Turkey excludes Israel from Nato military exercise

And as a result the US and Italy opted out and the exercise was called off.

Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, expressed his outrage at the Gaza offensive, launched last December in retaliation for Hamas rocket attacks, at the World Economic Forum in Davos the following month, storming out of a session with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres.

The Israeli media noted that while Erdogan's government had long made its displeasure clear, what was new about Israel's exclusion from this week's "Anatolian Eagle" exercises was the role of the Turkish military, which had been closer to Israel than the civilian government.

The Israeli cabinet had an emergency meeting over the weekend to discuss the damage to Israel's most important military relationship in the region.

Turkey is just following the sentiment of the majority of its people. I visited the country in 2006 and 2007 and the protests against the Israeli agression on Lebanon were seen all across Istanbul. And Turkey is acting according to its historic role in the region when the Ottoman empire ruled over most of the middle east including Palestine. Actually, the archeological museum in Istanbul has very interesting artefacts from the region including Palestine. Moreover, Turkey is mending relations with Armenia and no longer need Israel's support in the international community to stop a bill labeling the Turkish invasion of Armenia as a genocide. Israel was happily stoping such a bill in the US congress because it nt only served its special relation with Turkey but, for some unknown reason, zionists viewed this as a competition between them and Armenians.

Lebanon arrest over a dozen individuals spying for Israel

Lebanese security forces arrest Lebanese and one Palestinian on charges of spying for Israel. The Palestinian arrested is the cousin of the fugitive head of the islamist group Fatah al-Islam:

The Palestinian, Mohammad Awad, used his car dealership in South Lebanon to spy on Hizbullah activities. Curiously, Awad is said to be the cousin of Abu Mohammad Awad, the fugitive head of Islamist group Fatah al-Islam. The group, which based itself at the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp, engaged the Lebanese Armed Forces in three months of deadly fighting in 2007 that reduced the camp to rubble.

Canada's Harper government is an embarrassment

The Harper government is behaving submissively toward the Bush administration and toward what it represents in terms of ideological commitments. Or maybe the Harper ideology is just Bush's applied with much zeal and disregard for everything else. It is indeed the extreme of an extreme, of what Bush has embodied on the world stage for the last seven years.

Teh Harper government refused to ask for a ceasefire in Lebanon in July 2006 when Israel was bombing Lebanon and Lebanese so madly, despite Canada's large Arab, lebanese and Muslim communities. Recently, Harper went to the Bali conference on climate change with only representatives from major Canadian oil companies. Last week Canada was the only country to excuse and explain US's secretary of defense arrogant statement about Nato forces not knowing how to fight in Afghanistan.

And today, after a Canadaian foreign minstry document cited the US and Israel on a torture list, as countries that torture, it withdrew them, just like that, with excuses, because...they are allies.

Watch Harper and his government closely, they are the épitome of bad taste when it comes to foreign policy and Human rights, but, most of all, they follow so closely Bush's ideology that they have become its caricature...

More: Torture manual to be rewritten...as not to offend Israel and the US

On the recently assassinated Lebanese general

Photo courtesy UrShalim

From the Lebanese blogosphere
Remarkz:

'Does this look like a guy the "Syrian-Iranian axis" would try to kill?' Only if they want to shoot themselves in the foot.

And on François El-Hajj at UrShalim
Syria Comment: 'Anti-March 14th general assassinated'
FPW: 'When In Doubt, Blame Syria'
Amira Al Husseini at Global voices: 'Who killed François Hajj and why ?'
My post on the killing of François El-Hajj.

Oh and one last thing, even if it means for me not being able to return to Lebanon in the future, Samir Gea'gea shouldn't have been pardoned by the Lebanese parliament, including the Hezbollah and Aounist MPs, and let out from prison, for his crimes during the civil war, especially the crimes he committed eliminating any potentiel rival from the Christian camp. He is a very bad apple, among many in Lebanon, but probably the most dangerous and unprincipled one. The man used to claim that the virgin Mary speaks to him.

Shattered Lives In Lebanon

From UrShalim
-The story of Ayn-El-Hayat, a young German Lebanese woman.
-The story of Charles Chikhani.
Both saw their future in Lebanon. Both were killed in the last bombing in lebanon .

Then six year old Ali, who did not even have time to see a future for himself, he was still at the joyful age of play. Ali was killed by an Israeli bomblet left from the 2006 July Israeli agression on Lebanon.
Please read the comment section to Ali's story on UrShalim's and read the logic of the anonymous who posted there. Lebanese blogs are a primary target for cyberzionists. They are obsessed with Lebanese who are the only ones to defeat Israel twice...

HRW's reports on the July 06 Israeli Agression on Lebanon: Complacency and Prejudice

Yesterday, Friday, Human Right's Watch executive director Kenneth Roth was speaking on Radio Canada's As It Happens about HRW's reports on the July 06 Israeli Lebanese war. He said both sides, Israel and Hezbollah, targeted civilian populations. More than 1000 civilians died in Lebanon while only 43 of the 163 Israeli casualties were civilians.

At the question that why HRW stopped short of accusing Israel of war crimes while it accused Hezbollah of war crimes, when both are accused of targeting civilians, Mr. Roth gave this quite silly answer: "War crimes are attributed to individuals. The Israeli army high commanders were not involved in issuing the orders for the bombings that killed Lebanese civilians, only army personnel and individuals at low command positions were. And the orders for bombing Israeli civilians were issued by the Hezbollah highest military authorities."

So either Mr. Roth is suggesting that Israel's bombing of Lebanese civilians was an error, which his report clearly rules out, or he is suggesting that only low level army personnel in the Israeli army committed war crimes, therefore exonerating the high level and the state of Israel, while not even accusing the low level of war crimes, leaving it to the Israeli army to instruct such an accusation or not. We know this tactic since the Abu Ghraib scandal...I have difficulty understanding Mr. Roth. There are many contradictions in his conclusions...

And how Mr. Roth knew that the Israeli bombings of Lebanese civilians were issued at a lower level ? Well Israel's army high command told him and he believed them. And he seems to have drawn the conclusion for the Hezbollah out of his pocket. Because, frankly, the distinction Mr. Roth is making of levels of command can apply to any army versus militia. When Hezbollah will be able to organise fully in an army with nultiple levels of command to hide who is making the real commands for operations on the ground, they will get rid of any accusation of war crimes then...

Mr. Roth said also that they had a very constructive discussion with the Israeli military command (not with the Israeli government whom he accused of denial... this is also quite surprising coming from Mr. Roth by the way because we all know that the July 06 war was entirely directed by the Israeli government and not by the army and that this was a major factor in their defeat) while, on the other side, Hezbollah threatened to demonstrate against the report if HRW were to make a press conference about it in Beyrouth. Which means that making a way for discussion with HRW might spare you a war crime accusation, for diplomacy sake...

Mr. Roth got it quite wrong. he questioned the wrong people. He did not go high enough in his investigation about the orders of bombing Lebanese civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure, the Israeli and the US governments...He had soft talk with the low level command of the July 06 war, the Israeli army...

That's the organisation who is defending Human Rights. Don't you feel vindicated and secure when this organisation bows to zionist pressure, does not investigate high enough in the hierarchy, makes diplomatic talks with an army who is known for its horrible human rights record, and takes prejudice as a base for its conclusions ? I mean why on earth do they need to investigate when at the end what prevails is complacency and prejudice ?

Lebanon: Elusive Peace and Despair

Next year, I will be 50. I was born the year Fouad Chehab ended the pro-western pro-US Chamoun presidency to rally all sects in Lebanon around a certain idea of neutrality between pro-western (mostly Christian tribal leaders at the time) and Pan Arabist (mostly sunni tribal leaders at the time) elements in the Lebanese society. I have a clear memory from my childhood, that of soldiers appearing around our village house while my younger brother and I were playing outside. I was terrified. My brother started crying loud and my mother came out. The soldiers explained they were looking for fugitives. And then from their pockets, they pulled some sweets and gave them to my brother. That was enough to calm him down.
Long after, I will learn from my parents that the incident happened in 1962, few months after a failed coup was attempted in early 1962 by members of the Syrian Nationalist Party on the presidency of Fouad Chehab.

With this childhood memory, another one is still vivid. It is about a dream I would make repetitively. I always wonder if I had started making this dream before this encounter with the soldiers or after. In my dream, I would wake up during the night while my parents and the whole village were sleeping. I would go to my grand'parents' and walk past their house in the empty street as if expecting something. And suddenly the road before me would open, a riffle would rise ripping off the asphalt. At this sight, I would run to our house, voiceless and breathless, and wake up in my bed sweating and crying.

Nearly more than a decade after this dream started to haunt my nights, I witnessed the ugliness of the civil war as a teenager within my own community and the savagery applied on other rival communities and sects during seven whole years between 1975 and 1982. I left Lebanon, not before loosing my mother to illness and depression and seeing the rest of my family shattered on three continents. I had my own family and children, forgot about Lebanon, only on the surface. I couldn't for example listen to Arabic music, Fayrouz, or any other music I used to listen to when I was a young person growing up in Lebanon, without breaking into tears. I was always postponing a visit to Lebanon after the country was pacified, inventing excuses to my husband and grown up children who are from another country and had never visited. Until 2005. The events that unfolded in 2005 led me to think that the fragile equilibrium that was prevailing in the country was going to be shattered again. I opened up to my husband and told him about my fears and at the same time about what I thought was maybe our last chance to visit the country with the children in 'normal' times. He was kind enough to suggest approaching Lebanon from a distance, slowly, and with a perspective. We visited that summer Cyprus for one week, Syria for another week, before arriving to Baalbeck in the Bekaa and witnessing the 5kms stretch of trucks delayed at the border between Syria and Lebanon. We stayed the first night awake on the roof of the Palmyra hotel in Baalbeck admiring the Roman ruins by night. The hotel concierge told me that Fayrouz used to stay on the roof admiring the ruins the night before performing at the Baalbeck festival.

I was welcome in Syria. While the Syrian workers were persecuted in Lebanon, the Syrian people, wherever I went, gave me a warm welcome. While visiting the Omeyyade Mosque in Damascus, the man at the door who lends 'abayas to women to cover themselves in the mosque asked from where I come. I answered worried: 'I am from Lebanon but I live in Canada'. And he kindly said: 'welcome our sister' and refused that I pay the price paid by foreign tourists for the 'abayas. In comparison, at Beyrouth airport, when leaving, the woman at the flight registration desk remarked with an air of disgust that we had been to Syria before Lebanon.

In 12 days, we drove Lebanon from north to south, from Bcharré to Qana and the southern border, taking all the small roads and totalling some 6000 kms in a country of 200kms long and 80 kms, at most, large. I arrived to my village unannounced. I walked to my grand'parents'. The door was open, as in most village houses. My aunt came to the door and asked who we were. I said: I am your niece. We embraced while my husband and children were behind, crying. I visited our empty house in the village, gathered some old pictures, talked with neighbours and old friends, took a walk to the olive orchards, trecked deep in the Qadisha valley, drove among crazy Lebanese drivers, bathed in the sea near Tyre, sampled baklavas at major Lebanese pastry stores in Tripoli and Saida, ate Falafel in Saida's souk, slept on the sound of the nearby prayer of the muezzin, walked one day in the ugly Beyrouth downtown, ultrarenovated as to erase the memory of any past or future wars.

The visit was like a therapy for me. But when I returned I started to be obsessed with the security situation in Lebanon, not being able to pass a day without looking at the news from there. And as the news from there were becoming more and more alarming, culminating in the 2006 Israeli agression on the country, I started to despair, and I am still in this mood. And while the lebanese army is pounding now in the north a Palestinian camp emptied of half of its inhabitants and 'equipped' by the Hariri family with some few hundred islamist militants, on orders of the Sanyura government trying to distract from crucial issues in Lebanon, exactly as Al-Qaida serves as a useful distractor for the internal political goals of western governments in power, not in a war of attrition, but in a divisive war of rallying and regrouping different communities around resentment, like what is happening in Iraq, Lebanon is commemorating the 'Second Israeli War' and the second major Israeli agression which rallied its citizens for the duration of the agression across the sectarian divide.

For the time being, and this time seems to last forever, I have adopted a substitute to Lebanon. I went vacationing in Turkey (and partly in Greece) this summer, and will do so often, until of course Turkey also will be reached by the neo-con destabilising and debilitating enterprise for a new middle east and a new century.

There is only one word to describe my hopes for Lebanon and what I think of its political tribal elite and their followers: Despair. And I apologise before my Lebanese friends and parents for my pessimism.

Fear and fragile peace

A son waits to join Hizbullah to avenge shattered family

Bint Jbeil in pictures one year later.

Some background on the Israeli invasions of south Lebanon. The article dates from 1999 but gives a perspective much needed since everything today has been formatted within the new 9/11 explanation framework while dismissing the rest, the rest is history for the US and Israel and much of the western world, but history matters when we need to analyse conflicts.

Olmert, Peretz, and their generals, would have benefited from reading this article published in 2004 in the Daily Star, before launching the 2006 agression against Lebanon.

Unpopular and failed governments in Israel and Lebanon and the sacrifice of Palestinian civilians

The last Israeli agression on Lebanon that was supposed to crush Hezbollah was a disaster to both countries, a disaster to peace in the region, and a bigger disaster for Palestinians. Palestinians are so let down by the Arab and international community that killing them isn't a big deal anymore. And that is exactly what is happening in Lebanon under the cover of fighting Muslim extremists.

The defeat of Israel in its last agression on Lebanon has produced, on top of the civilian casualties, and the cluster bombs that continue to kill in Lebanon, and the 800000 refugees, and the destruction of the country and the land and the harvest for a long time to come, two unpopular and rotten governments hanging on power against the odds and against democratic common sense. Olmert for example enjoys a popularity rate under the margin of error. As for Lebanon's PM Sanyura (Siniora in the western press), there was no investigation committee on his role during the war and no opinion polls to test his popularity. But you know that things have gone wrong when this PM, who is hanging on an amputated government contested since November by more than half the population, orders his army, who never lifted a finger against any agression on Lebanon, not even during the Israeli agression, to attack Palestinian refugee camps inside Lebanon.

The Muslim extremists whom Sanyura is fighting were able to infiltrate the camps thanks to Sanyura's all time ally Hariri and his Saudi mentors. One can recognize here the neocon doctrine at work; maintaining muslim extremists at hand in order to justify wars and civilian casualties. These confrontations, which Sanyura and his allies seem to attribute to Syrian interference in Palestinian refugee camps in northern Lebanon, are tailored to pressure an increasingly hesitant national security council towards establishing a special tribunal for Lebanon, officializing the vassalization of Lebanon to US and French interests and consequently tipping the balance of power toward an increasingly unpopular US sponsored Sanyura government and its March 14th ally, against the will of more than half the population, the Shias led by Amal and Hezbollah, and half the Christians led by general Michel Aoun, in addition to support form a sizeable part of other communities (sunnis and druzes).

But thanks to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the Lebanese government move should not be considered otherwise than a survival manoeuvre. Like Olmert, whose army is continuing to kill palestinians in order to distract his political detractors inside Israel, the political survival manoeuvres launched by the Sanyura government in northern Lebanon are made on the dead bodies of civilians to distract from his government unpopularity and lack of support. More than cluster bombs and more than nuclear weapons, failed politicians in the ME are the most dangerous weapons againt civilian populations and against regional and international peace. Failed Politicians in the ME are Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet, the US foreign policy has been doing just that, implementing Weapons of Mass destruction in the ME by supporting failed politicians (and sometimes removing them when they become disobediant and replacing them by other failed ones more obediant), feeding wars and conflicts, in total disregard for human life.

Here are some excerpts from Hersh's article 'The redirection' shwowing clearly the link between the US supported Sanyura and Hariri government and the sunni extremists they are pretending to fight now in norhtern Lebanon. I let you draw the conclusions...

''In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan''.''
''In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”''
''Martin Indyk, of the Saban Center, said, however, that the United States “does not have enough pull to stop the moderates* in Lebanon from dealing with the extremists.” He added, “The President sees the region as divided between moderates and extremists, but our regional friends see it as divided between Sunnis and Shia. The Sunnis that we view as extremists are regarded by our Sunni allies simply as Sunnis.”''
''Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.''

*Please note that what the US (and neocon Indyk) call 'moderates' in Lebanon refers only to US allies without regard to their local political or religious allegiances.

The Hezbollah between USraeli sponsored anti-guerilla and national and regional dialogues

The political situation in Lebanon is in a dead end. The Sanyura government supported by the Bush administration is refusing any internal dialogue with its opponents, which are a majority in Lebanon and include Hezbollah, Amal and the Free patriotic movement. Arguing that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation holding allegiances to Iran and Syria, the Bush administration has undermined any solution to the Lebanese dead end and is actively promoting confrontation by literally arming the anti-Hezbollah Samir Gea'gea's militia, the security apparatus of Sanyura's puppet government, which doubled in a matter of months reaching 24000 men, and by tolerating the activity of openly islamist sunni extremist organisations in Lebanon. The last bombing of two passengers buses in the Lebanese mountain at 'Ayn 'Alaq had the signature of sunni extremists. Read the April report of the International Crisis Group, page 11.
The opposition to the Sanyura government has entered its fifth month of standoff with no solution in sight despite some attempts (not genuine in my opinion) from the Saudis to come up with a proposal. Initially, the opposition has asked for an extension of the Sanyura government into a national unity government to include ministers from the Christian Free Patriotic Movement. As their pacifist demand was ignored, they have now one outcome, the ballot box. But even here, the Sanyura government seems to be reluctant to agree on early elections and is afraid of losing its grip on power.

It is in this tense climate that Hassan Nasrallah gave Alain Gresh the following interview translated by the author of this blog.

Meeting and interviewing Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the most important party in Lebanon, is not an easy task. Even though Hezbollah is a parliamentary party with a large social infrastructure and a preponderant influence among Shiites, it is classified as a terrorist organisation by the US. Hassan Nasrallah is, without a doubt, un « homme à abattre », a man on the killing list.

The interview is meant for TV and is a part of a TV documentary on Hezbollah. We are told that the meeting will take place in the afternoon and that someone will meet us at a restaurant and drive us to the meeting venue without any other precision as to the time of the meeting. A first car drives us into a garage where we are transferred into a second car with blackened windows: we cannot identify the trajectory. We will be transferred five times from one car to another before we reach our destination: an improvised studio with two flags, the Lebanese and Hezbollah's.

Despite all these precautions, the man who comes to meet us does not appear anxious. He speaks slowly, smile often and tries to convince without ever raising the tone of the conversation. The interview lasts 2 hours. Here are some themes tackled in the interview. There are no transcripts yet of the recordings and the quotes are taken from personal notes. Questions are in Italic Bold.

The internal situation in Lebanon.
The risks for a renewal of the civil war exist, however Hezbollah will do everything in its power to avoid it. The majority of the Lebanese people, who have already experienced a civil war, do not want another one. Our objective for Lebanon is not an Islamic republic for to be implemented the Islamic republic will require the consent of the majority of the population. That is not the case in Lebanon: not only the Christian minority refuse to live in an Islamic republic but even Lebanese Muslims are not convinced by such a project. We want a Lebanon whose destiny is not decided by one religion but by all its religious communities. It is for this same reason that we asked for a national unity government. The Imam Moussa Sadr was the first to advocate an end to sectarianism in Lebanon; but we have to take into account the realities and fears of Lebanese, those among Christians who are afraid from becoming marginalised.

Why doesn't Hezbollah give its weapons in a sign of good will destined to the other communities?
Our weapons are not directed at other communities in Lebanon neither are they for at internal combat operations. They were never used as such. Our weapons are destined to Israel and the resistance against the external enemy, Israel and Israeli aggression and occupation.

The velayat e-faqih [1] and relations with Iran. Is there a contradiction between the fidelity to the religious principle of velayat e-faqih and the fact that Hezbollah is a national Lebanese political party ?
No. On one hand, all what we do we do it to serve our country Lebanon. We even make use of our relations with Iran in the service of our country, never the contrary. We define our Politic and our strategy according to our priorities. On the other hand, the velayat e-faqih is an allegiance to a man and not a country. The Velayat e-faqih is actually Iranian, before he was Iraqi, and in the future he will probably be Lebanese. Iran is a state and it designs its strategy and obligations accordingly. These strategy and obligations are not ours. For example, Iran has diplomatic relations with Lybia but we don't. We are hostiles to such relations as long as Lybia does not explain the disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr (Sadr is the founding Shi'ite Imam of the political movement 'Al-Mahroumin', the dispossessed, the precursor movement to present Shi'ite political parties, Amal and Hezbollah. He disappeared in Lybia in suspicious circumstances in 1978 and his disappearance has not been explained by Lybian authorities). We also differed with Iraq's Sh'ia on the decision to execute Saddam Hussein. We had concerns about the timing and the conditions in which the execution was carried. In Iran, there were different opinions on this matter also.

On Israel and Palestine.
The creation of Israel is the result of a denial; denying the Palestinians their right on their land. Time will do nothing to this fact and Palestinian rights must be respected. The two state solution is not possible, it is not realistic. The best solution is a one state solution. One democratic state on the entire territory of Palestine in which Jews, Muslims and Christians can live and coexist. The name of such a state is not important, it can be agreed upon by all parties.

What will happen if the Palestinian national unity government signs a peace agreement with Israel?
We supported the Mecca agreement signed by Hamas and Fatah. The Palestinian problem should be left to Palestinians themselves to decide and we should not impose upon them a solution (as we should not impose upon Lebanese a solution they don't agree with). Our first responsibility goes for Lebanon and its occupied territory, not Palestine.

If a global peace agreement is signed between Israel and Arab countries, will Hezbollah recognize Israel ?
There are too many ifs. We will define our position in due time according to the regional and international contexts.

Al-Qaida.
Our disagreements with this movement are numerous and they concern Religion and Politics. This movement the non participation of Islamic movements i n national elections while we in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as the Muslim brothers in Egypt, are engaged in the political electoral process. Moreover, Al-Qaida denounces Muslims who depart from Al-Qaida's political and religious agenda and does not refrain from killing them. That is not our conception of Religion and Politics. Some tried to suggest the existence of links between our movement and Al-Qaida but nobody has been able to substantiate this claim with the slightest proof. We will never engage if fight against them as we do not intend to fight anybody who does not attack us (Nasrallah is sending a message here to Sunni Muslim extremists in Lebanon linked to Al-Qaida whose presence was revealed by the article of Seymour Hersh, the redirection, and who seem to infiltrate Lebanon with the blessings of the US and its allies, the Sanyura government and Saudi Arabia).

Risk of war.
If there is a war on Lebanon, the situation will be totally different from what was before the July war when Israel attacked Lebanon. We have vacated the border positions between Israel and Lebanon and they are now occupied by the Lebanese army. If Israel were to attack again, the role of the army will be to defend the Lebanese territory. We are present in the south because we live in the cities and villages of the south. Our combatants come from these cities and villages, they can fight in the next war. The UNIFIL will be in a very difficult position: either it will be a spectator of the war or it will help repel the aggression. It can also retreat. None of these solutions is satisfactory. Some are surprised and concerned that we are renewing our weapons arsenal but they do not react the same way to the fact that Israel is seeking weapons from the US and is preparing for war through maneuvers and intensive training


Read here my post: Hassan Nasrallah, the New Face of Moderation in Lebanon and the Middle East


Notes
[1] The principle of velayat e-faqih, or the government of the doctrine, is to assign an important power to the guide of the community of the faithfuls in the Shi'ite religion. Since the creation of the Islamic republic of Iran, this position was attributed to ayatollah Khomeini and is now filled by Ali Khamenei. This principle is disputed by many Shi'ite clerics. It is accepted by Hezbollah while rejected by ayatollah Mohammad Fadlallah, one of the highest ranking Shi'a clerics in Lebanon. Fadlallah is considered also as someone who is close to Hezbollah.

Read how Haaretz reports on Hezbollah's public declarations about its weapons arsenal. It seems that Hezbollah is doing this just to offset Israel.

Random Thoughts on Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq

I was feeling some blog fatigue and wasn't going to blog for a while. Then I read that Bush wanted more time for his 'new strategy' in Iraq. It reminded me of Israel last summer when it was asking the US, UK and the international community for more time to crush Hezbollah. Instead, it crushed Lebanon's economy, seashore, half of its roads, bridges, houses, buildings, and orchards, killed thousand civilians, made refugees of about 30% of the population and went home leaving Lebanon with postdated cluster bombs, profound divisions, and Hezbollah with a 'divine victory'. Both Bush and Olmert remind me of failing students, you know those ones who, having prepared badly for the exam, sit in front of their white paper the last five minutes when everybody else is done, hoping to deliver !

While Bush, not recognising his defeat, is staying hopeful, Olmert is engaging his countrymen and women in byzantine discussions about the lost war in Lebanon, whose only virtue is to divert Israeli citizens attention from the real issues facing Israel after this war.
What are the issues facing Israel immediately ?
The failure of its leadership in war;
The failure of its leadership in peace (Israel declared it will not discuss with the new Palestinian unity government when most European countries and the US have shown their will to engage).
What are the questions debated in Israel right now ?
Was the attack on Lebanon an operation or a war ?
Giving a name to this war.
Protecting Darfur refugees and pointing out Human rights violations in Darfur.

And as Raptors always hunt in pair, Israel is supported in this Darfur effort by US and French zionists (Nicholas Kristof in the US and BHL in France are leading the efforts). In France, Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL), who has just embarked, courageousely and bare chested, on his latest humanitarian cause, is leading a pack summoning French presidential candidates to sign an engagement for action in the Darfur crisis.

And because we are becoming numb to HUman rights violations, not only in Darfur, but everywhere, the main result of the Darfur media frenzy will be to divert the world's attention from noticing one more effort, in a long list of political compromises and progresses made by the Palestinians to stop the economic embargo from achieving a total isolation, erosion and disintegration of their lands, people and society. The new Palestinian unity government, in addition to being a unity (Fatah-Hamas) government, has given 25% of minsteries to independants from neither parties including four key ministeries, Interior, Information, Finance, and Foreign Affairs. But once again, BHL and other zionists will fail to notice, and once again, Israel won't talk to this government and will be hiding from reprieve behind a good cause; Darfur. Every time the Palestinians show their good will, Israel finds an excuse to look Elsewhere by instigating, through its zionist allies, a media frenzy about where the west should look and what its priorities should be . Israel and zionists are in an active state of denial.

There is a civil war in Darfur and the western media and Israel want us to believe that the Muslims are waging this war against the southern sudanese populations with the implicit blessing of the government for ethnic reasons. But there is another narrative to this story, Sudanese oil. Sudan, like the Middle East, is blessed with oil and cursed with oil.

And as long as I will be reading this kind of news everyday, my indignation at USrael's criminal wars against the people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and the entire Middle East, will never fade. There is no room for blog fatigue on this blog.

Watch here a video on the children of Baghdad, Iraq (not of interest to Mr BHL's humanitarian preoccupations because their misery results from Mr. BHL's friends policies in the ME)

Good Night and Good Luck.

George Bush demande "plus de temps" pour sa nouvelle stratégie en Irak
LE MONDE | 20.03.07

©

Israël-Hezbollah : la guerre qui ne dit pas son nom
LE MONDE | 20.03.07

©

You have to excuse Le Monde, they don't know that Israel's war was on Lebanon and not on Hezbollah ! Another subject for my indignation, the western press's pro-zionist biases.

Les Occidentaux renouent le contact avec le gouvernement palestinien
LEMONDE.FR | 21.03.07

©

Le premier ministre palestinien a présenté son gouvernement au président Abbas
LEMONDE.FR | 15.03.07

©

Composition du nouveau gouvernement d'union palestinien
LEMONDE.FR | 15.03.07

©

Palestine : des indépendants aux ministères-clés
LE MONDE | 15.03.07

©

Un meeting à Paris pour interpeller les présidentiables sur le Darfour
LEMONDE.FR | 20.03.07

©

Velayati on Iran, the Nuclear Row, Iraq, Lebanon, and the ME

Ali Akbar Velayati has served for almost 17 years as foreign affairs minister in the successive governments of the Iranian Islamic revolution and became, 10 years ago, special advisor on foreign affairs for the supreme guide of the revolution, Ali Khamenei. He is very much in the spotlight since the recent escalation opposing the US and Israel to Iran on the development of Iran's nuclear capacity for civil purposes, as Iranians insist and repeat (within the Non Prolifeartion treaty) while the US and Israel are maintaining that Iran's nuclear activity is not for civil purposes. However, as I mentioned before, Velayati's presence is not felt in the anglo press or the press 'corps' of the countries advocating a war against Iran; US and UK.

I took it upon myself, with some fellow bloggers, Naj, Homeyra, Loopy, and others, to fill in the void, as much as possible, by translating the interviews from the Francophone press and posting some basic knowledge on Iran and its two recent revolutions. Indeed the Islamic revolution is called as such because it was encouraged by the US over another revolution, the leftist secularist revolution that fought the Shah in an alliance with Islamists to find itself overwhelmed by the Us hostility from the outside and the Islamists from the inside.

This is the latest interview with Velayati published by le Monde (february 21st, 2007, link at the end) and it was made while the UN security council was considering another resolution for sanctions against Iran. I have updated with some comments at the end.

A Londres, les Six discutent d'un renforcement des sanctions prévues par la résolution 1737 de l'ONU
LE MONDE 26.02.07

©

In this interview, Velayati confirms Iran's willingness for open and non conditional negotiations while suggesting that the international community should not be intimidated by the agressive slogans of some leaders (in the context it must be understood that he is alluding at the same time to Bush and Ahmadi-Nejad. Read what follows). He maintains that only the supreme guide of the revolution has the last word in all matters. He also lamented the absence of an active role for European countries in the Middle East, especially France. Velayati seemed to suggest that this role is much needed to counter the US unilateralism in the ME.

Le Monde: What was Ali Larijani's (Iranian negotiator)message when he met on February 20th the IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei ?

Velayati: The message is we want to pursue negotiations. There is no disagreement that cannot be resolved by discussions . At the same time, one cannot dictate a solution in advance of any negotiation. This dossier has two red lines: the first is the fundamental right of Iran to nuclear technology for civil purposes given by the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other is the guarantee that Iran must give on the absence of any plan for military escalation by developing nuclear energy. Between these two lines everything is possible in negotiations or discussions about our nuclear program.

Le Monde: Even a temporary suspension of Uranium enrichment ?

Velayati: M. Larijani is open to all propositions without exclusion. We have already suspended enrichment during two years and a half but this suspension didn't solve the problem. There are also other ideas we must not discard like the one we came with to create an international consortium on Uranium enrichment on the Iranian soil managed by Europeans and open to IAEA control (Russia has defended this idea in the previous crisis in the Iranian nuclear row). france has the capacity to form such a consortium. We have a history of nuclear collaboration and mutual trust with France who, in the past, had the project for a nuclear reactor for civil purposes at Darakhoin near Ahwaz in the 70s. We are and still shareholders in Eurodif. All this might facilitate the resuming of the discussions with France on our civil nuclear projects and adress the concerns of other countries on our nuclear capacity. The moment is suitable for such a move.

You know Iran is four times larger than Iraq and is three times more populated with a higher degree of mobilisation and a ready army. I don't see them risking war against us in these conditions.

Le Monde: How do you analyse French policies toward what is going on in Lebanon ? (to my readers, France is much more close to the US policies when it comes to Lebanon)

Velayati: France is wasting the political and culutral investments it had in this country. It threw itself in the hole digged by the US. If Paris does not want to lose its credit in Lebanon, it must abstain from taking sides with a small fraction of the population. In addition, France has withdrawn its support to an old time ally, general Michel Aoun, the chief of the Free Patriotic Movement, which is christian (allied to Hezbollah and Amal in their will to enlarge the present US backed Sanyura government to all sects and make it more representative of Lebanese, you can read their statement by clicking on the front page banner on this blog)

Le Monde: Jacques Chirac had previously thought od sending an envoy to tehran to discuss the situation in Lebanon. What do you think of this ?

Velayati: This is an excellent idea. There is a common interest to Iran and France in joining efforts to defend Lebanon. Talks between france and Iran could not only be beneficial to Lebanon but to all the ME and the Gulf regions. As we are speaking, the US is the only powerbroker in the ME and this unilaterlaism, which is denounced also by president Putin, is Bad. We aknowledge with much regret that Europe is absent from this scene, it does not play any role in the region and I deplore this fact. A European presence in which france plays a major role can potentailly reequilibrates the situation in the ME.

Le Monde: M. Chirac refuses to talk to Syria. What is your opinion ?

Velayati: Frankly, I must admit that France's position toward Syria is extreme and it is counterproductive to France. Other countries are profiting from this hostility. However Iran can play a role in future medations between the two countries.

Le Monde: Wars in Afghanistan, Irak and Lebanon have reinforced your central role in the region. Iran promotes stability but at the same time helps moveents like Hezbollah and Moqtada Sadr in Irak. The US is accusing Iran of arming the insurgents in Iraq. Why don't you make a move toward calming the situation by withdrawing your financial support for Hezbollah for example ?

Velayati: Certainly not ! It is not by abandoning Shi'a and Hezbollah in their fight against Israël that we are going to be useful in the region. As for the rest, Iran needs stability at its frontiers. Do you believe that the coalition forces in Afghanistan could have defeated the Talibans without our support ? In Iraq, we support the Maliki government and we work toward peace. There are no insurgents in Iraq, there are only resistants to the occupation

Interview by Marie-Claude Decamps

My Comments: Between the previous interview, published initially by Le Temps on February 14th, and this one which appeared on February 21st, Iran's position has evolved for the worse. What happened in one week ? A second resolution against Iran is being submitted by the US to the countries of the UN security council.

While Velayati is maintaining the possibility for open negotiations as well as the two red lines drawn by Iran for these negotiations, Iran's right to civil nuclear energy and its duty to account for its nuclear activity within international standards and IAEA rules, he seems to be more on the offensive both on the diplomatic and the psychological fronts. This attitude can be seen in the following elements:

-When he suggests that a war against Iran is unlike the war against Iraq because of the internal mobilisation, the size of both the country and the people, when compared to Iraq, as well as the state of readiness of the Iranian army;

-When he reminds us that Iran was instrumental in the victory against the talibans in 2001;

-When he reminds us of Iran's influence in the ME notably on regimes and political groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, making a war against Iran a risk for the region;

-When he suggests a bigger role for France and Europe in general in the development of Iran's civil nuclear energy. Iran is looking for a partner for dialogue because it knows that the US is not interested in dialogue;

- When he suggests that Iran's influence in the region be used to promote peace and not war as when he mentions the mediation role Iran can play between France and Syria regarding the crisis in Lebanon. Clearly, Mr. Velayati has gone from being defensive in the first interview to offensive. What changed in one week is not only the fact that a second more hostile resolution is being prepared against Iran but that this resolution is being prepared on the sole basis that Iran is pursuing Uranium enrichment, something the IAEA was able to check, even though this enrichment is still, at this stage of the negotiations, at a non threatening level, for civil purposes. The attitude of the US is purely unacceptable because while Iran is poised for dialogue, compromise and open to control of its nuclear activity, the other side wants it to surrender this activity even though it is done within a legal framework, for civil purposes and within the NPT rules. This is why Velayati says that one cannot just set up the results for any negotiations before they actually take place. Indeed the US is asking that Iran stops any enrichment of Uranium in order to start negotiations while the halt to the Uranium enrichment should be the result of the negotiations !

What will happen next is that severe sanctions, if voted by the UN security council, will stop dialogue and Iran will be able to pursue its nuclear program outside international rules. This catastrophic scenario had already been played in North Korea where it yielded catastrophic results. One has to understand that we are here more close to the north Korea case than to Iraq. the US does not have the means going to war against Iran, and I really hope the neocons know that. The only thing that the US will be able to implement are sanctions and verbal escalation making, once again, the world less safe, more agressive and less productive for economies, except those sponsored by Cheney, Bush and Israel, arms trades and any other war related economy...

The previous interview of Velayati in le Temps

Ali Akbar Velayati presse les Européens de "tempérer les Etats-Unis"
LE MONDE 21.02.07

©

Today In The News:

Nucléaire : une nouvelle résolution pour sanctionner l'Iran est à l'étude
LEMONDE.FR 26.02.07

©

L'Iran serait prêt à négocier avec Washington mais sans condition
LEMONDE.FR 26.02.07

©

Political Assassinations in Lebanon: Truth And Consequences

The UN Inquiry on the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri and other political assassinations in Lebanon is stumbling on the unwillingness of ten countries to collaborate. Collaboration with the inquiry was a number one requirement in all UN resolutions concerning the inquiry. The head commissioner, Serge Brammertz, did not publish the names of the countries who won't collaborate, but speculations are running high since the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Tchourkine, asked for the divulgation of the names.

Rafiq Hariri was killed on a Valentine day, February 14th, in Beyrouth, after 'supposedly' a car exploded near his convoy. There is no final official report about the assassination since Brammertz's predecessor, Detlev Mehlis, was discharged after his line of inquiry collapsed in a serie of false and fabricated testimonies which were the only 'proofs' he had produced accusing Syria of the assassination. Syria's army left Lebanon after a public and international outrage at the assassination designated the Syrians as prime suspects. The follow-up to this event was an election victory of the March 14th movement led by Hariri son and Walid Jumblatt as well as other pro-US political movements in Lebanon. However, the March 14th movement is, since then, unable to overcome the dwindling of its political support inside Lebanon resulting from its inability to build consensus and from the fact that most Lebanese see the movement as accomplice of the latest July Israeli agression which was overtly supported by March 14th's western political mentors, the US and the UK.

While not mentioning the names of the countries not collaborating with the inquiry, Brammertz declared being totally satisfied with the Syrian collaboration. On his blog, Alain Gresh, a 'Le Monde Diplomatique' correspondant and specialist of the Middle East, reveals the names of some of these uncooperative countries as published on January 12th by the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, a daily seen as close to the Lebanese opposition. They are:
The US who have satellite pictures of the assassination;
Israel who has pictures taken before and after the assassination by its spy planes continously flying over Lebanon;
France who detains a suspect, Mohammed Said Saddik, who made a false testimony to the first UN inquiry headed by Mehlis;
Among other countries mentioned by the Lebanese daily are Germany, Saudi Arabia, Koweit, Australia, UAE, and Brazil.

It is known to these countries that:
The site of the assassination had undergone a 'cleanup' before any evidence gathering;
The first UN inquiry was marred by the lack of professionalism and lack of neutrality on Mehlis's part;
Precious time was lost for collecting and analysing the evidence;
Other politicians and prominent figures died since Hariri was killed, they all are related to the March 14th movement, and their assassinations prompted, eache time, accusations against Syria;
These political assassinations were included by the UN in the mandate of the commission at the demand of the Lebanese state;

Given that Brammertz was making progress and briefing the UN along the way to the point some assume that the change of method in the latest assassination in Lebanon (that of Pierre Gemayyel) was propably prompted by informations on Brammertz's progress and a will to derail the inquiry, one may wonder why these countries, who are all supporting the corrupt pro-US Lebanese government of Fouad Sanyura, won't help a honest inquiry into a series of assassinations that destabilised Lebanon and brought it to the edge of a new civil war ?

Ironically, the March 14th movement and its accolytes had the word 'Truth' as a main slogan on their protest banners (Haqiqa, in Arabic).

Living Together: Nasrallah's Speech to the December 1st protest

This is a translation of the account given in French of Nasrallah's speech to the December 1st protest, on Thursday December 7th, by Libnanews.

Supressing any sign in the protest that can be interpreted as violence.
He started his speech by asking his supporters not to resort to an old Lebanese and middle eastern tradition; firing shots of celebration at the end of the speech.

Greetings.
He greeted the protesters then evoked the spirit of the young protester, Ahmed Mahmoud, who was shot last sunday probably as a result of an attack on a group of protesters joining the protest site by militiamen from the Future movement led by Saad Hariri.

Critique of the present government, March 14th and foreign and Arab leaders in light of the latest israeli agression on lebanon.
He declared being proud of the protesters who are defying the ennemies of Lebanon, those who led a savage war on lebanon last July. He called upon them to resist any attempt to weaken the protest by those who supported the July Israeli agression on Lebanon ad who support the present government. He called on Arab leaders not to favour one party in Lebanon over another but to assist all Lebanese in order to help them not to yield under the pressure of the terrorist Bush. He invited all Arabs to open their eyes on the reality of the failing US foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
He found offensive the open support israel is granting to the Sanyura government targeting the magnanimous in Lebanon in order to curb their support for the December 1st protest.

A unity government with a blocking power for the opposition, no matter who is in the opposition, that's all what the December protest is about.
He highlighted the necessity of a national union government representing all Lebanese, insisting on the particular context and structure of the Lebanese society which requires a representation that adresses the concerns of all its communities. On this basis he is asking that the opposition be granted a third of the seats in the government allowing it to block some decisions, whether this opposition is Hezbollah and its allies or the actual government.

A unity government with or without the actual government consent and by peaceful means.
Nasrallah asked to maintain the protest as long as the present government stays with its actual composition. He asked that the protest be peaceful avoiding any insults, clashes or conflicts which can lead to a civil war. He assured the international community that no matter what happens Hezbollah will never brandish its weapons against its lebanese brothers because lebanese understand that a civil war is a defeat for them and a victory for their Israeli ennemy who wishes that lebanon be thrown into dark abysses. He noticed, alluding to Saudi Arabia's and Egypt's recent remarks against the anti-Sanyura protest, that Israel is already inciting these Arab leaders to throw panic on the lebanese by warning them from a risk of civil war.

Hezbollah's intentions on the short term and its code of conduct during the protest.
Nasrallah confirmed that his party will fight those who intended to plant discord among Lebanese by killing Ahmed Mahmoud. He said that a thousand others Ahmed Mahmoud may fall but the Hezbollah resistance will not be driven into raising its arms against its Lebanese brothers and those who would fall would have done so for the love of their country, Lebanon. Hezbollah will work to avoid civil war in Lebanon. Hezbollah will maintain peaceful protests without resorting to any form of armed protest defying his detractors who are staking on a possible conflict. He exhorted Lebanese not to fall in the trap made by forces close to the Sanyura government whop are trying to portray the actual confrontation as a confrontation between Sunnis and Shias. He insisted that the opposition to the Sanyura government is composed of lebanese from all religions and sects and invited the Arab league (this same Arab league who does not move a finger when palestinians are slaughtered by Isreal but who seems mved by the opposition to the Sanyura government) to inquire on the site of the protest about the fact that the opposition to Sanyura comes from all religions and sects. He noted that any sectarian provocation is an act that goes against Religion, against Humanity and against morals.

The goal of Hezbollah on the long term.
He said that his party does not covet seats by asking for a unity government. He said that his party is ready to give these seats to any other movement in the opposition at the condition that the representation be fair. He said his party does not covet a throne neither a tomb (this an allusion to the political assassinations within March 14th) but a national unity government. he criticised the actual government as a government supported by the 'royal' courts of Bush and Olmert, rather than being a sunni government and that if this government was really a sunni government he would not oppose it.
(Nasrallah is criticising here the political maneuvres of the actual government which is asking the backing of traditional sunni states such as Egypt, Jordan and saudi Arabia, and sunni oulémas inside Lebanon, by appearing as sunni).
He called on Arab states for the creation of an Islamic or Arab judiciary council appointed to inquire on the legal aspects of the late Israeli agression on Lebanon in order and on the present sectarian agitation some are resorting to. He condemned those who (in Lebanon) encouraged and even pushed Bush and Cheney to launch a savage war on a Hezbollah resistance they could not disarm. He specified that those who encouraged the latest israeli agression on Lebanon are in the actual government and asked that they be tried for treason. He specified that he was not accusing all March 14th politicains but those who, being part of this March 14th coalition, sat on the same table as Bush and Cheney and asked them to initiate a war on Lebanon. He said that he was not going to name names and wishes he will may be obliged to do so in front of the international community. He also accuses Israel of opening a prison camp with a 10 000 men capacity in anticipation of the imprisonment of members of the actual Lebanese opposition.

Message to Sanyura: If you come to us we will forgive and we are determined in our demands and our forgiveness .
Hezbollah's leader adressed Sanyura knowing that he might be listening from his Prime Ministerial residence surrounded by the protests. He sermoned him for issuing an order to the Lebanese army to block ammunitions transfer to the resistance in the south while this resistance was battling the ennemy and defending the country. he asked how a Prime Minister of a country in war could try to block a resistance that even savage Israeli bombardments were not able to deter ? He however declared that he comes from a culture inclined to forgive and attached to Human values and tolerance and because of that he forgives his lebanese brothers who deviantly wanted to harm the resistance and who recently permitted a supposedly sunni terrorist network to infiltrate Lebanon with the goal of assassinating him.

He invited Sanyura to accept a national unity government and he warned that if Sanyura continues to oppose a unity government a time will come when the opposition wil withdraw the proposal in favor of a pure resignation of Sanyura's government. In which case, those who will lead the new government must allow Sanyura or anybody else who will be in the opposition a blocking majority because the promise of a fair and balanced government will be maintained. Lebanon being a country built on consensus, all political forces must be represented in the new cabinet.

Shias, Sunnis and Christians united in their faith for one God.
Nasrallah invited those who believe in the same God to aprticipate in a prayer Friday December 8th and asked shiites protesters to pray with sunnis at 11th instead of their usual prayer performed at 12.

He also called Lebanese to participate Sunday, 3 p.m., in a planned meet-up to renew and reaffirm the will of the December 1st protest not to bow to a government manipulated by foreign forces.

He concluded by promising victory to Lebanese from all confessions and parties and hailed the spirit of the protest victim and of all the protesters.

Angry Arab's analysis of the speech.

Google video of the speech (Arabic)

Addendum: I am listening now to the speech and I think what Libnanews missed is the harsh indictment of the Bush administration on Iraq asking how could Sanyura's government trust the people who ignited a civil war in Iraq and killed its children. He also ridiculed the Sanyura government by telling that this government can boast about having been the subject of a special meeting of the Israeli cabinet (who does such meetings only when the interests of Israel are at stake) with the goal of finding solutions to help Sanyura !
This is why I keep telling that we should leave the anti-Syria, pro-Syria characterisations of the present forces in lebanon and adopt the pro-USrael and anti-USrael categorisations.
Nasrallah praised also the neutrality of the Lebanese army but criticised the internal security forces controlled by the government and invited them to act in neutrality. He mentioned also attempts from the government at intimidating some sunni Oulémas who support the opposition in a clear strategy of mobilisation along sectarian lines.
He also asked : 'Do you want a government who takes his orders from amabassador Feltman or Secretary Rice ?'