Abul Gheit's mystery visit
Shortly before his visit to Lebanon, the pro-Hizbullah paper al-Akhbar published a report claiming Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit is in Lebanon to promote army commander Michel Suleiman as a president for 2-3 years. Al-Akhbar's reporting was pretty elaborate, alleging that Mubarak is pushing for a transitional presidency that would have the blessing of Syria and Hizbullah.
Abul Gheit, however, spent a good deal of the day denying this report and sending apparent "hands off" messages to Syria and Iran, while assuring everyone that Egypt is not pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow certain candidates to become presidents. The report in Al-Akhbar had gone as far as suggesting that the Suleiman presidency is also backed by Saudi-Arabia and the US.
Al-Akhbar, infamous for concocting lies, had just published that Aoun was officially named as Nasrallah's candidate, something Aoun denied in an interview with NBN (which the paper reported in the same article).
Unsurprisingly, and contrary to what al-Akhbar is unfathomably spreading, the US does not seem to be in favor of Suleiman becoming a temporary president. A Suleiman presidency is unacceptable to March 14, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said yesterday that US diplomacy is in constant contact with "our allies in the March 14 group to see what is acceptable to them and what is not". Rice, in fact, made it clear during a congressional hearing that her country is "working on the basis that there should be no effort to make Lebanon in any way set aside constitutional processes that would lead to a president that the United States of America would consider illegitimate in some fashion."
As to what Abul Gheit is really bringing to Lebanon, apart from statements in support of the constitution, we will find out the usual way: contradictory leaks published in different newspapers. In the meantime, the Egyptian is publicly saying he is in the country to share the "Egyptian vision", warn against interference, and encourage dialogue.
I would like the Lebs to tell our own leaders: talk to other Lebs or just go to parliament and frigging vote, enough debating OUR fate with foreigners (especially those whose own countries are a mess).
Re Mubarak and Sleiman, Sleiman just visited Egypt and Mubarak last week, can't be very innocent timing.
Posted by: JoseyWales | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 04:19 PM
Exactly!
I don't understand how these jackasses keep complaining about foreign interference (be it the M14 guys complaining about Syrian-Iranian interference) or the Opposition (complaining about US and Zionist projects, etc.) when both sides continually make themselves look like whores to the entire population. Be it Berri sending a letter to Condi Rice asking her opinion about constitutional matters (now that was a doozy!) or our PM constantly "negotiating" with Egyptians and Saudi envoys. WTF?
You people don't know how to rule a freaking country. Move aside and let some more competent people take over.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 04:37 PM
(sigh). Any "consensus" candidate is sure to be a weak president. The reason is simply that if he wants to pursue some policy or make some decision that a party to the consensus disagrees with, he'll be accused of violating his legitimacy. A "temporary" president - one who takes office with the understanding that his exercise of Constitutional authority is limited until it can be exercised by the "permanent" president - is subject to the same constraints, only worse.
That is why I believe best course of action for Lebanese who want a strong president is to ignore calls for consensus completely and stick to the Constitution and its spirit as much as possible. It is a very American belief, so I don't know if it translates into the Lebanese reality.
The ultimate test is if all of Lebanon's dissident ethno-sectarian groups are willing to abandon their leader and follow the Government instead in case of some disagreement. The only other possible sources of legitimacy are the Constitution or force of arms - civil war.
No one in Lebanon wants to see civil war resume, so as long as the legitimacy of the government is considered dicey, conflict is being put off as long as possible by accomodating ethno-sectarian leaders like Hassan Nasrallah.
But Nasrallah doesn't represent Lebanese as much as Syria and Iran, who see the Shia as a paid tool of their policy of proxy war against the West and Israel. They are rearming and fortifying Hezbollah now to improve their tool for future use in war. When that war comes, it will be at the call of Syria and Iran, not the Lebanese will once more die by the thousands. And everybody, even the Hezbollah rank and file, knows this.
No one wants civil war, but clearly some parties are maneuvering for it. The only constraint is then establishing some sort of pretext, some way to say that "the other guy started it first, and the government isn't strong enough to deal with the problem." A weak president, then, favors such conditions, or better yet, creates the condition that the unarmed ethno-sectarian groups will surrender without a blow being struck at all.
Don't give in. Elect a president without qualifications, either "consensus" or "temporary", and prepare to live with the results: an exercise of power that will diminish all of Lebanon's ethno-sectarian leaders, not just those of Hezbollah, in exchange for eventually freeing the Shia and their captive allies from foreign domination, with the support of the U.N. and the West. It must be a pretty scary thought to Lebanon's ethno-sectarian leaders, as they will be exposed to government authority in a way they haven't in over a generation. But are Lebanon's leaders prepared to ask themselves, "Won't the consequences of not electing a real president be worse?"
Posted by: Solomon2 | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 04:56 PM
Why is it that the American guy (Solomon) gets it, but the Lebanese people don't?
That was very well stated, Solomon. The notion of "consensus" simply doesn't work. It makes for a weak leader, who has to keep everyone happy (and since someone is always bound to object to something, nothing ever gets done).
And the notion of STICKING TO THE CONSTITUTION, again, a very simple one. But you're right, it's an American mentality to think that way and put the constitution above all else. The Lebanese don't even really know what their constitution says, and don't seem to give a crap that our pols keep using it as toilet paper. I mean, we've had "one time only" extensions twice already in the past 15 years. And now some are suggesting yet another "one-time only" change to allow for Suleiman (or even, if you listen to Nas, to elect the pres by popular vote).
Someone answer me this little basic mathematical quandary: What does 3 times (1 one-time-only) equal?
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 05:22 PM
The only thing that is wrong with the statement; if the president "wants to pursue some policy or make some decision that a party to the consensus disagrees with, he'll be accused of violating his legitimacy" is the fact that it is based on wrong premises. The Lebanese President is not empowered to promulgate policies or take meaningful decisions.
This does not mean that a president should not be elected constitutionally and on time but it does illustrate that the stand-off is not about the person of the next president as much as it is a jockeying for power. Think of this as a chess game where both sides are using the presidency as a pretext to push their respective visions.
The paradox about Lebanese politics is that instead of being ashamed that both sides are begging outsiders to interfere in purely domestic affairs they are proud of their actions that ultimately seek to give away sovereignty, the most fundamental rationale for a state. They are truly shameless.
(When was the last time that Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia... asked the Lebanese pols for their approval and blessings prior to appointing/electing the heads of state in these respective countries?)
This bunch is totally useless and if Lebanon is to survive as a functional nation with any pride and self respect then there is only one option available. Throw all the rascals out and start anew. The problem is systemic and the system is beyond redemption.
Posted by: ghassan karam | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 05:34 PM
What does 3 times (1 one-time-only) equal?
Repeating the same mistake three times= "One time only with amnesia"
Posted by: Danny | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 05:34 PM
"It is up to the Lebanese people to decide themselves. There should not a stranglehold on the country any more," Abul Gheit said after meeting pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, who has to step down by November 24.
From this I can only deduce that his trip was in support of March 14...remember he made his comments from Lahoud's front lawn!
As far as Sleiman is concerned, I think they(Mubarak et al) wanted to make sure he does not answer to Bashar's call if trouble erupts...
Posted by: Danny | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Yes BV,
The notion of "consensus" simply doesn't work.
We know what "consensus" means. If you agree with me it's "consensus". Disagree with me and you're a zionist agent bent on dividing our people.
And just in case our morons finally agree on "consensus", Hezbo is 10-steps ahead and is ready with a concept superior to " consensus", DESTINY:
"Resistance is not an option for the Lebanese anymore, it's DESTINY".**
** Communique by the Hezbo MPs yesterday according to Ya Libnan.
Posted by: JoseyWales | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 05:56 PM
Right, I saw that "destiny" comment elsewhere...Completely repulsive. The response from the National Bloc was actually extremely well phrased, so I will quote that here:
"We have been horrified by the Hizbullah parliamentary bloc's statement stating that the resistance is no more an option, but rather the Lebanese people's destiny."
"Peoples don't have a say in their destiny, while options can be chosen freely and only the Lebanese people has the right to determine the nature of its resistance," The bloc said in a statement.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 07:58 PM
There was this...
"Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel said that the solution to Lebanon's crisis lies in the “normalization of relations” with Syria."
GREAT!!!! EXCELLENT!!! I exclaimed in exaulted tones...Now I can get my proeprty rented to the Syrian Embassy LUCKY ME!
but then there was this...
"Gemayel said that his is not holding onto a March 14 candidate for presidency. “However, the candidate should respect and guarantee the SOVEREIGNTY of Lebanon,” he added."
aaah Shiiiiit, no rent again this year!
So there you have it straight from the cowards mouth; the final capitulation! The new watchword folks is sovereignty. Forget integrity, forget loyalty, forget independence and justice and for damn sure forget freedom. If this worm and the other manyouks get there way, lebanon will be a proud new "sovereign" nation. We will excercise our sovereignty by reverting back to the incestuous brotherly and sisterly relations, where bearded drug pushers and unbathed vagabonds dressed in crisp black will roam the streets saluting nazi style, and where every one else's war will be fought on our soil. In essence we are all going to take a BA'ATH on this one. WHY? Because we are a proud Phoenician, arab, persian, waste of sperm nation!
Thanks Amin and all you other fucking pricks and cowards who bow to the alter of expediency in order to maintain your status as the creme de la creme of the thieving lebanese political elite. As lickers all...
haram...
Ayesh Lubnan
Posted by: Shunkleash | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 11:39 PM
The Syrian state-run propaganda organ Cham Press published a fake story about Lebanese Member of Parliament Walid Jumblatt’s supposed plan to meet Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the United States last weekend to coordinate a regime-change in Syria. No Western media organization I know of took this non-story seriously. Israeli media, though, scooped it right up. Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and Infolive TV published their own articles about the imaginary meeting between Jumblatt and Barak. None had a source for their story other than the Syrian government’s website.
It goes without saying that Israeli journalists aren’t in cahoots with the Baath Party regime in Damascus. Many Israeli reporters and editors, however, are frankly clueless about Lebanese and Syrian politics.
First of all, it is illegal for a Lebanese citizen to speak to an Israeli citizen no matter where in the world their meeting takes place. Even quietly waving hello to an Israeli on the border is treason.
A significant portion of the Lebanese people sided with Israel during the first Lebanon War in 1982, including Lebanon’s president-elect Bashir Gemayel before he was assassinated. The South Lebanese Army was Israel’s proxy militia in what is now Hizballah-controlled territory, until then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak withdrew Israeli occupation forces from their “security belt” in South Lebanon in 2000. The draconian law is in place precisely to prevent such sympathizers from working with Israelis against Lebanese.
The law is absurd from the West’s point of view, and from the point of view of many Lebanese, too. Lebanon is “the least anti-Israel Arab country in the world,” as Lebanese political consultant and analyst Eli Khoury told me last year. But Lebanon, despite its moderation outside the Hizballah camp, is still under the shadow of the Syrian-Iranian axis, and remains threatened with de facto re-annexation. The reactionary law is still on the books, and even a leader as prominent as Walid Jumblatt dare not break it.
Jumblatt traveled to Washington this past weekend to give a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which you can read here. After Cham Press published its fabricated story, his office phoned the institute to make sure the Israeli Defense Minister would not be attending. He needed to be sure the two could not even run into each other by accident and make Syria’s bogus assertion look true.
Israeli journalists who “reported” this non-story should have noticed that they published a claim that Jumblatt and Barak will meet in the United States after the meeting was supposed to have already happened. Cham Press said the meeting would take place on Sunday, and Israeli media placed the alleged meeting in the future tense the following Monday.
Re-reporting Syrian lies in the Israeli press makes Cham Press look almost legitimate, its lies almost plausible. This should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t. The Damascus regime knows what it is doing and has been using gullible foreign journalists to its advantage for a while now.
“Regime flacks fed New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh outrageous propaganda about how the United States supposedly supported the Fatah al-Islam terrorists in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian camp in Lebanon,” said Tony Badran, a Lebanese research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Then they quoted his New Yorker story to get themselves diplomatically off the hook for their own support of those terrorists in the camp.”
And here we go again. Cham Press now says Israel’s Omedia reported that Jumblatt met with Barak and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington. Cham Press no longer quotes only itself; it quotes Israeli websites as backup. But the only reason Israeli media reported any of this in the first place is the initial false story appearing in Cham Press. Syrian media is still just quoting itself—only now it does so through Israel.
Jumblatt is near or at the top of Syria’s hit list. No Lebanese leader opposes Syrian terrorism and attempts at overlordship in Lebanon as staunchly as he. His pro-Western “March 14” bloc in parliament is already accused of being a “Zionist hand” by Hizballah and the Syrians. He was the second person Syrian ruler Bashar Assad threatened by name shortly before former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others were assassinated by a truck bomb in downtown Beirut. (“I will break Lebanon over your head and Walid Jumblatt’s,” Assad said to Hariri.) As Tony Badran pointed out to me, the Syrian regime has a habit of planting false stories about Lebanese leaders just before dispatching them with car bombs. The idea of Jumblatt meeting with Barak may seem innocent in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but it marks him for death in Lebanon and in Syria.
Syria is at war with both Israel and Lebanon. Journalists who wish to write about a conspiracy between Israel and Lebanon to destroy the regime in Syria need a better source for that story than the manipulative and murderous Syrian state.
Posted by: Najad | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 07:19 AM
Najad, or whoever/whatever stands behind you, please stop what you're doing.
Posted by: Abu Kais | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 07:25 AM
That was Michael Totten's recent article in Commentary magazine. Rude to quote it in full, and a copyright violation to do so without attribution.
Posted by: Solomon2 | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 11:03 AM
The Lebanese President is not empowered to promulgate policies or take meaningful decisions.
Not quite. Rather, in concert with the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister he can facilitate the execution policy if he so chooses. If he chooses (like the current president) to sit and do nothing, he can only be removed by an absolute majority of two-thirds of the Chamber. The election of a "real" president thus means Lebanon can have an effective government.
Furthermore, there is at least one power that the President wields and is reserved to him alone: the President "accredits" ambassadors. Which means he can kick out any diplomatic delegation he disapproves of, and order the offending embassy shuttered. That's a pretty powerful weapon in the current Lebanese environment.
Posted by: Solomon2 | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Suspect site razed by Syria: nuclear study group
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:39am EDT
Related News
Photos said to show Israeli target in Syria: paper
U.N. watchdog asks Syria about undeclared atom plant
powered
By Mark Heinrich
http://www.reuters.com/article...26?sp=true
VIENNA (Reuters) - New satellite pictures show Syria has razed the site of what might have been a secret nuclear reactor under construction apparently bombed by Israel last month, an atomic research institute says.
Syria has denied illicitly hiding a nuclear site from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and said the only facility in the area in question was a desertification research centre.
In commercial satellite images taken on Wednesday and issued by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a suspected reactor building visible in aerial photos before the September 6 air raid had vanished and the ground underneath scraped clean, the institute said.
"Dismantling and removing the building at such a rapid pace dramatically complicates any (IAEA) inspection of the facilities and suggests Syria may be trying to hide what was there," the report by the Washington-based group said.
Tractors or bulldozers could be seen in the pictures where the building once stood, said ISIS, which is headed by former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright and tracks nuclear activity that could pose bomb-proliferation threats.
What appeared to be a trench might point to the Syrians excavating buried pipelines running between the demolished building and a nearby structure still standing, which could have been a pumping station to supply water to the reactor, it said.
The Vienna-based IAEA had no immediate comment.
NO CONCLUSIONS YET
The IAEA is examining commercial satellite imagery of the site, in remote northeast Syria near the Euphrates River 140 km (90 miles) from the Iraqi border, but reached no conclusions yet, Vienna diplomats say.
The U.N. watchdog has been seeking explanations from Damascus since shortly after the September 6 air strike.
"Albright's (findings) do not necessarily make this site a nuclear one. But the IAEA has not been sleeping; it is doing a detailed analysis," said a senior diplomat close to the agency.
Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East, has confirmed it carried out an air strike on Syria on September 6 but has not described the target. Syria said only that the target was a building under construction.
If Syria was indeed building a new atomic reactor, it would have been obliged to inform the IAEA and provide design data as soon as it decided to construct one. Syria is an IAEA member state and signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Syria has one declared, small research reactor subject to IAEA safeguards and inspections.
ISIS, the first to publicly pinpoint what Israeli warplanes had targeted, said in an earlier report that the site resembled a North Korean gas graphite nuclear reactor in design.
Nuclear experts have urged caution in interpreting the satellite imagery, saying the type of reactor favored by North Korea has few identifying characteristics visible from the air.
Since 2003, the IAEA has been investigating Western suspicions of secret attempts by Iran, an ally of Syria's, to build atom bombs. Iran says its nuclear energy program is intended solely to provide an alternative source of electricity.
Posted by: Najad | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 01:54 PM
I smell an IP ban coming...
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Solomon2,
It is true that the Lebanese president under Taif has retained a few powers, such as approving the accreditation of ambassadors but most people talk about the office as if it belonged to a strong president system which is obviously not true. That is one reason that I have often argued that the person who occupies this office could erect "speed bumps" but these would never rise to the level of becoming serious barriers. And that is fine. Actually that is the way that it should especially in a sectarian political system. Strong presidential systems would be a disaster in a non secular system.
Posted by: ghassan karam | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 05:25 PM
The fight over the Presidency is over a single aspect of the Presidential powers - it's the power to officially call for foreign military "assistance" or intervention.
That's it.
Frankly, neither side trusts the other with this portfolio of responsibilities, even though it was always dissidents of the March-14 camp that always invited people from another country over to theirs. Whether it was the US Army or Assads troops. Not once did a pro-Syrian administration call any foreign country to "assist" in the country.
That's at least what I understand of all this.
Posted by: Lover | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Romeo,
I guess the Pro-Syrian Administration never had a need to call for foreign assistance when their private militia has always received Iranian assistance.
The lack of objectivity in these political arguements is astonishing.
Posted by: The Other Tony | Friday, October 26, 2007 at 11:59 PM
HAHAHHA! That comment by Lover made me laugh. Seriously, dude, learn the history of your country.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
"HAHAHHA! That comment by Lover made me laugh. Seriously, dude, learn the history of your country."
What's wrong baby, did I say anything that isn't quite compatible with your understanding of Lebanon? If so, point out the 'mistake' I commited in the comment. Give me an example of ONE pro-Syrian administration calling on another country to enter Lebanese soil to sort out something.
It was March 14 dessidents who called the Frech, Italians, Americans, Syrians - and some of them even the Israelis (the Gemayel president was directly involved in relations with Israel - he used to send one son to Syria while sending the other to Israel).
Please, I am waiting for my mistakes to be shown and the examples set - okay, Baby?
Posted by: Lover | Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 11:44 PM
On Lover and Hater
It is ironic that while young political activist, as they enter college, typically focus on activities such as saving the rain forest, volunteering in Africa, joining the peacecorp, protecting the environment, campaigning for human and woman rights, etc... Mr. Lover finds best use of his intellect to be an apologist for Hezbollah, Syria and Iran's brutal regimes.
His obsession is no different from the obsessions of Nassrallah with Israel or Aoun with presidency. Anyone with a crippling obsession is an easy victim of select intellect and manipulation, as are the cases of Nassrallah and Aoun by Shorty and his tall friend. There were many appologists to Fascism, Communism and Apartheid. Lovers is no different. His age is not an excuse.
The only common denominator of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran is a culture of oppression and hate. While Lover is free to his opinion, his signing name should more appropriately be changed to Hater, making it easier for the rest of us to skip his redundant and hollow posts.
Posted by: Cedar Revolution / Gebran's Sons | Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 12:24 AM
(Please, I am waiting for my mistakes to be shown and the examples set - okay, Baby?)
I respect the right of a person choosing to be whatever he wants.
I suspect Lover is gay .Beware bad Vilbel !He is "okay baby"ing you...hahaha
Posted by: anon | Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 01:40 AM
Let's see. Suleiman Frangieh Sr. called in the Syrians back in 1975/76. But I suspect you are too old to remember that.
Let's also not forget that Hizballah was founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who operated in the Bekaa valley in the 80s.
Let me add to that Hizb's bringing 500,000 or so of their followers to downtown Beirut, back in 2005, to counter the Cedar Revolution, who was demanding the withdrawal of the Syrians, to basically tell the world that a portion of Lebanon wanted the Syrians to stay.
So yeah. Start arguing with facts. Please.
When was the last time the Americans or French had a military presence in Lebanon? Right. I didn't think so.
I'm sure in your fantasy world of unicorns, and flying pigs, there are all sorts of other interesting narratives that have no basis in truth. I laugh because I've given up trying to be serious about your accusations. I just find them amusing now.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 02:50 PM
In case anybody is keeping track of the failure of this government to honour its responsibilities in any field we can add another item to that list that grows by the day. The assassination of A. Ghanem is already fotry days old and no by elections yet. Remember that the constitution demands that the election be held within thirty days. Bravo PM Saniora for keeping your record of violations and failures intact.
Posted by: ghassan karam | Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 08:27 PM
Good call, Ghassan.
Yet another example of completely failing to live by any sort of code, rules or laws.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Well noted GK, i got so lost in all the 007 manouverings that it completely slipped my otherwise large noggin. But alas, it speaks volumnes that other than a mention on this blog our esteemed thieving pols have NOT been clamouring for the by-election. I guess they don't have time for something so trivial...but to be honest who needs it! Afterall, it doesn't appear that a vote is going to be required to elect a president, and WHY SHOULD THERE BE? WE HAVE SF(EIR) to tell us what to do!!
I think its time to lock the doors and put the kids to bed. We need to stop expecting anything from the politicians in power...they are self serving cud better suited to being jail bait.
By the way, if I may be so bold as to recommend JW's latest post (Lebonesque) to all those who have not yet availed themselves of his highly entertaining and enlightening missive. Trust me, it's a helluva read! The man's got talent YO!!:-)
Ayesh lubnan
Posted by: Shunkleash | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Shunkleash,
Thanks for the plug and for the kind words.
Posted by: JoseyWales | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 07:26 AM
BTW Gus,
Minor point: the law says 2 months for by-elections, not one. But not to worry, they'll miss that deadline too (about 2 weeks from now).
Posted by: JoseyWales | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 07:37 AM
It seems you guys are too quick with the trigger...From recent comments and actions it seems that the Baabda-Aley Bi-election will happen in its constitutionally set timeframe which is 2 months after the vacancy!. However as it might clash with the Nov 14-24 timeframe, I am certain it will be a few days after November 24th.
I do not mind criticizing the current government for inaction and other follies...However, I think they are doing a marvelous job under the circumstances!
Posted by: Danny | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 09:43 AM
Why does everybody keep slinging mud at Lover? Don't you understand he is clarifying the meme Hezbollah is trying to establish with this bogus story about a U.S. airbase in Lebanon: to politically pre-empt the possibility of Western intervention, no matter what future circumstances are, thus increasing the freedom for Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran to act within (even against) your country.
Posted by: Solomon2 | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Asked if Saudi Arabia would allow the US to use any of the Gulf's military
bases to attack Iran, Prince Sultan said his country was not "a crossing
point or shelter for any force in the world." Commenting on Iran's
declaration to attack the Gulf region if assaulted by the US, Prince Sultan
said it was not in Iran's interest to harass any side.
As for the issue of the three United Arab Emirates (UAE) islands occupied by
Iran, he said this was a complex issue and these islands were Arab no matter
what claims were made by Iran or any other side.
Posted by: Abi Lama | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Gotta love today's Naharnet headlines:
* Kouchner Agrees to Meet Muallem. Did Paris-Damascus Agree on Lebanon's Next President?
followed by:
* Hariri for Talks with Mubarak on Presidential Elections
No other country in the world would ever go for something like this. Imagine the following 2 headlines in the New York Times:
Putin agrees to meet Jiang. Did Moscow and Beijing agree on the next US president?
Al Gore for talks with Sarkozy on US presidential elections
Can you imagine?
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 01:36 PM
BV,
Is it possible to expect a good outcome from a bankrupt process? The Lebanese problem is systemic and is beyond redemption.
Posted by: ghassan karam | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Agreed. And considering the mentality of both the populace, and the leadership, I don't see that system changing anytime soon, and therefore, i must conclude that not only is the system beyond redemption, but so is the idea of having a functional state/nation. In other words, Lebanon is pretty much assured a place in the list of failed states for many many more years to come.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 03:32 PM
What the hell?!
Romeo is hitting on BV.
BV is doing his damnedest to pretend that Romeo did not call him "baby" and asking himself, "WTF, why me?"
And for some peculiar reason Solomon finds himself strangely attracted to the young heathen.
Well, at least now no one can say they don't know what he means by "slick leb"...
But, really, guys, somebody get a room! This is not a meat market...at least, it didn't used to be... or, better yet, Solomon, why don't you invite the young heathen over to your blog where you two can feel each other out without everyone else having to watch. K?
Posted by: fubar | Monday, October 29, 2007 at 06:43 PM
"Prince Sultan said his country was not "a crossing
point or shelter for any force in the world.""
A puppet disobeying his masters demands? No, just a stunt by the unroyal family to preserve the little Arabism that is left in khaleeji countries - or any country in the Arab world except Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. This is exactly what was said by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab countries prior to the US invasion of Iraq. This talk didn't stop the US from doing just that.
I still remember to this day when politicians today loyal to M14 were holding massive TV debates and interviews on a regular and daily basis prior to the 2000 liberation. Between every word and letter, they would take Hezbollah and other resistant groups in a very sarcastic and belitteling under-tone. They claimed that it was impossible for such a small and relatively weak group of militants drive the worlds 4th strongest army out without any conditions - but it happened. Arabs have been used to occupation after occupation and unvictorious wars over and over again that it is almost in their mentality that the peoples will-power can never prevail. And dictatorships such as that in the Khaleej countries do not help the process of giving rise to any type of national strength, instead they label the Shia as second-class citizens and the 'jews of islam' - the same people who today are paying the highest price for Liberating Arab land and prisoners - including Palestine, the very excuse Arab dictatorships use to monopolise power.
I see all people who oppose resistance as defeatists in every sense. People all over the world admire how the British and Allied forces payed unforgiving prices in every single battle and the war as a whole (the figure of 60,000 dead was not uncommon), The Soviet Union alone lost 22million people. Not once did I see the British pleading to its enemy or its sponsors for forgiveness or support in countering the influence of other countries for sectarian purposes. For you though, it seems very normal because the same aggressors reiterrate the 'moderation' of that cause.
Your anger, my fellow citizens, is wrongly directed. Arab countries can teach Israel a lessons and punish it for any aggression against our countries. Syria and Iran are trying to make this very concept clear to all deniers. They are both suffering as a result - even though one of them is not an Arab country in the first place. Hezbollah has accomplished alot regardless of anyones political opinion or sectarian affiliation. They took care of unprivilaged Lebanese citizens, released hundreds of prisoners and retrieved occupied land no-one else bothered to regain for us. Saudi Arabia on the other hand condemns all resistance groups fighting against Israel - abandons and beseiges them even worse than the Israelis themselves.
If Arab countries actually allied with each other, with Iran, with Syria and stopped the bickering for couple of months and wage war against Irael - a country not much bigger than Lebanon in both size and population - if it doesn't seize to exist, it will atleast be taught a very harsh lesson not take Arab land and citizens lightly. Hezbollah kills and kidnaps Israeli soldiers from Israeli-occupied lands and the whole world condemns it, the first of whom are Arab countries. Israel kills, maims, destroys, harasses and occupies Arab citizens and land on a daily basis. It besieges a million people on the worlds biggest prison and the worlds most densely populated peice of land - even threatening to cut water, power and supplies to already impoverished people. The Arabs sit back and watch. They hardly make news or any impact on the Arab political stage. That is how low they have gotten.
So. Next time you have any criticism or anger to release, do not direct it at your brothers and sisters who are trying to make your country a respected and highly-considered one (the Europeans, Americans and even Israelis realise this - they mock all Arab countries by comparing them and their 'might' to Lebanon - one of the smallest countries in the Arab world geographically and demographically). If anyone, the criticism should be directed at the 'Arab' countries who sit and watch as their fellow Arabs (whom i'm sure don't care about) are slaughtered.
When Nasrallah mobilised his people for the March 8 demo, people, he did not call for Syria to stay. He said thank you to Syria, not for 'occupying' Lebanon or keeping prisoners etc (everyone knows the Syrian administration is not an angelic one) - he said it because they are the only Arabs - state and people - who cared to help Lebanon in its hardships both internally and externally (i.e. civil and Israel-Lebanon wars).
Politics will always be politics. When someone has a vision of a future country it does not mean he is planning to hijack the country to enforce that vision. There will have to be concessions and negotiations. What happens in Lebanon happens all over the world - the only difference with us is sectarianism and religious divides - and it happens that the great majority of each sect has its own vision in politics. Political differentialism only exists at sectarian levels. Political talk is something, actions and inaction is something totally different. Seniora may speak against Hezbollah - but he only speaks against their political agendas and his concern over their influence. He wouldn't go and massacre all Hezbollah combatants or members if he could. The same applied to all other sides. I am talking about today. Civil war is now behind us. That would be called political hegemony or civil war.
Anyone could critisize anything. That is not a problem. For me that's a form of checks and balances on parties and governence and authority. It does more service than dis-service. But ofcourse, when it reaches a stage of pure hate and distortion of image and facts - it becomes worrying. When someone calls the same political bloc who fought off two different occupiers (hezbollah - Israe, Michelle Awn - Syrians) dogs, then it becomes very distressing and dangerous.
"As for the issue of the three United Arab Emirates (UAE) islands occupied by Iran"
Iran is not occupying anyone. The maps drawn by the British mandate put those islands under Iranian jurisdiction. If the UAE or Saudi Arabia wants to complain to anyone about any country - it should be complaining about Britain if their call that the Islands are 'Arab' is correct, not Iran.
Last time I checked, no Arab country was complaining that Palestinian lands were rightfully Arab (with much evidence to prove it) ad should be returned to the Palestinian states sovereignty.
Posted by: Lover | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 06:04 AM
I read Solomons post on his blog, titled 'Lebanon: The Missing Ingredients'. There was an interesting debate going on. I would just like to give an example. In America, after the abolishment of slavery, racism and descrimination did not end. Even though they lives on the worlds land of opportunities, the worlds biggest beacon of democracy and justice - they faced a difficulty to develop.
Affirmative action was introduced to help them in areas of education, health and employment. This does not mean they were descriminated for. I will give an example using Lebanon and its Shia. I am not a Shia just incase you start thinking so.
Imagine Lebanon is a train. The Christians are ahead of everyone because of the wealth they aquired and the establishment of life far away from conflict - at least most of the time. The people not so far behind are the sunnis. The Shi'a, even though they are the largest sect in Lebanon and under the true meaning of democracy could and have a right to rule Lebanon (they are the simple majority among all other sects) - but they don't. Instead they are pushed to the very back of the train due to wars and inaction of the government to treat them like any other citizen. When they are free of Hezbollah - the only power trying to move them forward on the train - Lebanon may grow and they may enjoy some of it. But what makes you think that when the train moves (i.e. Lebanon moves forward and develops) that the Shia could somehow end up on the front of the train, or even somewhere in the middle? Before they benefit, everyone else is benefitting to a much higher extent.
To give them a fair chance, you can not expect them to start the run after everyone else has already crossed the finish line. It is the governments job and duty to help them. I do not sujest affirmative action - ofcourse. There are many empoverished Christians which would be unfair to them. The government can start by ensuring they get their compensation, government projects started, incentives provided to start businesses, subsidies etc. This will not only serve the shia but the Lebanese economy as whole. This is due to the increased levels of production and labour.
Therefore, my point is that just providing them freedom and independence does not mean they have food on their table every night, nor does it ensure their security. This is a very naive way to put it. The government must help to excell these unprivileged people to the front of the train to give them a fairer chance of developing and achieving like all other citizens of Lebanon. When that happens, it would only seem normal to leave them from there to establish themselves.
Posted by: Lover | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 06:43 AM
What is Arabism?
What is the definition of Arabism?
Can someone please put me out of my misery once and for all, and explain to me WTF is Arabism?
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Super Dude | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Lover,
Who gives a crap about Saudi Arabia? We're in Lebanon. We care about Lebanese sovereignty. I could care less what Prince Sultan has to say about American troops on his land.
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Lover, I am impressed you keep spouting that propaganda. How did you work out that Israel has the 4th most powerful army in the world? It is not even the 4th largest in the Middle East - Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Morroco and Syria all have larger armies by far.
You didn't "drive out" the IDF, Israel in a collective delusion believed Hizbollah was all about "resistance". Hence if Israel pulled out Israel could - to quote an Israeli politician - "forget the word Hizbollah". Hizbollah promptly fabricated another excuse to "resist". The casualties Hizbollah caused Israel weren't even a decent pileup on one of Israel's highroads - so Subaru and Honda were more lethal than your "resistance".
The ONLY reason that land was occupied by Israel and was retaken in last years war was because of Hizbollah actions - note at the ceasefire, not only had Hizbollah NOT "prevented" Israel taking land but Israel only left two months after the ceasefire, unharrassed by your "resistance".
As for "strength", Israel bombed Syria and apart from words nobody lifted a finger. Syria hasn't fought Israel since 1982 and Iran at the time was too busy buying arms and supplies from Israel whilst simulataneously "allowing" the Lebanese to "resist". So who are the hypocrites here?
Posted by: Danny | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Don't go pissing on Lover's fantasy world with actual facts, Danny...
Posted by: Bad Vilbel | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 05:12 PM
Super D.
Excellent question, for I have been asking it for over 20 years and I have yet to hear a clear and precise answer. So please can someone educate us on this utopia called Arabisim?
Posted by: Charlie | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 06:35 PM
Lover,
I made a promise to myself that I should never respond to your rants because , to be honest, they do not warrant an answer. But hey I will make an exception because your recent rant shows again your utter and total ignorance of what is democratic and how a just society should operate.
"The Shi'a, even though they are the largest sect in Lebanon and under the true meaning of democracy could and have a right to rule Lebanon (they are the simple majority among all other sects) - but they don't." Where in the world did you find a democratic system whereby its populace vote according to their religious persuation. I grant you, that such things happen, but when they do they clearly say that the participants are ill informed. Democracy is about having allegiance to an idea and not a tribe, definitely not co religionists. When you can think of people as Lebanese and not as Shia, Christians or Sunni then you would be ready to join modernity and the civilized world. One should oppose all oppression, all poverty and all exploitation and not only when these nefarious acts are done to a sect. So please spare us this utterly useless sanctimonious homily. There is a big difference between a movement that seeks social justice and one that sells the allegiance of a group to a foreign power whose only interest is the demise of the state. Nothing, absolutely nothing will ever be able to justify the traiterous acts of HA and its freinds. (Yes traiterous is the best word to describe their actions to bring down the state in order to benefit their foreign masters).
Posted by: ghassan karam | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 06:56 PM
SUPER DUDE!!!
You wanna know what "arabism" means, well i'll define it for you... with pleasure of course. Mind you the definition is in 2 parts...
To become an "arab" is the first step. Firstly, lock and load a .45 (glock is preferred since there is no safety), point it at your head and pull the trigger...BAM!! and voila! you're an arab. Second stage; becoming an "arabist". After successfully completing stage 1, take a long walk on a windy mountain top with your eir in your right hand and your left thumb up your ass and feel the wind running through the empty cavern you've created with the glock. SERENITY UNLEASHED!!! Now just let those creative juices flow baby:-)
By the way, no one should ever call me an arab...because as in the words of the great prophet Bruce Banner "you'll make me angry, and you wouldn't like it when i'm angry".
Hypothetically guys...If I ran for president would you vote for me? How many secret votes will I need? Will I have to suck tongue with Abu Moussa from Egypt or abu boob from libya?
Ayesh Lubnan (without the arabs)
p.s. sarcasm meter remains on
Posted by: Shunkleash | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Damn, and here I thought I can be put out of my misery. But since I am not an Arab!...
Arabism is the empty call of a disillusioned people who can't rule themselves.
All you need is that word, and you'll have a great crowd shouting your name and that of god in the same sentence. It is the biggest ego booster you can achieve short of 72 virgins (or a hooker not taking your money cause you were sooooooo gooooood).
Posted by: Super Dude | Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 08:29 AM