant Colonel Samir Shehade, escaped unhurt, while a senior intelligence officer was wounded.
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.
They were buried in Sidon, their coffins wrapped in the Lebanese flag and carried by their colleagues in the army.
Shehade, a senior Interior Ministry intelligence official, played a leading role in Lebanon's investigation into the February 14, 2005, assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Military investigative Magistrate George Rizk is handling Tuesday's attack. Sources close to the investigation said that the testimony of some witnesses might help reveal the identity of the criminals.
According to the sources, the perpetrators were closely monitoring Shehade. The recent destruction of roads and bridges by Israel made the attack easier because Shehade was forced to commute on the same roads everyday, they said.
Shehade had been coordinating with the UN investigation commission on 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 Hariri's murder.
Shehade had interrogated a discredited Syrian witness, Houssam Taher Houssam. 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.
Shehade had taped the threats, made by Syrian officials and Al-Qaeda members, the sources added.
Judicial sources linked the threats Shehade received and the assassination attempt, since there are several parties interested in liquidating the officer either for political reasons related to the Hariri probe and Al-Qaeda arrests or for personal revenge.
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Wednesday the assassination attempt on Shehade proves that "the terrorism is still targeting Lebanon since the assassination attempt on Telecommunication Minister Marwan Hamade and until the assassination of martyr Hariri and what followed it."
"They want to hit Lebanon's stability and spread despair in the Lebanese people's souls," he added. But Siniora said that the Lebanese people who resisted against the Israeli attacks will not be intimidated by this assassination attempt.

Poll respondents give high marks to Nasrallah, Berri, Aoun
By Rym Ghazal
Daily Star staff
Thursday, September 07, 2006
BEIRUT: In the eyes of the public, Lebanese leaders Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Nabih Berri and Michel Aoun came out as winners in the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon, according to an independent poll released Wednesday. "Numbers don't lie," said Jawad Aadra, the head of Information International, an independent regional research and consultancy firm that measured "various Lebanese opinions on the 34 days of war."
For the poll, conducted between August 22 and 27, 800 Lebanese citizens from across the country and of different sectarian backgrounds were asked 66 questions covering a wide range of issues, from views on the war and the recent Lebanese Army deployment to the performance of the various political leaders.
"I leave the analysis to the analysts, who sometimes make unfounded conclusions based on whims of opinions, instead of comprehensive scientific research," said Aadra.
Overall 57 percent of those questioned "supported" the decision made by Hizbullah in kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, the poll found, while 34 percent were "against" the decision and 8.5 percent had no opinion on the issue. The Shiite sect expressed the greatest support (94 percent) for the action and the Druze sect the greatest opposition (78 percent).
On the performance of politicians during the recent war, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and the Future Movement's Saad Hariri had the dubious distinction of winning the highest marks (57.3 percent, 56 percent and 43 percent respectively) for the "worst/weakest" performance.
Nasrallah (79 percent), Berri (71 percent) and Aoun (58 percent) registered the top three highest scores for a "good/great" performance during the war.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
About 43 percent rated the government's performance during the war "good," while 35 percent saw it as "acceptable" and 21 percent as "bad."
The firm also compared the new numbers to old statistics. The ratio of respondents who considered United States and Israel "enemies of Lebanon" increased from 26 percent in September 2005 to 69 percent for the US, and 90 percent to 97 percent for Israel.
As for who won this war, the majority said Hizbullah and Lebanon (59.2 percent), while about 30 percent said "no one."
On the question of the deployment of the Lebanese Army, 89.3 percent expressed support, while 77.7 percent expressed support for the deployment of the UN forces. At the same time 70 percent expressed doubt over the Lebanese Army's ability to protect Lebanon.
The number of people wanting "dialogue" about the disarmament increased from May 2006 to August 2006, while the number demanding "immediate disarmament" decreased.
Overall, a majority of the respondents expressed faith in the current Prime Minister Fouad Siniora as the "best candidate for heading the government" at 28 percent, followed by Salim Hoss (26 percent), Najib Mikati (22 percent) and Saad Hariri (11 percent). Aoun scored the highest (45 percent) followed by MP Butros Harb (11 percent) and Nassib Lahoud (8.4 percent) as best candidate for the presidency.

With war over, Lebanon leaders back at each other's throats
Calls are growing from pro-Syrian camp, General Aoun for PM Siniora to step down.
By Pierre Sawaya – BEIRUT
Lebanon's fractious political leaders, who forged a united front during Israel's blistering 34-day offensive against Hezbollah, are back at each other's throats, this time settling scores over who should shoulder the blame.
Three weeks after a ceasefire which ended the offensive sparked by the capture on July 12 by Hezbollah militants of two Israeli soldiers, the tensions have resurfaced.
Calls are growing, especially from the pro-Syrian camp and from opposition leader General Michel Aoun, an ally of Hezbollah, for the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to step down.
"The practices of the government have become irrational, with many constitutional violations which do not have popular support but which are supported by the international community," Aoun said recently, continuing his trademark attacks against the government which came to power in June 2005.
Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has appealed for the formation of a government of national unity so that "internal cohesion" can help Lebanon address the "major and serious challenges" it faces.
Druze leader and influential parliamentarian Walid Jumblatt, on the other hand, has come out bitterly against Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, saying they have "confiscated" the dream of an independent Lebanon.
Siniora, armed with strong pledges of support from the international community and promises of financial aid from both Western and Arab countries, has stressed he plans to remain in charge of government.
"There will be neither resignation nor reorganisation," he said.
Political analyst Elias Bou Assi, secretary general of the National Liberal Party, said the return to sniping by politicians was inevitable.
"The solidarity (during the war) was imposed by a national sentiment," said Bou Assi, whose party is a member of the so-called March 14 anti-Syrian umbrella grouping which forms the parliamentary majority.
"Though the March 14 group was critical of Hezbollah, the repercussions (of its actions) had forced the forging of a united front," he said.
The government of Lebanon, of which Hezbollah is also a part, and the parliamentary majority had distanced themselves from the actions of the militant group, hoping to stave off an assault by Israel.
For Fadia Kiwan, director of the political science department of the Saint-Joseph University, the resurfacing of the political crisis was inevitable once calm was restored in the country.
"One could have expected it," she said. "The outcome of the war has boosted the power of Hezbollah. The (parliamentary) majority had bet on its defeat. It will be necessary now to strike a new balance."
The demise or the restructuring of government is now "inevitable", she said, predicting the formation of a national unity cabinet that will include General Aoun.
Samir Geagea, leader of Christian party the Lebanese Forces, desperately hopes Kiwan's predictions will prove unfounded.
"A new government would turn the country back 15 years, even 150 years. The identity of the current cabinet is Lebanese and there is no question of exchanging it for a government whose identity is under review," Geagea said.

Lebanon blockade seen lifted in 2 days
Wed Sep 6, 2006
Correspondent
BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Wednesday he hoped Israel would lift its blockade of Lebanon shortly amid signs the air embargo was crumbling. Israel said it could gradually dismantle the blockade as Lebanese and U.N. forces control entry points to stop Hizbollah rearming, but did not say when restrictions would be eased.
"I am still hopeful that the air, land and sea blockade will be lifted in the next 36 to 48 hours and I'm working on that with the participants," Annan told a joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara.
Annan, speaking after talks on Turkey's contribution to a bigger UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon, has tried to broker a deal to end the 8-week-blockade. He had said on Tuesday he hoped for a positive outcome within two days.
In a sign the embargo may be eroding, British Airways/BMED said it was resuming direct flights to Beirut after the British government had given assurances that it would be safe to do so.
Lebanon's Middle East Airlines and Royal Jordanian began flying regularly into the capital last month, but have complied with Israel's insistence that all such flights go via Amman. Qatar Airways resumed direct flights to Beirut on Monday.
"We don't have a problem with a graduated lifting of the restrictions," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev told Reuters earlier.
"We can lift restrictions when they (U.N. and Lebanese forces) are ready to enforce the arms embargo. If they don't, then what is the point of us lifting the restrictions?"
Annan is due to report to the Security Council soon on progress towards implementing Resolution 1701 that halted Israel's 34-day war with Hizbollah on August 14.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has said that if the blockade goes on for another 20 days, the economic losses would equal the nearly $1 billion in aid promised by international donors to help the country get back to its feet after the war.
A Lebanese political source has said the first step in the deal Annan is trying to arrange would be for Israel to end its control over flights in and out of Beirut.
The Lebanese government would then immediately ask the United Nations to help patrol its coast. French, Italian and Greek naval ships would deploy offshore as an interim measure, paving the way for Israel to release its grip on Lebanese ports.
German vessels would later take over the maritime patrols.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy reiterated that France was ready to help monitor Lebanon's coast. "If (the Beirut government) wants us to help, we can do that," he said.
SHAKY TRUCE
UNIFIL commander Major-General Alain Pellegrini told France's Europe 1 radio the truce in Lebanon remained shaky.
"It remains fragile as far as there is an Israeli presence in Lebanon because every incident, misunderstanding or provocation can escalate very quickly," he said. Two Lebanese soldiers were killed and a third was wounded in south Lebanon when an Israeli landmine they were trying to defuse exploded, a security official said.
Pellegrini's spokesman, Alexander Ivanko, said UNIFIL had sent a written protest to Israel on Tuesday over infringements of Lebanese airspace and other truce violations.
Israel says the main truce violation is Hizbollah's failure to free two soldiers it seized on July 12. Hizbollah wants Lebanese prisoners held in Israel to be released in return.
Annan said he would send a secret envoy, or facilitator, to work on the issue in the region before the end of the week.
Turkey's parliament approved on Tuesday providing non-combat troops to UNIFIL. Erdogan declined to say how many would go, but officials have said the number was unlikely to exceed 1,000.
The Israeli army withdrew from more border pockets it seized during the war, Lebanese security sources said. The Lebanese army will move on Friday into the nine posts that the Israelis had vacated near the southern port city of Tyre, they added.
Annan has said Israel should complete its pullout once 5,000 UNIFIL troops are on the ground. The force now numbers 3,100.
Asked when Annan's target would be met, Ivanko said: "We are looking good for mid-September or the third week of September."
He said 200 French troops were due in Beirut at the weekend to prepare for the arrival next week of 700 members of a battalion armed with main battle tanks and 155-mm artillery A Spanish battalion was expected to follow them, but Ivanko had no date for its arrival.
(Additional reporting by Jerusalem. Ankara and Paris bureaux

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
B’nai Brith meets with Toronto Police Chief on urgent security matters
TORONTO, September 5, 2006 – B’nai Brith Canada officials who met this morning with Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair to discuss urgent community security matters, issued the following statement:
“We met this morning with Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair – and we will be meeting with police chiefs across the country – to request greater security protections for Jewish communal sites, especially as we approach the Jewish High Holiday season and with the school year having just begun,” said Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s Executive Vice President. “Police Chief Blair gave us every assurance that his police force takes very seriously threats against the Jewish community and that he welcomed B’nai Brith’s participation on security matters pertaining to the safety of the Jewish community.
“We have also been informed by York Regional Police Chief Armand LaBarge that his officers are in high profile ‘Project Ready’ mode and will be devoting resources to patrolling Jewish institutions that have already been identified as vulnerable by B’nai Brith to his police officers.
“We will continue our close cooperation with all police forces, including in Montreal, the recent scene of the firebombing of a Jewish school. This latest attack must serve as a potent wake-up call reminding us that we can ill afford to bury our heads in the sand. A human tragedy was narrowly averted this weekend and we must do everything in our power to ensure that neither Montreal, nor Toronto, nor any of our cities becomes the stage for any further attack.”

Engage Syria at your own peril
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, September 07, 2006
In the past month, a bevy of former American officials have recommended that the United States, in order to resolve the problem of Hizbullah, engage Syria. On September 1, European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Finland, also agreed to talk to Syria, a view strongly advocated by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel-Angel Moratinos, though the Syrians did him few favors after his trip to Damascus during the Lebanese crisis. These luminaries have no memory. History has shown that engaging this Syrian regime is a waste of time. Just ask the French. As one official put it last week: "We have talked to Syria before. We have never had any results."
Several rationales have been put forward to justify opening a window to Syria. Doing so, one argument goes, will give Syria an incentive to break with Iran and cut off the flow of weapons to Hizbullah. Another view is that all Syrian President Bashar Assad craves is recognition, and by giving him that the US and Europe might be able to push for a negotiated resolution of the Golan Heights imbroglio, possibly leading to Syrian-Israeli peace. Yet another view is that Assad represents a secular regime in an increasingly "Islamist" region, so it would be a good thing to get him on "our" side.
All these contentions are either spurious or fail to consider past Syrian behavior. Take the relationship with Iran and Hizbullah. It was during the years of Syrian rule in Lebanon that Hizbullah built up its weapons arsenal. This served two main purposes for Syria: to pressure Israel from South Lebanon, providing Syria with a low-cost means of keeping its foot in the door for future negotiations; and it expanded the Hizbullah threat in the eyes of the international community, which then looked to Syria as the only actor able to control the party - requiring the Syrians to stay in Lebanon.
How realistic is it to assume Assad would change this strategy? Syria will not give Hizbullah up and risk becoming irrelevant. If anything, the Syrian president is likely to encourage Hizbullah to periodically behave menacingly along Lebanon's Southern border, so that Syria could be called in to "moderate" its conduct; or, as happened last week during the visit of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, be brought into international efforts to cut arms flows to Hizbullah. What Annan was promised is unlikely to be implemented, and Syrian spokesmen were quick to qualify several statements made to the secretary general. Syria will continue playing a good cop-bad cop routine with Hizbullah.
What about Iran? Syria won't end its relationship with Iran because it gains too much from it. The rapport is not what it was in the 1980s; today Syria is a subordinate partner, and Assad has accepted this because Iran offers him a way out of his regional isolation as well as a credible military deterrent against outside threats. Why surrender this? For vague promises that Israeli might resume talks on the Golan - less likely an outcome by the day? Because the European Union might revive its Association Agreement with Damascus - though Syria has refused to adopt the economic and political reforms needed to make the agreement viable?
Unfortunately, in some EU quarters this is being seriously thought about. In a perverted way, many European states are now willing to embark on an empty process of dialogue with Syria, even offering concessions, without demanding that Syria make measurable concessions of its own beforehand. Suddenly, it seems, the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has been forgotten, as has Syrian collusion in the burning of the Danish Embassy in Damascus earlier this year, and the imprisonment of dozens of Syrian opposition figures.
Mainly, Assad will not abandon his Iranian alliance because it offers him an opportunity to pursue regionally destabilizing policies that buttress his own regime. When Palestine goes up in smoke, when Lebanon collapses into war, when Iraq faces further violence, Assad sees events that allow him to keep his harsh security apparatus in place and silence and imprison domestic adversaries; that encourage timorous Arab states not to rock the Syrian boat; and, yes, that make American and European former and present officials advise that the road be taken to Damascus to "engage."
As for the Golan Heights, those who think Assad is capable of negotiating a peace agreement with Israel are deluding themselves. The Syrian president would love a process of negotiations that would shield him from the US, but his regime could never take the consequences of a final deal. The security edifice of Assad's regime requires a state of war with Israel, and that edifice is essential to protecting Alawite rule in Syria.
The argument in favor of the Syrian regime's alleged secularism is equally vacant. It is Syria that has dispatched most foreign Islamists into Iraq, and that has armed or supported Palestinian, Lebanese, and Jordanian Islamists - Sunni and Shiite. After crushing the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama in 1982, the Syrian regime embarked on a massive expansion of mosques and religious schools, both to better control Islamic currents and to regain some legitimacy. Consequently, Islam has grown in Syria, and while it has yet to challenge the regime, Assad has warned his critics and foes that if he were to fall, the Islamists would take over. Once again, that perennial tactic of creating a problem, then using it as a barrier against change.
But perhaps the best reason to keep isolating Syria is Lebanon. Assad's deepest desire is to re-establish Syrian hegemony over the country. One reason for this, aside from Lebanon's ability to again grant Syria regional relevance, is the United Nations' investigation of Hariri's assassination.
All the signs are that Syria will be accused of the crime, which could bring down the Assad regime. By dominating Lebanon, the Syrian president could stifle the investigation, which relies heavily on Lebanese judicial cooperation.
More generally, Assad would exploit any Western opening in order to seize power in Lebanon through his Lebanese allies, against the majority that forced a Syrian withdrawal last year. If this were to succeed, who would be the Praetorian Guard of that new order? Hizbullah. The party could, thus, preserve its autonomy, marginalize its domestic adversaries, and thrive under Syria's sympathetic eye. This factor alone explains why Syria would never accept to diminish Hizbullah's power. As Syria plots a return to Lebanon, it has no intention of harming its main ally in that venture.
This is no time to engage Syria. If anything, it is time to warn Syria that, because it sits at the nexus point of regional instability - in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and even Jordan - it had better alter its behavior, or the US may seriously think about ways of finding an alternative to Assad. This need not be done by war, of course. Yet unless the Bush administration finds credible means to force "behavior change instead of regime change" in Damascus, it might soon find that war is inevitable.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.