From Beirut to the Beltway

This blog is moving! Update your bookmarks!

2006-02-21T12:16:00.000-05:00

From Beirut to the Beltway is moving.

From now on, you can access the blog at the following address:

www.beirutbeltway.com

It's a brand new site,with added features, such as the newswire, which has live news feeds.

Please update your bookmarks and newsreaders.

To subscribe to the new site's feed, use this (Atom). There is also an RSS feed.

I hope you enjoy the new site. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

As for this blog, I was able to transfer all my posts, but not the comments. I will not delete this blog, so you will be still able to access the posts and their comments. But there will be no posting activity here as of today.

Thank you. Don't forget to bookmark the new site.

www.beirutbeltway.com

Aoun the national painkiller

2006-02-19T10:44:00.000-05:00

One of the immediate effects of the February 14 rally was the reinvigoration of the campaign to oust Lahoud. Another effect was felt today, when Michel Aoun and the Lebanese Forces agreed on a "consensus candidate" for the vacant Baabda-Aley seat.

In his press conference today, Aoun was less belligerent than ever. His apparent victory in imposing his "consensus candidate" could be seen as the first of many deals to come with the March 14 grouping, who need Aoun's support on the presidency issue.

March 14 will find Aoun's offer hard to refuse. Here's what he is proposing: Elect me. I have an understanding with Hizbullah, others such as Boutros Harb don't. And if you don't agree with me, there is always parliament and the cabinet to resolve conflicts.

Since his return from exile, Aoun has been trying to repackage himself as the only available candidate. With FPM politicians still describing 1559 as a resolution serving "Lebanon's interests and independence", it is hard to believe that the FPM would risk alienating its base by giving it all to the pro-Syrian factions.

The jury is still out on how much Tuesday's rally, the understanding with Hizbullah, and other pandering to pro-Syrian parties, have cost Aoun on the Christian street. But one thing is certain. Aoun has successfully positioned himself as the only viable presidential candidate. Despite the momentum gained from Tuesday's rally, March 14 will not be able to sell any other candidate to Hizbullah and Amal, unless their plan is that of an all-out collision with the Shia parties and Aoun's FPM, which I find unlikely, despite Jumblatt's fiery speeches.

The March 14 grouping is also desperately trying to take care of last year's unfinished business, beginning with Lahoud's removal. And if one of their mistakes last year was in alienating Aoun, I think they will go out of their way to win him back. That is not to say Aoun does not need March 14. The Tuesday protests sent him a strong message that he cannot pursue his presidential project by ignoring the March 14 crowd.

Now that both Aoun and March 14 need each other more than ever, my guess is that a deal on the presidency will soon be reached between the two camps. The agreement on Dakkash was a sign that such a deal is possible. And with Hizbullah and Amal already denouncing the plan to remove Lahoud, calling it a "threat to the Shia community", a compromise Aoun presidency seems like the only option available to March 14.

In less than a year, Aoun transformed himself from an aggressive anti-Syrian antibiotic of sorts into a national painkiller. He is not always effective, but the country needs temporary relief from the pain that's tearing it apart. Those banking on deals between the current leaders to heal the country will be disappointed. There is a lot to be done, including corrective legislative action, a new electoral law, and a comprehensive development plan for those parts of the country where government is both absent and being absented.

British Islamist goes to Lebanon to fight holy war

2006-02-17T07:57:00.000-05:00

To Whom It May Concern in the Lebanese government:

Read this:

Quoted from The Sun (do take it with a grain of salt):

THE organiser of London’s Muslim cartoon protests has gone abroad to fight holy
war — leaving taxpayers to foot the bill to keep his family.

Anjem Choudary, 38, walked out on Rubana Akhgar to launch a new Islamic fundamentalist group in Lebanon.

But his wife will not have to worry about money when he’s gone — she gets £1,700-a-month in state handouts.

And Choudary himself raked in thousands in benefits for years while plotting to destroy British society.

Rubana, 34, was heartbroken after he followed his evil hero Omar Bakri to Lebanon.
Choudary returned to organise the Danish Embassy outrage, where protesters carried banners proclaiming: “Behead Those Who Insult Islam.”

He found time to visit Rubana, sons Luqman, six, and Hediyah, one, and daughter Bintanjan, eight, amid fury over the protests.

But he left his Muslim wife in tears by vowing to go back to Lebanon soon to accelerate his campaign of “Jihad”.

She told a friend: “We wanted him to stay but there’s nothing I can do to stop him. He’s thrown himself into leading this new Muslim group and doesn’t live here any more. We will miss him but we’ll be OK on housing benefit and income support.”

Rubana gets around £1,000-a-month housing benefit, £360 income support, £160 child benefit and £192-a-week child tax credits.

Her husband claimed £202-a-month income support until last September.

Choudary — son of a Kent market trader — has plunged himself into leading Al-Ghurabaa, a group which preaches to young Muslims and verbally attacks Western democracy.

He used to help poisonous preacher Bakri run the now defunct extremist group Al Muhajiroun, which wants to turn Britain into an Islamic state.

Lawyer Choudary quit his job at a London solicitor’s firm after being seduced by Bakri’s twisted creed. He claimed thousands in income support, job seeker allowance and housing benefit.

The bearded fanatic first achieved notoriety in 2001 by describing the September 11 bombers as “heroes”.

He hit the headlines again in 2003 after calling the Colombia Space Shuttle disaster “an act of God” and saying Muslims would not be shedding any tears.

Choudary sparked fury by defending the embassy protests over the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed earlier this month. He crowed to Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman that Britain belongs to Allah.

Choudary has been staying with his British-born wife and their children for several days at their rented ground-floor flat in East London.

Most of his trips out have been with his family to the local mosque. He now wears an unkempt beard and traditional Shalwar Kameez robes.

Quizzed outside the home yesterday, Choudary warned sternly: “You’ve made a big mistake coming here.”

IN BEIRUT, Bakri has warned Britain could be the target of another terror attack as a result of the cartoon row.

Bakri fled Britain last summer amid calls for him to face treason charges.

It is bad enough Bakri is allowed to roam freely in Lebanon, but now that we suspect that his companion plans to join him to "accelerate Jihad", can you dispatch someone to investigate?

Cheers.

Concerned Lebanese blogger.

Nasrallah and national consensus

2006-02-16T16:54:00.000-05:00

The year is 2006. It has been six years since Israeli soldiers completed their humiliating withdrawal. In those six years, the situation in Lebanon went to worse. The Syrian regime tried to consolidate its grip over the country, killing everyone who stood in its way, including Rafik Hariri and a slew of journalists and political figures. In 2005, more Lebanese than ever before realized that the Syrian regime is an equal if not bigger threat to their stability than Israel. Those Lebanese live in the present. They are aware of past Israeli crimes, but they are not so stupid as to ignore current Syrian atrocities.

Enter Lebanon’s living fossil:

Hassan Nasrallah, who has just received a fresh shipment of weapons via Syria, said that “the resistance does not need a national consensus to exist,” and that ”the party weapons are purchased to confront the Zionists who want to harm our nation."

He will continue to override Lebanese institutions until a “clear defense strategy” is formulated.

“Our resistance will go on until a clear strategy to defend Lebanon is formulated," he said.

And Aoun agrees with him.

Nasrallah added that the memorandum of understanding with Gen. Aoun demands that a defense strategy to protect Lebanon should be set forward by the Lebanese.

Nasrallah of course is bluffing the Lebanese people. Such a strategy, to be viable and sane, would have to involve the Lebanese army, not a militia. It would require centralized government control over war and defense matters. It would require a clear set of national security objectives, which would negate the existence of a “party” such as Hizbullah. Lebanon is not Iran, and defense matters cannot be delegated to a militia. We don’t need a Basij. Not even Syria does it this way.

Nasrallah’s defense strategy “does not need national consensus”, he insolently added (even though it has to be "set by the Lebanese"). But all other matters, such as an international tribunal to bring criminals to justice, the widening of a criminal investigation into ACTUAL terrorist attacks on the country—these matters REQUIRE national consensus, according to the Party of God. I mean Hizbullah suspended its participation in the government because of alleged “lack of national consensus”. And now Nasrallah wants to exclude from that his weapons. Correction. He never really cared about consensus. What with his constant derision of the “imaginary majority”, and calling popular speeches embraced by hundreds of thousands recipes for civil war.

Nasrallah warned that some of the speeches made at Tuesday's rally to mark to the first anniversary of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination could lead to a civil war. He said that the language used by some speakers aimed at escalating the situation, in reference to Druze leader Walid Jumblat's comments at the Feb. 14 rally held at Martyrs' Square. Nasrallah called for dialogue among the Lebanese and considered Hizbullah's offer for unconditional dialogue a concession by the Shiite group.

This is Hizbullah for you. A civil war, in its dictionary, takes place when there is no dictator running the country and using it in a proxy fight against humanity’s alleged perpetual enemy, Israel. Dialogue with other Lebanese is a “concession.”

I have to give Aoun one thing. If it weren’t for his cozying up to it, Hizbullah would probably be in dangerously desperate isolation. I don’t envy him though. It must not feel nice to be Hizbullah’s buffer against the rest of Lebanon.

One million and an alliance

2006-02-14T07:44:00.000-05:00

Future TV and Naharnet estimated around a million Lebanese filled Martyrs' Square in downtown Beirut today to commemorate the killing of Rafik Hariri. One year ago exactly I woke up at the same time I did today and read the news of an explosion in downtown Beirut. Less than an hour of anguish later, I and millions of others learned the news of his death by a powerful bomb in the very quarter of the city he rebuilt.

Today is a day of remembrance that comes after much disillusionment. As I watch hundreds of thousands waving Lebanese flags, albeit with less purpose than a year ago, I can’t help but wonder: now what?

When Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagea held hands and addressed the crowds directly, it became clear they were seeking a mandate for a stronger and more potent alliance. A response of sorts to Hizbullah and Aoun that drew sharp political boundaries. In his speech, Jumblatt accused Bashar of being a terrorist, and demanded the Lebanese army be sent to the border region and the southern suburb. Saad said there will be no compromises.

The hope is that this renewed alliance, which should no longer go by "March 14", will stand up for Lebanon through action and not just words.

Update: Naharnet has summaries of the key speeches in English. (Saad's, Jumblatt's, Geagea's)

Update 2: An-Nahar has an excellent set of pictures here. (pdf)

The Daily Star does Syrian propaganda

2006-02-13T19:44:00.000-05:00

To commemorate the first anniversary of the Hariri assassination, the Daily Star, Lebanon' s "top English-language paper", published a "first person" opinion article by none other than Bouthaina Shaaban, Syrian propagandist and co-conspirator against Lebanon and its people.

With Lebanon still reeling from Syrian terrorism and destabilization tactics, the latest of which was a Syrian sponsored Islamist attack on Christians, the Daily Star goes to Syria for some propaganda under the title "Islamophobia: A second Holocaust in the making."

Shaaban basically emulated an Iranian revolutionary guard "commander" who said last week that democratically elected German chancellor Angela Merkel "thinks she's Hitler."

Germany, once again, apologizes for the Holocaust and is willing to do what it takes to redeem itself - even if it was financing a second Holocaust against the Palestinian people...

It seems like a new crusade has started against Arabs and Muslims in the wake of September 11, 2001, led by neo-European Nazism. The victims are no longer the Jews, but Muslims spread over Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, and anywhere around the globe.

The wars, bombings and secret prisons where suspect Muslims are tortured and killed are but few aspects of the "crusade" U.S. President George W. Bush launched. Was it not for so much contradictory evidences, we could have passed it for another of his many misfortunate slips of the tongue.

It gets better. Here it comes:

Along a number of unjustified wars, sanctions and pressure policies against Arab and Muslim countries, intensive media campaigns rally to deform the face of Muslims and Islam. Even as citizens of Western democracies, Muslims find themselves subject to legal and political acts of hatred and harassment.

Yes, Shaaban's Syria is part of the crusade against Islam. This makes us, Lebanese people who want justice, crusaders bent on destroying Muslims everywhere. Never mind that Shaaban's master and his father before him killed and jailed more "Muslims" than an actual crusade.

Shaaban then launches a tirade against Denmark, "the country heading the spear of hatred against Islam and Muslims." WHERE IS JUAN COLE? One of his idiotic posts claimed there is no evidence that Syria and Iran were inciting riots. To prove that, he said he looked in FBIS (the CIA's media monitoring database) and Lexis Nexis and found no articles in the Syrian press containing "Syria and Denmark". I posted a comment correcting him, but he doesn't publish comments that prove him wrong by pointing out the levels of access in FBIS, and the fact that it is stupid to look for evidence of such incitement in the Syrian media. Or that he misspelled Condoleezza Rice's name when he said: "Condaleeza Rice is a Liar. " (Who gave him a PhD?)

More from Shaaban:

Within this context, the cartoon contest organized by Yandposten came as a natural result. Facts show that Europe is launching a new Holocaust against Muslims around the world. What is happening to Muslims in Europe today is almost identical with what the Jews suffered at the beginning of the century.

Yes, millions of Muslims in Europe are being put on trains and sent to gas chambers. Good work, Daily Star editors! Why bother intervene on the side of good journalism?

And then this jewel:

"Freedom of the press" and "freedom of expression" do not permit violating or ridiculing other people's sanctities.

Ignoring the Syrian regime crimes against the Lebanese press for a second, I will let this February 8 story from AFP answer her:

DAMASCUS, Feb 8, 2006 (AFP) - Syrian security services pressed a clampdown on dissidents this month despite their inaction in the face of violent protests outside European diplomatic missions in Damascus, a leading rights lawyer said.

On Tuesday evening, agents arrested writer Adel Fayad in the Mediterranean port of Tartus for publishing articles opposing the regime on the Internet, said lawyer Anwar Bunni, who heads the Syrian Centre for Legal Studies.

Interpreter Abdul Mughith Habab was meanwhile due in court on charges of insulting President Bashar al-Assad after being first detained a month ago for mentioning the existence of courts of exception under Syria's 43-year-old state of emergency to journalists he was working for.

Students, Ali Ali and Hussam Melhem, were also detained in Damascus 10 days ago for setting up a discussion group, Bunni added.

"The Syrian authorities are tolerating acts of violence perpetrated by demonstrators against European embassies but are severely repressing peaceful activities," he complained. He was referring to a large demonstration Saturday against the publication in Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which saw the Danish mission stormed, with serious damage done to the Chilean embassy, and the Norwegian mission also attacked.

Finally, this:

Nazis accused Jews of violence and terrorism. They launched media wars of hatred against their faith and sanctities. The result was the Holocaust; one of the ugliest crimes against humanity.

How about Syria's crimes against humanity? How about the Syrian media's war of hatred against Lebanon? What about the murder of journalists and men who dared say no to the Syrian dictator? Who are the Nazis here?

How about the Daily Star publishing this rubbish today of all days?

Freedom of speech? Not for those who kill free people. And not when the Daily Star collects donations in the name of supporting "free press in Lebanon."

A state of citizens

2006-02-11T10:29:00.000-05:00

…Fellow comrades in the opposition, whether you are new or veterans, take to the streets and you will hear it. You will hear with it a call for you to take the initiative for an uprising of a different kind, an uprising against the self that would - in the aftermath of the end of the Baath regime's mandate - pave the way to the building of a modern state, a state of citizens and not a state of subjects. (Samir Kassir, April 1, 2005. )

These words deserve a permanent post, and I am tempted to leave them at the top of every piece I write, for they express exactly what our country needs. Samir Kassir died a true martyr for his country. Is it strange for me to be thinking of him on the eve of the first anniversary of Hariri's assassination? No.

Rafik Hariri became a national symbol only after the Syrian regime took him out. His death fueled one of the strongest opposition forces in modern Arab history. On February 14, Lebanon lost a great yet fallible leader whose vision, though not perfect, lives on in the city that embraced him in death, as it did in life.

The continuous arrogance of the Syrian regime and its Lebanese cohorts drove Lebanese into two different camps. There were the ones who saw no hypocrisy in supporting a murderous regime that kills their fellow compatriots in the name of protecting them from a great conspiracy. Hizbullah.

And then there was the March 14 variety: the darlings of the western media, which saw in them the germs of democracy and the unprecedented will to swim against the current. These, for a short while, put their ideological differences aside to unite in calling for an end to the Baath era. The young and patriotic of them camped near where their fallible leader had fallen, and peacefully demanded change.

Freedom square. I've seen it in pictures. I was there in spirit and in unshed tears. They waved my flag and told the butchers to go home. And I watched from the comfort of my beltway home.

But my distant friends had no leaders. The speeches delivered to them by the "opposition" betrayed the spirit that carried these unpopular figures to the freedom podium. On March 14, when the line was drawn in red, white and green, Nayla Mouawad, Gebran Tueni, and Bahia Hariri could not fit the new mold. Michel Aoun called in, but the air around his words felt contrived and opportunistic.

My young revolutionaries had no real representatives. The spirit of the revolution had nobody to articulate it and translate it into a project for a new Lebanon. The Future Movement wanted to continue a project, though visionary, was ill-defined and faulty on many levels. Walid Jumblatt could not stick to one position long enough for it to gel into a project. Qornet Shahwan was ineffective and unpopular. Michel Aoun came home and pulled the plug. The reality of what was needed was overrun by posthumous myths and politics as usual.

Nobody stood there, except maybe Samir Kassir, to tell us that the agent of change had to come from us, not from them. None of the ones who borrowed our revolution taught us how to build a state of citizens, not subjects. Samir Kassir tried, but darkness soon swallowed his light. And then many of us were lost. We forgot that patriotism is hollow without a sense of civic duty towards our country and our fellow citizens. You can wave two million flags, but if you still cannot stand in line or be courteous to others and give them the same rights that you give yourself, you cannot call yourself an agent of change.

When I finally visited in October, I stood by Hariri's grave and tried to take in the leftovers of the fabled March 14 spirit. For it was there, in the pictures and the writings on the walls that guarded the undying spirits of the murdered. I felt the spirit but saw it disappear at borders set up by the guardians of the grave, who looked like they belonged to a clique and not a nation. It hit me then that part of my sadness came from my realization that the revolution had shrunk and was confined to a small area. Outside that area Lebanon seemed like a weary version of its old incomplete self. People were living in fear, bomb detectors were everywhere, and the news screamed division. Instead of the people of the revolution, I saw puppets of interests, opportunistic politicians and shadowy figures on revenge missions invading public squares and television screens. Was the revolution a myth, I asked myself? The answer came from the faces of the men and women on the wall. The spirit was there, but the message was not carried far enough. It died as soon as it reached the hands of those we let climb the podium.

It is also not normal to let this day's popular movement disperse even if it's hard to keep it at its current climax. It becomes as if it [the opposition] is telling citizens: Well done. Go home now. We will call if we need you!

That's essentially what many, especially Aoun, did. He called it off as soon as he returned to the country. For him, the popular movement expired upon his holy return, which he saw as the objective, a prelude to making himself president. The others did not behave better. Listen to Samir. He said this before the parliamentary elections but no one heard.

Meanwhile, it is unacceptable for the opposition to give itself the image of the club of candidates to parliamentary elections. Even if Lebanon's parliament needs new blood, this does not mean that under the banner of renewing political life, the opposition makes citizens feel that all opposition figures are position seekers.

They all ran, didn't they? Even though many of them weren't our choice. They clawed one another and finished off a spirit they failed to faithfully embody. We got electoral lists of old faces on newly assigned missions bigger than they can handle. They didn't trust the people to bring in new faces. They didn't trust our judgment, so they didn't bother with programs to deliver us to the shore. They wasted our time on meaningless alliances that led the country to ruin. Rafik Hariri died many times this past year. He died with every bomb from Syria, obstruction from Nasrallah and Aoun, reversal from Jumblatt, and hesitation from his own son, Saad.

But if they all, intentionally or unintentionally, forgot the revolution, why did we? Why did so many of us return to our sectarian barracks? That's because we were not true citizens of this nation. We led an uprising exclusively against the other but not against the self. And I had to stand by the grave of my fallen fallible leader to recapture an essence lost to political manipulation and national immaturity.

On February 14, we should all go back to the grave to remember the spirit we lost. Do it for nobody's sake but your own. Let it be a silent protest of one amid millions. Carry your flag near your heart and let no one but yourself speak for you. Let the silence of your protest drown their failure to represent your dreams. Lift the banner calling for change, end to terror, and birth of a new state. Let it be Samir's "uprising against the self." Find the citizen in you, not the subject. And then find the way to the "state of citizens."

Only a state of citizens can fight the enemy and win. March on, fellow citizens.

Hizbullah and the missing revolution

2006-02-09T18:46:00.000-05:00

And you thought Sunday’s riots were scary. Hundreds of thousands of professional weepers gathered on Thursday to be manipulated by the man who thinks of himself as God’s deputy. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the "oppressed" and official defender of Lebanon, gave himself the right to spill blood in the name of defending the prophet, but still found the act of burning a building "uncivilized".

"Defending the prophet should continue all over the world. Let Condoleezza Rice and Bush and all the tyrants shut up. We are an Islamic nation that cannot tolerate, be silent or be lax when they insult our prophet and sanctities."

"We will uphold the messenger of God not only by our voices but also by our blood," he told the crowds, estimated by organizers at about 700,000. Police had no final estimates but said the figure was likely to be even higher.

Nasrallah told Bush and Rice to “shut up” for daring to accuse Syria and Iran of inciting riots over the Mohammad cartoons, but gave himself the freedom to utter another shameless defense of the regime that killed some of Lebanon's best leaders and thinkers. I won't bother pasting what he said regarding "dragging" the country into a war with Syria.

I will say this though. The sight of hundreds of thousands of men and women rallying around this man and his party is disheartening. It tells me that many people in my home country prefer the darkness of one ideologue over the light of luminaries. Luminaries like Samir Kassir whom we lost forever. National Leaders like Rafik Hariri, Bassel Fleihan, Gebran Tueni-- who with all their faults and biases, we lost before they were allowed to act in the freedom they sought.

It is very difficult for me to watch hundreds of thousands of “Lebanese” worship Hizbullah as a national/religious entity. They are turning the Shia community into a time bomb. Nasrallah can act patriotic all he wants, but he is laying the ground for the disintegration of Lebanon into sectarian cantons. That silly agreement with Aoun will be relegated to oblivion once the masses Nasrallah is breeding find themselves forced to choose the Islamic nation over a pluralistic Lebanon.

Forgive my bleak view on the eve of February 14. But, as I have said before, Lebanon is being told to choose Hizbullah’s way, or the Beirut Damascus highway. Both lead to a country enslaved by failed causes and oppressive dictatorships. There is no future for Lebanon with Hizbullah in the game. They are simply too powerful for the country to handle. Unfortunately, the men who can make a difference are either dead or weakened by the same sectarian formula that, ironically, guarantees Lebanon’s unity.

Maybe one day all Lebanese will realize that our salvation lies not in Hizbullah, Aoun, Berri, Jumblatt, Saad Hariri or any of the "March 14" figures. It lies in the men and women of the revolution that never took place in Lebanon.

The battle for Lebanon

2006-02-06T21:27:00.000-05:00

The Sunday riots in Lebanon became another Syrian attempt to overthrow the Siniora government and weaken the March 14 alliance. Aoun wasted no time. He seized on Christian anger over the destruction of their property and attack on their churches, and formed a counter alliance with Hizbullah that is aimed at isolating the anti-Syrian camp.

What Hariri and the main Sunni establishment naively thought would be a peaceful protest went horribly wrong. The Future Movement and Dar al-Fatwa made a fatal mistake that will probably cost them dearly in Christian circles. You just do not send hordes of angry Muslims into a Christian neighborhood to "defend" Islam and the prophet. The riots that ensued should have been foreseen. Syrian agents, Palestinians from the pro-Syrian PFLP-GC, and a number of Islamists elements from Tripoli and the Ein El Helweh refugee camps took advantage of the apparent laxity of the security forces and torched the building housing the Danish embassy, before spreading their unjustified anger to Christian churches.

Lebanese Christians were told to fear the extremist Lebanese Sunnis, who come courtesy of Saad Hariri. The Syrian smear machine has always accused Saad of supporting fundamentalists, and now the proof was presented in Ashrafieh. It is hoped that Lebanese Christians will see through these pathetic attempts to terrorize them and prostitute them to serve Syrian interests.

The strongly worded March 14 alliance statement today reflected the gravity of the situation. It came as Michel Aoun and Hassan Nasrallah were meeting in a church, where the former general continued to use his constituents as a jumping board to the presidency. The message was clear to Christians: Aoun is the only protector, and better Hizbullah than the fundamentalist Sunnis. Aoun has made his strategic choice: An alliance with pro-Syrian, Iranian-funded Hizbullah to support his presidential bid. There was no mention of the Hariri investigation or Syria's terror campaign.

The statement released by the March 14 alliance described the Sunday riots as a Syrian-engineered coup attempt to "turn Lebanon into a second Iraq." And I don’t think they were only referring to the violence and the spread of al-Qaeda types. The alliance read the Sunday events as an attempt to marginalize the Sunnis in Lebanon and put their fate in the hands of a few pro-Syrian extremist organizations such as the Syrian intelligence run al-Ahbash and the Jamaa Islamiya, as well as “al-Qaeda.”

According to the statement, Lebanon is now playing host to a group of Jordanian Islamists who have entered Lebanon and settled in the northern Akkar region. A large number of "Syrian special units" have also entered the country, accompanied by “non-Lebanese” elements from the PFLP-GC two days before the protests. Large sums of money were transferred by a “regional non-Arab state” (meaning Iran) to a number of pro-Syrian organizations and figures. And Syrian Intelligence has increased its activity and widened its presence in the north, where a large recruiting campaign is underway to build “special forces.”

For that, the March 14 alliance statement asked the cabinet to submit a complaint against Syria to the Security Council, and demand the Arab League hold an emergency session to look into this matter.

The list of demands is actually long. It includes: Lahoud’s removal; disarming all militant organizations that receive orders from the Syrian regime and intelligence, and investigate their sources of funding; sacking all security officials involved in the smuggling of arms through the borders and who have shown laxity in preventing riots.

The March 14 alliance meeting took a swipe at the Justice Minister and gave him one week to answer a list of questions regarding the fate of the investigations into the different bombings since October 2004, as well as the Madina Bank scandal and the oil for food scandal.

The most important demand, however, was asking the Lebanese government to spread its authority over all of Lebanon, send the army to the south, demarcate the border, especially in Shebaa, and “remove Palestinian weapons outside the camps, organize it inside the camps, and reject the existence of off-limit security zones on Lebanese territory.”

The March 14 alliance here is going all-out against Syria and its allies. Hopefully it is not too late. Months of wasted time spent coaxing Hizbullah and sometimes Aoun has cost them and Lebanon dearly. After the Sunday riots, Aoun and Nasrallah appeared to be pulling the rug from under their feet by announcing an alliance that reeks of hypocrisy and treason.

Reading a prepared statement, Abu Danab and Bassil stressed the importance of a national dialogue as the only way to resolve pending issues. They called for a consensus democracy to uphold the spirit of the constitution and a new modern
electoral law.

Hizbullah and FPM linked the disarmament of the Party of God to the liberation of the Shabaa Farms in response to UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

Nasrallah and Aoun, also appearing in public to cement their understanding, jointly pledged that Lebanese who had fled to Israel in the aftermath of the May 2000 liberation of the South would be treated 'fairly' by the Lebanese justice system if they chose to return home.

Aoun, for his part, renewed his demand for an audit of money spent by successive governments since the end of the war that allowed the public debt to spiral to US $38 Billion, one of the highest in the world.

In response to a question, Nasrallah said Aoun was a genuine candidate for Presidency, insinuating that the erstwhile rivals have discussed the potential successor to President Lahoud.

The above is nothing short of an attempt to rewrite the constitution to fit Hizbullah’s war goals and Aoun’s presidential aspirations. A “consensus democracy”, with undemocratic Hizbullah and opportunistic Aoun at the helm, appears like a strange hybrid of an Islamic state and a presidential democracy. One should not be fooled here. Regardless of the viability of this alliance, Aoun has just sold the country to Syria and Iran to become President. This alliance appears to be more than just between Hizbullah and Aoun. It is, for all practical purposes, with the Syrian regime. As I said above, security in Lebanon, Syria's terror campaign and the Hariri investigation were not even mentioned. Did Aoun receive guarantees from the Syrians through Hizbullah? Time will tell.

Nearly one year after the assassination of Hariri, attempts to reverse the positive changes in Lebanon are underway. Hizbullah and Aoun are now leading those efforts. With the battle against Siniora’s government now aiming to create a rift between Sunnis and Christians, the March 14 alliance and the Future Movement has to fight back not with complaints, but with action. At stake is the country’s independence and democratic future.

Addendum: My bad, the "understanding" does mention the Hariri investigation, however it does not mention it in the context of Syrian guilt. The "understanding" rejects the politicization of the investigation by Lebese elements, yet it ignores Syria's role in delaying and obstructing it, not to mention Hizbullah's shameful defense of the Syrian regime.

How does one build a modern nation on denial and "understandings" designed to keep one party's arms, and give the other party a presidency? Speaking of "consensus", where is it when a large number of MPs and Lebanese want to see Syria held accountable? Are they not part of that "consensus"? And who has been outside the consensus for the past year?

The rule of ignorance

2006-02-05T08:10:00.000-05:00

Ignorance and his disciples invade Beirut:

With lawless breeding grounds like this, how can ignorance not spread?

These images speak for themselves. What a shame. The entire Lebanese cabinet, especially the ministers whose party sanctioned this, should resign. Condemnations are NOT enough.

UPDATE. Interior minister Hassan al-Sabaa has resigned. He reportedly submitted his resignation during an emergency cabinet meeting after coming under fire for failing to control the riots, shown above. Sabaa said that the protesters included dozens of Palestinians and Syrians, who, in addition to torching the Danish embassy, attacked the adjacent St Maroun Church.

Israeli terror in a divided nation

2006-02-03T08:03:00.000-05:00

Ibrahim Youssef Rhayyel was found dead inside the Lebanese border on Wednesday, reportedly killed by 3 Israeli bullets, UNIFIL confirmed on Thursday. He was a 17-year-old shepherd. A shotgun was found near his body. Around the same time of the murder, an Israeli reconnaissance plane violated Lebanese airspace, flying over Tyre, Sidon, and Naameh.

The Israeli army claimed they fired at a "an armed man with binoculars [who] was seen crossing the U.N.-demarcated border. When he opened fire, Israeli soldiers responded and apparently hit him." The location of the body seems to refute that claim, even though the results of the autopsy said the boy was shot from a distance of 50 meters. There were reports in the National News Agency and in as-Safir that claimed an Israeli commando unit had infiltrated the border.

By Friday, UN secretary general still had not received UNIFIL's report confirming this was an Israeli operation.

The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's spokesperson Stephane Dujjaric said: "The UN cannot comment on the incident until they have received a formal copy of the investigations. As far as we are concerned, the investigations are ongoing."

This cold and insensitive statement was used by Hizbullah as proof that "most of the Lebanese people, did not trust the international body to take action against Israel."

"We don't even expect them to denounce the incident," Nayef Mousawi, Hizbullah's "foreign affairs official" said, referring to the statement above. "We know how to take our rights with our own hands."

Hizbullah will probably retaliate soon. Now that Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has re-conferred the "national resistance" title upon them, paving the way for the militant organization to end its 6-week boycott of the cabinet, they will continue to act as Lebanon's only defense force against Israeli aggression.

This begs the following question. The Lebanese flag wrapped around Ibrahim’s coffin notwithstanding, must we keep the issue of retaliation to Israeli terrorism the sole property of Hizbullah? Jumblatt has reiterated his call for sending the Lebanese army to the south and reviving the armistice treaty with Israel. And yeah, settling the ridiculous Shebaa farm dispute, where the shepherd was killed. Had the issue been resolved, had there been an army in the south, then the Lebanese government’s condemnation of Israel would have found more ears in the world. And maybe Rhayyel's father would have asked the government, not Hizbullah, to avenge his son's death.

Blame Israel, blame American bias towards Israel, blame Hizbullah, blame Syria, and even blame the shameful international and UN silence, but also blame a cabinet weakened by indecisiveness. We have been demanding that Syria respect our sovereignty. We have rightly rejected Syrian plans to hijack that sovereignty. We ask the same of Israel, yet our efforts to deal with that struggle are hampered by this unwillingness to take on the issue directly. How will Israel be stopped if we don’t seem to care about establishing an official presence on the southern border? Let them try violating our airspace and killing our people with our army on the border. Then watch Lebanese rally around their national army and state, as opposed to an unrepresentative religious militia. Give Lebanese the opportunity to own and direct that struggle.

The resistance against Israel should not be run the way it is run today. It needs to involve all of Lebanon. All Lebanese should have cried at the picture of the relatives weeping over the dead boy's body. It should have had the same domestic and international impact Syrian terrorism has. However, the south continues being the property of a militia and not the Lebanese government. And Lebanon remains divided. The return of the five ministers and Siniora’s word game will do little to reunite the country, let alone stop Israel.

UPDATE. As expected, Hizbullah has retaliated. Their guerillas fired rockets at an Israeli army post in the Shebaa farms on Friday.

Aniconism and fundamentalism: the case of the Danish cartoons

2006-02-02T10:55:00.000-05:00

Beloved "resistance" leader, fundamentalist "Khomeini Shia" cleric, the one who sanctions the butchery of Lebanese citizens because the killers support his militant honor, the esteemed by many but this blogger, the one and only wannabe deputy of the occulted Imam, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of God’s alleged party in Lebanon, has upped the ante against cartoons published in a country, which, had he not espoused an all-out Jihad, would have topped his immigration list.

Denmark, with all the cows and the milk and the sacred freedom to utter nonsense and print garbage, is now a threat to Muslims everywhere. A few badly drawn cartoons, offensive yes, but harmful no, sparked a flurry of condemnation unrivalled in the Islamic world. And Hizbullah’s contribution to this debate: murder them all.

If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so... I am sure there are millions of Muslims who are ready to give their lives to defend our prophet's honour and we have to be ready to do anything for that.

So counter the stereotype of a murderous and jihad-obessessed prophet with a call for Jihad and murder. And top it off by attacking freedom of expression in a foreign country.

We do not understand the rationale of the Danish authorities who refuse to apologize under the pretext of freedom of expression.

And who needs freedom of expression when you can have freedom of murder?

Who tells them that this freedom is absolute? OK, if someone decided to blow himself up himself somewhere in Norway or Denmark, then he is also free to do so.

Yes, of course Nasrallah does not understand freedom of expression and confuses it with the freedom to kill, for he inhabits a totally different intellectual universe. Did the Danish paper intend this for readers in countries where Islam is a dominant faith? I think not. Did the cartoonist intend to offend Islam? Of course he did. Could he have gotten away with a cartoon doubting the Holocaust or attacking the Jewish faith? Probably not. But Orientalism and prejudice aside, who is Nasrallah to sanction the murder of Danish, French and Norwegian citizens, who live under different laws? And where is it but in the laws of religious dictatorships that governments feel responsible for the artistic actions of its citizens? For only in oppressive countries such as Nasrallah's beloved Iran and Saudi Arabia, can governments can try people for drawing lines and contours.

One should thank the Danish artists for unwittingly thwarting the attempts by Islamic religious zealots to render Islam aniconic, where all representations of living beings are prohibited, albeit the ones that glorify the leader. But perhaps their greater contribution was in not understanding that Islam prohibits the depiction of prophets and other religious figures. Correction: Sunni Arab Islam, for Persian art has plenty of miniatures depicting the prophet and his cousin, Ali. Islam might not have religious icons, but with so many leaders, Imams and religious figures immortalized in pictures and drawings, I no longer understand why it is a sin to give religious figures a human face. If that is not the idol worship that allegedly is the basis for banning pictures, I don't know what is. I bet you Muslim artists will do a better job at depicting the prophet. But that is not the problem today.

The problem lies with the people who preach and pretend to defend Islam. It’s people like Nasrallah, and ideologies like Wahabism, that have made Islam the easy victim of bad foreign art. Some in our region think that the problems in Islam started when “Muslims” could not agree on who should succeed the prophet. Yet very few, except a few luminaries in the west who enjoy the freedom to critically study the origin and development of religions, know that Islam is as much man-made as Christianity and Judaism. The religion developed in the Middle East, not Saudi Arabia as tradition claims. It was influenced and shaped by non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Hundreds of years of intellectual oppression hid the important fact that many of the traditions, including the ones cited in banning figural representation, were written to construct a religion that suited the temporal authorities. What we have today is no different. There is no attempt whatsoever to encourage Ijtihad or scholarship in the religion. We have a few old traditions rehashed and sometimes redacted to suit extremist and reactionary forces within the countries that sponsor them. And the poor people take it and don’t question any of it. Orientalism and ignorance are fought with more ignorance, fundamentalism and orientalism-in-reverse.

And the result?

Yesterday it was a call to massacre innocents, Muslims and Christians, to "defend" Islam. Today, it’s the same call albeit to terrorize the citizens of other nations, who have arguably supported the “Arab cause” more than most so-called Muslims. And it’s all done in the name of a construct that is being marketed as more than a religion, but that is being denied the opportunity to adapt and evolve. Result: more oppression and a death force that touches us all.

The French connection and how Bashar created 1559

2006-02-01T22:26:00.000-05:00

David Ignatius in the Washington Post confirms what many of us have known before but that some out there continue to ignore: that the Hariri assassination was part of Bashar's political consolidation efforts, and that the Syrian regime is directly responsible for the rut their country is in. It wasn't an American-Zionist conspiracy, and it certainly wasn't motivated by UNSC resolution 1559, allegedly engineered by Rafik Hariri (as Joshua Landis said recently).

Let's start with a secret trip to Damascus by Gourdault-Montagne in November 2003 to see Syrian President Bashar Assad. At the time, French-American relations were still in the deep freeze because of Chirac's refusal to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but the French were doing some early damage control.

Gourdault-Montagne brought the Syrian leader a message from Chirac and two other critics of the Iraq war, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian
President Vladimir Putin. The message to Assad was: The war has changed things in the Middle East, and you have to show you have changed, too -- by visiting Jerusalem or taking some other bold step for peace with Israel. The French were probably hoping to gain diplomatic leverage with Washington by acting as a peace broker, but that's not how Assad took it. "Are you the spokesman of the Americans?" he asked Gourdault-Montagne. Worried that France, Germany and Russia were joining a U.S. pressure campaign, a nervous Assad soon began trying to consolidate his control over Lebanon. He forced the reelection of Lebanon's pliant pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, and began squeezing Syria's nemesis, Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. That process culminated in Hariri's murder in February 2005.

Gourdault-Montagne began making his quiet trips to Washington in August 2004 to coordinate French-American efforts on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. It was in the midst of a presidential campaign, and the French were obviously hedging their bets. After Hariri's murder, Washington and Paris collaborated in forcing a Syrian withdrawal under Resolution 1559. To discourage mischief by the Shiite militia Hezbollah, Gourdault-Montagne told the Iranians during a secret visit to Tehran in February 2005 to advise Hezbollah to play it cool.

You will remember how Abdel Halim Khaddam (now silenced by the Saudis) held Bashar responsible for UNSC 1559, revealing in his Arabiya interview that Bashar had plenty of opportunities to stop the resolution but went with his plans to consolidate his power in Lebanon by extending Lahoud's term and then blaming the repercussions on Hariri, who was made to look like a traitor, when he was merely Lahoud and Bashar's perceived enemy in Lebanon.

Another important part in the article should silence all those who still think the Syrian regime is scoring victories against the US in the Security Council, or other nonsense about alleged deals.

In framing policy on Syria and Iran, the French and Americans have consciously played a good cop-bad cop routine. The Americans demand tough U.N. language; the French bring the Russians and Chinese on board for a slightly watered-down version. It's a classic diplomatic minuet, but it has probably produced tougher and better resolutions than would have emerged if either side went alone. An illustration is the compromise that came this week -- to refer Iran to the Security Council for its violations of nuclear agreements, but give Iran another month to comply before any formal recommendation. The French argue that it's crucial now to maintain international solidarity on Iran, even at the price of a brief delay. What's interesting is that the Bush administration seems to agree.

…Paris and Washington still disagree sharply on the substance of many issues, but they seem to have concluded that they'll get more of what they want if they collaborate rather than bicker. Indeed, the quiet partnership has probably benefited from the fact that the world still thinks France and America are enemies.

Bonjour to all from inside the beltway.

Landis: let them have "50 per cent justice"

2006-01-29T11:01:00.000-05:00

In his response to my post, Joshua Landis said Saad Hariri should meet Syrian demands and accept “50 per cent justice” in order to escape being assassinated by Syria. If he accepts, Syria will allow him to return to Lebanon, where he can allegedly “continue his father’s legacy and vindicate his death by fixing an independent Lebanon.”

What is more, only Saad’s return and an end to the cabinet crisis will mean progress and prosperity for Lebanon, two things that Rafiq held higher than even his own welfare and safety. Those are the goals that Saad should be willing to sacrifice a hundred percent justice for. In the end, they are achievable and they are the ultimate recompense for his father’s death. The welfare of Lebanon is justice. That was Rafiq Bey’s goal and wish.

In other words, Saad’s unrealistic stubbornness and reliance on the US is hampering progress in Lebanon. He should instead submit to the demands of the terrorists and exchange his country’s sovereignty for his own personal safety. And as long as he behaves, Bashar Assad will not take him out.

Landis argued that this "compromise", supposedly facilitated by the Saudis, is the only realistic option available to Saad, who is being the "odd man out" in a region that is leaning towards saving the Syrian regime from collapse and economic sanctions.

The problems with Joshua’s post are many, one being a misrepresentation of the Saudi offer, which he says goes as follows:

The UN investigation will go forward and continue to isolate, embarrass, and discomfort Syria, but President Asad will not be asked to testify and presumably he and his family members will avoid conviction, and Syria will avoid UN sanctions. This is what most Middle East states seem to be pushing for and what is most likely to be the outcome of the investigation. Let us suppose that Syrian security chieftains, such as Ghazale and Juma Juma, will be convicted. Hizbullah will also be allowed to keep its arms into the immediate future, and Hariri will have to write off the remaining articles of Resolution 1559. He will also have to soften his demand for an international court even though Western leaders believe, Mehlis has stated, and most Lebanese aver that Asad ordered his father’s death.

Of course the above does not accurately reflect what is being offered to Lebanon, which was rejected by most Lebanese parties expect Hizbullah.

The proposal called for halting the Syrian attacks on Lebanon in exchange for demarcation of the border except the Shebaa farms, exchanging embassies, forming a joint Lebanese-Syrian security committee and coordinating foreign policies. The Saudis (at least the camp in Saudi Arabia favoring this so called compromise) and the Egyptians are adding to what is essentially a Syrian proposal the condition that Assad be spared the humiliation of being interrogated by the UNIIIC.

Joshua argues that by accepting what he termed as “50 per cent justice”, Syria will spare Saad’s life and Lebanon will prosper. Never mind that the country Saad would return to will be back in Syria’s orbit, and the Syrian regime will return to calling the shots and setting Lebanese policies.

Joshua also does not explain how the UNIIIC can simply skip the part about Assad’s involvement in the Hariri assassination.

I suppose what is offensive about Joshua’s post is the way he victimizes the Syrian regime and holds Lebanon responsible for Syria’s woes. For instance, it’s “Saad war with Assad.” And Saad started it: “he boxed Syria out of world affairs” so in return Syrian “boxed him out of Lebanon.” And Rafik Hariri was killed "because he supported resolution 1559, which called for the complete withdrawal of Syrian troops and the disarming of Hizbullah and an end to resistance against Israel.” So Lebanon started it, and should satisfy itself with has been achieved so far, mainly that” Syrian troops are out of Lebanon and the country is no longer occupied, which is a lot.”

So accoding to Landis' analysys, the least Lebanon can do now, which is apparently being held hostage by Saad Hariri, is to “repair its relations with Syria,” which it had screwed up in the first place. After all, Josh writes, “Syria paid a large price for Hariri’s death; it was not in vain.”

And Rafik Hariri would have approved, Joshua argues. “Hariri was never opposed to Syrian influence, as such; rather, he was opposed to Syria hindering Lebanon’s development and prosperity.” Assuming this is true, what has changed since Hariri’s assassination to convince Saad that Syria will now be working towards Lebanon’s development and prosperity? And why is it anathema to the Syrian regime for Lebanon to want to pursue those goals independently?

It is incredible how nearly identical Landis’ thinking is to the Syrian official propaganda. The Syrian press and Bashar have been telling us for almost a year now that Saad is the one sleeping with the devil, betraying his own father, and pursing anti-Syrian policies that will harm his own country’s interests. And like the Syrian press, Landis finds Michel Aoun the least objectionable, because he “distinguishes between independence and accommodating Syrian interests.”

So Joshua Landis wants Saad Hariri (note, it’s not Lebanon, it’s Saad) to forgive Bashar his crimes or risk being assassinated like his father. For no Western state now wants the regime to fall. I don’t recall Saad ever demanding regime change in Syria. In fact, this is really about Lebanese national interests, not the well being of the Syrian regime, which deserves all that is allegedly suffering. The Lebanese, Joshua thinks, risk being manipulated by the US in their conflict with Syria.

By not compromising, we Lebanese, Joshua claims, are being “unrealistic.”

My dear Josh, compromise is a two-way street. The Syrian regime has made none, while the Lebanese continue being assassinated. You said Syria paid a high price already, I say the Syrian regime (and I make this distinction) has not paid anything. Lebanon has paid in blood, Bashar had a few nightmares.

You said that the perfectionist policy of no-compromise will provoke even greater extremism in the region, and you cite elections in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine as examples. How about you apply this to the Syrian regime? Why can’t the Syrian regime compromise with the Syrian opposition? Why can’t they reduce the powers of those extremists by actually withdrawing support for radical organizations, and end the persecution and imprisonment of secular (and non secular) opposition leaders? If Syria has free elections tomorrow and the Muslim Brothers win, whose fault would that be? Whose fault was it in Egypt? If they had stronger secular and moderate parties then the outcome would have been different. Like the Egyptian regime, the Syrian regime views the natural enemies of those extremists as a threat.

And you know what? If Lebanon settles for that “50 per cent justice” you prescribe, Syria, meaning the Syrian people, will get zero justice. The only winner here is Bashar Assad, and the losers are the Lebanese and Syrian people. Is it realism to sanction the continued theft of people’s most basic rights? I think not.

Joshua Landis' commentary on Lebanon

2006-01-27T15:08:00.000-05:00

I found Joshua Landis's commentary on Saad Hariri's visit to the US rather insulting. Joshua continues to interpret events through the Syrian regime's prism, which is unfortunate. This particular piece contained many presumptions and factual errors.

According to Landis, "Hariri wants to go back to Beirut. He will need Bush's help to do it, unless he is to accept the Jeddah formula and make peace with Bashar al-Asad and Hizbullah, which seems to be off the table for now. Junblat undercut that move quickly, but it looked as if Saad Hariri was ready to sign onto the Saudi deal and bow to Hizbullah."

Of course Joshua is conflating two separate things: the Saudi proposal to end the "crisis" between Lebanon and Syria and the Jeddah agreement to settle the cabinet crisis, which has to do with Hizbullah's status in the country. Saad may have backed out on the second after giving what could best be described as a conditional approval, but he never agreed to the Saudi proposal, which would have given Syria control of Lebanon all over again.

Of course, if you subscribe the Syrian agenda, you will be prone to mix things up like Joshua did. And I don't know where Joshua got that Saad was ready to sign Lebanon away and "bow to Hizbullah" if Jumblatt hadn't intervened. Oh wait, I think we know where that came from.

So Hariri came to Washington after Junblat and Dick Cheney scuttled the Saudi attempt to broker a truce between Shiites and Sunnis in Lebanon.

Again, the Saudi proposal is what the US shot down. It was also rejected by Siniora and the March 14 alliance, or do they not count? And when did war break out between Sunnis and Shias in Lebanon?

This is an unfortunate attempt to skirt the real issues and portray the Syrian offensive on Lebanon as a domestic Lebanese struggle between Sunnis and Shias!

And then this:

Maybe Washington will give Hariri more arms so he can fight Hizbullah?

Only in Joshua's mind is there a war between Hariri and Hizbullah that justifies this alleged need for arms! Saad might have gone to seek technical and military assistance for the Lebanese army, a national institution, but fighting Hizbullah??

If I didn't know better, I would say this commentary was an attempt to incite sectarian strife in Lebanon.

Josh continues:

The fact that regional sentiment is blowing in Asad's direction was made clear by the Saudi attempt to broker a sulha between Syria and Lebanon. It was confirmed by General Aoun's recent statement that "his Free Patriotic Movement's closest ally in Lebanon was Hizbullah, as the two held similar views with regards to reform and other internal issues.

Wait. Aoun said he had similar views with Hizbullah on INTERNAL issues, not on issues regarding a truce between Lebanon and Syria. And speaking of that, truce?? Syria needs to halt its uniltareral war, Lebanon is not conducting any war to need to negotiate a truce!

And Josh continues misrepresenting Aoun on this issue, making the General's alliance with Hizbullah and opposition to the government look like it's motivated by a rejection of Lebanese government policy on Syria! Aoun's politics may be disappointing and obstructionist, but a supporter of the Syrian regime he isn't!

And then this conclusion:

So what did Saad Hariri get from Washington that may permit him to return to Beirut? It doesn't seem like much besides words - and perhaps some arms. My guess is that Washington will have to start sending arms to show that it is willing to support Hariri with more than words. He has to be able to deliver something to his supporters to prove that Washington hasn't abandoned him. What will Washington do about Hizbullah if it won't let Hariri compromise with the militia backed party? Building up the Lebanese army is a risky strategy, but one that will have to be undertaken if Washington is going to fight "terror."

Why is building the Lebanese army "risky strategy?" And why is helping the Lebanese army part of a US policy against Hizbullah? Only in the Syrian imagination is such an attempt be interpreted as an attempt to destabilize the country and start a civil war, which is what Joshua is basically saying. Saad Hariri here appears like a traitor who is engaged in a war with the Shia in his country, and who is trying to procure US arms to fight them.

Absent from this analysis is Saad's father, Rafik Hariri, who was killed by Syria in the Syrian terrorist war that Landis keeps forgetting. Actually, Rafik was mentioned… by mistake in the first paragraph.

…Rafiq Hariri has been in Washington to meet President Bush.

Here's one of Josh's readers commenting on this Freudian slip:

Dear Josh,

Although Rafiq Hariri is dead and the person who was in Washington and at the Woodrow Wilson Institute was his son Saad, your Freudian slip makes perfect sense.Maybe the Syrian regime should adopt your line and not only deny that they killed Hariri but also deny that he is dead. The Syrian mukhabarat should start spreading rumours that Rafic Hariri was seen eating falafels at Sahyoun in downtown Beirut. And he was even seen in Israel at Lahd's restaurant.Josh you are a genius.

Bashar Assad should have invited you to attend the Arab Lawyer's conference. You could have clapped for him in Damascus instead of Washington DC and shouted at the top of your voice "I saw Rafic Hariri in Washington...He ain't...Assad you're a saint...you can bring back people from the dead".

Take Care

ZadigVoltaire

AUB unblocks "From Beirut to the Beltway"

2006-01-27T06:18:00.000-05:00

AUB has finally unblocked "From Beirut to the Beltway" after I submitted a request to their computing department yesterday. An anonymous reader informed me on Wednesday that my site and a number of other Lebanese political blogs were “blacklisted” and could not be accessed via the AUB network.

AUBnet users got this message when they typed my URL:

403 AUBnet Blacklisted Site

The site you are trying to access via AUBnet was blocked by an automatic content matching process.

AUBnet relies on URLBlacklist.com, a commercially-managed URL blacklist service that provides human verified and maintained URL categorization.

Access to this site is blocked...

Target group = porn

As you can see, Beirutbeltway.blogspot.com was categorized as “porn” and was automatically blocked.

The AUB person who restored access to my blog told me that “in general, blogspot.com subdomains are all listed under http://urlblacklist.com/. However we can exempt some sites upon users' request.”

According to the company's website, URLblacklist.com allows anybody to submit requests to categorize URLs as anything from “kids time wasting” to “pornography.” Someone obviously hated my blog and tried to manipulate the system by classifying it as porn.

Urlblacklist.com claims their black list is human verified. Removing sites from that list is not easy. First you need to use their search feature to locate the site. My site could not even be found, even though, at least according to AUB, it was blacklisted!

The fact that this site was accessible before makes me believe that this was done recently. To AUB’s credit, their computing services department acted on this immediately when I notified them. I do think, however, that they should not rely on this service, which as you can see, can be easily manipulated by people with political agendas.

In any case, welcome back AUB students and faculty!

May Chidiac to take on Aoun?

2006-01-25T07:58:00.000-05:00

According to as-Safir today, the March 14 alliance will nominate LBC journalist May Chidiac to fill MP Edmond Naim's seat in the Baabda-Aley district. The idea was reportedly proposed by Saad Hariri and it seems to have gained the support of both both Jumblatt and Geagea. Chidiac survived an assassination attempt in September 2005. She lost an arm and leg, but apparently not her fighting spirit.

If Chidiac agrees, it will deal a blow to Aoun, who, less than a hour after Naim's death, announced that he "will fight the electoral battle along with Hizbullah". Until now, Aoun and Hizbullah's chances for winning the election were very good, given Hizbullah's electoral weight in that district. But May will probably attract most of the Christian vote, putting Aoun and his supporters in a rather embarrassing situation: Will the Aounists really ally themselves with a pro-Syrian party against a victim of Syrian brutality?

May won't fill the void left by Gebran Tueni, but the symbolism of her running in the election will give the March 14 movement a much needed momentum. In addition to putting Aoun in an unenviable position to field a candidate against a popular anti-Syrian journalist, it should serve a reminder to Hizbullah that they are not the only party in Lebanon that suffered at the hands of an oppressor.

UPDATE: Never mind, Saad Hariri has denied the as-Safir report, describing it as a "fabrication".

UPDATE 2. And May announced Friday that she will run!

Bashar and the axe of Arab nationalism

2006-01-23T16:03:00.000-05:00

In his speech on Saturday, Syrian president Bashar Assad said “national sovereignty is the most significant thing and not UN resolutions," and lashed out at a "global plot" that is targeting "Syria and Lebanon," Iraq and Palestine, as well as “the Arab peoples” and the “Islamic nation.”

Assad spoke to an audience of Arab “lawyers” at an Arab legal conference in Damascus, in front of a backdrop which read "Defending Syria is National Right and Duty" in English. In Arabic, it read “Defending Syria is an (Arab) Nationalist right and duty.”

Assad’s speech contained your usual combative and nationalist statements that earned him standing ovations and ecstatic cheers and applause from the audience. He held the Lebanese responsible for the deteriorating Lebanese-Syrian relations, alleging that certain Lebanese want to see their country destroyed. He said his cooperation with the UNIIIC “must be made by respecting principles of national sovereignty, the neutrality of the inquiry and on a legal basis." He dismissed the UN probe as a “condemnation commission” that relies on “made-up testimonies by certain traitors”, in reference to his VP Abdel Halim Khaddam, who accused him of ordering the Hariri assassination. He wondered why the world was focusing on the Hariri assassination and not the “Arafat assassination.”

Domestic reform again took a back seat to the global plot and need to preserve “stability.” "The road is long, and perhaps reforms are being done slowly, but we want to accelerate them as fast as possible, without harming (the nation's) stability," he said, limiting future reforms to those “consistent with domestic requirements, and we refuse to accept them being imposed from abroad."

Bashar’s speech reeked of ignorance. It was a hodgepodge of nationalist statements that made no sense combined.

The Syrian president claims to know and understand Lebanese and Palestinian affairs better than Lebanese and Palestinians. After all, he is the supreme Arab leader, protector of Arab causes and identity, the one who must not fall, because if he did, the Arab regimes’ house of cards will collapse. Or that’s what he says.

Just like Bin Laden and his dispersed cohorts appointed themselves the rulers of a fictitious Islamic land, the novice Syrian dictator has made himself the commander in chief of an imagined Arab nationalist empire.

Bashar’s attitude towards Lebanon resembles Jamal Abdel Nasser’s attitude towards Syria as the northern province of the failed United Arab Republic in the late 1950s. Nasser didn’t know much about Syria and he treated Syrians like lower class Egyptians. All that Nasser knew was the necessity of a centralized authoritarian system with him in absolute control. It is ironic that Bashar would act like the guardian of an extreme brand of Arab nationalism that his own father helped destroy. Compare Lebanon’s situation to Syria’s in the late 1950s when the Nasserites “relegated the majority of Syrians to the rank of traitors, governing by terror and trampling on the honor and dignity of citizens.” These were the words of ex-Syrian President Shukri al-Quwatly.

Of course Bashar is no real Arab nationalist, or at least his Arab nationalism is just a cover for his dictatorship, a formula that most Arab leaders employ successfully. For as soon as the logical requirements of such an imagined union with Lebanon and the rest of Arab world present themselves, Syria’s “sovereignty” pops its head right on time to spare the regime any duties towards that imagined union, including cooperating for the sake of strengthening the union, as opposed to strengthening the authoritarian regime.The regime’s convenient dual use of both Arab nationalism and “nationalism based on sovereignty (qawmiyya and wataniya) is pathetic, and unfortunately, it eludes most of Syria’s ignorant clappers. Bsshar wants to force a Nasserist Arab nationalist union on Lebanon while subscribing to a reduced version based on Syrian sovereignty. All the regime had to do to make this paradox appear logical was to accuse Syria’s enemies and Lebanon of doing Israel’s bidding. And then the conspiracy theory is complete and logic dies at the altar of honor and ignorance.

With plenty of illiterate citizens in Bashar's empire putting off free thinking till Judgment Day, Bashar finds plenty of cheerleaders to enslave and parade to the world as proof of his popularity. It also helps him when men and women with law degrees choose the rule of ignorance over the rule of law, making it easier to turn poor people into cattle, and to present slaughter houses as places of worship and sacrifice.

In this regional order of hypocrisy and delusion, seeking truth and sovereignty for the purpose of independence becomes a great sin. Bashar can shamelessly use his country’s "sovereignty" to protect himself from retribution, and then somehow portray repercussions from Syria’s mistakes as foreign plots to redraw the Arab nation. When Lebanon seeks sovereignty, it is viewed as an attack on the Arab nation. Very few see Syria's attempt to impose on Lebanon what most Arab countries have rejected and destroyed: Nasserist Arab nationalism. The situation is now such that the road to Lebanese sovereignty (and Syrian freedom) will have to pass through the rejection of all political pan-Arab ideologies, especially when they are made as basis for a solution to the country's problems. This sounds logical, yet difficult to perceive by many in this region, who unfairly expect Lebanon to guard what their leaders only use to keep them in check. For as long as the dictators are allowed to hold the ideological axe of Arab nationalism over our heads, there will be no progress in Lebanon, Syria or any other part of the region.

Breaking Hizbullah's monopoly

2006-01-21T08:13:00.000-05:00

One of the aspects of Hizbullah’s monopoly over the Shia opinion in Lebanon revealed itself on Thursday when Hizbullah’s secretary general Hassan Nasrallah lent his support to Sheikh Afif Naboulsi, a pro-Hizbullah scholar who issued a fatwa prohibiting any Shia from outside the party of God or Amal from joining the Lebanese cabinet.

While this problem is endemic in Lebanon, where sect leaders can approve or reject political appointees based on their loyalties, Hizbullah takes it further by using religion to safeguard and extend its monopoly.

Lebanese Shias, if they don’t subscribe to Khomeini’s version of Shia Islam and Hizbullah’s extremist doctrine, find themselves ostracized from Lebanese politics. This is a travesty, for none of the other parties in Lebanon require their members to be fundamentalist Muslims or Christians in order to engage in politics. I shouldn’t have to be a supporter of Hizbullah or even Amal before I can dream of a post in government. There should be no religious edicts limiting my political aspirations.

A lawsuit has been filed by a group of Lebanese, some of whom are Shia, against Naboulsi for “identity theft, threatening and terrorizing in an attempt to obstruct the practice of civil rights, instigating sectarian differences and portraying political disputes as disputes between religions and sects."

According to the Daily Star, the complaint was submitted to Beirut's first investigating judge, Magistrate Abdel-Rahim Hammoud. The 8 plaintiffs who signed the complaint said Naboulsi was not entitled to “issue a fatwa and prevent the Shiite citizens from practicing their constitutional rights.”

On 21 December 2005, and following the cabinet crisis that resulted from Hizbullah and Amal suspending their participation in the cabinet, Naboulsi made the following statement:

There are foreign attempts, which some local forces comply with, to put Amal and Hizbullah away and to bring new Shia representatives [into the Cabinet]. Consequently, we forbid any Shia political party to replace Amal and Hizbullah representatives.

We stress that the entrance of any Shia political party is illegal, because it does not represent the people… We address a precautionary fatwa to every Shiite politician, who tries to take advantage of the ministerial crisis.

The lawsuit againt Naboulsi was filed by Talal Husseini, Youssef Zein, Fares Sassin, Fahmiya Sharafeddine, Nada Sehnaoui, Mona Fayyad, MP Ghassan Mokheiber and Mohammad Farid Matar.

Nasrallah denounced it, claiming it was an "attack against Muslim Ulama, who freely voice their views and positions."

What Hizbullah and its secretary general are saying is that "freedom" is only for pro-Hizbullah religious scholars to issue fatwas legitimizing the party's monopoly. It is not for the community, which is being denied the basic right of free political expression. Since the Party of God does not believe in democracy, this is to be expected. However, this does not mean that Lebanese Shias should forfeit their rights and let fundamentalists speak for them.

This lawsuit marks the beginning of a lengthy process to reclaim the Shia voice.

Nasrallah: Lebanese can't manage own affairs

2006-01-19T12:53:00.000-05:00

A day after organizing a protest against alleged foreign meddling in Lebanese affairs, Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah told al-Hayat that the cabinet crisis he created "proves that it is difficult for the Lebanese to manage their own affairs."

Here is some of what he said, courtesy of AFP:

"The situation in Lebanon is bad and has dangerous repercussions," Nasrallah told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat. "We launch our final appeal for the intervention of our Arab brothers."

The involvement of other Arabs is necessary "not only to ask them to help Lebanon and Syria to surmount the crisis, but we also need the intervention of wise Arab leaders to overcome our internal problems."

Lebanon's government has been virtually paralysed since December 12 when Hezbollah and the country's other Syrian-backed Shiite movement, Amal, ordered their cabinet members not to participate. Nasrallah said this crisis "proves that it is difficult for the Lebanese to manage their own affairs."

The Hezbollah chief added that he "rejects agitation in Lebanon for any war against Syria," referring to calls by anti-Damascus politicians for regime change in Damascus. "That is dangerous not only for Syria but also for Lebanon. We consider that any political, security or media war that certain people want to drag Lebanon into is contrary to Lebanese national interests," he said.

Nasrallah's Arab brothers have proposed to sell Lebanese sovereignty and security back to Syria. The crisis is Syrian made, and the cabinet crisis is Hizbullah's doing. If God's alleged party cares about Lebanese national interests (as opposed to Syrian), then perhaps it should not object to border demarcation, prosecuting the killers of Hariri and others, and yeah, protecting Lebanon from the fangs of its blood thirsty vampire "brothers" and "sisters".

For in Hizbullah's dictionary, true Lebanese citizens cannot have selfish interests. They are freaks of nature who put the interests of others ahead of their own. Their country has open and vulnerable borders, it orbits at least two other nations, and gives its youth death and illusion instead of life and hope. These ideas put modern science to shame.

As for this alleged war on Syria from Lebanon, I seem to recall quite the contrary taking place! Nasrallah won't allow calls for regime change in Syria, but he has no problem with Syria massacring people in Lebanon. Does Nasrallah believe Israel was justified in attacking Lebanon, and that a war should not be waged against the Zionists? What? Too much common sense? Being someone who lived under both Israeli and Syrian occupations, I fail to see why I cannot pick full independence over a stupid choice between one of the two. But then, my honor is not attached to a gun, so I can't blame Nasrallah for wanting to defend his Russian/Iranian-procured honor.

We all wondered what the Saudis were thinking when they proposed to give Lebanese security back to Syria, as a way to "defuse the tension" between Lebanon and Syria. Their proposal, as well as Nasrallah's skewed notions of national interests, were explained by Michel Kilo in a recent article. Here are some excerpts. Precious words that deserve to be reproduced in full.

In an article published in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Syrian intellectual Michel Kilo, who resides in Damascus, attacked the Syrian regime, comparing it to the Soviet regime, and hinted that it was responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures.
The following are excerpts:

In a Cairo [press conference], Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Al-Shara' announced a new principle of modern Arab diplomacy, which might be called the 'Al-Shara' principle.' [This principle] limits Lebanese sovereignty, links this sovereignty to the Syrian regime, and states that a free and independent Lebanon is necessarily a center and a base for plots against Syria...

"The Al-Shara' principle is reminiscent of the principle once [established] by [Soviet leader Leonid] Brezhnev, which stated that the various socialist states had [only] limited sovereignty vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. [These states] could not act as they pleased, but had to give priority to the interests and security of the Soviet bloc in any measure they took and in any means they employed. This principle established the Soviets' right to take over the internal affairs of the socialist states, and legitimized Soviet military intervention against them...

"The Al-Shara' principle is reminiscent of the Brezhnev principle. [since the Syrian regime] - like [the Soviet regime] - thinks that Lebanon should formulate its policy according to Syrian interests. Moreover, the Syrian regime requires [Lebanon] to coordinate all matters, great or small, with Syria, since the minute Beirut becomes independent [of Damascus], the situation in Lebanon becomes an international affair. And in such a case, [Syria believes that it] has the right to intervene [in Lebanese matters] in order... to prevent Lebanon from becoming a center for conspiracies against it..."

Lebanon Must Keep in its Place... If it Forgets, There are a Thousand Ways to Remind it
"What is the meaning of the Al-Shara' principle, and where might its implementation lead the two countries?

"First of all, Syria wishes to treat Lebanon as a marginal [party] while the Syrian regime [is perceived] as central. [This means] that the center will take the decisions and the periphery will obey, or else [pay the price].

"Secondly, the Syrian regime is determined to adopt the Soviet model,... [and] has taken military and political control of Lebanon. It tried to usurp the PLO's [authority] in taking decisions regarding Palestine, and wanted to control the PLO according to [its own] political guidelines and interests.

"In addition, it has forced Jordan to respect [Syrian] hegemony and control over the Arab East, and has compelled Saudi Arabia to accept a division of labor in which Saudi Arabia's role is to provide the funds and Syria's role is to call the shots, intimidate the neighboring countries, and keep them quiet. This comes in addition to a tragic series of oppressive actions against very large sectors of Syrian society.

"Lebanon, peripheral and marginal, is required to keep in its place even after the Syrian army has withdrawn from its territory, and if it forgets, there are a thousand ways to remind it - either through dialogue or through operations in the field.

"Another implication [of the Al-Shara' principle] is that nobody may reprimand Syria for performing (what is sees as) its national duty towards Lebanon... Syria has an obligation to liberate Lebanon from subordination to foreigners, which is very dangerous [for Syria, since] it is aimed against [Syria], and against its role as the last bastion standing fast against America and Israel."

Syria Leaves Lebanon With Only Two Options: To Accept the Return of the Syrian Forces, or to Risk Constant Escalation of the Situation

"According to Syrian propaganda, Lebanon is the arena of a struggle... to save Syria's brothers [i.e. the Lebanese] and to protect the Syrian regime. If [Lebanese] are hurt in the course of [Syria's struggle for their sake], this is [only] because their country has become a base for foreign [forces] that must be eliminated. [Moreover], as everyone knows, liberty comes at a price, and the price is sometimes paid by innocent people. But even if [these innocent people] are killed by their [Syrian] brothers, they are... victims [of the foreign interference in Lebanon],... [since] Syria has the right to defend itself in any way and by any means against the Lebanese leaders, who cannot be anything other than foreign agents.

"Another implication [of the Al-Shara' principle] is that it leaves the Lebanese with only two options: either to [accept] Syria's return to their land, or to be subjected to a variety of ever-escalating [measures], in which [Syria] is entitled to use any [available] means to achieve its goal of protecting itself against Lebanon. This will be achieved either by the return of the Syrian forces into Lebanon, or by bringing Lebanon to the point where it agrees to [Syrian] limitations on its sovereignty, and accepts [Syria's] right to determine [Lebanon's] policy and interests, and even to control [Lebanon].

"This is the Al-Shara' principle. Therefore, do not expect any breakthrough or improvement in Syrian-Lebanese relations unless the Arab [states] - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, etc. - invest tremendous efforts in modifying this principle and [Al-Shara's] mentality towards Lebanon. Moreover, the Al-Shara' principle will not be the last escalation, and the painful events recently experienced by the Lebanese [people] will not be the last [either]."

So here you go, Sayid Hassan, Syria and your Arab (and Iranian) brothers want your country to continue being their ever-willing prostitute, not an independent and sovereign state with the right to choose. Lebanon's national interests you say?

Luckily for Lebanon, PM Fouad Siniora and some of the March 14 parties caught on to this paradigm that is being imposed on Lebanon by Syria and the rest of the "brothers."

Lebanon said Wednesday a Saudi plan aimed at defusing tensions between Beirut and Damascus falls short of expectations as the pro-Syrian Hezbollah movement appealed for Arab help in ending the crisis.

The plan is based on Syrian proposals and does not meet Lebanese demands for full sovereignty, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said.

"They are Syrian ideas conveyed by (Saudi Foreign Minister Prince) Saud al-Faisal ... that cannot resolve the problems with the Syrian brothers," he told reporters.

"Most Lebanese want healthy relations with Syria based on mutual respect, recognition of Lebanon's independence and sovereignty, and consequently the Syrian proposals do not respond to their ambitions. That does not mean we are hostile toward Syria, on the contrary. An independent Lebanon can cooperate better with Syria than a dependent one," the prime minister said.

"First we must insist on the question of security, and the killing machine must stop."

The confrontation between Lebanon and the Arab regimes has begun. At stake is Lebanon's independence and sovereignty. With this rejection of the Saudi plan, Siniora is emerging as one of the few leaders in Lebanon's recent history to base policy on national interests, and not the intersecting interests of alleged brothers. Let us hope he sticks to his guns.

Rami G. Khoury analyzes Future TV

2006-01-18T19:03:00.000-05:00

Rami G. Khoury’s has discovered a hidden aspect of Arab media, and that’s the “power to deliberately mobilize masses in order to achieve political objectives.” In his most recent Daily Star article, he draws the conclusion that the Hariri-owned Future TV played an important role in “fostering mass street action” and bringing about “political change” in the country.

Mr. Khoury’s article suggests that “activist” media, in particular Future TV and An-Nahar, helped “compel the Syrian army to withdraw from Lebanon last April, to arrest and indict top Lebanese security officers, to elect to Parliament a majority, and to create a climate where the United Nations initiated an international investigation into the Hariri murder.”

A “thematic analysis” of Future’s coverage, he wrote, showed that their coverage passed through “several successive intriguing stages.”

At first the broadcasts "nationalized grief," highlighting the trauma impacting the entire country, showing the crime as being directed against all Lebanese, not just a family or party. Then it "personalized the loss," making every viewer share the impact of the act and the loss. After that it built up a dynamic between "the personal and the political," promoting individuals to translate their personal grief into political action. And finally it "mobilized the masses to march," resulting in a million or more people in the streets on March 14.

Khoury concludes that other Arab media companies will "embark on this same path, moving from expressing political sentiments to mobilizing for political change.”

Titled “From Future Television, a lesson in mobilization”, this article is a lesson in media illiteracy.

I am not discounting Future TV’s role in calling for mass mobilization, but an objective study of the results this alleged activism produced will reveal that Lebanese media has not set foot outside the box of those who pump the cash. It has some democratic qualities, sure, but the extent of the political message was determined from the start, and so were the intended objectives, which were revolutionary by accident rather than intention. Whatever Future TV did, it’s what it didn’t do that will count in the long run. Just look at what’s happening today, and the continued shift in the direction of the coverage. There is no model here to follow. If anything, there is an absence of method.

Let me clarify something for Mr Khoury. Nobody at Future Television or any Lebanese media for that matter has the demonstrated intellectual ability to organize productions around controlling ideas, especially not ones intended to change the “tendency of many Arabs to be politically subdued and laid-back”. The apparent thematic progression was less a progression than a punctuated equilibrium of the sort controlled by the moods of the politicians who own the stations, and dictated by fast political developments. In other words, there was no set evolutionary or activist agenda to mobilize citizens for patriotic purposes. Future TV’s activism was accidental, and it never rose to the level of responsible journalism.

A real media analyst would look at Future TV and An-Nahar and still see cases of poor journalism and general lack of ethics. While they allow for more freedom of expression than most other Arab outlets, that by itself is not enough, and it doesn’t make them any more professional. It also does not make them less “Arab” in their excessive use of sensationalist techniques and unsourced claims.

The Arab world already uses the media to achieve political objectives. What we need is media to liberate the minds of people and encourage them to think outside the box. Forget revolutions. Encourage freethinking.

In fact, if you compare Future TV’s coverage in 1996 during Israel's Grapes of Wrath operation to their coverage in 2005, you’ll find the same elements of sensationalism and manipulation present. The real questions aren’t being asked, and politicians are not being properly interviewed, nor their motives and answers contextualized. At the end, and despite the short-lived satisfaction from such coverage, the Lebanese citizens pay because their media made them even more susceptible to manipulation by transient heroes and opportunistic politicians. Had Future TV and other stations asked the right questions instead of marketing political alliances, the Lebanese public would have been more informed and yes, more politically active.

Hizbullah and the Lebanese flag

2006-01-17T14:28:00.000-05:00

Thousands of supporters of Hizbullah and other pro-Syrian parties, many inconsequential, organized a demonstration outside the US embassy in Awkar today. What is striking about this demonstration is how it copied the March 14 look and feel. Lebanese flags were everywhere, and protesters even painted their faces with the colors of the flag.

To many, this constitutes a robbery of national symbols. The flag is being prostituted to serve essentially unpatriotic goals.

Yet the irony of the situation should not escape us. Hizbullah, criticized for being an Iranian militia acting against national interests, is in humiliating self-defense mode. The party has never been a fan of the Lebanese republic's national symbols. Its ultimate goal being an Islamic Shia state ruled by clerics, it has, in the past, refused to even wrap the coffins of its martyrs in a Lebanese flag.

During the last years of the Israeli occupation, when more Lebanese became sympathetic to their fight against the occupation in the south and the Bekaa, their yellow flag with the gun and God's name in the center often reminded Lebanese that Hizbullah's fight was selfishly and exclusively theirs. Even when Future Television and Tele Liban would refer to the resistance as a "national resistance", Hizbullah's al-Manar never did, and more frequently than not, it became difficult to accept that resistance into the national fold when it constantly renounced national symbols.

Lebanese support for the resistance was, at times of alleged great national unity, nothing more than spite directed at arrogant Israel. It was never a unanimous call for arms, and it certainly never equated Lebanese honor with those arms (as Hizbullah's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, did yesterday).

In fact, Hizbullah was always alone in its choice to fight. Whether this was fortunate or unfortunate is beside the point. The majority of the Lebanese after the civil war—and this includes the Shia-- were tired of violence, period. Hizbullah's short-lived fortune came after Israel stupidly bombed Lebanese infrastructure, creating enough spite to temporarily legitimize the resistance's shaky national raison d'etre. And if it weren't for Syria, one could argue, Lebanon would have resurrected the armistice treaty with Israel a long time ago.

Today Hizbullah has been adding a hypocritical dimension to its political identity. The sea of Lebanese flags that confronted alleged American interference was a desperate attempt to portray the increasingly isolated party as a national party with legitimate rights. Yet I'm afraid Hizbullah has already lost the fight for Lebanese hearts and minds. Hariri's assassination ended all illusions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Arab regime's sincerity and competence in waging such a struggle. No amount of cedars painted on noses will convince people that Lebanon should return being Syria's card against Israel, let alone join Iran's folly. One could even predict that Hizbullah's demise will be at the hands of that fake Lebanese nationalism it flaunts, which is eating away at the party's yellow Islamist project.

Hizbullah's affront today lies in hypocritical calls for no foreign interference in domestic affairs, while pledging allegiance to Iran and Syria, and praising terrorists in Iraq, who massacre Shias on a daily basis.

Many bloggers and commentators have rightly pointed out Hizbullah's shameful disregard for Syria's murders in Lebanon. Nasrallah yesterday even challenged the March 14 parties to present him with evidence of Syrian complicity in the murder of Hariri and other anti-Syrian figures. Nasrallah is not known for being stupid, but he chooses to play dumb at the expense of the country he claims to want to protect from foreigners. His shameful defense of Syria is not unlike Ahmadinejad's pathetic denial of the Holocaust. But why go that far. Next time you hear Hizbullah doubting Syria's role in terrorizing Lebanon, point to a poster of one their martyrs and ask: what is your proof that Israel killed him?

(Photos: AFP)

Syria agrees to border demarcation, halting attacks, huh?

2006-01-13T13:32:00.000-05:00

With the Lebanese media today dismissing the talks of the last few days as failed Syrian maneuvering, al-Arabiya reported this afternoon that the “Arab mediation efforts that took place recently between Syria and Lebanon bore fruit with a Syrian agreement to demarcate the border between the two countries, including the disputed Shebaa farm… and this was done according to a deal with the Lebanese side. The bilateral efforts also produced a Syrian declaration to stop media campaigns and attacks against Lebanon.”

Al-Arabiya did not cite any sources. They did say that the above alleged agreement between Lebanon and Syria came after Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora’s meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and French efforts. Saudi Arabia was not mentioned in the report.

End of report.

An-Nahar and al-Mustaqbal today dismissed much of what emerged from these so called mediation efforts as Syrian maneuvering. An-Nahar spoke of a "Syrian paper" to demarcate the border, halt the attacks, exchange embassies, form a joint Lebanese-Syrian security committee and coordinate foreign policies. The “Syrian paper” does not mention the Hariri investigation. But it seems that Syria wants, in exchange for the aforementioned, to spare Bashar Assad in the investigation.

Also according to an-Nahar, Hosni Mubarak presented the above proposal to Siniora, who rejected it. And we already know that the US did as well. Al-Arabiya today is suggesting French complicity, which I doubt considering that Chirac does not want to compromise.

So how do we read this Arabiya report, which is claiming that there is a deal with the Lebanese side? Notice the security agreement was dropped. Has something changed? Is this the Saudis hitting back at the Lebanese for insisting on going all the way with the investigation?

Meanwhile, ponder this:

Five trucks carrying weapons and ammunition entered Lebanon ten days ago through the Syrian border and were unloaded at a farm belonging to a “party official”, reported An-Nahar, citing official sources.

Egyptian carrier pigeon shot dead, Saudi 747 jet grounded

2006-01-12T13:06:00.000-05:00

The United States has shot down the Syrian attempts to delay the Hariri investigation and portray their terrorist campaign in Lebanon as a "crisis" that needs a security agreement.

Secretary Condoleeza Rice on Wednesday expressed her country's "grave and continuing concerns about Syria’s destabilizing behavior and sponsorship of terrorism."

Referring to continued (and future) Syrian delay tactics, Rice called on Syria to "cease obstructing the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and instead cooperate fully and unconditionally, as required by UN Security Council resolutions. We call upon the Syrian regime to respond positively to the requests of UN Independent International Investigation (UNIIIC). We intend to refer this matter back to the Security Council if Syrian obstruction continues. "

In other words, the recurrent Syrian demand for a cooperation protocol between Damascus and the UNIIIC will be clearly seen as obstruction.

Rice saw through the latest Saudi and Egyptian initiatives:

The United States stands firmly with the people of Lebanon in rejecting any deals or compromises that would undermine the UNIIC investigation, or relieve Syria of its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. We are firmly committed to seeking justice and pursuing the investigation to its ultimate conclusion.

As for Hizbullah and other militias:

The United States also calls for the full implementation of all parts of UN Security Council resolution 1559, including the disarmament and disbanding of Hizballah and other militias. Syria’s continuing provision of arms and other support to Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups serves to destabilize Lebanon, makes possible terrorist attacks within Lebanon, from Lebanese territory, and impedes the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.

And yes, Rice accused Syria of killing Gebran Tueni and others:

As Resolution 1559 demands, Syria must once and for all end its interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon. Continuing assassinations in Lebanon of opponents of Syrian domination, including most recently the murder of journalist and Member of Parliament Gebran Tueni on December 12, 2005, create an atmosphere of fear that Syria uses to intimidate Lebanon. Syria must cease this intimidation and immediately come into compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

You know what, as far as I am concerned, this is the best statement on Lebanon I have heard in a long time. Ms. Rice, you rule. Thank you.

Meanwhile, the Syrian information minister told Egyptian radio that Bashar will not agree to an interview with the UNIIIC. Later, he changed his mind.

Asked if Syria rejected a meeting between Assad and the investigators, Dakhl-Allah told Egyptian radio: "Certainly, because the issue is related to Syria's sovereignty."

"Syria is committed to its independence and sovereignty. This is a red line that cannot be crossed," Dakhl-Allah added.

The interview was monitored by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Asked about his remarks, Dakhl-Allah told Reuters it was taking it out of context to say Assad refused to meet the inquiry team and suggested that he was willing to receive a visit so long as it did not represent a breach of sovereignty.

"There is a difference between a questioning and an audience. The president receives visitors from Syria and outside Syria," he said.

He repeated Syria's demand that it signs a legal framework with the inquiry "that entails the procedures of dealing with Syria at all levels with affirmation on respecting Syria's sovereignty".

The Syrian regime, that is, will continue to hold Syrians hostage until Bashar gets some help from his one and only friend, the Iranian street sweeper gone nuclear president. Now that Ahmadinejad is even being castigated by the Russians, I am sure his upcoming visit to Damascus will bode well for the Syrian people.

Lastly, and because you won't be reading this on any Saudi-sponsored media (which will be busy reporting the shameful and totally unnecessary stampede), Khaddam, for the second time this week, said that "In my belief, yes, my personal belief is that he ordered it."

Satan calling Bashar: your chamber is ready.

Update: Friday's issue of al-Mustaqbal is devoted to whitewashing the Saudi and Egyptian initiatives, which were painted by Hariri's newspaper as part of Syrian manoeuvering tactics. They quoted a slew of Lebanese political figures who exonerated the Saudis especially of any intentional plotting against Lebanese interests. Whether or not Bashar "tricked" the Saudis and Egyptians, as Naseer al-Asaad wrote, by proposing cooperation in exchange for a return to ruling the country (only idiots would let themselves be tricked like that), it is all over now. We are back to square one and the Syrian regime can no longer get away with this, nor can the Saudis and Egyptians afford to give Bashar the benefit of the doubt, or whatever it was they did.

Update 2: Jumblatt accused Syria of terrorising Arab regimes and "scaring them with a variety of "instruments and terrorist factions". Did Bashar really scare the Saudis and the Egyptians? Anton has more.

From carrier pigeon to Boeing-747

2006-01-11T13:49:00.000-05:00

Citing diplomatic sources, Al-Arabiya is reporting that Bashar Assad is studying a bunch of “ideas” that emerged after meetings he had in Egypt and Saudi. One of which involves a written response to questions from the UNIIIC.

One of the proposals is for Assad to send an emissary to receive questions from the UNIIIC and then return the answers at a later time.

Al-Arabiya did not specify whether the emissary would be an Egyptian carrier pigeon or a Saudi Boeing-747 jet fitted with a jacuzzi.

The cited diplomatic sources denied that Egypt and Saudi Arabia had agreed to the idea of questioning Bashar, adding that “no Arab country would agree to such a violation.”

Right. Let’s leave it to the able legal minds in the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt to resolve this “crisis” between Syria and Lebanon. Yes, the Syrian terror campaign is now a crisis between the killers and the victims. Read on.

Another Saudi “initiative” that the Saudi foreign minister took to the Elysee proposes the formation of a joint Lebanese–Syrian security committee with the task to issue early security warnings and take the necessary precautions to pre-empt attacks in Lebanon. Yes, give Lebanese security back to the Syrians.

And then more on an Egyptian initiative:

The diplomatic source added that the Egyptian role is trying to find a formula to save the Syrian regime’s face so that it doesn’t look like an interrogation by the [Hariri] investigation committee. The Egyptian contacts with France are focusing on the consequences of interrogating an Arab president, and what that can cause in resentment on the Arab street, setting a dangerous precedent that could lead to terrorist attacks, according to the Egyptian vision…

So this “Arab street” (you know, the one that runs from democratic Damascus to open Cairo via liberal Riyadh, skipping oppressive Beirut, New Baghdad, and a bunch of other inconsequential capitals) would turn terrorist if the prince of thugs was interrogated for killing another Arab leader. Yes, death and terror will ensue if justice ever prevailed on this cursed Arab street, thinks Mubarak.

I wonder if we can still file this under classic Arab politics? Classic as in classically useless and stupid perhaps? Next time I ascribe intelligence to an Arab regime, shoot me.

Update. Meanwhile, BBC reports that "several influential Arab media outlets have been instructed [by Saudi Arabia] not to carry more statements by former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam, who has called for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad."

We don't want to disturb Bashar during this time of crisis now do we. He needs the focus to ace the UNIIIC exam on Hariri's assassination:

1 question.
Duration: A couple of years
Instructions: Circle an answer, return in sealed envelope via carrier pigeon or Saudi 747 jet. DO NOT attach to car bombs.

Who killed Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri?
a. I did it, may God forgive him he pissed me off
b. It's God will, and only He knows
c. The devil
d. Israel

Protecting the devil's pillar

2006-01-10T14:56:00.000-05:00

Over 2 million Muslims stoned a big pillar symbolizing Satan today, after praying for mercy and forgiveness yesterday at the scene of the Prophet's last sermon.

The pillar, known as Jamarat al-Aqabah, has stood firm despite millions of pebbles hurled against it over the years. The pillar is ironically better maintained than many other Islamic sites in the holy city, which are being destroyed by the Wahabis in charge.

Maintaining the devil's symbol for the sake of a yearly stoning ritual seems to be consistent with the Kingdom's policy towards Bashar Assad: stone the devil left and right but keep him in good shape to withstand the pressure. And yeah, to preserve "stability" in the region.

For the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques had this to say after meeting a desperate Bashar on Sunday:

A joint Saudi-Syrian statement issued after the summit in the Red Sea city of Jeddah said Abdullah "asserted the need to consolidate and strengthen Syrian-Lebanese relations."

Lebanese-Syrian relations should be improved "in all sectors in order to protect the interests of the two brotherly countries and the security of the region," said the statement read on Saudi state television.

Taking this at face value, it is quite insulting to hear a joint Saudi-Syrian statement on "Syrian-Lebanese relations" in the absence of Lebanon. It is also amazing that Abdullah is suggesting a new penal code: Punish murder by improving relations between killers and their dying victims. Saudi Arabia will no longer be beheading murder convicts!

And then there was this from a Saudi official who singled out the "voices in Lebanon calling for regime change":

In Riyadh, a Saudi official on Sunday slammed the war or words between Lebanon and Syria, "particularly the voices in Lebanon which have called for regime change in Syria". "Regime change in Syria is not required. Even the United States and France do not call for regime change in Syria ... the aim is to find the assassins of Rafik Hariri and bring them to justice," he said.

The details of the Saudi-Egyptian efforts are still sketchy, but it is becoming apparent that the Saudis and the Egyptians are trying to invent a formula for full Syrian cooperation with the UNIIIC, end to Syrian terrorism and interference in Lebanon, demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian border, disarming the pro-Syrian Palestinian factions—all that without bringing about regime change.

Can the devil really change his ways? Can Satan renounce Satanism? Metaphors aside, can Bashar cooperate fully without putting himself in jail?

Jumblatt has given up on him. And with Khaddam testifying that he is fully convinced Bashar ordered Hariri's murder, I don't see what Saudi Arabia and Egypt can do for the butcher-in-training.

It is no longer a question of whether a regime change is required or not. Regime change is inevitable. And all this talk of mediation is hollow and lacks genuineness. What can the custodian of Mecca and the devil's pillar do to prevent the self-inflicted collapse of the criminal?

Even Bashar knows that he is in purgatory and that sooner or later, he will have to negotiate a safe passage to… hell. No amount of begging for "Arab support" can help him find the road to paradise. After all, he has already handed over some of his responsibilities to his step-brother in satanism, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

See what happens when you put your faith in murderers and hope for "a change in behavior?" Perhaps now the Saudis and the Egyptians can convince al-Qaeda to renounce terrorism.

Khaddam: Bashar is a traitor, Hafez was weak, the regime killed Hariri

2006-01-06T01:19:00.000-05:00

Former Syrian vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam upped the ante against the Syrian regime in an interview with Asharq al-Awsat that was published on Friday.

Khaddam gave several interviews this week, including one to AP and another to France 3. In those interviews, he said that the Syrian regime has outlived its time, and held Bashar Assad responsible for Syria's isolation and weakening.

"The most important thing is to save Syria from this regime," he said, adding that "those who were behind the assassination in Lebanon continue to kill because their goal is to create chaos in the country".

In the Asharq al-Awsat interview, Khaddam's answers left no doubt that Bashar ordered the assassination of Rafik Hariri. In response to a question on whether Hosni Mubarak is seeking to keep Bashar away from being interviewed by the UNIIC, Khaddam said:

The problem is the responsibility in the Hariri assassination cannot stop at a certain level because such a decision cannot be taken without the president's knowledge. The decision comes from the top of the pyramid. Why would Rustom Ghazaleh want to kill Hariri? Was he competing with him over the premiership?

Khaddam's answer clearly assigns the responsibility for killing Hariri to Bashar. He makes it clear that the regime cannot get away with this murder by using a scapegoat like Ghazaleh. In other words, the regime is stuck and there is no way out for Bashar. No deal can save him.

Khaddam spent most of the interview arguing that the Syrian regime cannot be reformed, and that the only option left is to overthow it. He described Bashar as a "traitor" who should be put on trial. He also confirmed that he received death threats, and that he will testify before the UNIIIC. Here is a summary of the rest of the interview:

Bashar and his family plundered the country

Khaddam said the regime's response to his interview revealed that the sole role of the "fake" constitutional institutions in Syria is to cover for what Bashar says.

The scene at the People's Assembly was saddening for Syrians who wondered: does this assembly represent us? They [the MPs] were repeating insults like parrots. They were insulting a person who had the principal role in elevating Syria's stature for 30 years… Until 1998 Syria was at the peak and all Syrians spoke of its foreign policy and praised it, while criticizing the domestic policy… Is criticizing Bashar, who pushed the country into this predicament, apostasy?

Khaddam accused Bashar of nepotism and of allowing his family and friends to plunder the country and its neighbor. He said he knows for a fact that Rustom Ghazaleh stole 35 million USD from al-Madina bank.

The Lahoud Extension

The former VP, now labeled traitor by the Syrian regime, revealed new information on the extension of Lahoud's term, all in the context of Bashar's poor foreign policy skills:

After Bashar made the decision to extend Lahoud's term, I warned him that Syria cannot handle the repercussions of that decision. He [then] had and lost an pportunity to prevent UNSC 1559 from being issued. He asked [Syrian FM] Farouq al-Sharaa to contact the Spanish foreign minister, [Miguel] Moratinos, to help Syria in preventing that resolution in exchange for giving up the extension. Moratinos asked that Bashar contact the Spanish premier. Bashar did that. For his part, Moratinos conducted a series of talks with Chirac, Blair, Schroeder and Bush, after which it was decided to abandon the resolution on the condition that the Lebanese parliament speaker [Nabih Berri] cancels the parliament session. Moratinos conveyed that to Sharaa who insisted that he [Moratinos] personally contact Berri. And after he did, Berri responded: "Lebanon is an independent country and Syria cannot curry favor with us." The session was not canceled. Two hours later, the UNSC passed the resolution.

Here I ask: Why did Assad change his position? Look at the results: UNSC 1559, Hariri's assassination, the Syrian forces withdrew from Lebanon humiliated, relations with Lebanon deteriorated and Syria is suffering international and Arab solation. Isn't that harming Syrian interests? Isn't that treason? If anybody needs to be put on trial, it's the head of the regime.

Khaddam here blames Syria not only for Hariri's murder, but for UNSC 1559 which was supposedly blamed on Hariri by Syria and its allies in Lebanon. He confirmed that the Syrian regime pretty much dug the hole that it is in right now. It created the context for the murder, and then killed Hariri using that context as a pretext. In Khaddam's version of events, the Syrian regime is not only murderous but also very stupid.

On Hafez and the Assad family

Perhaps realizing that the public is wondering about his own criminal record during Hafez's reign, Khaddam distanced himself from Hafez's domestic policies, which he says he didn't always agree with. And for the first time, he signaled that Syria's problem lies in the Assad family.

I left the regime during Hafez's time in power. I agreed with him on all foreign matters, but disagreed on domestic issues. President [Hafez] Assad was an important man in Syrian history, but he was weak towards his family. He left the chance for the Assad family to engage in all kinds of deviancies on the coast and [the hinterlands].

Khaddam said he was against Bashar inheriting the presidency, but he had no choice but to help him because Hafez arranged for the succession before his death. Hafez, Khaddam revealed, made all the necessary security and military arrangements for the succession to take place "by force".

Khaddam for president?

Khaddam said he is not concerned with becoming president, but that he has a "political program" to save the country and not to become its president. He added that Syrian "national unity" suffered because of the regime's isolationist policy. He said all the powers in Syria must seek national unity and reach agreement.

"The basis is [regime] change," he said, welcoming all parties who are willing to walk down that path, including the different Islamist groups that he says are currently being excluded.

As for the Baath party, Khaddam said that in its current ideology it cannot achieve any of its "far goals". "There needs to be a fundamental change in thought and method," he added.

He proposed to empower Syrian people with the "ability to confront the mistakes that were committed", as a way to weaken the grip of the security services in Syria. He ruled out a military coup as a way to bring about that regime change.

In conclusion, Khaddam is seeking regime change through what seems to be a media campaign and full support for the Hariri investigation, which he uses to prove the invalidity of the Bashar regime. It is still unknown whether he is backing his words with clandestine activities inside the country. To me, it seems like he is banking on the regime change to come through Lebanon, the country he lost one day in 1998, when another group of thugs took his treasured place. Regardless of his power aspirations, Lebanon stands to benefit from all this, if only to empower the Hariri investigation and finally expose the Syrian regime's continuing murderous policies. In that regard, Khaddam is the perfect witness. But he should be nothing more.

UPDATE 1: AFP translated a part that I missed:

He told Asharq Al-Awsat he was "working to bring about the suitable conditions for Syrians to pour into the streets and act to overthrow the Syrian regime so that things go well"... However, he said he has not asked other nations to help Syria's opposition. "I did not contact anybody because change has to come from within. If the main vector for change is external, then the interests of the country are harmed."

UPDATE 2. Khaddam gave another interview to Newsweek. In it, he repeats what he said in past interviews. He does, however, give more details on the degree of animosity towards Hariri in Syria. He said that after Hariri's extension conversation with Assad, in which the latter threatened to crush him if he disobeys his will, Hariri said “I will never visit Damascus again in my life.” Khaddam repeats what he told other news organizations about how Bashar would always accuse Hariri of cooking up UNSC resolution 1559.

In one of the past party meetings, the Politburo was discussing the U.N. Resolution 1559. Assad said, “This resolution was cooked by Prime Minister Hariri and [French] President [Jacques] Chirac, and Hariri is working against the interests of Syria.” He said that Prime Minister Hariri tried to gather the Sunnis around him, and this is against the interests and security of Syria.”

Ten days before the assassination took place, President Bashar Assad started calling his friends in Lebanon to come to visit him … A lot of Lebanese close to the Syrian government started questioning the patriotism and nationalism of Rafik Hariri.

And then more on Lahoud's role:

Where do you think Bashar Assad got these ideas about Hariri?

It is the Lebanese security forces around Lahoud. They are writing reports against Hariri. President Lahoud sends those reports to President Assad. President Assad resends those reports to Rustom Ghazaleh to check them out. But Rustom Ghazaleh and Jamil Sayyed [a Lebanese security chief, now in jail] are the ones who initially made those reports, so after checking with Rustom Ghazaleh, the answer is, "Definitely, it matches, it’s authentic information.”

And then Khaddam reassures everyone that regime change is coming soon, and so is democracy. And there is no basis, he says, for fearing an Islamist takeover, which has always been the argument for keeping Bashar's regime in power.

What is the actual picture you have of the way things will develop in the next few months.
When the scenario starts to materialize all the people are going to see it. [But] if there is a big political agenda it is not feasible to make it public in the press.

Does your vision of Syria include any members of the Assad family?
The Assad family is one family in Syria. Whoever rules Syria will be decided solely by voting and ballots. Whoever gets the ballots, he will make the decision along with the Syrian people in that regard.

You’re not afraid that the Muslim Brotherhood will get all the ballots?
No. In Syria, Christians and Muslims have a religious consciousness, but they are not fanatics. It’s a kind of mosaic of religions in equilibrium. And the Muslim Brothers now have enhanced their way of thinking, and they have come up with a new liberal agenda. And naturally when we talk about an open and democratic state, everyone is welcome to present his agenda.

Read the Newsweek interview in full here.

Husam linked to Hawi's murder

2006-01-04T20:50:00.000-05:00

The family of slain politician George Hawi today released more pictures showing Husam Husam at the site of the blast that killed Hawi on 21 June 2005.

In a statement read by Hawi's stepson today, the family said it was perplexed as to why a Syrian agent who had just contacted, or like he says tortured by, the UN investigation team, was hanging out at the site of Hawi's assassination, hours after the blast (around 6pm, the statement estimated).

According to the statement, Husam apparently also visited Hawi's widow's clinic on 20 September, after the UNIIC said he signed his testimony, accompanied by another guy and claiming poor eye sight (she's an ophthalmologist). He and his buddy were carrying handguns and Husam identified himself as Abdel Mohammad Hassan (b. 1985).

The statement added that Husam was also spotted near the New TV station on 21 November.

The Hawi family will now ask the Lebanese authorities to interrogate Husam as a suspect in the murder of Hawi.

Here are the new pictures. Find the ones released by Elaph last week here. Read the transcript of Husam Husam's interview here (Arabic). In it, he details how he was held in captivity, terrorized and captured for nearly four months. In these pictures, we see him as a free man, hanging out at the crime scene of a murder his Syrian intelligence bosses are believed to have ordered.

Also, note the similarities between a sketch of a suspect in Hawi's murder and Husam's picture (hat tip Ya Libnan).

The Daily Star unites Christians

2006-01-04T00:55:00.000-05:00

Nada Bakri in a "special" article written for the Daily Star headlined her 4 January opus as follows:

Christians: Siniora represents all of us
Leaders say they are not being excluded from decision-making process

Huh? After Naharnet’s blunder and generalization about the Shia and Hizbullah, poor editing strikes again, this time at Lebanon’s only English-language daily.

So world Christians are speaking with one voice these days, ay?

The Christian political community denied on Tuesday they were being excluded from dialogue over the country's decision-making process, saying that Prime Minister Fouad Siniora represents all Lebanese and stressing the importance of resolving national issues inside Parliament. "There is a crisis in the government and Siniora is holding talks with the different political players to resolve it and is representing the Christians," said Social Affairs Minister Nayla Mouawad.

The article then quotes another “Christian” , former president Amin Gemayel, as saying "the government has the right framework..." etc

And then:

But several Christian MPs believe a chasm has opened between them and other political players, and are demanding to be included in the dialogue.

So much for ALL Christians claiming “Siniora represents all of us.” But wait, it was not all Christians who said that, it was one Lebanese Christian who is an ally of Siniora. And guess what, some "leaders" did say that they ARE "being excluded from decision-making process."

The piece descends into chaos and goes on tangents, which are characteristics of many Daily Star articles these days.

I understand deadlines. I also understand the difficulty of editing the work of novice writers with poor English skills. But that's why soda and coffee are popular in newsrooms! Drink up or hire better editors (and reporters)!

Lebanon alive and well

2006-01-03T15:24:00.000-05:00

Raja from Lebanese Bloggers recently wrote about a “law of unintended consequences” as something that is bringing Lebanese together despite the terrorism that is being inflicted on them by the likes of Bashar Assad and his cohorts. Commenting on a report of a thwarted bomb attack on a holy Druze shrine in the Bekaa valley, Raja wrote that “efforts to destabilize the country” have so far failed because of this unwritten law:

In Lebanon, our salvation lies in that law.

Hariri's assassination brought about March 14.

Other assassinations brought us closer together rather than farther apart.

The political elite's desire to foment popular support rejuvenated patriotism and discourse on democracy like never before.

The drive to bring Bashar el Assad and his clique to justice, as opposed to simply attempting to overthrow him, has probably hammered in a new idea of justice to Lebanese and (hopefully) Arabs.

These unintended consequences, as well as others are what I am counting on for Lebanon. Hopefully, this attempted murder of hapless Druze sheykhs and sheykhat, will bring us even closer together.

Raja’s post reminded me of a recent time when most Lebanese bloggers came together to condemn the failure of the Arab press and the Arab public opinion in general to come out in support of the Lebanese cause. There was near-unanimity in rejecting all attempts to dismiss the Lebanese pursuit of justice as a foreign plot against a regime many Lebanese believe is murderous and not worth defending. From that point onwards, and despite our different experience and backgrounds, many of us dropped the shackles of expired historical arguments and allowed our discourse to progress and evolve. In a way, the seeds of Lebanese unity are found in the posts and comments of the Lebanese blogs.

If this is indicative of anything, it is that at times of great tragedy, just like warring radio stations unwittingly preserved Lebanese identity by airing Fairuz songs and Ziad Rahbani plays, the Lebanese blogosphere became a symbol and promoter of that identity.

I have no scientific study to back up what I said above, and I am fully aware that the blogosphere has limited influence within Lebanon. But I do believe that it is a reflection of Lebanese public sentiments inside the country. Confirming this is a recent poll conducted by Zogby International. The results of the poll are not all positive or encouraging, but they do reveal an unprecedented level of consensus in the country about Lebanese identity. James Zogby wrote:

The best news for Lebanon however, is the degree to which Lebanese, from all groups, self-identify with the country – higher than in any other Arab country. When asked to describe their principle identifier, more than 70 percent say “being Lebanese” –double what it was in 2002.

While they remain divided over several political issues, our poll found strong points of consensus among Lebanese of all background: a strong identity with the country, a growing optimism about the future; a consensus to fight against corruption and expand employment; and the need to reform the political system, while protecting Lebanon’s pluralism.

The Lebanon that Fairuz sang about, the Lebanon that we bloggers worry about and defend—our Lebanon is alive and well in the hearts and minds of its people. It’s a comforting thought to carry into what will be a challenging new year.

Khaddam’s defection increases Hizbullah’s isolation

2006-01-01T23:35:00.000-05:00

Hizbullah always makes a big deal about its allegedly crucial role in securing electoral victory for Hariri and Jumblatt and the “March 14” parties in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Some have gone as far as suggesting that without such support, Hariri and Jumblatt are doomed to lose in future elections. This prediction is based on a false premise laden with assumptions. The first of these assumptions is that the electoral law will not change and the districting would continue to favor pro-Syrian parties. The second assumption is the belief that Hizbullah can survive without an alliance with Sunni and Druze parties in the country.

Al-Seyassah published an article recently claiming that Hizbullah went against Syria’s advice of forming an alliance with Michel Aoun during the election, opting instead to ally itself with Jumblatt and Hariri in Baabda-Aley, where a Hizbullah-Aoun ticket could have weakened the Jumblatt-backed list. Hizbullah reportedly followed Iranian advice to secure backing and legitimacy from an alliance with other Muslim parties in the country, so as not to appear as a lone Shia party running against the rest of the Muslims in the country. With the Sunni support, the party’s activities appear more legitimate in the eyes of Lebanese and, more importantly, other Sunnis in the region. I don’t think Ahmadinejad will or can push Hizbullah into abandoning this strategy. For the street-sweeper Iranian president himself is busy building pan-Islamic support by pandering to the Sunni-based anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiments in the region. Despite what Iran’s role in Iraq might imply, the Islamic republic and its Lebanon-based militia need the Sunnis to justify and support their anti-Israeli and anti-American policies.

For that I doubt that Hizbullah can continue suppressing its Lebanese dimension without incurring serious political damage. Jumblatt and more importantly Saad Hariri, realizing that Hizbullah is constantly using their political alliance against them, have now asked Nasrallah to make a choice between Lebanon and Syria. This means Hizbullah can no longer obstruct cabinet decisions and aid the Syrian destabilization campaign by playing the “consensus” card.

Hizbullah now is more isolated than ever. It can no longer hope to cow the majority through intimidation and escalation of the Shebaa front. Any unilateral attack on Israel will now be widely condemned in Lebanon. With the Syrian regime bombing campaign in high gear, Hizbullah can no longer convincingly justify its support for a regime that wants to kill and terrorize Lebanese people. Through their increasingly vocal anti-Syrian stances, Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt have created a treason cloud over Hizbullah. Walid Jumblatt is now openly calling on it to Lebanonize itself and its weapons. Marwan Hamade on Sunday said any military escalation in the south would be seen as a part of the Syrian attempt to destabilize the country.

The “Party of God” can turn to Aoun, but I am not sure how far Aoun can go with it without alienating his base and further angering the US, France and Saudi Arabia. A long-term FPM-Hizbullah alliance is unmanageable, and in any case, Hizbullah cannot hope to manipulate it much. Strategically, I think Jumblatt and Hariri are better natural allies for Hizbullah, something the party’s leadership knows very well.

Khaddam’s recent defection has strengthened the Hariri-Jumblatt camp. His endorsement of the Hariri investigation will weaken Hizbullah’s argument against an international tribunal. I expect it to also put a strain on the Hizbullah-Amal “alliance”, if one can call it that. I do not want to be in Nabih Berri’s shoes right now. I think we will see further efforts by the parliament speaker to resolve the cabinet crisis. After’s Khaddam’s accusations, Berri should be praying for a way to send his ministers back into the cabinet without suffering political decapitation at the hands of Hassan Nasrallah. His membership in Bashar’s Lebanese circle is at best opportunistic and pragmatic. It remains to be seen how much longer he can pretend to be a “Basharite” in order to save himself from political irrelevance. I think Berri should seize this historic opportunity to lead some of the Shia away from Syria’s “lap”, and back into secular/sectarian politics (as opposed to religious).

Khaddam’s defection made it clear that to the Syrian regime, eliminating Hariri was domestic policy, part of Bashar’s coming of age as a dictator. After all, to the Assad family, Lebanon is a province and not a separate country. Some reports suggest that Khaddam coordinated his bombshell with other figures some of whom are still in Syria. We could very well see a similar surprise from former Syrian army chief of staff Hikmat al-Shihabi. It is hard to tell at this point how this is really playing in Syria. Ammar Abdulhamid downplayed its effect on the Syrian regime. Anton Effendi saw it as an indication of a power struggle over Lebanon between Damascus and Saudi Arabia, among other things. Regardless, the effect on local Lebanese politics is empowerment of the fractured anti-Syrian camp, which, and for the first time since Hariri’s assassination, is finally putting pressure on Syria’s most prominent ally, Hizbullah.

With the US reportedly moving to propose a resolution specifically condemning it, Hizbulllah has two options: work it out with Hariri and Jumblatt, or go to war. Stonewalling is no longer allowed.

Khaddam stops short of saying Syrian regime killed Hariri

2005-12-30T14:42:00.000-05:00

Al-Arabiya aired a long interview with Syrian vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam, now a defector living in Paris, in which Khaddam stopped short of accusing the Syrian regime of murdering Rafik Hariri.

Khaddam said the answer to the question of who killed Rafik Hariri lies in the political smear campaign that preceded his assassination. He named Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Jamil Sayyed, in addition to former Syrian military intelligence chief in Lebanon Rustom Ghazale, as members of a circle of people who would incite Bashar against Rafik Hariri.

Khaddam confirmed that Hariri received many death threats from Syrian security officials, including Ghazale. He also confirmed that Bashar Assad told Hariri that he will crush whoever opposes his decision to extend Lahoud's term. Following his last conversation with Assad, Hariri's blood pressure reportedly rose and suffered a nose bleed.

He said he advised Hariri to leave Lebanon in a message he sent him with MP Mohsen Dalloul because his "position in Syria is complicated".

He said a decision to kill Hariri would not have been made without Bashar's knowledge, who is in complete control.

Khaddam described whomever came up with the Abu Adass (suicide bomber) story as extremely stupid. "No sane person can believe that Ahmad Abu Adass is responsible for the assassination." He said the assassination required a network of at least 20 people running such a complicated operation. What individual can arrange for something like that, he wondered. He said this must have been the work of a strong and capable security apparatus.

The former vice president of Syria had a lot to say about Ghazale and his many "transgressions " in Lebanon, which were often rewarded by Bashar. "After Hariri's assassination, I told Bashar he needed to bring that criminal and chop his head off," Khaddam said in reference to Ghazale. He added that he was surprised that Bashar would instead reward Ghazale, who acted like the "supreme ruler" of Lebanon and would regularly hurl insults at Lebanese political figures.

He said the Mehlis report is a technical and professional report. Such a report, he added, cannot reveal all so not to harm the investigation. He accused the suspects of politicising the report, adding that the Hariri murder was a political assassination.

Khaddam stopped short of saying Bashar ordered the assassination, leaving it to the UN investigation to ultimately determine the responsibility. But he provided plenty of hints and said the assassination has to be seen in the context of the Syrian campaign on Hariri and the death threats he received from Syrian officials including Rustom Ghazale.

Is Khaddam the witness Mehlis mentioned in his second report? Time will tell.

Husam Husam exposed in pictures

2005-12-30T10:14:00.000-05:00

Elaph has published pictures of Husam Husam at the crime scene of George Hawi, who was killed on 21 June. Husam is the witness who recanted his testimony to the UN probe, claiming he was tortured and bribed by Saad Hariri. Here he is on the day of car bomb that killed Hawi, wearing a red shirt and standing very close to Hawi's family. Husam approached the UN commission in June and signed his testimony in September. He claimed he was held in captivity, drugged and threatened. You judge.

Amr Moussa and al-Qaeda's Syrian rockets

2005-12-29T16:39:00.000-05:00

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa has reportedly suspended his "mediation efforts" between Lebanon and Syria, after accusations that he was seeking Lebanese forgiveness for Hariri's murder in exchange for an end to Syria's assassination campaign in the country.

We will have to wait some time, because our efforts have been thwarted by false accusations of a deal (with Syria) to close the dossier of enquiry," into Hariri's killing, he told the An-Nahar newspaper.... Moussa described as “completely unfounded” accusations in Lebanon that the pan-Arab body was working on an initiative whereby the probe into the February murder would be closed in exchange for an end to assassinations that have been blamed by many on Syria.

Deal or no deal, the fact that Moussa is engaged in "mediation efforts" between Syria and Lebanon speaks volumes of his intentions. What exactly is he mediating? Syria has been waging a war against Lebanon since October 2004. Lebanon is not bombing Syria, nor has Lebanon been implicated in three UN reports. I don't see a dispute between two equal parties here. I see one member nation of the Arab League conducting a terrorist war on another helpless member. Moussa has recently accused "evil hands" of trying to create a rift between the two countries. Whether or not Amr Moussa is actually pushing a deal, his flagrant denial of reality constitutes by itself an attempt to sweep the truth under the vast Arab rug of incompetence.

For only in this Arab world, where crimes and embarrassing happenings are usually blamed on vengeful gods, evil ghosts, and Israel, can three Syrian rockets find able terrorist hands to fire them into Israel, further dragging defenseless Lebanon into unwanted confrontations with the scapegoat of Arab problems. (Side note: Al-Qaeda in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the attack on Northern Israel.)

Only in Lebanon, backstabbed and stepped on by more proud Arabs than arrogant colonialists, can a religious militant group like Hizbullah arrogantly say it is investigating this appalling breach of sovereignty, leaving an embattled cabinet with little more than a condemnation.

Only in Amr's Lebanon is it permissible for armed Arab visitors to parade their weapons to the press—weapons obtained from Arab League member nations—and blame their eternal enemy for woes their own actions inflicted on their host.

And only in Amr's world of failed causes, are terrorists from al-Qaeda, whose bloody actions in Iraq never cause an Arab leaguer eye to blink, allowed to grow and be nurtured by the midwife of terrorism: Syria.

Amr must be happy that in his league, one member country takes upon itself to assign another member nation's war matters to foreign thugs, religious militant organizations run by non-Arab oppressive dictatorships, and other militants from Bin Laden's and Zarqawi's blood-soaked fundamentalist hell.

When Amr sips tea in the afternoon, he must contemplate the beauty of Syrian foreign policy: donate weapons to your neighbor's anti-government factions, kill their journalists and any politician who dares speak against Syria, and continue to claim innocence and play victim of international plots.

Amr must be proud that Syria's efforts to arm and train al-Qaeda terrorists in Lebanon are finally paying off.

Amr must also find it amusing that a Syrian proxy-group wants to assassinate the new head of the Hariri investigation, Serge Brammertz, who once defended the rights of the Sabra and Shatila victims, who were relegated to oblivion by Amr's failed league.

Amr must have missed the latest Syrian charade, which saw the rebirth of the "cooperation protocol": a delay tactic that did not work with Mehlis, but that the Syrian regime will use with his successor anyway.

The Syrian calculations were, after all, reliant on regional delusion and incompetence, embodied by Amr's money-wasting pan-Arab body. Will Amr mediate between the UN and Syria? Of course not, for he can only operate under the false assumption that no Arab country is ever at fault. And with delusional mandates like this, it is no wonder that Amr's League saw logic in spinning off another useless body: an Arab parliament with a mandate to "discuss issues related to the strengthening of common Arab action and offer recommendations for that purpose."

Common Arab action. Sure, Amr. Whatever.

"Happy Holidays"

2005-12-24T09:24:00.000-05:00

I am on holiday, which means no blogging until at least Thursday 29 December.

Have a great Christmas, or as they say here in the politically correct US of A, “Happy Holidays”.

Make Aoun president

2005-12-23T09:08:00.000-05:00

For God’s sake, make Michel Aoun president of Lebanon. Just do it. We can’t bank on international support for long, no matter how it appears to be in our favor. Somebody needs to make a compromise, and given our choices, Aoun has to be won over by making him feel important. That’s what he wants in return for supporting what has boiled down to a fight against Syrian terrorism and rampant Arabo-Iranian stupidity. We need to shield ourselves against potential UN failure. We cannot place all our eggs in the US and French basket. We have to weave our own unity basket.

Just give him the chair. Let him preside over things. The worst that can ensue is a political clash but the economy will move forward and Aoun will have to support the security plan, or at least help come up with one. Better that than what we had before and what we have today: a Syrian agent for a president, and a war with a terrorist regime.

Just make that compromise and make Aoun President. We need unity, even if it’s on pretend grounds. We need the Aounists in this fight. Syria will not be cowed otherwise. When they assassinated Hariri, they banked on the fragility of the Lebanese opposition. Don’t prove them right. Just make Aoun president.

I don’t want him to be my president. But I don’t want to wait for Godot either. Just make him president damnit.

On electing God and the resistance

2005-12-21T20:28:00.000-05:00

With Lebanon suffering the fallout from the decision to empower Hizbullah politically by allowing it to join the government, you would think others would learn from the Lebanese experience and prevent groups such as Hamas from fielding candidates in the upcoming Palestinian election, or limit the participation in Iraq’s election of groups with links to sectarian militias or the so-called “resistance.” Sadly, that is not the case.

Unfortunately, people vote for what they know, and in the Palestinians' case, they know of two choices: the religious or the corrupt. Hamas, like Hizbullah, is becoming a state within a state, a de facto alternative to whatever the Palestinian Authority is failing to become or to obtain from the Israelis. Today, the Israelis said they will not allow Palestinians to vote in Jerusalem because Hamas, a group that tries to destroy Israel, is participating in the election. While I am no fan of Israeli policies towards Palestinians, I can’t say I blame them. They do not want to give Hamas political authority.

In Iraq, Shias voted in large numbers for candidates from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) party, whose armed militia, Badr, is said to have infiltrated the interior ministry. Some of the Sunni groups who ran also have known links to the Iraqi “resistance”, which is responsible for the killing of many innocent Iraqis.

I think the US administration is finally realizing the damage a fledgling democracy can incur from empowering groups such as the SCIRI. Ambassador Khalizad recently said that “you can’t have someone who is regarded as sectarian as the minister of interior.” Khalizad was referring to the Iraqi interior minister Bayan Jaber Solagh, a Shia hardliner with links to Badr who is accused of turning a blind eye to the abuse of Sunni detainees in secret interior ministry jails.

As far as I know, no electoral law in the region prohibits candidates with links to armed groups from running. What we have now in Lebanon, a religious and armed group engaged in politics for the sole purpose of keeping the country in an endless state of war, is bound to happen in Palestine and Iraq if electoral laws do not bar militants from standing in elections.

Many of these groups also use religion to sway voters. To get Sunnis to vote in Iraq, Sunni Imams described the vote as a religious duty and directed their electorate to vote for groups affiliated with Sunni fighters (and with a flip of a switch, the militant groups heeded the calls of the Imams and ceased violence for a day). In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood campaigned under the slogan “Islam is the solution” and won an unprecedented number of seats in parliament. They would have won more had it not been for voter obstruction by the Egyptian authorities. The secular opposition was too weak to mount a real challenge. In fact, in Egypt and Syria, secularism was hijacked by the ruling party and became synonymous with oppression and corruption.

Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, who is falsely considered by Western journalists as a spiritual guide to Hizbullah, has warned against the use of religious authority for electoral purposes. Here’s a relevant quote from the ICG report on Lebanon:

A Fadlallah political adviser told Crisis Group that religiously-inspired instructions are acceptable only when pertaining to the "strategic," not "organizational or tactical" level: “God granted the individual. ... reason. A man of religious learning can advise Muslims, for example, "not to vote for corrupt candidates." But it is still up to the individual himself to decide who is corrupt and who isn't. Hizbullah violated this principle. ... Shiites were made to feel endangered, so they felt compelled to vote. And that's dangerous, as now the Shiites think the resistance's weapons are theirs.”

In a region of military dictatorships, it's hard to convince people not to vote for religious groups or militants riding sympathetic causes. And with dictators bent on destroying the secular opposition, militant religious groups automatically rise in power until they become the only alternative to corruption and injustice. And we all know what some of those groups have given birth to: terrorism.

Giving militant and fundamentalist groups political authority does not strike me as democracy. When these groups reach power, the first thing they will do is cancel the free vote in the name of conformity. Iran here is a good example. After all, nobody should have to give up their Beethoven, Radiohead and Fairuz.

Jumblatt: Syria trying to change balance of power

2005-12-19T06:37:00.000-05:00

In a interview with Orbit Sunday night, and in reference to the spate of killings and attacks in the country since October 2004, Walid Jumblatt said the "murderers' objective is to kill enough MPs to bring about a change in the balance of power within parliament and make the country ungovernable. "

"A change within parliament may be the prelude to a return of Syrian domination," Jumblatt said, adding that "Syrian intelligence networks were not dismantled with the pullout of Syrian military forces in April and that sleeper cells, in place for decades, are still ready to strike."

Lazarus from Letters Apart was able to catch the interview and posted a bunch of quotes. According to Jumblatt, Lahoud is the reason many of the security appointments have not been made yet, including the head of airport security. He charged that after 30 years in Lebanon, the Syrians "had the networks they needed, and had the money. They had the money, from Iraq's oil, from the Baath, from Saddam, and from Bank Medina - one of the reasons for Hariri's assassination is the Medina scandal," Lazarus quoted Jumblatt as saying.

Jumblatt also claimed the commander of the Lebanese army received threats from Assef Shawkat, Syrian military intelligence chief. (In an interesting development, the Lebanese army Sunday permanently closed the infamous military route into Syria. This comes after reports that a suspect in the Tueni bombing used the special road to cross into Syrian hours after the assassination.)

On asking for Hizbullah's protection:

They have the best military strength. The Lebanese security forces aren't strong enough yet, so I asked for their help, at least for political protection ... I welcome Hezbollah to ask Syria 'To where' [ Ila Ein]"

And then this:

Enough of blaming America or blaming Israel. Enough of blaming the Arab-Israeli
conflict ... Why should Lebanon remain hostage to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Open up the Golan front."

Jumblatt has been escalating his verbal war against the Syrian regime since Tueni's assassination. Last week, he called for regime change in Syria.

"This time this regime should change and should be tried," he told CNN last Tuesday, adding that "this guy (Bashar) in Damascus is sick. If he stays, we won't have stability in the Middle East. Anyone who opposes the Syrian regime is assassinated. They execute you then they cry for you; walk at your funeral. They will try to invent all kinds of excuses."

Aoun is not playing ball

2005-12-18T09:35:00.000-05:00

Aoun gave a press conference on Saturday in which he lashed out at the Lebanese government and held it responsible for the deteriorating security situation in the country.

We ask the government to respond to the words of the martyr because after his martyrdom, the government owes it to him. Indeed, the government is responsible but the culprit will not come out to the open and unveil his identity. Of course the finger is pointed mainly towards Syria and to other parties as well, although to a lesser extent. But in all cases, this is still the government’s responsibility.

I agree with Aoun that the government bears the ultimate responsibility for what has happened. The interior minister should have held daily briefings. Better security arrangements should have been taken to protect the lives of officials and citizens.

But Aoun decided to up the ante against the cabinet, which would have been fine had it not for the presumption that the country is like the Hariri-Jumblatt run dictatorship Hizbullah claims it is.

As for the other issue raised by the late MP Tueni, our national unity, I have noted the proliferation of a discourse that harms national unity more than anything else and that insults the real representatives of the people in an attempt to shift the incumbent responsibility towards other parties.

You would think Aoun was referring to Hizbullah, which has been holding the country hostage to their fallacies and shameful defense of a murderous regime. Aoun instead tries to prove he was right all along and puts the blame entirely on his political opponents.

Who asked for the government to set up a security plan? Who asked the minister of interior to give us a map of where we can circulate safely in the country? We are still awaiting the answers. MP Tueni himself stood in parliament and supported these demands.

Who blocked the discussions with Hizbullah, with the Palestinians and the Syrians, is it the FPM? Who initiated today the issue of the presidency, is it also the FPM?

Therefore, we reject the sensitive issues that move the battle from one camp to the other in order to conceal the responsibility of unveiling the crime and protecting the
citizens.

What I don't understand, and cannot forgive Aoun for, is why continue to presume the country is under the complete control of the Hariri-Jumblatt alliance and the rest of the "March 14 parties" minus Aoun's FPM. From what I can see, they have had little sway on the course of events since they reached this alleged power. Aoun ignores Hizbullah's obstructionism as well the effects of the remnants of the security regime that demonstrably are still eating at the country's ability to protect and defend its citizens.

Aoun would have sounded like a real national leader had he not ignored the underlying causes of the government weakness in facing and dealing with the threats. In his speech, he goes as far as siding with Hizbullah on the issue of the tribunal, despite giving Siniora his approval the week before the cabinet decision was made.

We have to sit all together on a round table of talks and let each party open their cards so that we can come up with a clear plan of action in Lebanon to protect the Lebanese people. None of us would like to mourn every day and lose our friends and Lebanese citizens. But these issues cannot be solved in an arbitrary manner in such a way as creating an internal conflict concerning a topic that they have considered at the beginning as external.

The above is classic Aoun. The call for a "roundtable of talks" masks a familiar and desperate cry for inclusion and parrots Hizbullah's obstructionist line. For someone so concerned about security, it is unfathomable why he would refer to a decision to seek international assistance as an "external issue." In a perfect Lebanon, the security forces would have been able to do without international help. I am not a believer in outsourcing security, in fact, I think Siniora and his team should show the same public firmness regarding cleansing and rehabilitating the security forces that they reserve for efforts to bring Hariri's murderers to trial. On this, I could not agree more with Aoun. But given the current situation, I think we will need all the help we can get. Also, one cannot ignore the links between the Hariri killing and the other terrorists attacks. Our journalists are being targeted and so is anyone who dares speak against Syria. By killing Gebran Tueni, the message to anti-Syrian figures was the following: you are not welcome in your own country. We are in a state of war, and Aoun needs to wake up to that fact.

In short, Aoun's criticism does not appear to be aimed at bettering our defenses, for it ignores the nature of the threats and the devastation caused by the perseverance of anti-Lebanese politics by parties such as Hizbullah, which with Aoun, are providing a political cover for the killers.

Sadly, Aoun has not caught up to his declining popularity among Lebanese people, which apparently translated into anti-FPM chants by Tueni mourners during the Wednesday protests.

On the other hand, the FPM recognizes and implements social values in all occasions, so in funerals, we mourn the deceased, we weep, we present our condolences; we do not whistle and chant slogans that offend other mourners and participants.

Aoun blamed this on a "perversion in thought, media and behavior that prevailed this week has to come to an end and we are ready to face it" and then lapsed into his usual defensive talk:

No one can point the finger at us after the 15-year-struggle we led against the Syrian occupation, while the Syrian troops were on Lebanese soil. And while our activists were being beaten up, all the others were at the service of Syrian officers. And until the very last moment, no one dared even talk to us because we were far beyond the allowed “Syrian ceiling”.

In Aoun's opinion, the solution to this crack in national unity is for others "to control their masses, because national unity starts from the base, when the people live together. National unity is not achieved by triggering hatred at the level of the people and in this case 'nice talk' at the level of the leadership is nothing but lies and deceit.”

If winning national unity is achieved by playing with the base in mind, then, and as evidenced by this speech, Aoun is making his team lose by constantly throwing the ball back towards the pitcher.

"Hizbullahizing" the state

2005-12-17T09:51:00.000-05:00

Efforts are underway to convince Hizbullah to send its ministers back to the politically gridlocked cabinet. After Monday's cabinet decision to ask the UN for a Hariri "tribunal with an international character", five Hizbullah and Amal minister decided to boycott the cabinet, pending a decision from their "political leadership", which is euphemism for--let's stop kidding ourselves-- the Iran-run Hizbullah Shura council.

With the Iranian leadership busy denying the Holocaust and wishing Europe would move Israel to Germany or Austria (or somewhere near Alaska... maybe Canada), the Saudis are reportedly spearheading mediation efforts between the boycotters and Fouad Siniora. Thanks to these efforts, a meeting was arranged between Siniora and Nabih Berri.

Yes, you heard it right. The Saudi ambassador intervened in Lebanon to arrange for a meeting between the parliament speaker and the prime minister.

The problem here is decision making in the cabinet. Can decisions be made through a vote? Here's what the Lebanese constitution says on this:

The legal quorum for a Council meeting is a majority of two thirds of its members. It makes its decisions by consensus. If that is not possible, it makes its decisions by vote of the majority of attending members. Basic national issues require the approval of two thirds of the members of the Council named in the Decree forming the Cabinet. Basic national issues are considered the following:

The amendment of the constitution, the declaration of a state of emergency and its termination, war and peace, general mobilization, international agreements and treaties, the annual government budget, comprehensive and longterm development projects, the appointment of Grade One government employees and their equivalents, the review of the administrative map, the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies, electoral laws, nationality laws, personal status laws, and the dismissal of Ministers.

Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad articulated his party's position as follows:

Hizbullah's Nabatieh MP Mohammad Raad said during a ceremony held by the party in the southern city of Sidon that the only way the party will end its boycott is if the government returns to applying the national consensus formula, which bans taking decisions on critical national matters on the basis of majority and minority. "The decision that was taken in the name of the majority was a huge mistake, and this mistake should be corrected," Raad said. He added: "If our presence or absence from the Cabinet is the same, then what is the need for our attendance?"

He then went on to describe the political majority in Lebanon as a "dictatorship."

"This is not a ruling majority, this is a dictatorship that is imposing its hegemony over the country," he said.

Of course, this last statement is ridiculous. Lebanon is a dictatorship because a majority of elected representatives voted on a decision, but Hizbullah is a democratic party that manipulates religion to reach political power, protects despots, and defends the interests of other nations!

The cabinet's vote is of course constitutional. An absence of "consensus" never prevented past cabinets from resorting to this allegedly vile method of…voting!

As for Hizbullah's rejection of a majoritarian system, it's laughable, considering Hizbullah's constant waving of the Shia majority card, which at best could be described as illegal:

Nasrallah's resort to taklif as-Sharii also was controversial among Shiites. Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, whom many Lebanese Shiites consider their "model for emulation" (marjaa at-taqlid), publicly denounced such use of religious authority for electoral purposes. A Fadlallah political adviser told Crisis Group that religiously-inspired instructions are acceptable only when pertaining to the "strategic," not "organizational or tactical" level:

God granted the individual. ... reason. A man of religious learning can advise Muslims, for example, "not to vote for corrupt candidates." But it is still up to the individual himself to decide who is corrupt and who isn't. Hizbullah violated this principle. ... Shiites were made to feel endangered, so they felt compelled to vote. And that's dangerous, as now the Shiites think the resistance's weapons are theirs.

Some Shiite observers also wondered how many more times Hizbullah would successfully mobilize community voters on a plebiscite to prevent disarmament. Interestingly, a not insignificant number of Shiites voted for non-endorsed lists, an outcome that reportedly infuriated Nasrallah and led him to castigate supporters for lack of discipline. (Source: International Crisis Group report on Lebanon)

For that, I doubt Hizbullah will quit the cabinet. This latest stunt is part obstructionism, part self defense. After all, that was the whole point of joining the cabinet: "counting on political gridlock" to preclude any dramatic vote that would hurt Hizbullah interests.

With Syria out and pressure for disarmament growing, Hizbullah seeks alternative forms of protection. Retreating to its natural constituency is one; having a role in government is another. As a first line of defense, it counts on political gridlock and natural rivalry among politicians to preclude a dramatic move...

Participation in government adds several layers of protection. First, it bolsters Hizbullah's image as a legitimate national player, complicating efforts to put it on the EU terrorism list, for example. With Syria no longer as able to shape domestic politics and act as guarantor, Hizbullah also is intent on having a direct say, putting itself in a stronger position to shape internal debates on 1559 and pre-empt potentially harmful developments.

Quoting Amal Saad Ghorayeb, The ICG report on Lebanon sums up Hizbullah's attitude as follows:

Their attitude [on joining the government] is a dramatic change from the past. But they are going to instrumentalize the state to protect the resistance. They know how difficult it will be for the U.S. and Israel to mess with them. The party is not becoming "Lebanonized; rather it is "Hizbullah-izing" the state.

Aljazeera and the click democracy

2005-12-16T14:38:00.000-05:00

An Aljazeera poll on Syria's involvement in the Lebanon attacks has created an online frenzy among some Lebanese, who are forwarding e-mails and running web ads urging participation in the vote.

Do you believe Syria is involved in the Lebanon explosions?
1. Yes
2. No

The following is from an e-mail I received this morning urging me to vote:

AL Jazeera.net is conducting a Vote, to see if Syria is responsible of the Explosions in Lebanon or not ?

What do you think ?????????

Syrians are voting by the loads, that they are not responsible....

the vote will finish this saturday, let all ur friends vote

Long Live Lebanon ...

Naharnet is even running a banner calling on its readers to "make a difference... vote in Aljazeera Poll."

Last I checked, the pro-Lebanon camp was losing. I could claim here that the loss is predictable given the leanings of "Arab public opinion" . But I won't, because Aljazeera.net will most likely do that on Saturday. After every poll, that site publishes a story claiming the vote is a reflection of people's opinions. I and many others disagree with such a claim.

Here's what CNN prints after every online poll or "quick vote":

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.

Add to the above that anybody can vote an infinite number of times after clearing the browser's cache and cookies. I personally voted at least 5 times.

So by all means go and vote, but let us not turn it into a patriotic duty. It is just going to make us mad when we see Syria acquitted by some smug and scientifically-challenged online editor.

All martyrs, no heroes

2005-12-15T22:08:00.000-05:00

Lebanon has plenty of martyrs, but do we have any heroes? Are we a culture that draws strength from martyrs?

Martyr:

1 a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 2 a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle 3 VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer

Hero:

1 a a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage

2 a the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work

3 an object of extreme admiration and devotion

(Webster)

Haunted

2005-12-15T14:53:00.000-05:00

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This is one picture that has been haunting me since Monday.

Cowards.

Syria's ambassador to the UN likens Tueni to a dog

2005-12-14T21:44:00.000-05:00

Fayssal Mekdad has reportedly called Gebran Tueni a dog.

Syria's ambassador to the United Nations, Fayssal Mekdad, likened slain Lebanese legislator Gibran Tueni to a dog yesterday and indicated that Israel leads American policy on his country.

Mr. Mekdad blamed Israel for his country's increased isolation and dismissed the Lebanese Cabinet's request to expand the Hariri investigation to probe six other alleged political assassinations...

"So now every time that a dog dies in Beirut there will be an international investigation?" Mr. Mekdad said to an Arab diplomat during a closed-door council session, according to a diplomat who heard the conversation but asked to remain anonymous.

Better a loyal, smart and courageous dog than a descendant from a dastardly species of half-men.

The second Mehlis report: summary and remarks

2005-12-13T16:09:00.000-05:00

Detlev Mehlis Sunday submitted his second progress report to the UN security council, after six months of unprecedented investigative work aimed at assisting the Lebanese government in finding and eventually prosecuting the killers responsible for the Hariri assassination.

In 25 pages, the second report outlined the progress since the last report, which had concluded that the crime could not have happened without the knowledge and perhaps complicity of high ranking Syrian officials. Since then, the UNIIIC has been pursuing and building on many lines of enquiry, as well as "cross-checking" and "evaluating" the statements of 500 witnesses and 19 individuals so far identified as suspects.

The report points to new testimonies, one of which "strengthens the evidence confirmed to date against the Lebanese officers in custody, as well as high-ranked Syrian officers."

A number of new witnesses, whose testimonies are under evaluation, have provided the commission with "potentially critical information about the assassination." However, a new witness, who "has been assessed to be credible and the information he has submitted to be reliable", submitted in late October "a comprehensive and coherent statement regarding plans to assassinate Mr. Hariri."

The detailed information points directly at perpetrators, sponsors and organizers of an organized operation aiming at killing Mr. Hariri, including the recruitment of special agents by the Lebanese and Syrian intelligence services, handling of improvised explosive devices, a pattern of threats against targeted individuals, and planning of other criminal activities.

Perhaps as significant as the above, the UN report found links between the Hariri assassination and the wave of killings that has been targeted anti-Syrian figures.

It was reported to the Commission that, after the assassination of Mr. Hariri, a high-level Syrian official supplied arms and ammunition to groups and individuals in Lebanon in order to create public disorder in response to any accusations of Syrian involvement in the Hariri assassination.

The significance of the above lies in that the above mentioned groups have been enabled by the Syrian regime with the means to attack any target they deem hostile to Syrian interests in Lebanon, without the necessity of a direct intervention from Syria. This is not different from the way the Syrian regime has enabled terrorists in Iraq to wreak havoc, all in the name of resistance to occupation.

Also worth noting is the revelation that Syrian intelligence has burned all documents related to the Hariri assassination. The Lebanese military intelligence has also reportedly erased archives of transcripts of phone calls intercepted by the agency between October 2004 and March 20005.

The UNIIIC has embarked on an ambitious attempt to understand the modus operandi and motives of all possible perpetrators. Section D in the report speaks of a "steady pattern of converging circumstantial evidence related to the motive for the crime." More importantly, the commission "has not found any significant evidence that alters the conclusion of probably cause which is set out in the previous report concerning the involvement of top-ranked Syrian and Lebanese officials."

There was little probability that a third party could have undertaken the necessary surveillance of Mr. Hariri, and maintained the resources, logistics and capacity to initiate, plan and commit a crime of this magnitude.

The report then goes on to detail how the commission is going about pursuing the different lines of enquiry and what remains to be pursued, which is a lot and requires a long period of time.

On Syrian cooperation and the Syrian Judicial Commission

UNSC resolution 1636 gave the UNIIIC the "same rights and [authority] vis-à-vis the Syrian Arab republic as it has been granted in Lebanon, and the authority to determine the location and modalities for interview of Syrian officials." The report describes the torturous road to Syrian cooperation in lengthy detail.

The report then raises doubts over the exact role of the Syrian Judicial commission. While it welcomes its establishment, the UNIIIC had to often remind the Syrian regime that the Syrian commission cannot invalidate or substitute for UNIIIC's own work. Its function, as viewed by the UN commission, should be to "share their part of the responsibility and… help establish the truth" as it is "only the actual and continuous responsiveness of the Syrian authorities that will remove any doubt about Syrian substantive movement in the case."

Unfortunately, the Syrian commission proved to be part of the attempt to "hinder the investigation internally and procedurally."

The Syrian Commission organized a press conference with a Syrian witness who
gave journalists an opportunity to question him before the Judicial Commission
could do so, and who contradicted prior sworn evidence given to the commission.

The UNIIIC report said it has evidence of threats made against relatives of Husam Husam, who is "being manipulated by the Syrian authorities, raising serious questions about whether the Syria Judicial Commission is committed to conducting an independent, transparent and professional investigation." Last month, Syrian state television aired the retraction of Husam, a Syrian intelligence agent who claimed he was bribed and tortured by Hariri's son Saad to falsify his testimony. (See my previous posts on this here, here, here and here)

Remarks

The report will not satisfy those who want to see fingerprints and photographs of Assad fitting the Mitsubishi van with explosives to entertain the possibility of his regime's guilt.
Many commentators continue to attack the Mehlis reports for alleged lack of evidence, despite the enormity of the task ahead, the amount of work achieved so far, the lack and at best slow-paced Syrian cooperation, and the fact that no criminal investigation anywhere in the world can do what the Syrian regime's supporters and other dishonest commentators expect the UNIIIC to do: reveal all evidence to the public before the trial.

Only one investigation is capable and has been engaging in that sort of legal heresy: The Syrian Judicial commission. The Mehlis critics out there continue to hold his commission to the low standards set by the Syrian regime; standards that can only stem from ignorance and delusion.

Ask yourself this question: Which criminal investigation displays all its witnesses on the pages of papers and on television screens before they are interrogated and before they get their day in court? Which commission has become a platform for smear campaigns against anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians, who are being assassinated one after the other?? The Syrian commission.

Which criminal investigation is conducting a systematic and methodical investigation and still uses terms like "may have been involved" when referring to individuals it calls "suspects" who are "presumed innocent until proven guilty after trial." The UNIIIC.

For some reason, people expect a professional commission of international experts to follow the Syrian model, which uses TV screens and torture chambers to "investigate" murders.

You do not need a law degree to know that no criminal investigation would ever publish all of its findings in a public report before trial time. The conclusion that there is no strong evidence is to be determined by the court, not by the commission and certainly not by the self-appointed pundits. When crimes are committed, a court decides on the guilt or innocence of involved parties. Not pre-trial reports by the prosecution or the defendants!

Some people are so naïve they let themselves be led to the false notion that no court is needed if the prosecution doesn't present "convincing" evidence in the open. This masked rejection of justice has managed to convince people that justice lives in the safe corridors of the media. It's a pathetically ignorant and shameless yet highly contagious line of thinking that is symptomatic of the selective sense of justice prevalent in this region and elsewhere.

DC candle light vigil

2005-12-13T00:38:00.000-05:00

Tens of Lebanese and non-Lebanese sympathizers braved the cold DC weather and held a candle light vigil Monday night for Gebran Tueni in front of the Lebanese embassy. We were all there to remember a man whose only crime was free speech. His killers spoke the language of murder. They should be the ones to shut up.

Here are a few pictures.

Mehlis 2 report available for download

2005-12-12T15:04:00.000-05:00

Download a PDF format here.

Mehlis 2: New witness "strengthens" evidence against Lebanese and Syrian officers

2005-12-12T13:36:00.000-05:00

It looks like the UN commission wants to avoid another Husam stunt. Quotes courtesy of AFP:

UNIIC (The UN international independent investigation commission) has been approached by a number of witnesses with potentially critical information about the assassination ... Given that their information is still in the process of being evaluated and the need to protect their identities to ensure their safety, this report does not detail the information they have provided.
In late 0ctober 2005, the commission was approached by another new witness, who has submitted a comprehensive and coherent statement regarding plans to assassinate Mr. Hariri... The witness has been assessed to be credible and the information he has submitted to be reliable.
The statement from the witness strenghtens the evidence confirmed to date against the Lebanese officers in custody, as well as high-ranked Syrian officers.

It's all still a work in progress:

From 7 October to 10 December 2005, 52 witness statements, 69 investigators' notes and eight suspect statements were issued...A total of 37,000 pages of documents have been entered into the case file. Fourteen investigators from 10
different member states have been involved in the commission's investigative work, as well as a number of external experts.

To date, UNIIC has interviewed and obtained the statements of 19 suspects. Analysts are in the process of reviewing these statements, focusing on any significant issues or leads that can be identified, for the purpose of cross-checking those issues that can be identified. One of the specific areas of focus is information related to the planning of the assassination, including locations, dates, times and participants in meetings.

Mehlis 2: Syrian intelligence burned documents

2005-12-12T12:48:00.000-05:00

From Reuters:

The report said it had identified 19 suspects but did not name them. It said five Syrian officials questioned by U.N. investigators in Vienna this month were suspects.

It complained that Damascus was trying to cast doubt on the investigation's findings, and said it had asked to interview a sixth Syrian official, also considered a suspect, but that session had to be postponed.

"This was, at the least, an attempt to hinder the investigation internally and procedurally," it said.

The report said statements made by two of the Syrian suspects "indicated that all Syrian intelligence documents concerning Lebanon had been burned".

Second UN Hariri report implicates Syria

2005-12-12T11:51:00.000-05:00

According to AFP, the second interim report "implicates" Syria in the killing of Hariri and calls on Syria to cooperate. Here's the only quote I have so far:

The commission relies on the full and unconditional cooperation of the Syrian authorities in the next period of its enquiries, so that all aspects of the case under investigation may be ascertained.

Watch this blog for more posts on the report.

Strugglers for "unity and freedom" killed Gebran!

2005-12-12T09:57:00.000-05:00

A secular-minded, Arab nationalist/Syrian nationalist sounding "group" calling itself "The Strugglers for the Unity and Freedom in al-Sham" has claimed responsibility for Tueni's assassination. (Arabic text here)

"We have broken the pen of Gibran Tueni and gagged his mouth forever, turning An-Nahar into a dark night," it said. "He who contemplates attacking those who have sacrificed everything for the sake of Arabism and Lebanon will face the same fate as ... Tueni," it added said.

The group said Gebran Tueni was "spreading poisons and lies despite our repeated warnings to him."

It is funny how "unity and freedom" in alleged Syrian/Arab nationalist context translate into murder and gagging mouths!

Is Bashar defending Syria till the last Lebanese?

2005-12-12T06:15:00.000-05:00

They didn’t waste any time. As soon as journalist and MP Gebran Tueni returned from his Paris hideout, they assassinated him with 2 others including his driver and an unidentified corpse. Over 30 were reportedly wounded.

The technique was similar to that which killed Rafik Hariri:

A police source speaking on condition of anonymity told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the technique used in the attack was similar to that which killed former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri in February. Hariri and 20 others died after a bomb was detonated in a Beirut suburb as the former premier's motorcade passed by.

Jumblatt has blamed Syria:

Gebran Tueni and An-Nahar were being threatened for a long time by the Syrian regime... we got the message. We will persevere." Jumblatt said: "They killed Gebran Tueni today because Mehlis will present his report today. This is a message to the international community and the Lebanese community."

Chibli Mallat’s 3 solutions (interview with Future TV):

Lahoud’s ouster

International tribunal to try those responsible for all the assassinations in Lebanon since the attempt on Hamade

International military protection for Lebanese people

Rafik Khoury, al-Anwar's editor in chief, said in an interview that there is no council of ministers in Lebanon, there is a divided group of people who meet but can't agree on the basics.

Saad Hariri fingered the same "parties that killed Rafik Hariri and the others and that were mentioned in the UN report."

Future TV is airing bits from his March 14 speech:

You built Lebanon’s independence.

Independence is being reborn in Martyrs’ Square…

You are one and united... there won’t be civil war in Lebanon.

Repeat this oath:

We swear by God

Muslims and Christians

We will stay united

Until eternity

Defending Lebanon the great

Long live Lebanon

Hizbullah's Mujahedeen face evil on their own

2005-12-09T19:07:00.000-05:00

Hussein Assaf, identified as a Hizbullah member, miraculously escaped assassination today when his car exploded "seconds" after he left it and went into the house of Sheikh Mohammad Yazbek in Hizbullah-controlled Baalback.

Lebanese police confirmed there were no casualties and then sat and watched as "Hizbullah guerrillas cordoned-off the roads leading to the blast site."

We already know who did it.

"We blame the Zionist enemy for planning and executing this attack," a Hizbullah statement said.

Hizbullah vowed to "do all ... necessary to cut off the hands that target its Mujahedeen with evil ... and defend Lebanon and its people."

Don't expect Hizbullah to use FBI expertise or call for an international investigation to solve this riddle! Whatever for? The "state within a state" has its own security organ and its courts are ready to judge and sentence the would-be killers to death if necessary.

Watch this timely incident become an excuse for continued "resistance" and going at it alone. There will be plenty of across-the-board condemnation but little geniune sympathy, as you can probably tell.

Allah, Iran and their party in Lebanon

2005-12-08T08:38:00.000-05:00

My post comparing Hizbullah to the Basij militia sparked a lively debate at the Future Movement political forum (hat tip Khaled). It stirred up a range of issues from the representational power of Hizbullah to its status as a Lebanese political party that should command respect. In a comment to my Naharnet post, fellow blogger Anton Efendi also posted a long article from al-Seyassah claiming fissures within Hizbullah's ranks. The article depicted an internal Iranian tug of war over who will succeed Nasrallah as secretary general, with the latter allegedly belonging to former President Rafsanjani's current and lacking the hardline qualities Ahmadinejad requires in his leaders. Raja on Lebanese bloggers went as far as raising the possibility of military conflict within Hizbullah similar to what happened in 1998 when former secretary general Subhi al-Tufeili led a failed revolt against Nasrallah along with 200 of his supporters.

Beginning with the debate at the FM forum, my critics are right in that Hizbullah is more than Basij, and for the record I didn't say Hizbullah's organizational structure was modelled after the Iranian militia. My analogy served to show that Lebanon cannot copy the Iranian model by delegating matters of defense to a paramilitary group, like Iran does.

What is Hizbullah?

One of my critics rejected calling Hizbullah a militia. "Hizbullah is a political party with a military wing fighting against occupation," he said. That's a false characterisation. Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh in "In the Path of Hizbullah" defined Hizbullah as a "jihad movement that engages in politics, and not a political party that engages in jihad." It is "an Islamic political party but neither its leadership or its organizational structure is equivalent to conventional secular parties such as those in the western democratic or socialist system."

Hizbullah does not believe in democracy, be it western or Lebanese. It also doesn't believe in and engages in "jihad" against the following concepts: nationalism, socialism, liberalism and women's rights. These are concepts it considers alien to Islam. In many ways, it is a mini-Iran with authority and control concentrated in a seven-member Shura council. The highest authority in Hizbullah's world is the Wali al-Faqih, Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. It's not the Lebanese cabinet, and certainly not the president. The party’s representatives in parliament and in the cabinet answer to the Shura council and act according to its instructions. Nasrallah is quoted in Hamzeh’s book as saying that ”being a member in parliament does not mean that Hizbullah’s elected representatives are above the authority of the Shura council.”
In other words, the party and its members are completely and directly under the control of its clerical leadership, which answers and is "guided" by the supreme leader of Iran.

It follows from the above that the Party of God represents only its interests and those of the Iranian clergy. This reduces Hizbullah into an armed religious movement that engages in politics.

Representation

The votes that elected Hizbullah's MPs did not stem from real democratic choices. Many of the party's Shia followers did not partake in the vote out of democratic duty. They did it out of religious duty. Hizbullah's ideologically committed constituency voted under "Taklif sharii of the wilayat" (the religious commands of the Guardianship). There is no democracy involved here. Other Shia voters went to the polls to re-elect the only power that offers them social services, education and hospitalization. Again, this is not a democratic choice, this is a failure of a weakened state that failed to take care of its own.

You could argue that if that's how Hizbullah and their followers want it then by all means let them have it their way. It's not like other parties in Lebanon adopt democratic principles and hold primaries to open the door to competition within the party ranks. You could also argue that very few political parties in Lebanon or the rest of the world for that matter do not put their party loyalty first. That's a valid point if Hizbullah were a national party that wasn't funded by a different country and that didn't seek Jihad to establish some sort of Islamic Zion in Lebanon.

It is never fair to allow a religious entity to field candidates because its followers will vote like they're voting for God. And when that party is connected to a foreign entity, it makes allowing such a party to enter elections criminal if not an act of treason. Had Khamenei been a apolitical cleric, things would probably be different. But we're talking about Iran here, where religion and politics are one and the same.

That is why I believe Hizbullah, in its current shape and form, has no place in Lebanese politics. It is not freedom to let them field candidates who are going to win by virtue of being what the cleric and the doctor ordered. So next time you catch yourselves saying Hizabullah represents Shia through free elections remember how Hizbullah does not believe in that freedom you attach to their so called electoral victory. Does Iranian style Shia Islam represent Iranian style Shia? Yes. Does it mean anything when the cleric runs in an election and wins? No. Empowering religious men, let alone arming them, is a recipe for destruction.

Hizbullah and Ahmadinejad

According to Hamzeh, Hizbullah has been adopting a “gradualist-pragmatic” mode since the death of Khomeini and the election of Rafsanjani. The Rafsanjani-Khamenei combination was instrumental in pushing the party into the Lebanese political scene. In fact, it is said that Khamenei’s strategy has been to encourage Hizbullah to gain a foothold in the Lebanese political system. This was part of the party’s “political Jihad” as Hamzeh pointed out in his book, an “opportunity to seek power” by penetrating the parliament. For Hizbullah does not believe in western democracy, nor is the party a political party in the western or socialist sense as I mentioned above. Being in parliament is just part of that jihad stuff.

So does it make a difference that Iran has a new ultra-conservative president? Will this split Hizbullah into two camps or worse, harden its policies further? Logic leads us to believe that If Ahmadinejad gets his way with his Lebanese-based party, he will encourage the Hizbullah leadership to rely on the numerical strength of its constituents, who outnumber those of Amal, to consolidate power within the Shia community. Ahmadinejad’s style is to expedite the political jihad by purging moderates and spread a “Basij culture.” He wants to take on the world and is allegedly close to developing a nuclear bomb. With the Syrian masters gone, Hizbullah is no longer forced to compromise or strike electoral alliances with Amal. In that regard, Al-Seyassah's claim, which is that certain pro-Ahmadinejad Hizbullah MPs are already working on creating wide divisions in Amal's ranks in a bid to take over the party, seems plausible.

But would this have happened anyway given Hizbullah's course of jihad and the departure of Syria, which would have protected Berri and tried to weaken Hizbullah*? My guess is yes, eventually. In that sense, the worse Ahmadinejad can do is expedite the jihad. This should be a wake up call to those who still think a party like Hizbullah is a national party and not a time bomb about to explode in our faces. Whether or not the street sweeper of Tehran will overcome Khamenei's authority is not important anymore. Measures should be taken to limit the influence and political participation of entities that pose as Allah's own army.

I am not calling for its immediate elimination. We don't want civil war. The state must reclaim the people who live under Hizbullah's rule. And it must reclaim them by adopting national policies that accommodate all Lebanese sects so not to alienate or enrage other groups. It's not a "dialogue" we need; it's the vision and will to win Lebanese people back. The electoral laws should bar parties running in elections from receiving foreign aid, let alone carry arms. But most importantly, Hizbullah's Shia followers have to be won back. Hamzeh said it best in the conclusion of his book:

…the future course of Hizbullah will depend on the ability of the Lebanese state to accommodate both Muslim and Christian interests under the Ta’if formula, and to bring some measure of economic prosperity to all social classes, in particular the poor classes, regardless of sectarian affiliation.

*It is believed that the Syrians encouraged former Hizbullah secretary general Subhi al-Tufeili’s revolt in 1998 in order to weaken Hizbullah in Lebanon by splitting it into two parties, keeping one in the south to fight Israel, and another in the Beqaa under Tufeili and the Syrians [Hamzeh cites Norton, Hizbullah in Lebanon]. This failed, and my guess is that it was another Syrian gamble to make sure it has the upper hand in Lebanon, and not Iran, despite the Iranian-Syrian agreement in the 1990s.

Naharnet responds: we report on feelings!

2005-12-05T13:21:00.000-05:00

The Naharnet webmaster responded to an e-mail I sent them after they published an article identifying the entire Shia community with Hizbullah and Amal. (Read my Naharnet post here.)

Here is the Naharnet response:

Dear Kais,

The story was simply trying to depict the general feeling in Lebanon about the showdown orchestrated by the two main Shiite factions in the Council of Ministers. We concede that Amal and Hizbullah do not represent the whole of the Shiite community but this is the feeling of the rest of the people in Lebanon.

Admittedly, the concluding paragraph of the story has inadvertently portrayed the whole Shiite community as acquiescent to the Amal and Hezbollah rhetoric. Although we are certain that this is not the case, we await the time when scores of independent Shiites would rise and give theiropinion openly.

We sympathize with your outrage and share your feelings, but we do not think that an apology or retraction is warranted, because this reflected the general feeling in town that was generated by such action.
Thank you for your valuable comment.

Naharnet Webmaster

And here my response to their response:

Dear Naharnet webmaster,

Thank you for the reply, and I apologize for my earlier outburst. As a fellow journalist, I will allow myself to make the following comments.

You did not cite any sources reflecting the "feeling of the rest of the people in Lebanon." As an online news site, you cannot appoint yourselves the representatives of one segment of the population against another. You also cannot blame what you did on feelings the rest of the population allegedly has against an entire community. Let me put it this way: "feelings" are not reliable sources in the world of professional and objective journalism.

And then you say: "Although we are certain that this is not the case, we await the time when scores of independent Shiites would rise and give their opinion openly." Who are you and what is Naharnet to wait for something like that? And since when journalists wait for something to happen? You go and you find it and you talk to people. You use quotes and evidence and you cite sources. Not sentiments of the town! I mean did you take a poll? You cannot accuse people of silence when you yourselves do not report statements.

I am very disappointed and I do hope that you change your minds and apologize for reporting on your own feelings rather than facts.

Feelings and sentiments!!!! This is journalism?

Who is allowing Hizbullah become Lebanon's Basij?

2005-12-03T09:44:00.000-05:00

Hizbullah has colossal powers in Lebanon. It is a militia with growing political authority. By allowing it to keep its arms, the Lebanese political leaders, many of whom claim to be anti-military, don't see the dangers in letting a group carry arms and play politics at the same time. Those leaders are helping Hizbullah become the equivalent of Iran's Basij militia, a nine million-strong group controlled by the revolutionary guards that "helped" Ahmadinejad reach the presidency.

Basij is everywhere in Iran, in mosques, schools and government institutions. Just like Hizbullah, they claim to represent the Shia and have enough followers to back that claim. Their legitimacy comes from the Iranian constitution and the constant support of the Iranian government. Even reformist President Mohammad Khatami would often say that there is no "reconstruction" in Iran without Basij.

Basij is a paramilitary group composed of "volunteers" that was founded in the 80s during the Iran-Iraq war. Their role evolved through the years from defending Iran against external threats, which at the time meant Iraq, to guardians of the clerical regime. Although the constitution bars them from interfering in politics, they have been doing so more these days, and it is believed that Ahmadinejad, a former revolutionary guard, "won" the presidential election with their "support" on the ground. The militia is widely feared, and they are now being used by the revolutionary guards to silence reformist and quell student protests. Their authority is being expanded to include police and enforcing Islamic codes. The head of the Guardians council yesterday even gave them the credit for "winning" the fight against the International Atomic Energy Agency. In other words, this small militia has become a tool to maintain a fundamentalist regime and silence dissenters.

Hizbullah, which has many links to Basij and is believed to be hosting some of them in Lebanon, is also a militia on a defense mission, among other goals. Following Khomeini's heretical Wilayat al-Faqih, which transferred the powers of the occulted Imam to the temporal authority embodied by the supreme leader, it was able to challenge the traditionally apolitical Shia religious authorities and legitimize its pursuit of power.

Although Hizbullah's "pragmatism" is often highlighted by certain "experts", much of it comes from the flexibility of Shia Islam, and in Hizbullah's case, it has only allowed the party to adapt to changing circumstances without any significant change in the party's ideology and long-term aim to create an Islamic order in Lebanon modeled after Iran. So while most Shia await the return of the Mahdi, Hizbullah's Shias are also waiting and working towards for the Islamic order.

In the 1990s we were asked to view them solely through the resistance prism. Nobody paid attention to what Hizbullah was creating in the towns it controlled: a mini-Islamic order. This isn't freedom of religion, this is oppression of an extremely moldable community with a history of persecution and neglect by the government and its self-appointed leaders. Hizbullah found it easy to fill the vacuum in those areas and lure some of the disenchanted youth into its ranks (I should add Hizbullah was very "generous", thanks to Iranian funding).

Removing the feudal lords and the Syrian puppet Nabih Berri was not difficult, because deep down the Shia of Lebanon are not great fans of the Syrian regime, and for a long time, neither was Hizbullah. The Shia of Lebanon have long been the most undereducated of the sects, and their leaders liked to keep them that way. Former parliament speaker Kamel al-As'ad would often joke that educating his son was enough for the entire community.

When in the 1980s Hizbullah fought its way to power, many, including yours truly, viewed them as a dark force destroying everything in sight. My Beirut neighbourhood was traditionally split between Amal and the PSP, whose members often clashed and used our 1st floor balcony to shoot at one another. During the Amal-Hizbullah conflict, we had members of the same Shia family fighting one another in the street, something that at the time struck me as surreal. For many of us, who weren't exactly Amal supporters (who really liked those militias except those who profited from them?), Hizbullah was like an unstoppable plague. We had to wait for the Syrian army to come in and stop the fighting and help draw the ridiculous borders within the Shia community, which forced people to either choose between two evils or find a Sunni leader to follow. Many of Hariri's supporters are Shia.

Coming back to my point, Hizbullah's militancy mode allowed it to defeat Israel in the south and at the same time consolidate its power in the community and the country. With the Israelis gone, their "militant mode" lost its legitimacy. But Hizbullah continues to be a paramilitary group that applies Islamic laws in the areas where it has deligitimized traditional Shia Islam and state institutions. After Hariri's assassination, Hizbullah asserted itself as major player on the Lebanese scene that can be ignored at one's own peril.

In the 1990s, Syria kept Hizbullah alive to proxy-fight Israel in the south. The party was allowed to run in parliamentary and municipal elections, which legitimized and expanded its control over many Lebanese towns and cities. Many in Lebanon and the Arab world like to sing the song of the people's legitimate right to resist occupation. They then stupidly remind Europeans about the French resistance and so on. In their excitement (I should add ignorance), they overlook the dangers of letting your resistance fighters run in elections and reach power. With many Arab countries living under military regimes, the concept of banning the military from politics is probably alien to those Arabs.

In Lebanon, where people go out of their way in saying the army should be shielded from politics, a militia that is doing an army's job is allowed to field candidates and deligitimize state institutions. You can blame the Syrians for this, but the Lebanese are also to blame, as Mustapha pointed out in his response to my Naharnet post.

To give you an example, let's look at Jumblatt's latest interview in al-Shiraa. Now this is a man who says he is fiercely opposed to military men becoming officials or interfering in politics:

Hizbullah is the guarantee of national unity and Arabism in the confrontation
with Israel. It is silly to say that operations should be sanctioned by
the cabinet… Hizbullah is part of the military and political defense system.

This is rubbish, of course. Unfortunately, it is also not far from the public Hariri line, though the Harirists often add "disarming Hizbullah is an internal matter."

If we want to resist this alleged Israeli "occupation", then we should either let the army take care of it, or, if we must use another group, strip the resistance group of any political power. You cannot delegate that duty to what is essentially now a political party with a set ideology to transform the country. If that's what the parliament's majority wants, then they should push for a constitutional amendment delegating defense matters to a militia. Of course they would never do that, and Hizbullah would never agree, because that would force them to give up political power in the absence of a supportive clerical regime. In fact, Hizbullah derives its legitimacy from its fight against Israel—any resolution of the Arab Israeli conflict, including a deal with Syria, would threaten Hizbullah's political force in Lebanon.

Because a militia is allowed to freely roam the political scene, Hizbullah can bully and veto anything they want. Nobody dares run against them in elections. Everybody, from Aoun to Jumblatt and Hariri seek their approvals on everything. This is democracy? No political party now can even entertain the idea of openly opposing them without looking like traitors. Hizbullah, in fact, has more political freedom than all other groups in Lebanon. They can criticize whomever they want, but nobody dares criticize them because they are the "resistance." They are on the road to becoming Lebanon's Basij, half powered by other countries, and half by an ideology that seeks to install an alien order in Lebanon. And the Lebanese "leaders" are helping them become it.

Hizbullah is also destroying the Shia community in Lebanon. Nabih Berri is utterly useless. The community needs new faces, but that won't happen with the current system allowing Hizbullah to be a seperate "state and army" within a state with no effective army.

Naharnet must apologize to its readers

2005-12-02T07:36:00.000-05:00

Naharnet has hit another low. Somebody must altert An-Nahar about their English language publication's unprofessionalism and increasingly sectarian tone. Something like the following would never be published in an-Nahar, or any other professional publication:

Shiites Seemingly Fighting a Lost Cause for Syria in Lebanon

A showdown seems inevitable between the Shiite community and the rest of Lebanon over how to try ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassins. The five Shiite cabinet ministers in Premier Saniora's government have openly threatened to resign if the Premier insists on pushing for an international tribunal to try Hariri's suspected killers.…

Spokesman for Saad Hariri's Future Tide bloc, which is the single biggest in parliament and which represents the overwhelming majority of the Sunni Muslim sect, have made it plain their leader would never budge an inch in seeking to bring his father's assassins to justice before an international court. Lebanese Forces executive chief Samir Geagea also supports an international tribunal as well as the Qornet Shahwan coalition of center right Christian politicians.

General Aoun said in a newspaper interview published Friday that he prefers a mixed Lebanese-international tribunal to handle the trial of Hariri's assassins outside Lebanon.

All this goes to show that desperation of the Shiite community in seeking to get President Assad off Hariri's assassination hook represents a very small minority population-wise and parliament-wise.

Ok, I know plenty of Shias who are against Hizbullah's and Amal's pathetic stance. Although we seldom hear their voices, it is a gross exaggeration to claim the "desperate" Shia community is seeking to get Assad off the hook. Whether this is a case of bad writing or not, it's utterly disgraceful and unethical to publish those words. It's lousy journalism. They are misrepresenting an entire sect. It's against the spirit of Lebanon which they claim to defend.

Naharnet must retract this article and issue an apology and clarification as soon as possible. This is totally unacceptable. Shame.

Pessimistic take

2005-12-01T20:47:00.000-05:00

The situation might be a lot worse than we thought. Syria is reportedly preparing to stir things up in Lebanon in response to the inevitable arrest of some of its officials in Vienna. With Lebanon set to issue arrest warrants against the Syrian suspects upon the recommendation of the Hariri commission, the Syrians will find themselves "humiliated" and their standing as a major player in the region further weakened. Damascus has been struggling to regain its prestige in the region following the damage of the last few months through a series of unsuccessful televised attempts to discredit and derail the UN investigation. These attempts might prove successful (to some weak minds) in the short term but will not provide the Syrian regime with a way out of their rut.

Al-Seyassah Friday quoted a diplomat in New York as saying that the Algerian representative at the Security Council is pessimistic about the repercussions on the “Lebanese internal situation” should Mehlis recommend the arrest of the five suspects. The diplomat quoted “colleagues” at the UN Security Council as saying that Syria has been openly paving the way for the situation in Lebanon to explode, as evidenced by Bashar’s war declaration and threat to spread chaos from Lebanon and Syria to the entire region. This threat was repeated by Husam in his press conference Monday, when he warned that any indictment of Syria will be the spark that will “detonate the security and stability” of the entire Middle East region (Read the short article on Husam on the page I linked to. Note how it says he worked for the Syria army's tenth division in Lebanon. The same division that he said brought the white Mitsubishi van into Lebanon.)

The diplomats took notice of a recent speech by Assem Qanso (link anybody?), the chief of the Baath party in Lebanon, which predicted an imminent war in Lebanon at a time security forces found a booby-trapped-ready car with forged license plate and engine identification number in his apartment building. Citing Lebanese sources, the article accuses Qanso of running training camps for militants in Lebanon and preparing for an armed conflict. (Qanso might want to know that Assef Shawkat and co. are smuggling their dollars out of Syria, another demonstration of patriotism and evidence of the plot against Syrian regime innocence!)

This reading of the situation is consistent with what Jumblatt told al-Shiraa weekly on Thursday. He warned that the Syrian regime has weakened itself internally and might resort to following-up the Husam comedy “with something that is being put together in Lebanon”. He urged the purging of remaining “Ghazaleh mercenaries” in the Lebanese security forces.

The above is unfortunately consistent with an older post about Syria's plan of attack. The same source I used for that post, al-Watan al-Arabi, is today talking about a Hizbullah plan for a military coup in Lebanon. It's far fetched, I think, but who knows. I am only trying to present all the different possibilities so we're all aware.

Update: Read Jumblatt's full interview in Arabic here.

Syrian smear campaign, episode II: Saad supporting terrorists in Syria

2005-12-01T14:31:00.000-05:00

Days after it accused Saad Hariri of killing his own father and torturing a Syrian intelligence officer into blaming Syria, the Syrian regime will now accuse him of supporting an Islamist group to "carry out terrorist acts" in Syria, Cham Press reported today, adding that Syrian television will soon broadcast another "fresh surprise" confirming Saad's role in destabilizing Syria:

This time will be a full confession of the extremist Islamic group who were preparing to carry out terrorist acts in Syria with a support by the same chairman of the Lebanese front (Al-Mustaqbal Block) which tempted Hussam to give testimony against Syria before the International Investigation Committee.

"Reliable Syrian sources" told Cham Press that "Damascus has eventually understood the game in the region in this period. So it entered the game and [is] playing with the same method its opponents play in the region. At any rate... Syria ... succeeded to make a shock in the region and imposed itself as a major player in any game." (Bad English, but you get the gist)

Apparently, Syrian television has been sitting on "confessions" by these Islamists for quite some time, and will air them soon.

So here's the Syrian regime's modus operandi: they accuse people of doing what they do best. They say writers should write about what they know—well, desperate Syrian officials tap into their own repertoire of crimes in waging their propaganda war.

Pretty soon, this organization that Saad is funding will turn out to be the same one that claimed the Hariri assassination. Or better, some high-ranking Syrian official will be eliminated by this fictitious group. Or worse, what Jumblatt has claimed: that Syrians are preparing more terrorist attacks in Lebanon, possibly in coordination with Lahoud and the remnants of his security regime.

Coinciding with this, Damascus is "testing its air raid sirens for the first time in years, as though preparing for an invasion," Michael J. Totten reports on his blog, quoting a friend who lives in Syria. Fear tactics? What's being cooked?

Mehlis commission: the investigation was not hurt

2005-11-30T19:33:00.000-05:00

Following the false impressions that the Husam news conference and his televised testimony left regarding the progress and credibility of the Hariri investigation, the UN inquiry held a briefing Wednesday for a select group of journalists that seems to confirm what I stated in a previous post about the investigation not being dependent on the testimonies of one or two witnesses.

The briefing Wednesday left the journalists with the clear impression that the Houssam news conference, and the recent press stories that seem to discredit another important witness, the Syrian national Mohammad Zuheir al-Siddiq, have not hurt the investigation. This is mainly because the work to date has relied on a wide range of leads and information gleaned from material evidence and human testimony, and does not rest on the testimony of one or two main witnesses.

The experienced investigators on the case from a dozen countries, who have dealt with such issues in previous probes, tend to place more credence in signed statements which carry legal ramifications for perjury than in televised news conferences. They do not necessarily plan to re-evaluate Houssam's testimony as of now in view of his televised news conference, but they routinely question witnesses again to seek clarifications on their statements in the light of new information that regularly flows from the investigation.

They indicate that while they always have doubts about any statements by witnesses, they have no basis to believe that what Houssam said in Syria is true, and rather have the impression that his public statement was fabricated, for reasons they would not speculate on. The Mehlis team has no indication, and does not believe that Houssam was planted or acted as a double agent. They also seem perplexed that the Syrian commission has not questioned him yet.

The ultimate veracity of Siddiq's and Houssam's various sworn and public statements will be determined by a judge or judges in a court of law when the investigation is completed and the trials of the accused are held. The UN investigators also indicate they have no information that Siddiq has withdrawn any of his sworn statements or information.

The briefing also validates another one of my conclusions, which is that "in view of the stark
contradictions between houssam's news conference and his sworn and signed statement under oath to the UN investigators, is that the testimony he gave to the UN team is the more reliable and accurate of the two."

On what this says about the method by which Syria says it is cooperating:

The impression one gets from discussions here and with UN officials in New York is that the Syrian government is pursuing a two-track strategy of making statements and accusations in public that aim to discredit the Mehlis effort, while being somewhat more cooperative in private interactions with the probe. This was also the tone of Syrian President Bashar Assad's speech at Damascus University last month, when he strongly attacked the UN investigation, the U.S., Lebanon and others, but also said that Syria would cooperate with the investigation as required by the UN Security Council.

Read it in full here.

Meanwhile, here's Michael Young on why Mehlis should be given six more months:

Six more months would make Russia and China more amenable to sanctions in the event Syria repeatedly fails to meet or contests Mehlis' conditions. This might also isolate Assad further in the Arab world, where it is already difficult enough to cover for the Syrian president's transparent bad faith in cooperating with the UN. At the end of the day, grotesque episodes like the Houssam news conference show the Syrians have much to hide. It may be comical, but the last laugh will probably be on them.

Finally, with everybody spelling Husam "Houssam", I suppose it's my turn to bow to the majority and use that spelling from now on.

The Husam miniseries, part deux: Tharwat calls back

2005-11-30T14:33:00.000-05:00

In his second press conference this week, Husam, the masked witness who recanted, said through his lawyer today that his Lebanon-based fiancée, Tharwat al-Hujeiri, and her family, are being pressured to discredit him in the media. He said that the same Lebanese parties that threatened and pressured him are pressuring his fiancée (whose name means fortune in Arabic) and her family through the "temptation of money and gifts."

To elucidate matters, my evil anti-Syrian head decided to dramatize a phone conversation that allegedly took place between Husam and Tharwat, whose engagement, Elaph claims, was facilitated by Rustom Ghazali, the former Syrian ruler of Lebanon. The phone conversation, a distraught Husam said today, prompted this press conference.

Tharwat calls back

Tharwat: Aloh? Husam? Shlonak Habibi?

Husam: Who are you?

Tharwat: I am Tharwat, the love of your life, apple of your eyes. Remember me? Rustom brought us together. Have you seen him? Is he going to Vienna with you?

Husam: Hmmmm. Why do you ask? Who have you been talking to?

Tharwat: Husam habibi, come back to me. Where is that picture you promised me with Saad?

Husam: Are you alone? Who gave you this number?

Tharwat: Husam—why did you change your mind habibi? What happened to our planned trip to Paris? You said we were going ten days ago but you went to your village instead. And now you are in Damascus!

Husam: I am going to hang up now.

Tharwat: Hushus! Are you leaving me for Rustom? OK.. never mind… I don't want to go to Paris anymore, Saad doesn't care about us! I told you that but didn't believe me!

Husam: Did somebody put you up to this?

Tharwat: Hashusak shoo sexy you looked! Was that the Armani suit that Rustom "bought" you from Aishti last year? I miss you Hushus. I miss our trips along the St George, even though you stopped taking me there after Rustom blew up Abu Evil Hariri. Aloooooooo? You still there?

Husam: Are they pressuring you? Are they giving you cars and jewelry and tempting you with money?

Tharwat: What are you talking about, Hushus. No more jewelry since Rustom left. Sigh. Those were the days. How I miss our chats and the special injections you said made me look like those girls in Maameltein. By the way, I ran out. Where can I find more? And can I have that car you talked about on television?

Husam: I will do something about this. Don't say anything to anyone.

Tharwat: Don't say what?

Husam: Rustom and Assef warned me that they will get to you. Did you see my press conference today? I pre-empted it!

Tharwat: You had another one today? Where?

Husam: At the Meridien Hotel.

Tharwat: Isn't that where you told me Assafsaf and Rustom planned the explosion? You said you would take me there and show me…

Husam hangs up.

Meanwhile, a source at the Syrian foreign ministry said this today: (AFP)

Syria is continuing a complete cooperation with the commission of inquiry but wishes that this is done far from the eyes of the media.

Riiight!

Syrian witness stunt part of smear campaign

2005-11-29T17:49:00.000-05:00

In another effort to discredit the investigation, the Syrian regime, still stuck at Mehlis’ interim report, has been waging a crusade to undermine the witnesses mentioned in the report. Unfortunately for the regime, the investigation has moved beyond the interim report and this latest stunt will not derail it. The suspects are on the way to Vienna and we still have a long way to go.

Having said that, here’s another examination of Husam Husam’s contribution to the campaign to discredit the UN investigation and all Lebanese opposed to Syria.

Marketing the retraction

For someone so patriotic and concerned about his country, Husam, who says he works for Syrian intelligence, had plenty of opportunities to flee or publicly expose the Hariri family for their alleged forgeries. But he didn’t. He didn’t because he didn’t want to. Real patriotic agents do not talk like Husam did. They serve their country and sacrifice their lives for it. They do not crack after a few injections and minor threats (Do you call that torture?). He would have been more useful to Syria if he had actually gained the confidence of those he claims pressured him: the Hariris and their supporters. A true Syrian hero would have served Syria differently if he truly had that kind of access.

He recanted after he discovered he is better off running back to his original masters than milking a dead cow. Husam was broke. Like many Syrian agents in Lebanon, he got used to an opulent lifestyle (in the press conference, he was by far the best dressed person in the room). When the Mehlis report came out, he realized his mistake. He was destined for poverty. Like the agents before him, he thought he could go to Hariri and get some money. But Rafik is no longer giving out payments. And Saad is not his father. Husam naturally tried al-Mustaqbal, but they were under strict orders not to interfere. The Hariri family stood to lose big time if word got out they manipulated witnesses. His identity was probably leaked to the Syrians, who are out to discredit Mehlis’ witnesses.

His about-face was late but suited the Syrian regime, which still had to figure out how to present his retraction without stupidly re-incriminating itself. What they did made the witness sound credible to them and their sympathizers, but many Lebanese who are used to the regime’s ways saw right through this laughable attempt.

In order to make his story seem believable, Lebanon was painted to look like its oppressed neighbor: A family is controlling its affairs, and journalists act as advisors to the rulers and government propagandists. For Husam’s story to work and sound credible, Fares Khashan had to be elevated to the status of premier advisor to the son who betrayed his father, assisted by a group of foreign intelligence figures and local ministers who take orders from a corrupt Godfather-like Saad Hariri. There is nothing new here that the Syrian newspapers haven’t already claimed about Hariri and his media. I wonder if Husam had managed to feed them those incredibly similar details about how Saad killed his father while in alleged captivity, in between interviews and forced testimonies!

People who view things through the Syrian prism will find Husam’s accusations credible. Unfortunately for them, Lebanon does not work that way, and if the Hariri family was that powerful, the country would not be where it is now. The new Lebanese government does not operate in the same way the pro-Syrian one did. They are not perfect, but making Saad appear like a Ghazali-type figure only serves to make Husam’s retraction credible in the eyes of those willing to believe in anti-Syrian conspiracies. And you can say whatever you want about the international investigation, but you cannot accuse it of not being professional. Everybody, including the Syrians and the Lebanese who were questioned by it, testified to its professionalism. The claim that Khashan was in the room controlling the recording device is an outright lie. Do you really think the United Nations will copy the Syrian intelligence interrogation methods? This is what Husam and Assef Shawkat want us to believe. We won’t.

The testimony

I think it's important to examine the importance of this testimony to the investigation and whether recanting it will damage its progress. The following is from the Mehlis report.

One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, senior Lebanese and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. He claimed that a senior Lebanese security official went several times to Syria to plan the crime, meeting once at the Meridian Hotel in Damascus and several times at the Presidential Place and the office of a senior Syrian security official. The last meeting was held in the house of the same senior Syrian security official approximately seven to 10 days before the assassination and included another senior Lebanese security official. The witness had close contact with high ranked Syrian officers posted in Lebanon.

How did Mehlis use the above information? Here’s the conclusion to this part of the report, which is based on the above plus numerous other elements from other testimonies and phone records.

There is probable cause to believe that the decision to assassinate former Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security official and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services.

Mehlis did not say “the decision was taken at the Meridien Hotel in Damascus.” He said the decision to kill Hariri needed the approval of Syria. Nothing here suggests that if you deleted that part of the testimony, you could not conclude the same based on other findings in the report.

At the beginning of January 2005, one of the high ranked officers told the witness that Rafik Hariri was a big problem to Syria. Approximately a month later the officer told the witness that there soon would be an “earthquake” that would re-write the history of Lebanon.

Nothing exclusive here either. It was practically common knowledge that the Syrians viewed Hariri as a big problem.

The witness visited several Syrian military bases in Lebanon. At one such base, in Hammana, he observed a white Mitsubishi van, with a white tarpaulin over the flatbed. The observations were made on 11, 12 and 13 February 2005. The Mitsubishi left the Military base in Hammana on the morning of 14 February 2005. The Mitsubishi Canter van, which was used as the bomb carrier, entered Lebanon from Syria through the Bekaa border and a military hot lane on 21 January 2005, at 1320 hrs. It was driven by a Syrian Colonel from the Army Tenth Division.

The details about the van used in the explosion seem logical, considering it was stolen in Japan and had no other way of entering Lebanon unrecorded except through a military hot lane or one of the smuggling routes on the Syrian border. All points to Syria anyway.

On 13 February 2005, the witness drove one of the Syrian officers to the St. George area in Beirut on a reconnaissance exercise, as he subsequently understood it to have been after the assassination took place.

Regarding Mr. Abu Adass, the witness has stated that he played no role in the crime except as a decoy. He was detained in Syria and forced at gunpoint to record the video tape. Subsequently, he was killed in Syria. The videotape was sent to Beirut on the morning of 14 February 2005, and handed over to Jamil Al Sayyed. A civilian with a criminal record and an officer from the Sûreté Générale were tasked with putting the tape somewhere in Hamra and then calling Ghassan Ben Jeddo, an Al-Jazeera TV reporter.

General Jamil Al-Sayyed, according to the witness, cooperated closely with General Mustapha Hamdan and General Raymond Azar in the preparation of the assassination of Mr. Hariri. He also coordinated with General Ghazali (and, among others, people from Mr. Ahmad Jibreel in Lebanon). General Hamdan and General Azar provided logistical support, providing money, telephones, cars, walkie-talkies, pagers, weapons, ID-cards etc. Those who knew of the crime in advance were among others, Nasser Kandil and General Ali Al-Hajj.

Considering Sayyed had to be reminded by al-Jazeera to send someone to pick up the tape a day after the explosion, I find this information believable. The telephone records and the later attempt by the pro-Syrian Lebanese officials to tamper with evidence lead us to believe that the above is passable information. The Abu Adass stuff is not incredible to believe either. The report established elsewhere and independently of Husam’s testimony that “much of the information surrounding Mr. Abu Adass and his disappearance points to Syria."

Again, Mehlis did not exclusively rely on the above information to reach his conclusion. He did not confuse Husam with God. The testimony does not sound unbelievable though the details would need to corroborated.

For that, the UN team has always maintained that it needs Syrian cooperation to clarify the exact role of the Syrian officials. Let’s review this very important paragraph from the report:

It is the Commission’s conclusion that, after having interviewed witnesses and suspects in the Syrian Arab Republic and establishing that many leads point directly towards Syrian security officials as being involved with the assassination, it is incumbent upon Syria to clarify a considerable part of the unresolved questions. While the Syrian authorities, after initial hesitation, have cooperated to a limited degree with the Commission, several interviewees tried to mislead the investigation by giving false or inaccurate statements. The letter addressed to the Commission by the Foreign Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic proved to contain false information. The full picture of the assassination can only be reached through an extensive and credible investigation that would be conducted in an open and transparent manner to the full satisfaction of international scrutiny.

Who is providing false information here? Who is trying to mislead the investigation? The ball has been in Syria’s court to prove its innocence and clarify the nature of its involvement for a long time now. Instead of presenting that evidence, they set up a committee to investigate not the murder, but the work of an international commission with a mandate from the UNSC. That they chose to do that and resort to a silly and unbelievable retraction makes them look more guilty.

In short, what the Syrian regime did was discredit a witness, but ironically not his original story, and certainly not the investigation. This whole episode is nothing but another chapter in the smear campaign against Lebanon. Mehlis has his leads and he is following them. Don’t expect this stunt to derail the investigation. Mehlis is not a rookie, and he does not work by Syrian intelligence rules.

Update: See Khashan's response in al-Mustaqbal (Arabic). Fares said he met Husam two months ago after the latter left a message with the Future TV operator requesting a meeting with the reporter regarding an "important matter that has to do with the masked witness." Husam asked for two things: a television interview and a meeting with Saad Hariri. His reason for the first was to have something on tape in case he is harmed by the Syrian intelligence. Future TV turned him down. The second request he made during the "few visits" he made to Khashan's office. “I used to laugh at the request and he would respond saying he didn’t want any money and that he only wanted a picture with Saad to show his fiancée.” Khashan said he first heard the name of the Syrian officers from Husam, adding that he “will not repeat what he told me about them to spare him their wrath”. Khashan said he will provide the UN team, the Lebanese authorities and the Syrian commission with all the documented evidence he has regarding this matter.

Syrian witness reveals shocking truth

2005-11-28T07:49:00.001-05:00

In what will soon become the farce of the century, the Syrian military intelligence showed its idiotic face Sunday by airing more than an hour-long "confession" by somebody claiming to be Mehlis’s masked witness. Husam Taher Husam, a Syrian Kurd, recanted his alleged testimony and claimed he was coached and/or bullied by more than a dozen people including:

Saad Hariri with two English speaking "friends", Marwan Hamade, Walid Jumblatt, An-Nahar’s Gibran Tueni, al-Moustaqbal’s Fares Khashan, LBC's May Chidiac, the French ambassador, Hassan Sabaa (Lebanon’s interior minister), Ghattas Khoury, and of course the UN commission headed by Detlev Mehlis whose car apparently is no match to Husam’s donkey in his village (the commission allegedly gave him a car that he left at the border while escaping. Of course, he also says he tried to escape prison three times. Have you ever hard of a prisoner who is given a car to roam freely OUTSIDE the prison?).

Saad Hariri and Fares Khashan allegedly coached him, with the former offering him through his advisors more than $1.3 million “that were placed on Sabaa’s table.” Husam offered his apologies to the Lebanese security officials for testifying against them, claiming he made the confession under torture (they injected him with needles, which never stopped him from arguing back at his captors and then roaming Lebanon freely in his car.. but wait, he was in prison!) The killers of Hariri, he said, are his inheritors.

And then he reveals the earth-shattering truth: it’s all a Lebanese-French-American conspiracy against “Syria, Iran and Hizbullah.”

The televised confession tried to cater to an increasingly weary Syrian population by including statements like the following: "they were under the impression that the kurds were against Syria but they didn't know that we are Syrians."

Interestingly, all this allegedly happened without Mehlis's knowledge. "I felt he had no relation to anything or knew anything," Husam said. I guess Assef and Maher don't want to get on Mehlis's bad side yet, so they picked easier targets: the Lebanese, US and France!

I will spare you the rest of this nonsense. Read more here, here and here.

As I said in my previous post, the Syrian regime is in its last throes. The only way from here is down.

Update: Read the full transcript here. (Arabic)

The five Syrians and the myth of guarantees

2005-11-27T18:32:00.000-05:00

Much has been said about a so called agreement between Mehlis and the Syrian regime on the fate of the five Syrian suspects, with many claiming that Russia stepped in and offered “guarantees” that the five would return to Syria.

Mouallem on Friday (25 November) said that the UN gave Syria "guarantees concerning the rights of the individuals" to be questioned and "reassurances" that its sovereignty would be respected. He added that they will travel to Vienna with their lawyers and “they will return to Syria,” as part of the guarantees that Syria received from a Security Council member state.

Lebanon’s As-Safir on Saturday made the anticipated return part of its first page headline:

ضمان لدمشق بعودتهم إليها وواشنطن وأنان يرحبان والأسد يتلقى اتصالاً من بوتين تسوية مع ميليس: استجواب 5 مسؤولين سوريين في فيينا

In English:

Damascus receives guarantee for their return…. A compromise with Mehlis: 5 Syrian officials to be interrogated in Vienna

Here is an excerpt from the article in Arabic:

وأوضح المعلم أن هذه الموافقة جاءت <<في ضوء التطمينات التي تم نقلها إلى سوريا والتي جاءت متفقة مع ما سعت إليه سوريا من ضمانات تحترم السيادة الوطنية وحقوق الأفراد وبعدما درست القيادة نتائج اجتماع المستشار القانوني لوزارة الخارجية مع السيد ميليس في برشلونة في 18 الحالي واطلعت على النقاط التي تم الاتفاق عليها بينه وبين السيد ميليس وخاصة في ما يتعلق بضمانات حقوق الأفراد>>. وأضاف <<بعد حصولنا على التطمينات اللازمة التي تتفق مع ما طالبت به سوريا لم يعد هناك سوى أن نتعاون>>. وأشار المعلم إلى أن محامياً سيذهب مع كل شخص من الأشخاص الخمسة إلى فيينا وأنهم سيعودون إلى دمشق بعد الانتهاء من المقابلات كجزء من الضمانات التي حصلت عليها سوريا من ميليس نفسه ومن <<مصدر دولي هام>> عضو في مجلس الأمن الدولي. لكنه رفض الإجابة عن سؤال حول موقف سوريا في حالة إصدار مذكرات توقيف بحقهم. وقال إن <<الإجابة الافتراضية عن سؤال افتراضي ستكون خطأ>>.

In addition to what was mentioned above regarding their promised return, Mouallem here is asked about Syria’s position if arrest warrants were issued against the suspects. Syria's deputy foreign minister refuses to answer, arguing that a “hypothetical question” will lead to a wrong “hypothetical answer”. He also rules out an arrest on grounds that Mehlis has no authority to order anybody’s arrest.

Now, can a UNSC member state (identified as Russia) really promise the return of five murder suspects? Let me ask this differently, do such guarantees exist? Look at this Cham Press article:

لكن مصدرا مطلعا في الأمم المتحدة قال إن ميليس رفض التوقيع على بروتوكول التعاون المقترح مع اللجنة القضائية السورية، مضيفا أن الضمانات التي يتحدث السوريون عنها «لا معنى» لها، لأنه ليس من صلاحيات ميليس اصدار مذكرات توقيف بالمشتبه فيهم، في جريمة اغتيال الحريري. وقال المصدر: «بما أن ميليس أو لجنة التحقيق لا يتمتعان بصلاحية اعتقال أي شخص، فلا حاجة لإعطاء أي ضمانات» للسلطات السورية في هذا الاطار. ولفت المسؤول في الأمم المتحدة، الذي اشترط عدم ذكر اسمه، الى أن «المسألة المهمة في هذا الموضوع، هو أن السوريين تلقوا ضمانات من عضو بارز في مجلس الأمن»، يُعتقد أنها روسيا، وأن «الضمانات التي تلقاها السوريون، هي نفس الضمانات التي قدمها هذا العضو البارز في المجلس». وأضاف المصدر أن «المسألة لم تعد موضع نقاش بعدما أعلن السوريون عن تعاونهم، ووافقوا على اجراء الاستجواب في فيينا»، مشيراً الى أن «الأمور باتت تسير قدماً».

In English:

An informed source at the UN said Mehlis refused to sign the cooperation protocol, adding that these guarantees that the Syrians talk about are meaningless since Mehlis does not have the authority to issue arrest warrants… there is no need then to give any guarantees.

The unnamed UN official is quoted as saying "the guarantees presented to the Syrians are the same ones presented in the security council. " Conclude from this that the guarantees have nothing to do with the return of the officials. In fact they are assurances and not guarantees. Russia probably reassured Bashar that there won’t be economic sanctions.

The Saudis seem to confirm that such guarantees do not exist:

One diplomat said last week Saudi Arabia was playing an "active and constructive" role in finding a face-saving formula for Syria to allow the questioning to take place, without meeting its demand for a prior legal deal. "Abdullah was very clear that those who were responsible must be brought to justice, and that that is non-negotiable," the diplomat said.

So the request for such guarantees was actually dropped after it turned out it was nothing but a delay tactic. (With Mouallem himself confirming that Mehlis has no authority to arrest anyone, why was Syria asking Mehlis for something they knew he cannot deliver? Now, if Syria really wanted guarantees, it should have asked not Mehlis, but the Lebanese authorities, who actually CAN issue arrest warrants. As far as I know, nobody has requested this from the Lebanese authorities.)

In conclusion, there are no such guarantees and there were never any that could be offered. Syria has finally caved in to international pressure. With the Syrian pound already suffering, Bashar really had no other choice but to agree to hand over the suspects for questioning.

Kuwait's al-Seyassah on Monday claimed (article continues here) something along those lines. It said that Bahjat Suleiman, who is identified as one of the five, is prepared to tell all if asked about the regime’s role in orchestrating the killing of Hariri. Bahjat, it is believed, is bitter about his marginalization by Assef Shawkat, who might not accompany the lot. Al-Seyassah adds that the Syrian regime did not receive any guarantees from anyone and that what happened is forced compliance with Mehlis’s demands after the latter's ultimatum. Although the Kuwaiti paper said Mehlis could ask Interpol to arrest whomever he deems suspect, I think Mehlis will leave it to the Lebanese judiciary to issue such a warrant, which is likely considering that the role of the UN commission, may I remind everyone, is to assist the Lebanese investigation.

So the Syrian claim of victory is nonsense. I mean when was the last time the Syrian regime willingly offered 5 of its security and military intelligence officials for questioning in a murder case that occurred outside its territory? Syria has just admitted its guilt because it has no other choice. The failure of Hizbullah’s operation’s last week meant the crumbling regime could no longer rely on playing its Lebanese cards (read al-Seyassah's Sunday edition on this. Here and here.). The regime is constantly being outsmarted by the Lebanese government and the international community.

The Syrian regime is gradually losing its own guarantees for survival. Not even a "confession" by a "false witness" can save it now (Syrian television on Sunday aired the "confession" of one the witnesses mentioned in the Mehlis interim report. The witness recanted his testimony, according to Cham Press. I have not seen the confession but I am sure we will read about it soon.)

Hafez and the 400 agents

2005-11-25T13:49:00.000-05:00

It took two events for Syria to allow Mehlis to interrogate Syrian suspects in the Hariri murder.

The first involved a threat by Mehlis to refer Syria to the Security Council next week if the regime doesn’t quit devising stupid delay tactics.

The second involved Hafez al-Assad, who has made a comeback.

Read on.

In a surprise announcement Friday, Deputy foreign minister Walid al-Moualem told a news conference that "the Syrian leadership has agreed to ... [Mehlis's] compromise proposal on holding the interviews of the five Syrian persons at the U.N. headquarters in Vienna."

Moualem said Syria received "guarantees on the right of the individuals, who will be accompanied by legal representatives, and on the respect of Syria's sovereignty." The unnamed five will return to Damascus after the interviews, he added. No word yet on whether Assef Shawkat will be among the chosen few.

The announcement comes a day after Moualem's boss, Farouk al-Sharaa, lashed out at Detlev Mehlis for allegedly refusing to sign a "cooperation protocol" over the questioning of six Syrian suspects. Sharaa said Mehlis's rejection of the Golan Heights as a venue for questioning raises doubts among Syrian leaders over his motives, adding that the German investigator's refusing to sign a cooperation protocol means "the commission is refusing to cooperate with Syria."

Sharaa left us on Thursday saying there was still "hope for the signing of a protocol" as sought by Damascus. But,

"if a country has asked Mr Mehlis not to cooperate with Syria, that is another matter," the foreign minister said, referring to Washington. "Syria is being unjustly targeted."

Right.

So this "protocol" that Mehlis "unjustly" rejected demanded that the questioned individuals not be arrested, among other ridiculous demands. The mere idea of a protocol between Mehlis and the Syrian regime is, in fact, a violation of UN Security Council resolution 1636 which demands full and unconditional cooperation with the commission. In any case, no legal authority anywhere in the world would agree to sign such a protocol prior to interrogating murder suspects.

Mehlis, tired of the Syrian regime's delay tactics and constant twisting of logic, reportedly threatened to refer Syria's helpless maneuvering to the security council for some disciplinary action.

Around the same time, God decided he had had it, especially after Sharaa's comments yesterday. In an unprecedented move that will not be recorded in any religious book (most major religions stopped redacting religious texts), God released Hafez al-Assad from hell to talk some sense into his son:

جاء ذلك بعد أن ترأس الرئيس السوري حافظ الأسد اليوم اجتماعا للجبهة الوطنية التقدمية – التي تضم عددا من الأحزاب السورية على رأسها حزب البعث الحاكم - لبحث قضية التعامل مع لجنة التحقيق الدولية .
وقالت وكالة الأنباء السورية الرسمية "سانا" إن القيادة المركزية للجبهة تدارست الأوضاع السياسية الراهنة والأوضاع على الساحات العربية والإقليمية والدولية" واستعرضت "التعاون السوري مع لجنة التحقيق الدولية".

In English, the first line of the above text reads: "This came after President Hafez al-Assad presided over a meeting of the national progressive front..."

To be fair to al-Jazeera, the mistake was AFP's and not theirs. But their editors missed it, which prompted my imagination to create the following ironic and surreal scenario:

Hafez: "You killed Rafik? Who built your palace? You shame me. Hand the bastards over", Hafez told Bashar. "I should have listened to your brother when he told me Assef is bad news," Hafez said.

While you ponder the absurdity of this situation, which pits a dead dictator against a failed one, I leave you with a tale called "400 agents" by the author of "Saad Hariri killed his father." The translation is courtesy of AFP, God's official agency.

Over 400 agents from Israel's spy agency Mossad are in Lebanon, Syria's official Ath-Thawra newspaper charged Thursday, the latest volley in a increasingly vitriolic war of words with Lebanon's new leaders. "You have to recognise the danger of having more than 400 men from Israel's Mossad in Lebanon who are working with the other (Lebanese) agents who once supported the Zionist enemyand its militias," wrote editor Fayez Sayegh.
"These agents are encircling Lebanon like a belt that will explode when Israel and its strategic ally the United States have decided," he said, charging that there was also an increasing number of agents from the CIA and European states in the country.
"All these agents came to Lebanon... to sow dissent, revive hatred, reinforce pressure on Lebanon and Syria and above all spy on national forces, the Lebanese resistance and Palestinians," said the paper.

UPDATE. It's on Elaph too! Hafez lives and is presiding over meetings in Syria!

ترأس الرئيس السوري حافظ الاسد اليوم اجتماعا للجبهة الوطنية التقدمية لبحث "التعاون السوري مع لجنة التحقيق الدولية" في اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني السابق رفيق الحريري كما افادت وكالة الانباء السورية الرسمية سانا.

Hizbullah and Israel meet in arrogance

2005-11-23T13:23:00.000-05:00

Hizbullah and the Israeli war machine have a lot in common. Both believe that war is peace, and both arrogantly dictate the lives of people under their mercy. And they both are trying to kill whatever is left of Lebanese sovereignty.

Starting with Hizbullah, their latest unilateral attempt to “protect Lebanon” by kidnapping Israeli soldiers began by “firing in every direction.”

...shortly after 3 P.M. on Monday, Hezbollah fighters indeed broke into the village, firing in all directions. Some ran toward the Israel Defense Forces outpost, but found it empty. Others headed for the entrance to the village, where the house in which Markovich and his comrades were stationed was located.

"Everything around us was shaking," said Markovich, who began his army service just eight months ago. "One of the gang identified a terrorist. I shot him. Then they identified two more. I fired, and then again. The shelling generated a bit of pressure, but we functioned well. A comrade said, `There's a terrorist,' and I fired. It's all a matter of seconds, the entire business lasted about a minute." Altogether, Markovich killed four Hezbollah gunmen. But he insisted on sharing the credit with his comrades. "I'm not the hero of the day," he said.

"There were four of us there. One spotted and I shot. It's a team, with a commander. We simply ended up at the center of things ... This is what we train for."

Four young Lebanese men, men who swore allegiance to a cause sullied by their party’s unholy affiliations with murderers and despots, four Lebanese men in the prime of their youth died. WHAT FOR? For this:

IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz noted that it was Hezbollah that requested the cease-fire - a development that he termed "a refreshing change." Moreover, he told reporters during a tour of the northern border, the Lebanese government also asked Israel to halt the fighting. "In so doing, the Lebanese government in effect acknowledged that it bears responsibility for what happens on the northern border," he added.

While Halutz is smugly bragging about his soldiers, Hizbullah was busy lying:

At 2:54 p.m. (1254 GMT), the Islamic Resistance confronted an Israeli force omposed of two military vehicles that had penetrated the Lebanese side of the village of Ghajar. A violent exchange ensued leading to the destruction of the two vehicles, and dead and wounded in enemy ranks, as well as three dead among the resistance fighters.

How can you tell it’s a lie? The Manar TV site refers to it as “operation” and has published a transcript of an Israeli TV broadcast detailing how Hizbullah tried to kidnap soldiers.

Siniora and Saad Hariri, cornered and rendered ineffective by Hizbullah, have issued statements supporting the “resistance”. Saad’s statement came from the safe island of Curacao.

Algeria meanwhile reportedly blocked a UN security council statement that would have called on Lebanon to extend its authority to all Lebanese territories.

The Algerian representative said this makes Hizbullah and the Lebanese government look like they are two separate authorities, while in fact Hizbullah is a legitimate Lebanese party and part of the Lebanese government," he said.

"Basically, what the Algerians said was they needed more time to study the document. And the U.S. representative made it clear they will not accept the statement unless it says that Hizbullah initiated the violence," he said.

To add insult to injury, Israeli warplanes intruded into Lebanese airspace today, dumping anti-Hizbullah leaflets addressed to "Lebanese citizens":

Who is protecting Lebanon, who lies to you? Who throws yours sons into a battle for which they are not prepared? Who wants the return of destruction? Hezbollah brings a strong prejudice to Lebanon. It is an instrument in the hands of its Syrian and Iranian masters. The state of Israel is watching over the protection of its citizens and sovereignty...

Nobody will condemn this or see its arrogance. Not when Hizbullah’s arrogance and danger to Lebanon these days match if not exceed Israel’s perceived danger.

Who lost here apart from the families of those young fighters? We did. The few Lebanese who have been calling for Lebanese sovereignty. Hizbullah started this last round, and Israel came in and put the final touches. Well done.

It’s Hizbullah's way or the Beirut-Damascus highway

2005-11-22T00:00:00.000-05:00

This Independence Day will find Lebanon free of foreign hegemony for the first time in many years. The Syrian ruler left his Umayyad stronghold in the east, releasing the Lebanese from offering their first-borns to the sub-deity of Anjar. Or so everybody thought until Hizbullah’s fireworks on Monday. True to their party-pooper nature, they ruined the celebration before it happened, creating an uproar among the Lebanese who rightfully resent their unilateralism and attachment to supposedly non Lebanese causes (on this, Hizbullah will disagree, for their Lebanon is different from yours and mine).

Many will be looking east again to blame Syria for this escalation. It’s a perfectly understandable thing to do, considering the Syrian threats and whispers about a plan of attack that largely depends on Hizbullah’s role to succeed. But in our rush to blame this on Syria, and even if it’s partly true, we should not overlook the reality of what we have here: a frighteningly radical monster that is on the verge of a de-facto usurpation of power that only one country can stop. Yes, sadly, only one country can stop Hizbullah, and it’s not Iran. It’s Syria. And this reality is being manipulated to the max by the Syrian regime, which is forcing the country to choose between Hizbullah’s way, or theirs.

Hizbullah’s power

The massive Hizbullah demonstration in March sent a powerful message to the then unified opposition: we are here and we are strong. Through this demonstration, Syria was able to make it clear that it still held the most powerful card in Lebanon. There is a powerful logic that must have guided the Syrian regime’s decision to eliminate Rafik Hariri. Lebanon is not the same country it was in 1943. A civil war and the Arab Israeli struggle have turned it into something drastically different from what the fathers of the National Pact wanted it to be. The Christians noticed the change in the 70s, and Cardinal Sfeir sees it today. Today’s Shiites are yesterday’s Maronites. You take out a powerful Sunni figure, you clear the stage for Hizbullah to step in as the only true and capable power in the country. The Syrian gamble was on the weakness of the opposition and its eventual disintegration. (And what do you know, Aoun comes back and along with Jumblatt they polarize the opposition and weaken it.) The inherent contradictions in the Lebanese system, pre and post-Taef and the lack of national cohesion mean that there will never be a strong national force to offset Syrian influence. Add to that the US apparent failure in Iraq and improbability of military strike on Syria, the Syrian planners must have thought they could get away with murder and re-strengthen a weakened regime. The Syrian regime was on its death bed before the Lahoud extension. Believe Bashar when he said the “plot” to take him out started before the Hariri assassination. Don’t believe him though when he says that he didn’t kill Hariri. Killing him gave Syria the chance to play the most dangerous card it has in its arsenal, the Hizbullah card.

Syria knows the power of Hizbullah, which it helped arm and build. Ironically, it was Hariri himself through his media and apparent loyalty to Syria before his falling out with the regime that helped turn Hizbullah into the monster it is today. Beside a few rare occasions when Hizbullah would spitefully ignite the southern front ahead of major business meetings or opportunities for the country, Hariri’s media machine invariably helped market Hizbullah as a national resistance even when Hizbullah’s own media called it Islamic resistance. Hariri “protected” Hizbullah partly out of loyalty to the Arab cause and partly out of obligation to Syria which in turn promised to let him transform the country into the Hong Kong he settled for after the failure of the Arab Israeli peace process.

Hizbullah’s power today is enormous, politically and socially. We would be mistaken to look at it as a mere Syria proxy, I think. Syria needs Hizbullah perhaps more than Hizbullah needs Syria. With Iran finding safe inroads into the threatened and isolated Syrian regime, Hizbullah has Syria by the neck. In the past, Syria under Hafez controlled Hizbullah’s lifeline and managed its activities to some extent. But Syria’s gradual weakening, which is both the result of the deadlock in the peace process and the success of the anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, has made it more dependent on Iran and Hizbullah than ever. A strong Syria is not what Hizbullah needs. A weak Syria that is dependent on Iran is god’s gift to his party.

Hizbullah tacitly went along with the Taef agreement because it knew it had no choice but to play under the Syrian rules. Hafez kept them as a pressure card against the Israelis, whose brutality and uncompromising position led in part to the collapse of the talks. The more the Israelis stalled, the weaker the Syrians became and the more powerful Hizbullah grew.

The third gate

So it would seem that we are being presented with two choices: Hizbullah or Syria. The first means perpetual state of war until Israel is defeated and an Islamic order is inevitable. The second means a return to a Syrian tutelage but with reduced Hizbullah power—an option that requires Lebanon to abandon the Hariri investigation and somehow help re-empower Syria to enable it to put a leash on Hizbullah. This is Syria’s bet. The Syrian regime knows that what Hizbullah represents is anathema to many Lebanese. In many ways, the Party of God is the PLO of this century. Somebody in Syria must think the Lebanese Christians have no choice but to cry “Help Syria” soon.

Naturally, neither choice is acceptable. This isn’t 1975 even if the similarities are there.

Lebanon’s only hope is someone nobody thought would play the role he is playing today: Fouad Siniora. Siniora was a totally unexpected development. Hizbullah will try to destroy him and Bashar has already started the process. Siniora holds the key to the third gate. What can he do? Wrong question. What can WE do?

Happy Independence Day.

The Economist: Lebanon most liberal state in the region

2005-11-18T10:46:00.000-05:00

The Economist on Friday said that "democracy is taking firm root in the Middle East and North Africa" and predicted that Lebanon will re-emerge as the "most sophisticated and liberal Arab state in the region."

Lebanon came second in the the magazine's Index of Political Freedom, which ranked 20 countries based on "assessments by The Economist's Intelligence Unit across 15 indicators. These included transparency, election of parliament and the head of government, corruption, religious freedom, rule of law, political parties, presence of an opposition and judicial independence. "

"The germ of democracy will spread in a number of less violent Arab countries," it said.

"Lebanon, in particular, will continue to shed Syrian influence and will re-emerge as the most sophisticated and liberal Arab state in the region. "

The Palestinian territories and Iraq, "two of the most problematic and volatile places", would take the biggest steps toward democracy in 2006, The Economist predicted. Iraq is due to have elections next month under its new constitution while Palestinians will vote for a new parliament in January. "The Palestinians' election is likely to be the freest and fairest in the Arab world," the magazine reckoned.

Saudi Arabia was ranked at joint 18th, "worryingly, given the world's dependence on its oil supplies," The Economist said, "despite its cautious experiment with municipal elections." Libya (20th) and Syria (joint 18th) were found to have made the least progress. "

Watch this space for more quotes from the actual Economist article. In the meantime, here is the list, courtesy of AFP ("The list shows the countries and areas in descending order of perceived political freedom, with 10 a perfect score.")

1. Israel 8.20
2. Lebanon 6.55
3. Morocco 5.20
4. Iraq 5.05
4. Palestine 5.05
6. Kuwait 4.90
7. Tunisia 4.60
8. Jordan 4.45
8. Qatar 4.45
10. Egypt 4.30
10. Sudan 4.30
10. Yemen 4.30
13. Algeria 4.15
14. Oman 4.00
15. Bahrain 3.85
15. Iran 3.85
17. UAE 3.70
18. Saudi Arabia 2.80
18. Syria 2.80
20. Libya 2.05

Hizbullah the new SLA?

2005-11-15T08:58:00.000-05:00

When the big bad wolf was banished to the lion’s old forgotten farm, the warring dogs of the newly liberated state found that the citizens of their shrunken conflict zone, a handful of sheep and cows that inhabit a grassy hill called Shebaa, had little appreciation for heroism and egotistical freedom-fighting. Their sacrifices, at one time hailed and worshipped by many, risked becoming dust-collecting trophies from a long gone era. Desperate for fresh bounty, the warring dogs turned to the lion in the jungle of failed causes and barked a long painful: now what?

The lion, decrepit and lazy, showed them juicier and nearer legs to bite: their own masters’. So the haplessly hungry dogs of war divided their time between biting legs they once protected from the wolf and chasing their own conspiracy-plated tails.

Hizbullah’s degeneration into a mere Syrian proxy will have some comparing them to their former enemies, the South Lebanon Army, an Israeli proxy militia that ran the security zone on behalf of the Israeli occupation. And while Hizbullah’s soldiers are not running concentration camps, they are holding an entire population hostage to their fallacies and running multiple de-facto security zones in the South, Beirut and the Bekaa. SLA’s torture electrodes are suddenly no different than Hizbullah’s political bullying and intimidation. Doing it from within the system or from outside does not matter anymore, for Hizbullah’s politicians have proven that they are in the cabinet only as guardians of another country’s short-sighted interests and not their own country's.

Take the latest fuel controversy. Has it escaped some that the Hizbullah energy minister is responsible for that file? Have we forgotten the infamous Mr. X conversation when Ghazali sought to “let Hariri be the laughing stock” by unleashing protests and demonstrations against his government? To understand this strategy, look no further than Syria’s Tishreen “newspaper”, which is now predicting a popular uprising in Lebanon that will topple the Siniora government. That paper makes Siniora’s government look like the Vichy government and is projecting a public dissatisfaction with that government that only exists in Bashar’s mind. And the stars of that paper are no other than warmongering Hizbullah and failed politicians such as Zaher al-Khatib and Omar Karame. To Tishreen, these are Lebanese “patriots” with Syria’s best interest in mind! It is ironic that the mouthpiece of a Nazi-like regime is using another country’s freedom of expression to defend the rights of the “deprived” of that country. Go figure!

Can Lebanon leave Syria’s orbit? (updated)

2005-11-13T08:55:00.000-05:00

On my last night in Lebanon, members of Amal and Hizbullah were roaming the streets of Beirut vowing eternal support for Syria and Bashar. Through obnoxiously loud speakers on generic looking cars, they offered their blood and their souls to Bashar, much to the dismay of many of their compatriots.

An LAU student I spoke to on the evening following the LAU student election that saw the Hariri and PSP (Jumblatt) lists defeat an alliance of Aounists, Amal and Hizbullah, relayed an unsettling picture from his small Beirut campus. He said scores of Amal and Hizbullah students gathered to pledge support to Syria’s Assad, who came third after Allah and Muhammad in their loud Ashoura-style chanting. Their style clearly turned the majority of the students off, driving them to vote for the Mustaqbal and Ishtiraki list.

During my short stay in the country, I would hear statements by Hizbullah MPs and officials that are not different from Bashar’s Thursday speech, even if they didn’t resort to name-calling. Mohammad Raad, on one occasion, accused Mehlis of running his report by the Israeli foreign minister before submitting it to Annan. On Saturday morning, at Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International airport, Naim Qassem could be heard on the small television screens near the departure gate loudly promising Bashar that Lebanon would not be a passage for conspiracies against Syria.

Any objective and non-sectarian observer would note that Hizbullah’s talk of saving Lebanon from destruction is at odds with their insistence to keep the country in a state of chaos by allowing fringe Palestinian militants to roam freely in the country practicing offensive self-defense and receiving arms through a loose border with Syria. In Hizbullah’s outdated and destructive rhetoric, Lebanon has only one option: war. Lebanon’s enemy is external and Satan-like in its omnipresence. The only way to confront it is through a military fight. All internal problems are swept under the Syrian rug of resistance. In Hizbullah’s world, the concept of dialog is very much like Syrian cooperation: an exercise in time buying until Providence sends an emissary to nuke Satan. Lebanon’s fate, meanwhile, is made to depend on the fate of a dying regime—a death wish.

I used to think that Hizbullah’s participation in the government was a positive development. But Hizbullah has been using it to bully the cabinet and obstruct any attempt to refocus policies away from a destructive subservience to Syrian ones. Emile Lahoud might be on his political death bed, but Hizbullah and to some extent Amal, have taken over his obstructionist role. Sadly, Hizbullah’s growing influence never translates into work that could benefit their voters in the south and the Bekaa or even the Shia community as a whole. It is safe to say they are using their new power to obstruct and buy time for the cornered Syrian regime, and for themselves. Siniora even had to postpone the international donor's conference because Hizbullah and Amal still view foreign aid as a form of international hegemony.

Citing an American security official, al-Shiraa reported in its 14 November issue that security officials from Hizbullah and Amal continue to hold regular meetings with their Syrian intelligence counterparts in Damascus to coordinate strategies. Hizbullah is also reportedly providing logistical support to Iranian intelligence officers, who are monitoring “the political and security developments” in Lebanon from their headquarters at the Iranian embassy. In countries where rule of law and some degree of healthy patriotism prevail, this amounts to treason.

Meanwhile, Islamists continue to pour into the country from Syria, taking up positions in the refugee camps of Ein el-Helweh and Borj Barajneh and in the north of the country. The word on the street is that it is a matter of time before these groups, funded by Iran and supported by Syria, begin blowing up hotels and other places in Lebanon. Al-Shiraa mentions the “Ansar Allah” group, headed by former Fateh official Jamal Suleiman, as one such group that is training militants in al-Sufsaf in Ein el-Helweh and forming cells in other camps in Tyre and Beirut. The Lebanese weekly also reported that the “al-Da’wa al-Salafiya” group headed by “Abu Ibrahim” is “holding meetings in Tripoli with a group of Pakistani Salafists.”

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports, but they do seem to confirm that Syria’s plan of attack is nearing the implementation phase. If Hizbullah and Amal continue to buy time for Bashar and his group, the country will be plunged into mini conflicts featuring these groups and the Lebanese army. Judging from Bashar’s speech, the Syrian regime is incapable of realizing that such ploys will neither distract the international community nor pressure the Security Council into abandoning the Hariri investigation. After all, what options does a dying star have except collapse under its own gravity and suck everything around itself? It’s Lebanon’s misfortune to have been left in Syria’s orbit for so long.

UPDATE. Al-Mustaqbal claims that Aoun, who finally broke his silence over the Bashar speech, has been sending his son in law and representative Gibran Bassil to Damascus to discuss destabilizing the Siniora government. The Hariri-owned daily said Bassil was in Damascus just days ago. Aoun, al-Mustaqbal argues, had reached a dead end in his quest to become president and is now taking the "non-democratic" Syrian route via alliances with Hizbullah and pro-Syrian groups to reach Baabda.

Patriarch Sfeir, in a significant move Sunday, broke with Aoun by saying that Lahoud has to decide for himself whether “his remaining as head of state serves or harms his post.” The patriarch added that Christians alone cannot select the president and that a consensus similar to the one that led to the withdrawal of the Syrian army is needed to select a new president. (The Daily Star completely missed the significance of Sfeir's comments). With Siniora becoming increasingly popular in Christian circles, even beating Aoun, and the rising popularity of Geagea, I think Sfeir can now more comfortably express his divergence from Aoun's obsessive policies.

Bashar declares war on Lebanon

2005-11-11T14:26:00.000-05:00

Bashar Assad's inflammatory speech Thursday carried an informal war declaration on Siniora's government and is further indication that the Syrian regime is desperately trying to drag Lebanon and the world into a confrontation to shift the focus away from its own domestic and international failings.

Assad began by setting up the anti-Syrian plot scenario. Syrians must understand, he said, that demands for political reform in Syria are part of arrogant and humiliating international pressure on Syria. The flow of terror into Iraq, Assad griped, is due to Iraqi and US lack of cooperation with the regime, not the other way around. Assad's army has neither the technical capability nor the required Iraqi and US cooperation to enable Syria to do something about border infiltration. In his complaint, Syria's president unintentionally acknowledged that terror is in fact being smuggled into Iraq through Syria, and proposed the strange solution of other countries intervening in Syrian security operations to halt terrorism.

After a short obligatory bit on Palestine, Assad, who must feel cornered by Detlev Mehlis and Fouad Siniora, accused the majority of the Lebanese population of delusion, calling their increasingly popular prime minister a slave who follows orders from another slave, who apparently takes orders from the United States.

The ailing president (by his own admission he was recovering from an illness) launched a fierce verbal attack on Saad Hariri and his followers in Lebanon , describing them as ungrateful and lacking morals. Their anti-Syrian stance, he argued, make Rafik Hariri, whom Assad reduced into a pro-Syrian lackey, a traitor.

Assad made it clear that Syria cannot tolerate an independent Lebanon free of exclusively pro-Syrian policies. With the exception of few groups such as Hizbullah, all other groups are apparently working for Israel and have turned Lebanon into a passage way for anti-Syrian conspiracies. He blamed Siniora, the helpless "slave", of allowing Lebanon to become a "factory" of anti-Syrian plots.

As for the Mehlis investigation, Assad said he would humour the international community and "play their game" but only to the extent that Syrian national security allows. This means there will be no handing over of Syrian official and everything we've been hearing in the press appears to be an act of buying time. For Assad already knows the outcome. Syria will be accused of not cooperating and will be found guilty. The Mehlis report, he said, ended any doubt he had of a possible malfunction in the Syrian system that could have led to the murder of Hariri. Now, after reading the report, he is convinced that no Syrian was responsible and that it's all part of a pre-conceived plot to destabilize Syria and punish it for its Arab nationalist stance, and support for the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance.

In his opinion, Syria is faced with two options: resistance or chaos. Resistance is the cheapest of the two alternatives. In an alarmingly threatening tone reminiscent of Ahmadinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map, he warned that the smallest damage to Syria will have dire consequences on the entire region and on "the agents who brought the colonialist".

In what can only be interpreted as a call to mobilize his Lebanese supporters, Assad expressed confidence that Lebanon's salvation will come through historical remembrance and at the hands of the "national forces" that struck down past agreements with Israel and fought the Israeli occupation. He singled out "Tripoli al-Sham" for its "historic stance", forgetting that that city was nearly destroyed by the Syrian army in the 1980s.

Assad's speech was long and some of it was improvised. It was strongly worded, to put it mildly, and yet not surprising given Syria's predicament and the few options the Syrian regime has been given. Assad expressed it best when he said they were being asked to either be killed or commit suicide. He has realized that there is no winning the game in the short run. The "resistance" option could mean dragging Lebanon into military confrontations and further destabilization (more on Syria's plan of attack involving Palestinian factions here). At this stage, he can only offer the semblance of cooperation to buy himself and his regime time. I see his speech as a declaration of war on Lebanon, in the fashion I described a few posts ago.

It is unfortunate if not shameful that he chose to attack and denigrate Siniora, whose statesmanship is unrivaled in the country and the region. The Lebanese PM is guilty of outwitting and outmaneuvering the Syrians in their constant attempt to bring the Lebanese army into military confrontation with the Palestinians and cast Lebanon as a divided country between those that are with Syria and Arab nationalism and those against it.

Siniora's inclusive policies and constant consultation with most Lebanese parties have helped steer the country away from the kind of internal division Bashar and his group hope for and are working towards. He was able to contain most of the criticism, much of it by Hizbullah and Aoun, and prove he is, by far, Lebanon most respected politician—a true patriot who has been working diligently for the country's best interests. Under his guidance, the Lebanese army robbed the pro-Syrian Palestinian factions the chance to create a conflict with the Lebanese army that would have easily plunged the country into war. That is not to say the Syrians do not and will not continue to use that card. There are reports that the Syrians continue to smuggle weapons through the porous borders with Syria.

Bashar was clearly frustrated that Lebanon stopped being its vessel and cash-cow. If Rafik Hariri was guilty of anything, it was of buying into the concept of Lebanon as a Syrian Hong Kong. This was Bashar's vision for his country and ours. Syria, like China, could escape reform at home and create a more liberal economy Hong Kong style in neighbouring Lebanon. This vision failed, mainly because Syria is no China and Bashar and his ruling group proved to be no visionaries. Rafik Hariri, whose pragmatism guided his policies, eventually realized that Lebanon's survival as a state necessitated complete independence from the hegemony of its neighbor.

Many Syrians and their Arab sympathizers will cheer for Assad's "I will bow to no one but God" speech. It has all the classical components that appeal to their emotions. Many Arab stations, especially the ones he approves of (he also attacked the Arab media), will point out his "revelations" about Mehlis's alleged refusal to interrogate the suspects in Egypt and overlook the many conditions Assad imposed on the inquiry. They will not see an arrogant regime blatantly judging the decisions of politicians from another country, just because they don't serve the Syrian regime's narrow interests. Bashar has no right deciding what certain groups of Lebanese can or should do. He has no right expecting Lebanese people to marginalize those he deemed traitors, because just like the groups he defended, these people are part of the Lebanese fabric. Lebanon's choices are not Syria's choices simply because they are two different countries.

Syrian activist in Washington

2005-11-05T08:52:00.000-05:00

Joshua Landis reported on Friday that Kamal al-Labwani

has met with US Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch. Labwani was a member of Riad Seif's civil society forum, which formed during the famous, but short lived, Damascus Spring (2000-2001). Both were arrested at the outset of the Damascus winter in 2001. He was released from prison last summer after completing his three year sentence and tried to start a new political party this summer, the Liberal Democratic Union (LDU) (al-tajammu'a al-librali al-dimuqrati).

Al-Labwani gave an interview to al-Hurra that I was able to catch Friday. Here is a brief summary that I typed in haste:

Al-Labwani said the Syrian regime has two options to get Syria out of its rut and avoid war. The first is to share power with the opposition and allow political pluralism in the country. The second is to resign.

He said that Syria's main problem is not so much the Baath party's ideology as it is the one-party rule. Breaking the one-party monopoly over power and organizing multi-party elections would bring democracy to Syria, he argued. He envisioned a scenario where the current regime would open up the system by giving key portfolios in the cabinet to the opposition and begin a 2-year transition to a democratic system. Bashar could keep the control of the army, al-Labwani argued.

A signatory to the Damascus declaration, al-Labwani believes that the regime's other option is resignation if it wants to avert a military confrontation with the United States and spare Syrian lives.

Al-Labwani's rather idealistic scenario of power-sharing in Syria clashed with his own pessimistic assessment of the regime's ability and willingness to reform the political system. He ruled out any chances of the regime implementing reform now or in the future.

So how can the regime be convinced to give up its monopoly and bring the weakened political opposition out of its division, exile and jail into the decision making fold?

"We want the United States to put political and diplomatic pressure on the regime," he said.

He did not elaborate, at least not convincingly, on what kind of political and diplomatic pressure can build a Syrian democracy in two years. His interviewer asked him tough questions about the opposition itself, and whether it can be up to the task he described, and whether the Alawites, the Islamists and the Kurds can join the coalition to basically change the political order in Damascus (when asked whether the opposition wanted regime change or a change in the regime, he repeated his two options scenario).

He said the regime has tried for years to weaken the opposition by sowing division and conflict among its ranks. But the "real opposition," he argued, will come from "the Syrian people… what we need to do is not rely on tired symbols, we have to open up the society and bring a new generation of opposition."

He seems to have faith in the Syrian people to turn the country around if they are allowed to participate in democratic elections that would bring new faces and powers to the political process. He said Syria would remain a secular state for all. When asked about the Muslim Brotherhood, and whether they would be willing to build a secular state with the rest of the Sunnis, he acknowledged that they (his group) were engaged in long and difficult negotiations with them. There is also the issue of the Alawites, whom he argued should not feel threatened if the Assad family ceded some power.

Al-Labwani said he told the US administration about all this, and warned them against heeding the calls of those who are seeking to topple the regime by force.

He strongly criticized certain unnamed members of the Syrian opposition for "whispering in the US administration's ear" that the current opposition is too weak to be the alternative to Bashar's autocratic rule. He said there is a current in the US administration that is advocating war on Syria to bring about regime change a la Iraq. When asked who in the US administration wants to go to war, he said it wasn't State Department, but others that he did not name.

Of course much of al-Labwani's solution hinges on the regime's willingness to cede some of its power to the opposition and create in a short period of time a multi-party political culture. Recognizing that, al-Labwani said the regime has no other choice if it wants to spare the lives of the Syrian.

He said the regime should stop begging for a deal—there will be no deal, he stressed. To avoid a "Milosovic scenario," or a "violent end" (like Iraq) and to spare Syrian lives, they should either share government with the opposition, or resign.

Al-Labwani seems to believe that a democratic change is possible, if the US exerts "diplomatic and political" pressure. Yet he doesn't, at least not convincingly, explain how that will force a regime that he described as unable to implement any serious reform, to allow for multi-party elections where" everybody will cooperate" for a "calm transition to democracy."

Al-Labwani returns to Syria this Tuesday (8 November.) According to Landis, he wants to get the word out that he met with US officials. This visit is a clear sign that some of the opposition in Syria, as Tony pointed out, does not mind using the US in its struggle against the regime and that taboos are falling in Syria. I think they are facing an uphill battle. My guess is the regime will manipulate the fear of foreign intervention to consolidate its power further.

UPDATE. Al-Jazeera is reporting (Tuesday, 8 November) that al-Labwani was arrested upon arrival at the airport.

Hafez and the 400 spies

2005-11-01T16:10:00.000-05:00

Sorry, wrong link, go here.

Blaming the victim

2005-11-01T09:06:00.000-05:00

There is this Lebanese music video that starts with your typical fashion strutting where males and females dressed in skin-tight clothing walk around a square flaunting their good makeup and hairdos to the camera, naively thinking their actions, or lack of, can move the non-existing storyline forward.

But what is atypical about this particular video is its explosive ending, literally. All was well in the world of Ghadi, the dark Lebanese stallion in Gucci wear, singing his devotion to a loved one who is predictably hard to get. The object of his obsession is a gorgeous Lebanese female of the kind most repressed Arabs would and do divorce their wives for. Anyway, the unassuming female is walking aimlessly in a square packed with young ones when BANG, a car bomb shatters her apparel and ruins her hairdo. She survives and our young singer, with her head in his arms, laments a dream nearly lost. Although silly and unimaginative, the video ends on a shockingly unsettling tone.

Lebanese and Arab music videos in general are rife with cheesy melodrama, but this particular one sticks out because it, perhaps unwittingly, reflects the current Lebanese state of mind.

There has been a lot of whining by Syrians and their apologists: Syria is the object of a US-Israeli-French-Palestinian plot (yes, Palestinian. Hizbullah's al-Manar shamelessly interviewed on Monday a Tehran-based Arab expert who added Mahmoud Abbas to the list of conspirators guilty of concocting lies such as the Mehlis report, to ruin Syria and Iran), Syrian society is being destabilized and a group of evil and ungrateful Lebanese want to cause the Syrian people undue harm through sanctions and unjust war.

Those Lebanese bastards. How dare they fake the death of their former prime minister and blame it on his killers! How dare they ask for justice when they really should be thanking their former dictators for their great sacrifice and selfless criminal dealings!

How dare they live like this:

Everywhere you go in Beirut, there are security people running checks on your car, bags, and body for guns and bombs. Metal detectors of the kind used at airports are the new rage in the city. If you look like you are approaching a shopping center, grocery store or parking garage, a bunch of security guards converge on your car, search it for bombs, go through your trunk and your belongings and then thank you for your cooperation. And before entering the actual grocery store or department store, another person opens whatever bag you are carrying and scans you with a detector.

This has been happening for quite some time, in the capital of the evil Lebanese who are wrecking Syrian stability. After a series of Syrian-sponsored bomb attacks in shopping centers and in people's cars, Lebanese people have quickly incorporated these security checks into their daily lives. Mind you, Lebanese people are famous for defying orders and hating to stand in line. But when their lives are at stake, and terror is the agent of angry past-rulers, they are taking no chances.

That is not all. There is the new redistricting of Lebanon.

The country has been divided into zones. Not by the police or the army, but by car thieves. Gangs supported by invisible Syrian intelligence officers who suffered a decline in income following their occultation, have divided the country into geographical zones, where each gang exercises its Syrian-given right to rob and terrorize people.

In zones outside the capital, heavily armed men in military fatigues ambush SUVs, blindfold their owners, rough them up, hurl insults on them and their mothers, and throw them into the back of their cars, after stripping of all precious and sellable personal effects. The small army of thieves, sometimes posing as "Lebanese military intelligence", proceeds to drive the poor victims in their own car for hours before dumping them in a dark location that's off the map and taking off with their bounty.

Beirut-based gangs are gutsier. They "carjack" people in broad daylight or in the early hours of the evening. Bystanders can do nothing. These gangs, militias really, are armed with machines guns and, some claim, rockets. Lebanese police is AFRAID of them because they are better equipped and dangerous. Some police stations in Lebanon don't even have cars, let alone sophisticated crime-fighting gadgets and weapons. As of the date of this post, the Lebanese army prefers to engage in yawn-inducing activities like standing on bridges in well-lit locations.

The SUVs are taken to a border town (Khreibeh, some claim) on the Syrian border. They are sold for cheap and smuggled into Syria, further undermining its "stability". Syrian intelligence officers in Lebanon, some say, get a cut. These cars are apparently smuggled into Iraq, where they are rigged with bombs and used to massacre people.

The above is based on personal accounts by people who have been carjacked in the past year in Lebanon (some more than once). The identity of the assailants is Lebanese with a Baalbeck accent.

When one victim tried calling a police station in Choueifat, an exchange like the following took place:

Victim: I have been carjacked.

Police: hold on.

5 minutes later

Victim: Hello?

Police: yes?

Victim: I have been carjacked.

Police: Hold on.

15 minutes later.

Victim: Hello?

Police: What do you want?

Victim: A group of heavily armed men stole my car, cell phone, terrorized me and my wife, threatened her with rape and dumped us in the woods.

Police: Hold on.

20 minutes later.

Victim: Hello?????????????

Police: Why are you still on the line? I am running out of units.

Victim: Can you send someone? I was carjacked.

Police: hahahahahahah… we don't have a car that works.

Dial tone.

That is not to say there aren't competent elements in the Lebanese security forces. They just don't have weapons and are outnumbered by the gangs terrorizing the country. This is according to police sources.

Hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for the rehabilitation of these forces have disappeared in the pockets of former pro-Syrian stooge Elias el-Murr (now a hero) and Syrian-Lebanese security services. Money was spent, however, to build security agencies to spy on and terrorize Lebanese and protect Syrian interests.

So next time the Syrian foreign minister tries to shift the blame by arguing crime could happen under the watch of any security service in any country, please somebody tell him to shut up and mind the gap in his brain.

Syria's plan of attack

2005-10-30T22:20:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, I posted something on Bahjat Suleiman's gates of hell scenario, which he said would open if Syria pulled out of Lebanon. His scenario went as follows:

He spoke of a hellish alliance whereby Palestinian refugees from Jordan and Syria would leave those countries to join the refugees in Lebanon and strike a war alliance with Hizbullah. The south Lebanon front would go up in flames, and the Lebanese would be divided and turn against one another. After that there will be chaos, the return of death, and the entire region will burn...

The following is based on reports in two Lebanese weeklies, al-Shiraa and al-Watan al-Arabi, published last week in Beirut. Some of what they are reporting was confirmed by Roed-Larsen in his report last week, so the information is not that hard to swallow. The Syrian confrontation (or war) plan seems straight out of the Lord of the Rings, with the "dark lords" of Syria, helped by "strategic partner" Iran, preparing to unleash an army of Islamist and radical Palestinian orcs that they have been breeding for a good number of years.

According to al-Watan al-Arabi, the Syrian regime is convinced that the United States and some in the international community will not stop until there is regime change in Syria. On the other hand, the United States and France became certain that Damascus had no intention of pulling its agents out of Lebanon, handing over top officials for a trial and stopping the flow of insurgents into Iraq.

For that, adds the weekly, Syria put in place contingency plans for an inevitable confrontation. To Damascus, such a battle is cheaper than surrendering to the American and international "conditions" which would cost the regime a lot more.

Al-Watan quoted American and western intelligence sources as saying that Damascus has been re-activating the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut axis since before the Hariri assassination. Syria's prime minister, Mohammad Naji al-Otari, flew to Tehran days after the Hariri assassination, where he flaunted a "strategic alliance" with Iran. (Otari had also recently warned that the gates of hell would open on the US if Washington invaded Syria)

The Syrian regime realized that it must first clean its own house. Any possibility of internal unrest, whether it's ethnic, religious or political, would have to be eliminated. The regime embarked on a "security and political cleansing" campaign , which saw the removal of vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam, the "neutralization" of former intelligence chief Bahjat Suleiman and the liquidation of the Ghazi Kanaan. One could add to this the crackdown on Syrian opposition figures in recent months.

As a result of this campaign, power is now concentrated in the hands of Bashar, Maher and Asef. Maher is in full control of the Republican Guard and the army and Asef of all the security services.

At the same time, the regime sought to reactivate its strategic alliance with Iran, which fears that a toppling of Assad's regime could threaten its own interests in the region, especially in Lebanon. Iranian and Syrian military and security officials have been meeting in secret to "put the final touches" on a "strategic and military" cooperation plan to confront what they believe to be a plot to topple the Syrian regime. Shawkat had reportedly visited Tehran shortly after his failed Paris visit, in which he might have offered Ghazale's head. It was followed up by the visit to Syria of a high-level delegation from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, headed by General Baqer zul-Qadr. Iran has reportedly supplied Syria with advanced weapons and Hizbullah has re-deployed and mobilized its members in accordance with this plan.

Al-Watan al-Arabi quotes unnamed sources as saying Hizbullah could be a main partner in this Syrian-Iranian plan of attack. In any case, the Party of God is very far from being disarmed. In fact, al-Watan reports, they have just received a new shipment of weapons and rockets that were stored in the Bekaa and the south.

The Syrian leadership has also been mobilizing pro-Syrian Palestinian factions in Lebanon and Palestine. Large amounts of weapons were smuggled into Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and hundreds of elements from the Yarmouk camp in Syria are on standby for deployment to Beirut, Sidon, Tripoli and Bekaa refugee camps. Ahmad Jibril, head of Iranian-backed PFLP-GC and Abu Moussa, head of Fateh-Intifada were assigned the task of mobilizing thousands of elements and taking over Palestinian decision-making in the camps.

Al-Shiraa confirmed that the PFLP-GC in Deir al-Ghazal has received weapons and ammunition through entry points in the border region of Wadi al-Asha'ir. The smuggling reportedly took place under the supervision of Syrian officer Samih al-Qashmaii who was stationed in Dhour el-Shoueir prior to the withdrawal.

Many of the Palestinian refugee camps have already fallen under the control of these factions and other Islamist groups such as Jund al-Sham.

Jund Al-Sham answers directly to Syrian military intelligence, according to al-Shiraa, which quoted Security sources as saying that Palestinians from the Yarmouk camp have been added to their ranks. The latest outbreak of violence between Jund al-Sham and the Nassirites in Sidon seems to indicate that that the ranks of the once small Ain-el-Helweh-based islamists are swelling with manpower and new weapons.

Jund al-Sham is one of many Islamist organizations that were nurtured by the Syrian regime. According to reports in al-Watan, and a recent French police report, the Iranian revolutionary guard has been training Islamists in camps in Iraq, Syria and the Bekaa in Lebanon.

Another Islamist organization in Syria's arsenal is al-Ahbash, which is practically run by Syrian military intelligence. Al-Shiraa describes al-Ahbash as an armed group that took over several mosques in Beirut by force with the support of the Syrian military intelligence. Syria recognized their potential as a tool to subjugate Lebanon's Sunnis in the 80s, and effectively used them to rein in any Sunni religious leader they deemed too independent. Al-Ahbash was probably behind the assassination of Mufti Hassan Khaled in the 80s.

The Lebanese authorities have found weapon caches in Beirut in warehouses owned by Ahbash members. The latter have infiltrated the Lebanese army and Presidential guard, and despite the arrest of Ahmad and Mahmoud Abdel Al, who were charged with planning the Hariri murder, I don't think we've seen the last of them.

The Lebanese authorities are obviously aware of the above, and this explains the recent confrontation with the PFLP-GC and Fateh-Intifada in the Bekaa, and the arrest of the Abdel- Al brothers.

The Syrian-Iranian plan, if allowed to go into effect, will turn Lebanon into another Iraq. The Syrian regime would much rather opt for brinksmanship than lose power or be weakened.

Lebanon vs. Arab failure

2005-10-27T10:55:00.000-04:00

Arab rug politics have reared their ugly head again. The failure to admit that an Arab state is responsible for terrorism against another Arab state has galvanized some of the Arab press, not to mention Arab officialdom, into feeling sorry for a bunch of criminals who would throw every single Arab and Muslim to the lions just to stay in power.

I have been trying to stay moderate since the Mehlis report was published. Other blogs have expressed this frustration admirably. But this has gone too far.

We, the few Lebanese bloggers who have mobilized to blog the Mehlis report and show its significance not just to Lebanon but to the Arab world as a whole, are being accused of being blind to a wider US/Israeli plot to change the Syrian regime and destabilize the entire region. We are being lectured about the dangers of US interventionism and asked, not very politetly, to wake up and smell the scent of US conspiracy. We are being told to forget about our own independence as a nation, about justice within our borders, just to spite an “imperialist” nation that’s out to get a bunch of thugs holding their people hostage.

Rafik Hariri, the man whom Syria murdered (quit living in denial, they killed him), was one of the few Arab leaders who actually made a useful effort to support the Palestinian cause. He didn’t send weapons. He didn’t fire missiles. He didn’t fund stupid suicide attacks. He funded projects to bring their case to the international community through legal means. His foundations sponsored Lebanese victims of the Israeli occupation. He used his connections to spare Hizbullah and Lebanon the wrath of pro-Israeli policies. He was not a perfect man, nor a saint. But he did not deserve this fate.

It was Hariri who protected the resistance against Israel, not Syria. It was Syria that destroyed whatever was left of the cause, not the US or Israel. The blame rests on Syria’s shoulders this time. And it is a shame that very few so called Arabs out there refuse to come out in support of the country and the man who worked harder than many to support the cause they defend in the most inane way imaginable.

Let’s face it, we live in a region infested with shortsightedness and utter and unforgivable stupidity.

Arab leaders have made it clear that they have no time for Lebanon, a founding member of the Arab League, arguably the only country that keeps Arabs from the "ocean to the gulf" entertained and their companies running. They are worried about the threats against Syria, a bastion of Arab failure (and a reflection of their own). They will not tell the Syrian regime to cooperate in the investigation. They will stand watching and lamenting the self-destruction of a regime and blame it on foreign intervention. And they will do nothing of consequence. All that money and power will be channeled into growing their expanding bellies. All they can do right now is impale themselves on failure.

The Iran connection

2005-10-26T19:16:00.000-04:00

Quoting an anonymous Iranian source, Ali Nourizadeh in Asharq al-Awsat wrote that the Mehlis report:

sent shockwaves through the Iranian leadership. Officials in Tehran were greatly worried because of the strategic links with Damascus and because the report mentioned the name of Ahmad Jibril, head of the Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine (general command) who maintains close links to the Iranian security and intelligence services. Iran had been warned that Washington was ready to adopt the same hard-line approach it was following with Damascus, the source reported.

The article goes on to focus on Iran-US relations and the nuclear issue (it makes bizarre claims about Iran’s supreme leader’s reported dissatisfaction with the performance of his "street sweeper" president, who has no real executive power).

Iran’s official reaction to the Mehlis report was predictable. The Iranian foreign minister said the report should not be “politicized” and hoped “a final report is composed and submitted based on technical and legal foundations.” Of course, given that Iran also praised the dismal Syrian “cooperation” with the probe, it is unlikely the report will ever be deemed acceptable by Iran.

Asharq al-Awsat reveals a connection that not many have made.

Naming PFLP-GC as major co-conspirators was one of the surprises of the report. Mehlis also expressed the desire during his Tuesday briefing to interview Jibril and members of his Damascus based organization. And judging from recent events along the Syrian border, the Lebanese authorities seem to close to a confrontation with them, though the details are sketchy.
Mehlis has a lot of leads, and we only know of the ones that lead to Syria.

But given Jibril's Iran connection, could Iran also be involved in the Hariri killing?

The most important question revolves around Hizbullah's role. I doubt they’re involved, at least not directly, but they stand to become the biggest losers if Mehlis implicates both Syria and Iran.

The denial and the other report

2005-10-23T22:36:00.000-04:00

While Syria is busy denying involvement in the Hariri assassination, accusing the Mehlis report of bias and slander, another report will echo Mehlis's conclusions more forcefully by focusing on the present rather than the past.

Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN special envoy to Lebanon, has a mandate to examine what is going on in Lebanon now. He is expected to file a progress report on Syria’s implementation of UNSC 1559 soon.

According to Haaretz, the report will accuse Syria of continued “indirect military intervention and direct intelligence intervention in Lebanon,” inlcuding “arms shipments to various militias.”

Roed-Larsen’s report will reportedly state that “Damascus did not did not genuinely implement Resolution 1559, preferring instead to maintain its indirect military control of Lebanon through its agents in the Lebanese presidential palace, the army and intelligence organizations.”

And where the Mehlis report was unconvincing and inconclusive to some, Roed Larsen’s report will prove culpability by establishing a present and thus continuous pattern of criminal Syrian activity in Lebanon.

Roed-Larsen reportedly states explicitly that Hariri's murderers must be exposed as soon as possible.

The combined effects of both reports will likely lead to a harsher tone by the UN Security Council, possibly sanctions, says Haaretz.

Meanwhile, Syrian deputy foreign minister Walid Moallem denied that he had threatened Rafik Hariri days before he was assassinated.

"This is totally untrue," Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said in a call to a talk show on Syrian state television. "I did not go to Premier Hariri to make threats. I went to him to inform him about my mission and ask him to cooperate in order for the mission to succeed."

An excerpt from a RECORDED interview between Hariri and Moallem contradicts this claim. Here’s what he said on 1 February 2005:

Moallem told Mr. Hariri that “we and the [security] services here have put you into a corner.” He continued, Please do not take things lightly.”

This does sound like a threat to me. But forget that. He went to ask the prime minister of another country to “cooperate in order for the mission to succeed?” What kind of mission was that?

This is similar to what Assad told Der Spiegel on 29 August, when he tried to deny he threatened to destroy Lebanon over Hariri’s head if the latter didn’t agree to the extension of Lahoud’s term. (The Mehlis report has multiple but similar accounts of this threat)

SPIEGEL: Many politicians in neighboring Lebanon blame your government for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Some have even said that the two of you had a loud argument the last time he was in Damascus.

Assad: And some have even said I threatened him. Others claimed a security agent
pointed his pistol at Hariri's head. That's simply ridiculous. In that conversation, we discussed extending the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. It's obvious that Hariri was against the idea. So I told him: "We don't want to pressure you. Go back to Lebanon and then give us your decision." He told us a few days later that he agreed with the plan. Why should Syria kill someone with whom it has no differences of opinion? It doesn't make any sense at all. In truth, we Syrians are the ones who ended up suffering the greatest drawbacks as a result of this affair.

SPIEGEL: Can you really completely rule out the possibility that neither your intelligence services nor any other Syrian is involved?

Assad: I'm absolutely certain. That kind of plan requires the cooperation of several individuals and organizations. If this cooperation had existed, we would have known about it.

The plan, the mission and the insulting and arrogant denial. Bashar told Hariri, the prime minister of Lebanon, about a Syrian "plan" to ILLEGALLY extend Lebanon's president's term. Moallem went to urge cooperation with a Syrian “mission.” These are not threats, these are calls for cooperation, Syrian style.

In the Syrian regime’s dictionary, a “threat” is called a threat if there is a gun or torture involved. To the military thugs who rule Syria, “credible evidence” of a threat requires the documented torture of Hariri in an underground Syrian prison, or a photograph showing Ghazaleh pointing a gun to his head, twisting his arm and attaching electrodes to his organs.

That’s the Syrian regime's culture for you, and that’s how they can continue to deny the undeniable despite the glaring evidence.

ISF fingers Syrian intelligence in bombings (updated)

2005-10-22T11:52:00.000-04:00

Two days after the damning Mehlis report fingered Syrian intelligence, Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces (ISF) said they arrested three suspects who confessed to being asked by a “non Lebanese” security service to carry out “terrorist operations”.

“Prior to the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and at the request of an officer from a non Lebanese security service, fugitive Hassan M. (33), ordered a number of people to commit terrorist operations in Lebanon,” said the ISF statement. The operations included throwing sound bombs and starting firefights in different areas in the Mount Lebanon and Beirut governorates. According to the statement, the intention was to “sow confusion and threaten civil peace.”

The three arrested individuals said they did not carry out their orders and confessed to being paid large sums by the go-between Hassan M, who was presumably working for Syrian intelligence.

On Friday, the Mehlis report tied the Hariri assassination to the campaign of bombings that rocked Lebanon over the past few months:

The 14 February explosion needs to be assessed clearly against the sequence of explosions which preceded and followed it, since there could be links between
some, if not all, of them.

Addendum. Al-Mustaqbal named Syrian intelligence official Jamea Jamea as the person who charged Hassan H. to recruit the bombers.

The paper adds that Judge Said Mirza has detained Mahmoud Abdel-Al to question him about his involvement in the Hariri assassination.

Jamea Jamea is an important figure in the UN investigation. He has been linked to Ahmad Abdel-al, of al-Ahbash. Abdel-Al was interviewed as a witness and later as a suspect by the UN team. Mahmoud Abdel-Al is Ahmad's brother. He is the person who placed the phone call to Lahoud's mobile phone minutes before the explosion. (Lahoud's spokesman argued on Friday that the number Abdel-Al called was one of many numbers in Lahoud's office, denying that Lahoud himself had talked to him).

Here are relevant excerpts from the Mehlis report:

[Ahmad Abdel-Al]'s telephone records reveal that at 1147 hrs, he had a telephone contact with a number which phoned his home telephone number a number of times immediately before the explosion --- 1226 hrs, 1246 hrs and 1247 hrs. While Abdel-Al told UNIIIC that he called home shortly after the explosion at 1256 hrs, telephone records show that the call was made at 1254 hrs, two minutes before the explosion. Abdel-Al stated, that he did not leave the Al-Ahbash office the day of the blast for security reasons. The telephone records showed four calls to Syrian intelligence officer Jamea Jamea, at 1142 hrs, 1814 hrs, 2023 hrs and 2026 hrs.

According to a witness, Abdel-Al visited Jamea Jamea’s office the evening of the blast at 19:30 in which the two discussed Abu Adass. Moreover, shortly after his visit to Jamea Jamea’s office, Abdel-Al’s mobile phone registered a call to Rustum
Ghazali, at 1956 hrs. Abdel-Al also sought to steer the investigation towards Abu Adass , not only by providing the Lebanese authorities with extensive information on Abu Adass shortly after the blast, but also stating to UNIIIC that the Al-Ahbash Security Service had seen Abu Adass before the assassination in the Ain Al-Hilweh Palestinian camp together with Abu Obeida the deputy leader of the terrorist group Asbat al Ansar.

There are also numerous contacts between Ahmad Abdel-Al and Lebanese State Security on the day of the blast. For example, Abdel-Al had almost daily telephone contact with Brigadier General Faysal Rasheed, Chief of State Security in Beirut and on 14 February 2005, they had telephone contact at 1035 hrs, 2008 hrs, 2113 hrs, 214 hrs and 2216 hrs. Ahmad Abdel-Al also had contact with suspect Raymond Azar, of the Lebanese Army, on 14 February 2005, as well as 16 and 17 February 2005. There was a call between the mobile phone of Albert Karam, another member of the Lebanese Army Intelligence, and Ahmad Abdel-Al on 14 February as well, at 1212 hrs, about 44 minutes before the blast.

Abdel-Al’s phone also had extensive telephone contacts with Mustafa Hamdan’s phone, as 97 calls occurred between the two between January and April 2005. Of these, four were made on 14 February 2005, after the explosion. Ahmad had two telephone contacts with his brother, Walid Abdel-Al, a member of the Republican Guard, the day of the blast at 16:15 and 17:29. In addition, Abdel-Al received a call on 11 February 2005 at 2217 hrs from the same telephone booth used to call Al-Jazeera shortly after the blast on the 14 February. He also received a call on the 4 February 2005 at 19:34 and on 26 February 2005 at 0933 hrs from the booth used
to call Reuters shortly after the blast.

Abdel-Al has been in frequent contact with Mahmoud Abdel-Al, his brother, who is also active in Al-Ahbash. Mahmoud Abdel-Al’s telephone calls on 14 February are also interesting: he made a call minutes before the blast, at 1247 hrs, to the mobile phone of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and at 1249 hrs had contact with Raymond Azar’s mobile telephone.

[Ahmad] Abdel-Al also has notable connections to a significant weapons store discovered in southern Beirut in July 2005. This weapons store was raided by the ISF on 26 July 2005 and five people, with close connections to the former Mourabitoun militia, were arrested. One of the arrestees was the driver and bodyguard of Majed Hamdan, Mustafa Hamdan’s brother, who runs a firm which reportedly provided security for the St. George hotelHotel. Abdel-Al reportedly arranged for another arrestee to be employed as an electrician in the presidential palace. Furthermore, immediately after the arrests, another individual fled and promptly telephoned Ahmad Abdel-Al.

The Lebanese judiciary is obviously beginning to act on the information submitted by Mehlis, a lot of which was not publicised so as not to undermine the investigation. (So those people who claim the Mehlis report is inconclusive and lacks hard evidence need to remember that the investigation is NOT finished).

Mehlis report summarized

2005-10-21T08:49:00.000-04:00

The Mehlis report was an important step in the ongoing investigation into the murder of Rafik Hariri and 22 others. In a technical report intended for the UN Security Council and that left out details and leads that could "undermine" the ongoing investigation and future trial, Detlev Mehlis summarized the progress so far and presented some of the evidence accumulated by his and other commissions.

The commission’s work was made difficult by “recent bombings, assassinations, and assassination attempts have been carried out with impunity as well as by “deliberate rumors and prophetic media analyses” that have deterred potential witnesses from contacting UNIIIC. For the first time, we see a link between these bombings, witness intimidation and the 14 February explosion. “The 14 February explosion needs to be assessed clearly against the sequence of explosions which preceded and followed it, since there could be links between some, if not all, of them.”

For that, Mehlis does not name many of his witnesses.

In the political context of the murder, Bashar Assad and Emile Lahoud are featured prominently as haters of Hariri. And so is a prominent Lebanese figure called Mr X. Though this came as no surprise, it was disturbing to read transcripts of phone calls and conversations where their plotting to discredit Hariri and turn the people against him was hinted on as possible motivation for a later decision to murder him. These transcripts and other testimonies confirm the pervasiveness of Syrian interference in Lebanon.

The UN Commission’s investigation has confirmed what many in Lebanon have long asserted, that senior Syrian intelligence officials had a powerful day-to-day and overall strategic influence on the governance of Lebanon. The apparent growing conflict between Mr. Hariri and senior Syrian officials, including Syrian President Bashar Assad, was a central aspect of the information provided to the Commission through interviews and documents.

Mehlis was careful. He presented the evidence as is, and only made conclusions where he felt it was beyond reasonable doubt. So while the role of the massacre’s planners and executers was laid out in shocking and suspenseful clarity, he did not link their actions directly to their political masters (albeit through context, which could prove intent). This is partly due to the Syrian regime's unwillingness to co-operate substantively. Mehlis mentions a Syrian attempt to mislead the investigation by lying in a letter by the foreign minister and by scripting the responses of some of the Syrian witnesses they let Mehlis interview. In any case, the report does not exactly clear Lahoud and Assad, and that is important.

Syria was not the only country that did not co-operate. In fact, “no member state relayed usable information to the investigation”. In other words, despite all their talk and excitement about punishing the culprits and Syria, the United States, France and Britain did not provide usable intelligence, but only "expertise."

The Lebanese judicial and security authorities who have assisted Mehlis are painted positively in this report, much to the surprise of many. This leads us to think that if given independence and proper technical and logistical assistance and training, a Lebanese investigation could carry forward the investigation-- a Mehlis recommendation.

The blast was most likely the result of a suicide bombing, though the identity of the bomber could not be ascertained considering the amount of tampering that went on at the scene (the Lebanese security services perhaps intentional mishandling of the investigation prior to Mehlis’s arrival is fully described).

A witness, one of the few named, Mohammad Siddiq, claims that Abu Adass, the star of a video in which he claimed responsibility for the killing on behalf of an unknown Islamist organization, was kidnapped and taken to Syria where he was killed by Syrian military intelligence. His body was placed in the white Mitsubishi van that carried the explosives. The Mitsubishi was stolen in Japan, somehow made it to Syria, where it was fitted with 1000 Kg of high explosives.

The evidence from the phone trail I think is the strongest. It links all of the suspects in a web of conspiracy that also included President Lahoud, who, according to phone records, received a call from one suspect minutes before the blast. In addition to the security officials who are now in Lebanese custody, a few Ahbash officials were named as major co-conspirators with strong connections to the presidential guard and the president himself. The Ahbash is a pro-Syrian radical islamist organization with an important following in the country. PFLP-GC is also named. And of course, the Syrian military intelligence.

Read the report in full here. Conclusions here. One final note. The report reveals how much money and effort was put into monitoring Hariri and planning for his murder. The job of Lahoud’s security agencies became to assassinate a Lebanese official. This alone is grounds for treason.

Here are some excerpts from the report. I have published conclusions and other excerpts elsewhere on this blog. These are details that stuck out to me.

A meeting in Damascus between Mr. Hariri and President Assad on 26 August 2004
appeared to bring the conflict to a head...

Bashar to Hariri (Saad testifying): President Lahoud is me. Whatever I tell him, he follows suit.

In the meeting with Mr. Al-Moallem, Mr. Hariri complained that he believed that President Assad was being deliberately misinformed about the actions of Mr. Hariri by the Syrian security services and Mr. Sharaa about the actions of Mr. Hariri.

Hariri: “But Lebanon will never be ruled from Syria. This will no longer happen.”

During this discussion, Mr. Al-Moallem told Mr. Hariri that “we and the [security] services here have put you into a corner.” He continued, “Please do not take things lightly.”

One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, Maher Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamil Al-Sayyedsenior Lebanese and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. (from a draft copy.. the final version does not name them)

Mr. Saddik stated that the decision to assassinate Mr. Hariri had been taken in Syria, followed by clandestine meetings in Lebanon between senior Lebanese and Syrian officers, who had been designated to plan and pave the way for the execution of the assault. These meetings started in July 2004 and lasted until December 2004. The seven senior Syrian officials and four senior Lebanese officials were alleged to have been involved in the plot.

Accroding to a witness, ISF personnel were ordered to keep Mr. Rafik Hariri under surveillance (witness statement) at the end of January and beginning of February 2005

The investigations shows that eight telephone numbers and 10 mobile telephones were used to organize surveillance on Mr. Hariri and to carry out the assassination. The lines were put into circulation on 4 January 2005 in the northern part of Lebanon, between Terbol and Menyeh. The lines were used on individual days to observe Mr. Hariri’s habits, mostly in the area of Beirut city.

In a report dated 17 February 2005, from General Sayyed to Judge Mezher, General Sayyed concluded that the videotape was authentic and “Ahmad Abu Addas, who appears on the tape, was . . . clearly a definite participant in the assassination.” The only basis provided for this conclusion was the statement
that “[t]he way in which he delivers the statement and shows himself without any covering over his face is the manner adopted by suicide bombers in similar cases. The fact that he did not conceal his face while making the statement indicates that he must have been personally responsible for setting off the explosion.”

On Tuesday morning, 15 February 2005, [General Security head Jamil al-Sayed] got a phone call from a journalist from Al-Jazeera who told him nobody had yet picked-up the Abu Adass videotape

There is no evidence that Abu Adass Mr. Abu Adass belonged to the group al nasra wal-jihad fee bilad Al-Sham as claimed in the Al-Jazeera videotape, nor even that such a group has ever existed or does exist now. There are no indications (other than the videotape) that he drove a truck containing the bomb that killed Hariri. The evidence does show that it is likely that Mr. Abu Adass left his home on 16 January 2005 and was taken, voluntarily or not, to Syria, where he has since disappeared.

On the instructions of the first investigating judge of the Military Court, and with the approval of the General Director of Internal Security Forces, the cars from the Hariri motorcade were taken to the Helou barracks..

The measures taken [to preserve the crime scene] were below the required level and contrary to the obvious fundamental basis upon which crimes as serious as this one or even less serious crimes are investigated...

few hours after the explosion took place, around 2300 hrs, major evidence was
removed from the crime scene...

A bulldozer was introduced into the crime scene on the day of the explosion, 14 February 2005, in the evening for no justifiable reason. As soon as the Minister of Interior and Municipalities got knowledge of it, he gave orders to retrieve it and preserve the crime scene as it was. (This would be Franjieh)

On 15 February….Mr. General Al-Hajj (head of ISF) replied that two teams were working on clearing the road which would be reopened at 1000 hrs. In response to a direct question, GeneralMr. Al-Hajj stated that the orders came from Mustapha Hamdan, the Commander of the Presidential Guard

In a meeting with UNIIIC on 1 June 2005, General Rifi stated that the person who gave the order to get a bulldozer or bulldozers to the crime scene to fill the hole caused by the explosion etc. was General Mustapha Hamdan, who at the time of the incident was the Commander of President Lahoud’s security detail and therefore by Lebanese law had nothing to do with issues related to crime scene investigation

the most likely scenario for the activation of the IED is a suicide bomber.

It was indicated that President Assad would not be available for any interview.

The Commission has concluded that the Government of Syria’s lack of substantive cooperation with the Commission has impeded the investigation and made it difficult to follow leads established by the evidence collected from a variety of sources.

Update: A useless debate is raging about the two different versions of the Mehlis report: one with the names of the Syrian officials, one without. Ramzi has a good summary and an equally good explanation.