Franklin Lamb

52 Words that shook Washington

“It is the right of the Lebanese people, Army and the (Hezbollah led—ed.)Resistance to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba Hills and the northern part of the village of Ghajar as well as to defend Lebanon and its territorial waters in the face of any enemy by all available and legal means.”

So reads the Policy Declaration of the new Government of the Republic of Lebanon, issued on November 26,2009, four days after the celebration of Lebanon’s 66 years of independence from the French colonial power, achieved in 1943.

Legally, constitutionally, and politically, Lebanon’s new National Unity Government policy legitimizes, embraces, and incorporates by reference, the National Lebanese Resistance.

For the US-Israel axis, the 52 words signal that Hezbollah – which since 2006 has enjoyed majority popular support – and the State of Lebanon are inseparable and indivisible with respect to defending this country from foreign interference and occupation. It affixes the governmental imprimatur for liberating Lebanese lands still occupied by Israeli forces.

According to some international lawyers, it also fulfills UN Security Council Resolution 1559 regarding disarming militias because Lebanon has in effect declared that the arms of the Hezbollah led Resistance are part of the defense of Lebanon itself and not a particular movement or political party.  This Policy statement satisfies UNSCR 1701 for the same reason.

Apart from the Phalange (Kataeb) Party and the Lebanese forces, and their spokesmen Samir Geagea and Amin Gemayel, who will continue to condemn the policy declaration, the issue of Hezbollah’s arms has been essentially settled.

Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri stressed that “Hezbollah’s arms belong to all Lebanese and their existence is linked to Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.”

Tawhid (Unifying) Party and Druze leader Wiam Wahhab went further and, following the Policy Statement approval, advised the media this was the same wording as was reached at the 2008 Doha conference:

“Hezbollah’s arms will remain as long as there is conflict between the Arabs and Israel. When the world tells us how the naturalization of Palestinians issue will be resolved, then we will give details on how to deal with the arms of our national resistance. They now belong to all of Lebanon.”

The message from Lebanon’s new government to the US administration is clear according to Lebanese Human Rights Ambassador Ali Khalil:

“You can have very friendly relations with Lebanon but that means dealing with Lebanon and our new government as a whole, not cherry picking certain ministries or parties in Parliament. Aid, defensive arms and equipment, economy, trade, should be negotiated with equality- not the US Embassy’s color coded push pin political affiliation map used previously. Hezbollah is Lebanon and Lebanon is Hezbollah. Try to understand and get used to it. You might be pleased if both the US and Lebanon work for our own interests but dialogue with mutual respect.”

Many people in Lebanon and the region who support Hezbollah do so not because they know all about or even very much care about the pillars of Shia Islam or the role of the Wali al Faque but because they have experienced six decades of Israeli aggression and six wars funded and armed by a US Congress that puts Israel before its own country and way before any Arab country including Lebanon. They realize that 18 years of a fake ‘peace process’ has brought nothing but misery to the Palestinians and Lebanon whereas 18 years of Resistance has freed most of Israel occupied Lebanese territory.

And they realize that there is more yet to be done.

UNIFIL sources reported this week that they expected Israel to withdraw from the Lebanese village of Ghajar before the 12-member Cabinet committee voted to legitimize Hezbollah’s arms, in order to upstage the Lebanese government decision. The Israeli government, under US and EU pressure agreed, knowing that its army could not hold the village during its next attack on Lebanon and realizing that holding Ghajar meanwhile is not worth the political and military price.

Actual Israeli troop withdrawal is expected at any moment against the backdrop of more “cry wolf” threats such as yesterdays from Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak that “all of Lebanon will pay the huge price for giving Hezbollah its Government.”  More than ever Lebanon’s population believes that Israel will also pay a huge price if it launches a 7th war against Lebanon or attacks Iran or Syria.

A conference call

In Washington and Beirut the response to Lebanon’s legitimization of Hezbollah’s arms was publicly subdued. The US Embassy, for the second year in a row mistakenly sent Eid al Fitr greetings to Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman, whereas this week’s holiday, which commemorates the annual  Hajj Pilgrimage and the   1,400 year old  Muslim tradition of giving of meat to the poor, is called Eid al Adha. Eid al Fitr actually follows Ramadan which ended this year on September 19th.  Anyhow, for sure it’s the thought that counts and the White House did promptly correct the Beirut’s Embassy error and sent President Obama’s and the American peoples Eid al Adha greetings yesterday at 2:15 p.m. Beirut time.
Privately, the reaction to legitimizing Hezbollah’s deterrence to Israeli aggressions is causing a strong reaction on Capitol Hill. AIPAC has another Congressional Resolution ready to condemn Lebanon for capitulating to ‘terrorism’. Hard to believe as it is, some members of Congress are actually tiring of all the Israel Lobby’s resolutions and the pressure tactics AIPAC uses to get them passed irrespective of what they say or whether they are read.

Before the Thanksgiving break, AIPAC organized an urgent conference call among 11 Chairmen, of key US Congressional committees, including Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Appropriations, Banking, Homeland Security, Environment, and Aging, and Rules held a conference call arranged by AIPAC.

Together, the group forms what AIPAC calls “Israel’s Firewall” which it and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations conceived of and formalized in late September 2001  “ to assure consultation and dialogue with respect to how best  to launch Congressional initiatives that will preserve the special and unbreakable US-Israel relationship.”

In addition to  the above members, others who have been approached to form the ‘firewall’ in the 111th Congress include all 13 Jewish members of the US Senate and the 28 Jewish House Members as well as  a couple of dozen trusted evangelical Christian Zionist members.

According to a Zionist Organizations of America (ZOA) source, the group has not been very active until recently.  Decisions, if any that were taken the past eight years by what is referred to by some on Capitol Hill as the “Israel Synod” is not currently known.

One recent decision that has been taken was revealed by ZOA.  The ‘fire wall’ project is to ‘fast track’ a dramatic increase in US military aid to Israel to deal with supposed Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and Iranian threats to Israel. “These people see an urgent need to clean house and restore Israel’s military dominance and credibility”, claimed the ZOA source.

According to a staff member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, the ‘ fire wall’ group plans to expedite US Congressional approval for more subsidies for all or part of the funds needed by Israel to purchase U.S. weapons.  This will be in addition to Israel receiving over the past 24 months $ 2,070.1 billion from US taxpayers earmarked for this purpose.

AIPAC’s new ‘fire wall’ group will work for  the  2010  deployment  of  the   so called “Iron Dome” that can unleash a metallic cloud to bring down incoming rockets in the skies over Gaza or Lebanon as well as funding for a new generation of  Israel’s  Arrow defense system designed to shoot down Iran’s long-range missiles at high altitudes.

In addition, Israel will receive US funding for more German-made Dolphin submarines that can be equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles for positioning off the coast of Iran.

AIPAC’s problem is to get Congress to overrule  Pentagon skepticism of much of Israel’s ‘new weapons’ projects which some view as more psychological warfare than reliable or usable effectively in future conflicts. AIPAC appears confident and with good reason.

The Congressional Israel lobby has already achieved a commitment from the Obama administration to add Israeli systems and munitions to a new U.S.-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and deliver 25 to Israel by 2015 with another 50 delivered by 2018.  The Obama administration will also integrate bombs that use an Israeli precision guidance kit called Spice along with Python 5 air-to-air missiles made by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd.  The ‘fire wall’ group is to assure that Israel will also get a relatively inexpensive path for hardware and software upgrades to add future weapons.

This season’s ‘mother of all bombs’

Source: Palestine Chronicle. An artist's rendering shows a "massive ordinance penetrator' bomb. (AOL News)

Source: Palestine Chronicle. An artist’s rendering shows a
“massive ordinance penetrator’ bomb. (AOL News)

Another major Congressional weapons project for Israel is the Boeing Corporations new 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb.

The MOP carries more than 5,300 pounds of explosives and delivers more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the seed program. It is also about one-third heavier than the 21,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb – last season’s “mother of all bombs” — that was dropped twice in tests at a Florida range in 2003.

The 20-foot-long (6-metre) MOP is built to be dropped from either the B-52 or the B-2 “stealth” bomber and is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding, according to the U.S. Air Force. The Pentagons Central Command, which is preparing for war with Iran- just in case- is backing a acceleration request according to Kenneth Katzman, an expert on Iran at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. Israel wants them to attack Hezbollah’s deep bunkers in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.

If AIPAC can get Congress to shift enough funds to the program, Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N)’s radar-evading B-2 bomber “would be capable of carrying the bomb by July 2010. This claim has been verified by Andy Bourland, an Air Force spokesman, who added, “There have been discussions with the four congressional committees with oversight responsibilities. Officially no final decision has been made.”

In fact the decision has been made according to AIPAC and Congressional sources and its “all systems go”.

Franklin Lamb

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

Link

Report, Electronic Lebanon, 11 September 2009

BEIRUT (IRIN) – The politics of the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, a rugged sliver of mountainside wedged between Lebanon, Israel and Syria, have long overshadowed what some Lebanese environmentalists call “the real issue” of the disputed area: its water resources.

Now activists are calling for hydro-diplomacy to take precedence over political maneuvering as the most effective solution to one of the key stumbling blocks to Middle East peace.

“Rising Temperatures Rising Tensions,” a report published in June by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, considers water to be a major trigger for conflict in the Middle East, the world’s most water-scarce region.

Lebanon and Syria say the Shebaa Farms, measuring just 22 square kilometers, is Lebanese territory, though the UN has ruled it part of the Syrian Golan Heights, which lie just to the east, across water-rich Mount Hermon.

Both the Golan and Shebaa were occupied by Israel during the 1967 War and the Israelis say disengagement from Shebaa can only come under a peace deal with Syria and withdrawal from the Golan.

However, Fadi Comair, director-general of Hydraulic and Electric Resources at the Lebanese Ministry of Energy and Water, argues there is more to Israel’s occupation of Shebaa than military-strategic concerns: “Israel’s occupation of the Shebaa Farms has to do with control of its water.”

Hizballah, the Lebanese resistance group that fought Israel to a bloody stalemate in 2006, has the liberation of Shebaa as one of its strategic objectives.

Water scarcity

Meeting the water needs of their rapidly growing populations has long been an existential challenge for the governments of the arid Middle East. Climate change is making that challenge more urgent and acute.

Israel, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) all fall well below the internationally accepted threshold of 1,000 cubic meters of water per person per year (cmwpy). According to the IISD, Israel has natural renewable water resources of 265 cmwpy, Jordan 169, and OPT just 90. Only Lebanon and Syria have water surpluses, with Lebanon having a potential of 1,220 cmwpy and Syria 1,541.

Yet supply is dwindling rapidly. By 2025 water use in Israel is estimated to fall to 310 cmwpy, while the country’s own Environment Ministry has warned that water supply may fall by 60 percent of 2000 levels by 2100.

River Jordan

The IISD report goes even further, warning that the River Jordan, which is the key supplier of water to Israel, Jordan and OPT, could shrink as much as 80 percent by the end of the century.

Such drastic scarcity makes securing water supplies vital. The River Jordan rises in Mount Hermon, fed by tributaries in the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms, and flows into the Sea of Galilee, also known as Lake Tiberius, before continuing south where it forms the boundary between Jordan, to the east, and the West Bank. After 320 kilometers it empties into the Dead Sea.

Major tributaries of the river include the Hasbani, which flows into Israel from Lebanon, and the Banias, which flows from Syria. The River Dan, which also supplies the River Jordan, is the only river originating in Israel.

Water wars

The absence of hydro-diplomacy reflects conflict in the region. In 1965, Syria and Lebanon began the construction of channels to divert the Banias and Hasbani, preventing the rivers flowing into Israel. Israel attacked the diversion works, the first in a series of moves that led to a regional war two years later.

In 2002, when the Lebanese constructed a pipeline on the River Wazzani intended to supply households in southern Lebanon with water, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared the action a causus belli. In the July War of 2006, Israeli warplanes targeted southern Lebanon’s water network.

Bassam Jaber, a water expert at Lebanon’s Ministry of Energy and Water, argues the Shebaa is critical to Israel’s water needs, “especially because fresh water is critical when all sources within Israel are salty. The flows from the area help to regulate the saltiness of Lake Tiberius.”

And it is not just the direct overland flow that the Shebaa provides Israel. According to the Lebanese Water Ministry’s Comair, 30 to 40 percent of the River Dan’s water flows into it through underground supplies originating in the Shebaa. “Israel is worried that if Lebanon gains control of the Shebaa, it can then control the flow to the Dan river,” said Comair.

Hydro-diplomacy

As one of only eight states to have ratified the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, Lebanon is calling on Israel to do the same.

“Israel is not a signatory to the relevant conventions on water, which is a big problem since they are at the center of the issue of equitable use of water and reasonable sharing,” said Comair.

Israel has already shown that water can play a role in peacemaking. Its 1994 peace agreement with Jordan included a commitment to transfer 75 million cubic meters of water per year to Jordan in return for secure borders to the east.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Energy and Water is now calling for a regional water basin authority for the River Jordan, which would include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the OPT. “How can you reach any agreements on the equitable sharing of international watercourses if there is no cooperation?” asked Comair.

Water solutions for all?

Not all are convinced Israel’s occupation of Shebaa is primarily about securing water.

“Water is no doubt one aspect of the socio-political conflict, but it is not the main driver,” said Mutasem el-Fadel, director of the Water Resources Center at the American University of Beirut.

He points to several projects currently being studied that could solve Israel’s water needs, without requiring continued occupation of the Shebaa, such as the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal Project, the Mini-Peace pipeline from Turkey, wastewater reclamation plans and desalination projects.

“All combined they can be the water solution for all five countries in the area,” said el-Fadel.

But in the absence of hydro-diplomacy between Israel and Lebanon, the continued Israeli occupation of the Shebaa Farms will remain a key trigger to renewed conflict between the two countries.

“There will not be enough water for our generation or the next,” said Comair. “We will see social, economic, political and military conflicts — and in that order — within the next 20 years.”

This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. All IRIN material may be reposted or reprinted free-of-charge; refer to the copyright page for conditions of use. IRIN is a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Link

Report, Electronic Lebanon, 11 September 2009

BEIRUT (IRIN) – The politics of the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, a rugged sliver of mountainside wedged between Lebanon, Israel and Syria, have long overshadowed what some Lebanese environmentalists call “the real issue” of the disputed area: its water resources.

Now activists are calling for hydro-diplomacy to take precedence over political maneuvering as the most effective solution to one of the key stumbling blocks to Middle East peace.

“Rising Temperatures Rising Tensions,” a report published in June by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, considers water to be a major trigger for conflict in the Middle East, the world’s most water-scarce region.

Lebanon and Syria say the Shebaa Farms, measuring just 22 square kilometers, is Lebanese territory, though the UN has ruled it part of the Syrian Golan Heights, which lie just to the east, across water-rich Mount Hermon.

Both the Golan and Shebaa were occupied by Israel during the 1967 War and the Israelis say disengagement from Shebaa can only come under a peace deal with Syria and withdrawal from the Golan.

However, Fadi Comair, director-general of Hydraulic and Electric Resources at the Lebanese Ministry of Energy and Water, argues there is more to Israel’s occupation of Shebaa than military-strategic concerns: “Israel’s occupation of the Shebaa Farms has to do with control of its water.”

Hizballah, the Lebanese resistance group that fought Israel to a bloody stalemate in 2006, has the liberation of Shebaa as one of its strategic objectives.

Water scarcity

Meeting the water needs of their rapidly growing populations has long been an existential challenge for the governments of the arid Middle East. Climate change is making that challenge more urgent and acute.

Israel, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) all fall well below the internationally accepted threshold of 1,000 cubic meters of water per person per year (cmwpy). According to the IISD, Israel has natural renewable water resources of 265 cmwpy, Jordan 169, and OPT just 90. Only Lebanon and Syria have water surpluses, with Lebanon having a potential of 1,220 cmwpy and Syria 1,541.

Yet supply is dwindling rapidly. By 2025 water use in Israel is estimated to fall to 310 cmwpy, while the country’s own Environment Ministry has warned that water supply may fall by 60 percent of 2000 levels by 2100.

River Jordan

The IISD report goes even further, warning that the River Jordan, which is the key supplier of water to Israel, Jordan and OPT, could shrink as much as 80 percent by the end of the century.

Such drastic scarcity makes securing water supplies vital. The River Jordan rises in Mount Hermon, fed by tributaries in the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms, and flows into the Sea of Galilee, also known as Lake Tiberius, before continuing south where it forms the boundary between Jordan, to the east, and the West Bank. After 320 kilometers it empties into the Dead Sea.

Major tributaries of the river include the Hasbani, which flows into Israel from Lebanon, and the Banias, which flows from Syria. The River Dan, which also supplies the River Jordan, is the only river originating in Israel.

Water wars

The absence of hydro-diplomacy reflects conflict in the region. In 1965, Syria and Lebanon began the construction of channels to divert the Banias and Hasbani, preventing the rivers flowing into Israel. Israel attacked the diversion works, the first in a series of moves that led to a regional war two years later.

In 2002, when the Lebanese constructed a pipeline on the River Wazzani intended to supply households in southern Lebanon with water, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared the action a causus belli. In the July War of 2006, Israeli warplanes targeted southern Lebanon’s water network.

Bassam Jaber, a water expert at Lebanon’s Ministry of Energy and Water, argues the Shebaa is critical to Israel’s water needs, “especially because fresh water is critical when all sources within Israel are salty. The flows from the area help to regulate the saltiness of Lake Tiberius.”

And it is not just the direct overland flow that the Shebaa provides Israel. According to the Lebanese Water Ministry’s Comair, 30 to 40 percent of the River Dan’s water flows into it through underground supplies originating in the Shebaa. “Israel is worried that if Lebanon gains control of the Shebaa, it can then control the flow to the Dan river,” said Comair.

Hydro-diplomacy

As one of only eight states to have ratified the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, Lebanon is calling on Israel to do the same.

“Israel is not a signatory to the relevant conventions on water, which is a big problem since they are at the center of the issue of equitable use of water and reasonable sharing,” said Comair.

Israel has already shown that water can play a role in peacemaking. Its 1994 peace agreement with Jordan included a commitment to transfer 75 million cubic meters of water per year to Jordan in return for secure borders to the east.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Energy and Water is now calling for a regional water basin authority for the River Jordan, which would include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the OPT. “How can you reach any agreements on the equitable sharing of international watercourses if there is no cooperation?” asked Comair.

Water solutions for all?

Not all are convinced Israel’s occupation of Shebaa is primarily about securing water.

“Water is no doubt one aspect of the socio-political conflict, but it is not the main driver,” said Mutasem el-Fadel, director of the Water Resources Center at the American University of Beirut.

He points to several projects currently being studied that could solve Israel’s water needs, without requiring continued occupation of the Shebaa, such as the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal Project, the Mini-Peace pipeline from Turkey, wastewater reclamation plans and desalination projects.

“All combined they can be the water solution for all five countries in the area,” said el-Fadel.

But in the absence of hydro-diplomacy between Israel and Lebanon, the continued Israeli occupation of the Shebaa Farms will remain a key trigger to renewed conflict between the two countries.

“There will not be enough water for our generation or the next,” said Comair. “We will see social, economic, political and military conflicts — and in that order — within the next 20 years.”

This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. All IRIN material may be reposted or reprinted free-of-charge; refer to the copyright page for conditions of use. IRIN is a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

I have a position: I am voting today (June 7, 2009)

It is 4 a.m. and in four hours I am going to vote; I will be giving a ride to my parents, both are way over 80 years; we will vote as the urns open and we will resume our day, flushed with hope that a new bright dawn is breaking out.

It has been a tough month, fraught with international meddling in our internal politics. It has been disgusting listening to the frequent US reminders that the Obama Administration will deny Lebanon aids if the Lebanese fails the wishes of Hillary Clinton to maintaining the status quo. I didn’t hear Hillary warning the Israelis that Netanyahu and Israel ultra right wings are roadblock to peace in the region. I am voting against Hillary for humiliating the Lebanese.

It has been nauseating witnessing the Saudi Arabia monarchy pouring over $300 millions to buy off the vote of 10,000 citizens who might make a difference in the majority of the Parliament by a couple more of deputies.  I am voting against the monarchic, obscurantist, and Wahhabit extremist oligarchic system.

The Lebanese citizens have been subjugated by foreign threats of “black listing” Lebanon as a State “supporting terrorism” and accordingly enforcing economic and financial embargo because the opposition is proud of the acquired regained dignity for standing tall against Israel’s blackmailing military maneuvers and frequent incursions into our land.  I am voting against foreign interference in our regained independence as a Nation.

The Lebanese have been subdued by a few internal confessional and “colonial minded” political parties, which own most of the media, that Lebanon is squandering its independence, autonomy of decision, and its future “promised” aids to balloon to over $60 billions, a debt that each new born has to pay $14,000 to satisfy a defunct service economy within a crumbling capitalist monetary policy. I am voting for the cancellation of foreign debts tendered on political grounds.

Behind all that smoke screen I am confident that Lebanon will be governed by a unified bloc that will strengthen our autonomy and defend the Constitution.  Lebanon regained partial dignity after Israel’s withdrawal from part of our land in May 2000 without any pre-conditions. Lebanon regained another partial dignity by the withdrawal of the Syrian troops in April 2005. Lebanon will regain its total dignity by the coming to power of the bloc unified under the motto “A unified Lebanon, at peace with Syria and intent of safeguarding the rights of the Palestinians to return to their homeland, can resist and win over the isolationist weak minded forces, constantly seeking foreign interventions to maintain our caste social and political system” The opposition forces will not cow and will stand tall against the humiliating dictates that refuse change and reforms in Lebanon.

Behind all that smoke screen political security and social stability will attract investment for the re-construction of a viable Lebanon.  Money never flowed into countries flapping in the wind but to strong and unified States.

Behind all that smoke screen Israel will finally stop all plans to invade Lebanon or hold on to the Shebaa Farms and the Hills of Kfarshouba.  The water of Lebanon will no longer flow into the sea so that Israel put claim on wasted resources. A clean environment will be the policy of the land, tiny but worth preserving for giant spirits recovering from centuries of indignities.

The struggle is long and fraught with dangers for a secular and free Lebanon. I can deal with climbing summits; I cannot backtrack into obscure precipices. Today I am at peace. I can see a future worth fight for; I can feel a dignity that can move mountains; I can reach out for every Lebanese to re-establishing communication among closed communalities and vent out the stagnate air.  A powerful sun is infiltrating foul enclosed spirits decaying for three decades and mold will have tough time perjuring.  Sweet revolution, it is a good day to advance and face the glorious sun of change and reform.

The Third Republic of Lebanon: The Tayyar of Michel Aoun (June 1, 2009)

            The formal and extensive visits of Michel Aoun to Iran and then to Syria had three purposes.  First, it was symbolic of “breaking bread and sharing salt” which meant that confidence is established and hidden agendas will be stated clearly among friends. The second purpose was to focus attention on the ethnic and religious minorities so that Iran and Syria would exercise more leverage to preserving the persecuted minorities in Iraq. The third purpose was to exposing the draft program of the Third Republic that need to be instituted in Lebanon in order to relieve Iran and Syria from constant worries on the potential political and strategic orientation of Lebanon; thus, relying on Iran and Syria to exercise their influence toward stabilizing an environment of security and peace within Lebanon.

            General and Deputy Aoun had absorbed the various failures of other Christian Lebanese leaders for establishing a lasting stable political system that would save Lebanon of recurring civil wars.  A unified Christian front in Lebanon is not enough to bringing peace and security; this fact Michel Aoun experienced when he was appointed Prime Minister in 1988 and ended in his exile to France.  The most striking recent experiment was the tenure of ex-President Emile Lahoud.

            Lahoud intended to eradicate corruption in the State while maintaining strategic relations with Syria and supporting the Lebanese resistance in the south against Israel’s occupation.  Lahoud failed in his attempts for reforms of the social and political system because he had no civilian political movement and had no previous communication with the deputies in the Parliament.  Lahoud managed to press forward on the corruption front in the first 3 years until Syria realized that the reforms were going too far and driving its Lebanese political supporters to frantic seizures. The incarcerated officials indicted with corruption and stealing the treasury were released from prison and Rafic Hariri returned as Prime Minister to resume his service and real estate economy based on heavy borrowing.

As Syria was under pressure in 2005 to withdraw its troops then it decided to extend the tenure of Lahoud another 3 years.  The UN resolution 1559 for Syria withdrawal, the Lebanese army to expand to the southern borders, and Hezbollah to turn over its heavy artillery to the army pointed to a dramatic clash which culminated in the assassination of Rafic Hariri.  External interventions bolstered the internal confessional forces to side track reforms and forced the Presidency into a defensive corner; thus, not only clipping any remnant of official power but eliminating the role of the Presidency and the Christian necessity for a stable Lebanon among its religious affiliations.

What is the Third Republic and what is its strategy? First, the new Republic will bolster the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the President of the Republic and reduce the exclusive privileges of the Prime Minister to administering several “black boxes” such as emergency funds, development and construction council, repatriation of Lebanese refugees’ box, and disaster box that should be returned to the relevant ministries.  These reforms do not require any amendments to the Taef Constitution.

Second, the Third Republic wants to desist on reducing the economy of Lebanon to the service sector that it can no longer compete with newer and powerful centers in the region like Dubai, Cyprus, Jordan, and Egypt.  The economy has to revert to basics and develop on industrial and agricultural production, exploiting our water resources, managing better our electrical power generation, and expanding and modernizing our communication facilities. Health for all and education for all at affordable costs are priorities.

Third, the reduction of our heavy borrowing policy that reached over 60 billions dollars with the purpose of settling the Palestinians in Lebanon in return of canceling this mighty debt will be tackled in earnest.  I lean to the possibility that if negotiations with the lending parties are not successful then the new government will decree the cancellation of any lending that was politically motivated.  I doubt that reactions would extend beyond the rhetorical recriminations because the case is strong that Lebanon had no collateral economical generation potentials for these generous lending.  As a consequence, the Third Republic will put an end to any international policies attempts to reside the Palestinians in Lebanon.

Fourth, the Third Republic will relieve Hezbollah from the constant pressures of international plans targeted at coercing the disarmament of the resistance by coordinate activities with non-patriotic governments that are wiling to cohabitate with the enemy Israel.  This united front will force Israel to desist from any further incursions into Lebanon.

Fifth, the Third Republic will move ahead with an alternative election law based on proportionality and revisiting laws that deny equality between genders and secular national civil status laws.

Sixth, the Third Republic will demand joint negotiations with Syria relative peace agreements with Israel after recapturing the Shebaa Farms and the Hills of Kfarshouba.

The first step in the strategy was for the Christians to regain confidence and stand up to their responsibilities and acknowledging that Israel is the enemy.  This was done.  The second step was an alliance with Hezbollah which defeated many plans to resurrect the specter of the civil war.  The third step was direct contacts with States as representing the largest Christian Parliamentary bloc and opening channels of communications and entente.  The fourth step is wining the majority seats in the Parliament.

Lebanon Parliament was expanded in 1992 to include 128 deputies; 64 Christians and 64 Moslems.  The election in June 7 is calling on 3, 260,000 voters to participate and most probably more than 50% will effectively vote. Among the eligible voters of over 21 years of age 888,000 are Moslem Shiaas (27 deputies in total), 874,000 Moslem Sunnis (27 deputies), 698,000 Christian Maronites (34 deputies), 243,000 Christian Greek Orthodox (concentrated in the districts of Ashrafieh and Koura), 186, 000 Moslem Druze (8 deputies concentrated in the districts of Chouf, Aley, and Hasbaya), 163, 000 Greek Catholics, and dozen of other Christian minorities and Armenians (concentrated in Ashrafieh, Burj Hammoud, and Anjar).  The Moslem Alawis of about 27,000 are entitled to 2 deputies.

            In the previous election of 2005, the Tayyar of Michel Aoun without the support of any alliances managed to secure 20 Christian deputies representing 70% of the Christian voters but the Lebanese political system denied this large bloc any governmental representation for 4 years until the Dawha agreement.  The law of this election that correspond to the law of 1960 divides Lebanon into 26 districts called “Kada2″ and most of the Christians candidates do not have to rely on Moslem voters for their election.  With the alliance of the “Marada Party” of Suleiman Frangieh in Zghorta, Betroun, and Koura the Tayyar can secure additional 8 deputies.  With the alliance of the Hezbollah the Tayyar can add 3 deputies in the district of B3abda and two more in Jezzine. Thus, if the Tayyar of Michel Aoun sustains the previous election victory then he should expect no less than 27 deputies and over 40 Christian deputies allied to the Tayyar or one third of the Parliament. If we add to this Christian bloc the deputies of Hezbollah and AMAL (over 24 deputies) and the Syrian National Social Party (about 4 deputies) and the Druze and Sunni deputies then the opposition will clearly win the majority of the Parliament.  Thus the Prime Minister will be selected from the opposition and most of the key ministerial posts would revert to the opposition along with a reshuffling of the main first order administrative officials.

            The Tayyar is taking the shape of a popular revolution intended to defeating the privileges of the feudal, caste, confessional, and monopolist system. It has no alternative but to follow the legitimate democratic route under this complex social diversity.

            As I mentioned in another post, if the Christians do not emerge in this election with a unified and powerful centralized bloc then the chances are that a system based on splitting power among Shiaa, Sunni, and Christians (muthalateh) would be inevitable, even at the expense of a short civil war.  Most probably the civil war would start between Shiaas and Sunnis but will quickly degenerate to fighting between Christians and Sunnis because the Shiaas have already their cantons. This alternative system would be legitimate demographically and the Christian would contend with third of the administration and political power offices.

Note 1: My spirit went to statesman General Aoun who said once the Syrian troops crossed the borders in April 2005 “Syria is now out of Lebanon.  I have no qualms with Syria anymore. This is the time to open a new page in our relations”.  The Tayyar has a TV channel and a blog; it has established a radio channe a couple of days ago; but I am under the impression that, excluding the members of the Tayyar, the supporters are on the one way communication receiving end. The brochure of the program of the Tayyar has no phone numbers, no email addresses and no central mailing address. I once sent a hand written letter to Deputy Ibrahim Kanaan and it had to go through two intermediaries of the Tayyar; obviously, I never received a reply. 

Note 2: I am suggesting to the Tayyar to install central mediating centers in each district so that deputies would handle the various complaints from their respective constituencies, sort of “wassit al kada2″.

The Third Republic of Lebanon: The Tayyar of Michel Aoun (June 1, 2009)

            The formal and extensive visits of Michel Aoun to Iran and then to Syria had three purposes.  First, it was symbolic of “breaking bread and sharing salt” which meant that confidence is established and hidden agendas will be stated clearly among friends. The second purpose was to focus attention on the ethnic and religious minorities so that Iran and Syria would exercise more leverage to preserving the persecuted minorities in Iraq. The third purpose was to exposing the draft program of the Third Republic that need to be instituted in Lebanon in order to relieve Iran and Syria from constant worries on the potential political and strategic orientation of Lebanon; thus, relying on Iran and Syria to exercise their influence toward stabilizing an environment of security and peace within Lebanon.

            General and Deputy Aoun had absorbed the various failures of other Christian Lebanese leaders for establishing a lasting stable political system that would save Lebanon of recurring civil wars.  A unified Christian front in Lebanon is not enough to bringing peace and security; this fact Michel Aoun experienced when he was appointed Prime Minister in 1988 and ended in his exile to France.  The most striking recent experiment was the tenure of ex-President Emile Lahoud.

            Lahoud intended to eradicate corruption in the State while maintaining strategic relations with Syria and supporting the Lebanese resistance in the south against Israel’s occupation.  Lahoud failed in his attempts for reforms of the social and political system because he had no civilian political movement and had no previous communication with the deputies in the Parliament.  Lahoud managed to press forward on the corruption front in the first 3 years until Syria realized that the reforms were going too far and driving its Lebanese political supporters to frantic seizures. The incarcerated officials indicted with corruption and stealing the treasury were released from prison and Rafic Hariri returned as Prime Minister to resume his service and real estate economy based on heavy borrowing.

As Syria was under pressure in 2005 to withdraw its troops then it decided to extend the tenure of Lahoud another 3 years.  The UN resolution 1559 for Syria withdrawal, the Lebanese army to expand to the southern borders, and Hezbollah to turn over its heavy artillery to the army pointed to a dramatic clash which culminated in the assassination of Rafic Hariri.  External interventions bolstered the internal confessional forces to side track reforms and forced the Presidency into a defensive corner; thus, not only clipping any remnant of official power but eliminating the role of the Presidency and the Christian necessity for a stable Lebanon among its religious affiliations.

What is the Third Republic and what is its strategy? First, the new Republic will bolster the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the President of the Republic and reduce the exclusive privileges of the Prime Minister to administering several “black boxes” such as emergency funds, development and construction council, repatriation of Lebanese refugees’ box, and disaster box that should be returned to the relevant ministries.  These reforms do not require any amendments to the Taef Constitution.

Second, the Third Republic wants to desist on reducing the economy of Lebanon to the service sector that it can no longer compete with newer and powerful centers in the region like Dubai, Cyprus, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt.  The economy has to revert to basics and develop on industrial and agricultural production, exploiting our water resources, managing better our electrical power generation, and expanding and modernizing our communication facilities. Health for all and education for all at affordable costs are priorities.

Third, the reduction of our heavy borrowing policy that reached over 60 billions dollars with the purpose of settling the Palestinians in Lebanon in return of canceling this mighty debt will be tackled in earnest.  I lean to the possibility that if negotiations with the lending parties are not successful then the new government will decree the cancellation of any lending that was politically motivated.  I doubt that reactions would extend beyond the rhetorical recriminations because the case is strong that Lebanon had no collateral economical generation potentials for these generous lending.  As a consequence, the Third Republic will put an end to any international policies attempts to reside the Palestinians in Lebanon.

Fourth, the Third Republic will relieve Hezbollah from the constant pressures of international plans targeted at coercing the disarmament of the resistance by coordinate activities with non-patriotic governments that are wiling to cohabitate with the enemy Israel.  This united front will force Israel to desist from any further incursions into Lebanon.

Fifth, the Third Republic will move ahead with an alternative election law based on proportionality and revisiting laws that deny equality between genders and secular national civil status laws.

Sixth, the Third Republic will demand joint negotiations with Syria relative peace agreements with Israel after recapturing the Shebaa Farms and the Hills of Kfarshouba.

The first step in the strategy was for the Christians to regain confidence and stand up to their responsibilities and acknowledging that Israel is the enemy.  This was done.  The second step was an alliance with Hezbollah which defeated many plans to resurrect the specter of the civil war.  The third step was direct contacts with States as representing the largest Christian Parliamentary bloc and opening channels of communications and entente.  The fourth step is wining the majority seats in the Parliament.

Lebanon Parliament was expanded in 1992 to include 128 deputies; 64 Christians and 64 Moslems.  The election in June 7 is calling on 3, 260,000 voters to participate and most probably more than 50% will effectively vote. Among the eligible voters of over 21 years of age 888,000 are Moslem Shiaas (27 deputies in total), 874,000 Moslem Sunnis (27 deputies), 698,000 Christian Maronites (34 deputies), 243,000 Christian Greek Orthodox (concentrated in the districts of Ashrafieh and Koura), 186, 000 Moslem Druze (concentrated in the districts of Chouf, Aley, and Hasbaya), 163, 000 Greek Catholics, and dozen of other Christian minorities and Armenians (concentrated in Ashrafieh, Burj Hammoud, and Anjar).  The Moslem Alawis of about 27,000 are entitled to 2 deputies.

            In the previous election of 2005, the Tayyar of Michel Aoun without the support of any alliances managed to secure 20 Christian deputies representing 70% of the Christian voters but the Lebanese political system denied this large bloc any governmental representation for 4 years until the Dawha agreement.  The law of this election that correspond to the law of 1960 divides Lebanon into 26 districts called “Kada2″ and most of the Christians candidates do not have to rely on Moslem voters for their election.  With the alliance of the “Marada Party” of Suleiman Frangieh in Zghorta, Betroun, and Koura the Tayyar can secure additional 8 deputies.  With the alliance of the Hezbollah the Tayyar can add 3 deputies in the district of B3abda and two more in Jezzine. Thus, if the Tayyar of Michel Aoun sustains the previous election victory then he should expect no less than 27 deputies and over 40 Christian deputies allied to the Tayyar or one third of the Parliament. If we add to this Christian bloc the deputies of Hezbollah and AMAL (over 24 deputies) and the Syrian National Social Party (about 4 deputies) and the Druze and Sunni deputies then the opposition will clearly win the majority of the Parliament.  Thus the Prime Minister will be selected from the opposition and most of the key ministerial posts would revert to the opposition along with a reshuffling of the main first order administrative officials.

            The Tayyar is taking the shape of a popular revolution intended to defeating the privileges of the feudal, caste, confessional, and monopolist system. It has no alternative but to follow the legitimate democratic route under this complex social diversity.

            As I mentioned in another post, if the Christians do not emerge in this election with a unified and powerful centralized bloc then the chances are that a system based on splitting power among Shiaa, Sunni, and Christians (muthalateh) would be inevitable, even at the expense of a short civil war.  Most probably the civil war would start between Shiaas and Sunnis but will quickly degenerate to fighting between Christians and Sunnis because the Shiaas have already their cantons. This alternative system would be legitimate demographically and the Christian would contend with third of the administration and political power offices.

Note: The Tayyar has a TV channel and a blog; soon it will establish a radio channel but I am under the impression that, excluding the members of the Tayyar, the supporters are on the one way communication receiving end. The brochure of the program of the Tayyar has no phone numbers, no email addresses and no central mailing address. I once sent a hand written letter to Deputy Ibrahim Kanaan through two intermediaries of the Tayyar; obviously, I never received a reply.

about a month ago i learned about a new blog called stealth conflicts. on it a blogger named virgil hawkins covers the uncoverable–the news stories about conflicts that the media only rarely produce stories about. what first caught my eye was a note someone posted in facebook with the following entry from this blog:

Forget the series of Christmas massacres by the Lord’s Resistance Army rebels in eastern DRC that left more than 400 dead (including more than 45 killed in a church) and the coalition of countries in the region trying to hunt them down. Forget the deadly clashes with Congolese rebels poised to take over the city of Goma. Forget Somalia, where the Ethiopian forces that invaded (with US assistance) two years ago are being forced by local resistance forces to pack and leave. Forget all of these conflicts, because violence has broken out again in Israel-Palestine.

The latest conflagration of violence in Israel-Palestine continues to dominate international news around the world. The details of who is attacking who with what, how many people have died (down to single digit figures), and how many of them were women and children, together with in-depth political analysis and a touch of humanitarian concern are all fed through the newspapers, television, radio and internet news outlets on a daily basis. And all with the utmost care to avoid displeasing lobby groups that will rain down thousands of e-mails, telephone calls and letters (flak) upon the unfortunate media corporation suspected of even the slightest bias (and possibly revoke their advertising contracts).

The Israel-Palestine conflict is a ‘chosen’ conflict. It always is. It has the rare privilege of being the focus of saturated attention every time there is a conflagration (despite the fact that the conflict is not occurring in a ‘white’ Western country, and despite the fact that the USA is not a direct belligerent in the conflict – always sure factors for a conflict to attract soaring levels of attention). Explaining why this is so would take a book or two, but let’s just scratch the surface here. Politicians in much of the Western world obsess about the issue, largely because a significant amount of their election campaign contributions seem to depend on their favourable attention in many cases. Politicians in much of the Muslim world do likewise, because standing up against the oppression of Muslims at the hands of Israel is much more popular than standing up against the oppression of Muslims at the hands of anyone else. The fact that the conflict region is considered the ‘Holy Land’ by Muslims, Jews and Christians helps cement this process.

For media corporations, providing saturation coverage of the conflict is nothing short of automatic. What is considered important by media corporations is based largely on what the policymakers at home consider to be important, almost by default. Keeping reporters close to those making foreign policy at home is much cheaper than sending them all over the world to independently gather news. In the competitive media business, budgets are better spent on packaging and presenting news than actually gathering it. Furthermore, for media corporations that have little newsgathering capacity (and oddly, even for those that do), the news value of a story is often determined by what leading media corporations (like the New York Times) think it should be. In this environment of follow-the-leader (policymakers and leading media corporations) and pack journalism, having a reporter in Africa is optional, having one in Israel-Palestine is not. Once the reporter is stationed there, ‘fresh’ coverage of the issue on demand is cheap and easy (far more so than actually sending someone to far-away and logistically challenging Africa to cover something after it happens).

Because of the combination of follow-the-leader, pack journalism, and lack of newsgathering capacity, this state of affairs can be seen spreading to the rest of the world as well. Japan has no cultural or religious affinity with Israel-Palestine, and its politicians are not reliant on campaign contributions from pro-Israeli lobby groups, yet its media corporations follow the Western leaders in devoting heavy coverage to the issue. Even locally-focused news programs that rarely have any time for foreign affairs issues make sure to include news of the latest conflagration in their bulletins. With little budget for foreign newsgathering, Zambia’s leading newspaper (the Post) buys its world news from foreign news agencies. The result is that it gives more coverage to the situation in Israel-Palestine than it does to the eight countries on Zambia’s border combined. In the year 2004, for example, it devoted 9 percent of its foreign coverage to Israel-Palestine, but only 4 percent to all of Zambia’s eight neighbours.

On top of this, things have always been this way, so they tend to stay that way. Israel-Palestine has always been considered important, and ‘important’ people think it is, so it must be important. Groups (interest/lobby) and individuals with a special interest in the conflict in Israel-Palestine are also well-positioned to continue the process of drawing copious amounts of attention to the conflict, in political spheres and in the ownership of prominent media corporations. Africa, on the other hand, has not been considered important (for a variety of separate reasons that will be dealt with in another post), and therefore no one knows about it, and therefore it is not important. It becomes a vicious cycle.

The public, who remain largely at the mercy of the media corporations in obtaining morsels of information about the outside world, seem to end up with the same distorted view of the world. In a simple classroom survey conducted of 37 Australian university students (studying in a course on war and peace no less) in 2003, the conflict in Israel-Palestine was the most common answer (9 respondents) to the question of which conflict in the world they thought had been the deadliest since the end of the Cold War. Only one of the 37 could even name the conflict in the DRC as one of the world’s deadliest conflicts, and that was at third place behind Israel-Palestine and Afghanistan. In a similar survey conducted of 151 university students in Japan in 2008, not a single one could name the DRC as the world’s deadliest conflict. Fourteen students, on the other hand, thought that the conflict in Israel-Palestine was world’s deadliest, coming in at third place behind Iraq and Kosovo.

This is despite the fact that the virtually unknown conflict in the DRC is 1,000 times deadlier than that in Israel-Palestine. And I don’t mean that figuratively, it is literally 1,000 times deadlier – the death toll from conflict in the DRC since 1998 is roughly 6 million, while the death toll from conflict in Israel-Palestine since 2000 is roughly 6 thousand. At least 38 conflicts since the end of the Cold War have been deadlier than that in Israel-Palestine. Put simply, while these surveys are limited in their scope, they suggest that collectively, the general public has no idea about the state of conflict in the world. Their perspective on which conflicts are the largest and deadliest is so skewed that the reality is unrecognizable. But who can blame them, considering the horribly unbalanced diet of media they feed on. I invite you to try out simple surveys like this (“Which conflict in the world do you think has been the deadliest since the end of the Cold War?”) with those around you.

In some ways, I almost regret writing this post, because I am becoming part of the very bandwagon that I am discussing – by writing about why the issue is important, I am inadvertently boosting the attention it receives… But some discussion of the issue of ‘chosen’ conflicts is also necessary in order for the discussion of ‘stealth’ conflicts to make sense.

i quote his blog entry in full, which i think i have quoted from before, because it raises some really important points that bear repeating. i do not write about the conflict in the drc as often as i would like to, though i do follow the news from the congo as best i can. it is not that i think the conflict doesn’t need more people writing about it, it is just that living in palestine means that you are constantly confronted with israeli terrorism every day and this affects, if not me, certainly my students, friends, people i care about. it is hard sometimes to think of the way hawkins talks about the coverage of palestine in the world media because most of it is a distorted, warped view of reality. but i also think it should not be about covering one story and not the other; i think both should be covered vigorously. and there are many parallels to both, particularly western interests in maintaining colonial or neocolonial powers over these two countries. here is a video that hawkins made raising some of these same questions about why we know so little about the conflict in the drc.

kambale musavuli of friends of the congo wrote an article in the san francisco bay view news this week about the neocolonial interests in the congo in ways that should wake up americans and europeans alike in ways akin to palestine. with both conflicts we are fueling the bloodshed through state and corporate neocolonial policies, though as hawkins shows in his film and article this is way off the radar screen. too, a friend of mine who is a photojournalist and who goes to the congo regularly, and who has also covered palestine, once told me a story about congolese people asking about palestine. after he told them about it they all thought that it sounded like their situation; the people told him that this is just like what rwanda is doing to the congo. here is musavuli’s assessment:

Since Rwanda and Uganda invaded the Congo in 1996, they have pursued a plan to appropriate the wealth of Eastern Congo either directly or through proxy forces. The December 2008 United Nations report is the latest in a series of U.N. reports dating from 2001 that clearly documents the systematic looting and appropriation of Congolese resources by Rwanda and Uganda, two of Washington and London’s staunchest allies in Africa.

However, in the wake of the December 2008 report, which clearly documents Rwanda’s support of destabilizing proxy forces inside the Congo, a series of stunning proposals and actions have been presented which all appear to be an attempt to cover up or bury the damning U.N. report on the latest expression of Rwanda’s aggression against the Congolese people.

The earliest proposal came from Herman Cohen, former assistant secretary of state for African affairs under George Herbert Walker Bush. He proposed that Rwanda be rewarded for its well documented looting of Congo’s wealth by being a part of a Central and/or East African free trade zone whereby Rwanda would keep its ill-gotten gains.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy would not be outdone; he also brought his proposal off the shelf, which argues for essentially the same scheme of rewarding Rwanda for its 12-year war booty from the Congo. Two elements are at the core of both proposals.

One is the legitimization of the economic annexation of the Congo by Rwanda, which for all intents and purposes represents the status quo. And two is basically the laying of the foundation for the balkanization of the Congo or the outright political annexation of Eastern Congo by Rwanda. Both Sarkozy and Cohen have moved with lightning speed past the Dec. 12, 2008, United Nations report to make proposals that avoid the core issues revealed in the report.

The U.N. report reaffirms what Congolese intellectuals, scholars and victims have been saying for over a decade in regard to Rwanda’s role as the main catalyst for the biblical scale death and misery in the Congo. The Ugandan and Rwandan invasions of 1996 and 1998 have triggered the deaths of nearly 6 million Congolese. The United Nations says it is the deadliest conflict in the world since World War II.

The report “found evidence that the Rwandan authorities have been complicit in the recruitment of soldiers, including children, have facilitated the supply of military equipment, and have sent officers and units from the Rwandan Defense Forces” to the DRC. The support is for the National Congress for the Defense of the People, or CNDP, formerly led by self-proclaimed Gen. Laurent Nkunda.

The report also shows that the CNDP is sheltering a war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court, Gen. Jean Bosco Ntaganda. The CNDP has used Rwanda as a rear base for fundraising meetings and bank accounts, and Uganda is once more implicated as Nkunda has met regularly with embassies in both Kigali and Kampala.

Also, Uganda is accepting illegal CNDP immigration papers. Earlier U.N. reports said that Kagame and Museveni are the mafia dons of Congo’s exploitation. This has not changed in any substantive way.

The report implicates Tribert Rujugiro Ayabatwa, a close advisor to Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda. Rujugiro is the founder of the Rwandan Investment Group. This is not the first time he has been named by the United Nations as one of the individuals contributing to the conflict in the Congo.

In April 2001, he was identified as Tibere Rujigiro in the U.N. Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as one of the figures illegally exploiting Congo’s wealth. His implication this time comes in financial contributions to CNDP and appropriation of land.

This brings to light the organizations he is a part of, which include but are not limited to the Rwanda Development Board, the Rwandan Investment Group, of which he is the founder, and Kagame’s Presidential Advisory Council. They have members as notable as Rev. Rick Warren, business tycoon Joe Ritchie, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Scott Ford of Alltell, Dr. Clet Niyikiza of GlaxoSmithKline, former U.S. president Bill Clinton and many more.

These connections provide some insight into why Rwanda has been able to commit and support remarkable atrocities in the Congo without receiving even a reprimand in spite of the fact that two European courts have charged their top leadership with war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is only recently that two European nations, Sweden and the Netherlands, have decided to withhold aid from Rwanda as a result of their aggression against the Congolese people.

The report shows that the Congolese soldiers have also given support to the FDLR and other armed groups to fight against the aggression of Rwanda’s CNDP proxy. One important distinction must be made in this regard. It appears that the FDLR support comes more from individual Congolese soldiers as opposed to overall government support.

The Congolese government is not supporting the FDLR in incursions into Rwanda; however, the Rwandan government is in fact supporting rebel groups inside Congo. The Congolese population is the victim of the CNDP, FDLR and the Congolese military.

The United Nations report is a predictable outgrowth of previous reports produced by the U.N. since 2001. It reflects the continued appropriation of the land, theft of Congo’s resources, and continuous human rights abuses caused by Rwanda and Uganda. An apparent aim of these spasms is to create facts on the ground – land appropriation, theft of cattle and other assets – to consolidate CNDP/Rwandan economic integration into Rwanda.

Herman Cohen’s “Can Africa Trade Its Way to Peace?” in the New York Times reflects the disastrous policies that favor profits over people. In his article, the former lobbyist for Mobutu and Kabila’s government in the United States and former assistant secretary of state for Africa from 1989 to 1993 argues, “Having controlled the Kivu provinces for 12 years, Rwanda will not relinquish access to resources that constitute a significant percentage of its gross national product.”

He adds, “The normal flow of trade from eastern Congo is to Indian Ocean ports rather than the Atlantic Ocean, which is more than a thousand miles away.” Continuing his argument, he believes that “the free movement of people would empty the refugee camps and would allow the densely populated countries of Rwanda and Burundi to supply needed labor to Congo and Tanzania.”

Cohen’s first mistake in providing solutions to the conflict is to look at the conflict as a humanitarian crisis that can be solved by economic means. Uganda and Rwanda are the aggressors. Aggressors should not define for the Congo what is best, but rather it is for the Congo to define what it has to offer its neighbor.

A lasting solution is to stop the silent annexation of Eastern Congo. The International Court of Justice has already weighed in on this matter when it ruled in 2005 that Congo is entitled to $10 billion in reparations due to Uganda’s looting of Congo’s natural resources and the commission of human rights abuses in the Congo. It would have in all likelihood ruled in the same fashion against Rwanda; however, Rwanda claimed to be outside the jurisdiction of the court.

The United States and Great Britain’s implication is becoming very clear. These two great powers consider Rwanda and Uganda their staunch allies and, some would argue, client states. These two countries have received millions of dollars of military aid, which in turn they use in Congo to cause destruction and death.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame is a former student at the U.S. military training base Fort Leavenworth and Yoweri Museveni’s son, Lt. Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, graduated from the same U.S. military college in the summer of 2008. Both the United States and Great Britain should follow the lead of the Dutch and Swedish governments, who have suspended their financial support to Rwanda.

With U.S. and British taxpayers’ support, we now see an estimated 6 million people dead in Congo, hundreds of thousands of women systematically raped as an instrument of war and millions displaced.

A political solution will resolve the crisis, and part of that requires pressure on Rwanda in spite of Rwanda’s recent so-called “house arrest” of Laurent Nkunda. African institutions such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union are primed to be more engaged in the Congo issue. Considering Congo’s importance to Africa, it is remarkable that they have been so anemic in regard to the Congo crisis for so long.

Rwanda’s leader, Paul Kagame, cannot feel as secure or be as arrogant as he has been in the past. One of his top aides was arrested in Germany as a result of warrants issued by a French court and there is almost global consensus that pressure must be put on him to cease his support of the destabilization of the Congo and its resultant humanitarian catastrophe.

In addition to pressure on Kagame, the global community should support the following policies:

1. Initiate an international tribunal on the Congo.

2. Work with the Congolese to implement a national reconciliation process; this could be a part of the international tribunal.

3. Work with the Congolese to assure that those who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity are brought to justice.

4. Hold accountable corporations that are benefiting from the suffering and deaths in the Congo.

5. Make the resolution of the Congo crisis a top international priority.

Living is a right, not a privilege, and Congolese deaths must be honored by due process of the law. As the implication of the many parties in this conflict becomes clear, we should start firmly acknowledging that the conflict is a resource war waged by U.S. and British allies.

We call upon people of good will once again to advocate for the Congolese by following the prescriptions we have been outlining to end the conflict and start the new path to peace, harmony and an end to the exploitation of Congo’s wealth and devastation of its peoples.

i have been thinking about the congo this week quite a bit, partially because i am teaching joseph conrad’s the heart of darkness in my postcolonial literature class. of course, i am teaching it in historical context of colonialism in the congo, but also in relation to current events there. and we will return to the congo when i end the semester with raoul peck’s biopic film lumumba. it is striking to reread this novel after decades–i think i first read this in junior high school and i don’t recall having read it since. the character kurtz is described by marlowe in a way that i think is especially significant given the tight focus of the story on two men. he is described by marlowe as:

The original Kurtz had been educated partly in England, and–as he was good enough to say himself–his sympathies were in the right place. His mother was half-English, his father was half-French. All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz; and by-and-by I learned that, most appropriately, the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had intrusted him with the making of a report, for its future guidance. (124)

the point here that i think is interesting is that he was made by all of europe. this is not because his parents came from different countries. this is because the savagery with which he loots and rapes the land and the people of the congo came from his upbringing in europe. his sense of his superiority. his racism. his capitalist drive. these are the forces that feed colonialism and imperialism and they come from europe. the quest for power, fed by greed and racism is what fuels every colonial project whether in the congo or in palestine. and these colonial ideologies about conquering the americas, australia, africa, asia also fed into zionist ideology. abayomi azikiwe wrote an essay recently entitled “pan-africanism and palestine solidarity – a history of anti-imperialist struggle” in which he lays out some of these parallels:

Throughout the negotiations involving the Zionist proposals for white penetration into Africa and Asia, Theodore Herzl, in the manner of 19th century imperialist thinkers, spoke of imperialism and colonialisation as a ‘noble activity destined to bring civilization to the “backward races”.’ Viewing the Jewish state with occidental white binoculars, he asserted that this state is designed to ‘form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism.’

African territories were strongly considered as a ‘homeland’ for the Zionist state. This contradicts the proclaimed scriptural basis for the colonisation of Palestine. Zayid states that ‘in their search for a location for the Zionist enclave, to be created, a variety of options were explored including Uganda (east Africa), Tripolitania in Libya (north Africa), Cyprus (Mediterranean), Madagascar (off the southeast African coast), Congo (in central Africa) and Palestine.’

Joseph Chamberlain, the British racist theoretician told Herzl that ‘I have seen a land for you on my recent travels, and that is Uganda. It is not on the coast but the climate of the interior is excellent for Europeans. Though Herzl strongly favored Uganda as the location for the Jewish state, the committee, appointed by the World Zionist Congress to explore the area, found it unsuitable.’

the quote taken above is from a much longer article, which i highly recommend. it shows how various anti-colonial liberation movements came to support palestinian liberation not only because they were fighting the same struggle, but also because the zionist colonists in palestine helped to fund colonialism in countries like south africa. it also details a similar trajectory for african americans coming to support palestinian liberation. while, of course, i welcome this, and want to see more of this, i also think that it cannot and should not be unidirectional.

look at these two stories from relief web yesterday, for instance, that reported on new refugees from the congo and from gaza:

The number of Congolese refugees who have sought safety in South Sudan since attacks by the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) last year has now surpassed the 15,000 mark.

UNHCR staff late last week accompanied local South Sudanese authorities to Lasu, a sparsely populated village in Central Equatoria State where they found the population of Congolese refugees had swelled from 2,000 to approximately 6,000. Most of them fled from the DRC town of Aba, which has been attacked several times since January, the latest last week. Lasu is 45 km from the border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

At least 100,000 people, including up to 56,000 children, remain displaced with many continuing to take shelter in tents or crowding into remaining homes with other families, one month since the Gaza ceasefire was declared.

and, of course, there are conflicts that are in the news daily, but perhaps because of compassion fatigue they seem not to matter to people any more. obama says that he’s sending 17,000 new troops to afghanistan. he says this on the same day that new casualty figures for afghans is released:

Civilian casualties in Afghanistan’s escalating conflict have increased by 39 per cent over the last year, hitting their worst-ever level, according to a United Nations report.

A total of 2,118 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2008, the deadliest year since US-ousted the Taliban in 2001, the world body said in a report released on Tuesday.

meanwhile, israeli terrorists continue to bomb and shoot at palestinians in gaza:

A woman is dead and another person injured after Israeli warplanes launched several strikes on the border area between Egypt and Gaza Wednesday morning.

Warplanes launched missiles at underground smuggling tunnels, in addition to a security compound of the de facto government in Khan Younis, a city in the south of Gaza. A mosque was also destroyed in Khan Younis

The woman, 70-year-old Huda Abu Tahla, suffered a heart attack when missiles struck near her home, according to the executive director of the Abu Yousif An-Najjar Hospital in Rafah, Muhammad Subih.

Missile strikes destroyed seven smuggling tunnels along the Philadelphi Route, the zone along the Egypt-Gaza border. Israeli sources said the strikes were a response to recent projectile attacks launched by into southern Israel from Gaza.

Separately, Palestinian medical sources said a Palestinian farmer was moderately injured by Israeli fire in Al-Farahin area, east of Khan Younis near the border with Israel.

and here in the west bank palestinians continue to be kidnapped every day, in increasingly high numbers while israeli terrorists keep teasing us with talk of prisoner release (clearly they want to boost the numbers inside before any such release might happen):

In a third consecutive day of mass arrests Israeli forces stormed the northern West Bank town of Jayyus near Qalqiliya early morning Wednesday and seized 65 Palestinian youth in an ongoing military operation.

Israeli soldiers declared the town a “Closed Military Area” and barred journalists from entering. A curfew has been imposed, trapping residents in their homes.

Soldiers told the families of those detained that they were “wanted” by Israeli intelligence….

According to Israeli sources the village was raided in a sweep for illegal weapons. An army spokesperson told the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, that forces were operating in the town following a rise in the number of incidents involving the throwing of stones at Israeli vehicles.

Eight of those taken were identified as:

Sakhr Shamasnah,
Jabir Shamasnah,
Kamal Shamasnah,
Adli Shamasnah,
Anwar Aarif,
Mahir Aarif,
Muhammad Bilal and
Hamadah Nimir

The residents of Jayyus organize a weekly demonstration against the construction of the separation wall on village land. Foreign activists frequently attend the events and Israeli soldiers regularly invade the town and harass its residents following the departure of the activists.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces on Wednesday morning apprehended two Palestinian university students from the northern West Bank town of Far’un, south of Tulkarem.

Soldiers stormed the town at dawn, ransacking a residential building and seizing two students at the Palestine Technical University.

Two of the students detained were identified as 22-year-old Sami Al-Jaroushi, affiliated with Fatah, and 20-year-old Fawzi Qarqur, apparently a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

and because israeli terrorists didn’t have enough blood on their hands for today, they decided to invade lebanon, too:

Witnesses heard the sound of four consecutive explosions accompanied by gunfire and overflights by helicopter gunships over the Arqoub region in the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms.

The state-run National News Agency said an Israeli force had earlier in the day crossed the barbed wire at the southwestern edge of the border town of Ghajar.

The 19-member Israeli force conducted a two-hour search of the area, NNA said.

ah, yes, colonialism is alive and well here in palestine. in the congo. in afghanistan. in iraq. and so many other places around the world. but what i want to know is when can we connect these liberation struggles and fight for the as one? the corporations and states fueling these colonial projects overlap. so should our political solidarity.

Bi-weekly report (#8) on Lebanon (January 15, 2009)

            A couple of rockets were fired yesterday from Shebaa on northern Israel and another five rockets last week on Naharia; Israel responded in kind.  No group claimed the attack, simply because no groups in Lebanon did it.  These two salves of rockets were CIA initiated because Shebaa is completely under Israeli control and last week salve was fired in areas under the total control of the UN troops.  If we know that the UN contingents are constituted of 22 States and each contingent has its own intelligence services and connected to their Embassies then it is doubtful that the UN is ignorant of who fired the rockets.  The UN peace keeping forces know who fired the rockets and they should be investigating the elements connected to the CIA.

            Why the CIA would fire rockets in northern Israel?  My contention is that there are two plausible reasons; first, Bush Junior would like very much Israel to try again to weaken Hezbollah before he exits power but Israel is no longer in such mood: even tiny Gaza with no exits for supplies has resisted for 20 days and is still launching rockets on the neighboring Zionist colonies.  The second more plausible reason is to open the airwaves of the multimedia for the regurgitation of the midget politicians in the March 14 coalition.  These insipid and odorless defeatist politicians had nothing to say during the horrors of Gaza; they certainly would like Hamas to be defeated, and some of them would love to have over one million Palestinians dead (they performed hand to hand genocide in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982); they would not dare join the US and Israeli positions because the internal situation in Lebanon is too volatile for stupid commentaries.  Thus, the two salves of rockets permitted the feather weight politicians to reiterate that the government is the sole authority for ordering military activities.  Well, they had their 15 minutes of babblings and they are thanking the US for that opportunity.  Personally, I think that although the Israeli government didn’t take these rockets seriously, the Zionist colonists in northern Israel must have recalled their plights on July 2006 and urged their government to put an end to the attacks in Gaza.

            General Aoun lambasted the “potential” politicians who are pretending to form a “moderate” or “medial” or “independent” group for the next Parliamentary election.  Deputy Aoun said “How can you be moderate between ending the embezzlement of the finances and allowing a few stealing to go on?  How can you be moderate between stabilizing the political climate with Syria and permitting a few unreliable activities of animosity against Syria?”

            The Ex-President of the Palestinians in the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbass, dared proclaim that “Egypt, the USA, and Israel assured him that the military operation in Gaza should not last one week to exterminate Hamas”. How stupid can a politician be?  Anyone with the word “Abbass” attached to his name should quickly change it; otherwise people will regard him as stupid:  Abbass connote Stupid and Traitor to his people.

            Qatar managed to hold a formal meeting of the Arab foreign ministers; only Moubarak of Egypt, the Wahhabi monarch of Saudi Arabia, and the dictator of Tunisia refused the invitation. Lovely, at least this Arab summit, without the heavy weight traitors amidst them, has a chance to raise the flag of human dignity and boldly face the genocidal plans on the Palestinians by the Bush Junior Administration and the European Union leaders.  Now that the masks have been totally dropped by Moubarak of Egypt and the Wahhabi monarch of Saudi Arabia, it is hard to envision Seniora PM of Lebanon and Saad (of the Hariri clan) resuming their patriotic declarations and their claim of honest brokers for the stability and peace of Lebanon..  I like to remind Seniora and Saad and Samir that even Dracula Condo Rice felt terribly ashamed when Bush Junior ordered her not to vote for the UN resolution 1820 for a complete cease fire in Gaza; she simply didn’t cast a vote!

            Hilary Clinton insists on not negotiating with democratically elected Hamas in Gaza. What Barak Obama meant by change?  How Obama is to change anything if the cat ate his tongue and the Zionist devil bought his soul?

            The Horror!  This Silence of the powerful; this Silence of the “good guys” in the “Land of the Free” watching a genocide in progress.  The Horror! The Silence of an Obama leading a Silent majority while over 500 babies died and 3,000 seriously injured under debris and by phosphorous burning bombs and the genocide of famine, lack of potable water, and of medicines going strong for 20 days..

i’ve been thinking far too much about hawa or wind, air this week. mostly because of these insane winds that have created a kind of orchestra that i heard for the last 48 hours outside my home. ironically as i learned this new arabic vocabulary word i encountered it in a stanza of one of suheir hammad’s amazing new poems, “break (water)”:

trust only stars habibi a mirage a gold tree on chain sparks trees on lips
smoke hawa over sunrise hennessy under pillow batata okra dawn
clave iron clove fist silver oasis oriki bata cinnamon offering ana
break into language insurgent

but i have also been thinking about hot air–both the kind i wish were blowing on the hills of nablus now and the type emanating from lebanese politicians’ lips. an nahar has carried a series of comments by various lebanese officials about the possibility of entering into negotiations with the zionist state. here is the first one that appeared two days ago:

Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh on Tuesday indicated that Lebanon might go into negotiations with Israel if French President Nicolas Sarkozy guaranteed withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Lebanese territory.

In answering a question as to whether Sarkozy’s forthcoming visit to Beirut on Jan. 6 could facilitate Lebanon’s engagement in negotiations with Israel, Salloukh said: “If President Sarkozy can guarantee to us Israel’s withdrawal from Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shouba Hills and the Lebanese sector of Ghajar village, then why not.”

“Lebanon is cautious regarding negotiations with Israel, be they direct or indirect, fearing they might lead to collapse of UNSCR 1701,” Salloukh explained.

He said “no serious discussion” of the Middle East crisis is expected before the second half of 2009.

thankfully, hezbollah responded immediately to this ridiculous proposition:

Hizbullah on Tuesday reiterated its outright rejection of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel and said national dialogue over a defense strategy is essential and should “persist.”

Minister of Labor Mohammed Fneish, a ranking Hizbullah member, told reporters after talks with Premier Fouad Saniora “direct negotiations with Israel are out of the question and totally unacceptable.”

“Going into negotiations reflects readiness to make concessions. We are not prepared to make concessions regarding our rights,” Fneish added.

National Dialogue under President Michel Suleiman with the aim of agreeing on a defense strategy is “essential and should not be linked to a timeframe. What is important is for dialogue to persist,” Fneish added.

and now, uncharacteristically, siniora seems to be echoing the sentiment that negotiations won’t happen–though the phrase “at the moment” makes one pause:

Premier Fouad Saniora said Lebanon has no interest in holding peace talks with neighboring Israel at the moment.

“I see no interest for us right now to discuss direct negotiations or indirect negotiations with Israel,” Saniora said in an interview with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation broadcast on Wednesday.

“No one has challenged our claim of authority and ownership of the land that Israel occupies. So we see it as premature to take a decision in this regard as yet,” he added.

Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation, but Lebanon claims it is still occupying land on the border, including Shebaa Farms, a mountainous sliver of land rich in water resources.

Lebanon’s former power broker Syria began Turkish-mediated indirect peace talks with Israel in May, eight years after the previous negotiations broke down over the fate of the strategic Golan Heights plateau.

friends tell me that this is a bunch of hot air. i hope they are right. lebanese should know better than to enter into negotiations or any sort of recognition of a zionist state that has treated lebanon as its own private battleground since 1948. moreover, the reports about possible continuing negotiations between the zionist state and syria make this prospect of lebanese negotiations even more troubling as it would be akin to putting the nail in the coffin for palestinians. all we need to do is look to egypt and jordan’s so-called “peace” treaties with the zionist state and we can see what the fate for palestinians would be as a result of such an agreement. after more than sixty years it should be painfully obvious that the zionist state has never understood anything other than aggression whether stealing land or massacring people.

it doesn’t matter what their rhetoric is because in their colonial discourse what they means the opposite (i.e., peace means war). take the zionist state’s asking for a new “truce” with gaza a week ago. they did this while firing missiles on innocent people in gaza. here is what tzipi livni had to say to hosni mubarak in cairo today:

Rejecting a call for restraint by Hosni Mubarak, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Thursday told the Egyptian President that Israel will act to halt “unbearable” rocket attacks by Gaza militants.

“We cannot tolerate a situation in which Hamas continues to target Israel, Israel’s citizens, and this situation is going to be changed,” Livni told the Egyptian leader.

The pair met in Cairo shortly after the cabinet approved a military response to escalating rocket fire from the Gaza Strip. Mubarak, for his part, told Livni that Egypt expects Israel to exercise restraint in the face of Gaza rocket fire.

Livni added: “Hamas needs to understand that our desire to live in peace doesn’t mean we will allow the ‘[rocket] fire to continue – Israel will do everything necessary to protect its citizens.”

notice how quickly “truce” becomes war for zionists. and of course they’ve never stopped bombing people in gaza before, during, or after the “truce.” and apparently other egyptian officials have no problem with a new invasion of gaza:

Egypt has informed Israel that it would not object to a limited Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip, the London-based newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi reported Wednesday.

The paper claimed that Egyptian Intelligence chief, Omar Suleimann, met last week with Amos Gilad, the head of the Defense Ministry’s diplomatic-security department, and rejected Gilad’s request that Cairo use its influence to persuade Hamas to extend a truce with Israel that expired last Friday.

At the same time, the paper said, Suleiman told Gilad that Egypt would not object to a limited Israeli operation in Gaza aimed at toppling the Hamas government.

this is precisely the sort of thing that i fear if lebanon entered into negotiations with the zionist state. to see egyptians condoning an israeli invasion of gaza is, i suspect, what we could expect from lebanon and syria if things were to change. of course this is ironic given that all of these countries have been subjected to the israeli terrorist forces (itf) aggression themselves so they should know better. and even before seeking support of egypt the zionists already voted yesterday to begin a new war on gaza:

The Israeli cabinet okayed a major military operation against the Gaza Strip, Israeli media outlets reported Wednesday evening.

The electronic website of the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz quoted an Israeli official as saying, “Our response will be substantial and painful to Hamas.”

Before the military measures were announced Israeli warplanes targeted a Palestinian group of activists in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip killing Hamas militant Yahya Ash-Sha’ir in his twenties, and injuring three others.

A fourth Palestinian was injured, photojournalist Mustafa Bakir, as he documented the shelling in Rafah. Bakir works for the Hamas-affiliated Al-Aqsa satellite TV station.

what should be realized in all of these clips from newspapers above is that the focus is on hamas. this is a really distorted view of what is actually happening on the ground. there are many resistance groups using their legitimate right to resist under international law and only one of those groups is hamas. any given week if you read through ma’an news, for example, you will find that al aqsa martyr’s brigade (which is fatah) or pflp or dflp (both communist) are also engaged in resistance operations against the zionist state. and yet journalists continue to fixate and focus on hamas. here are a few such examples from this week:

An armed group affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) launched a homemade projectile at the Israeli town of Sderot on Tuesday evening.

An armed group affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) launched two homemade projectiles at the Israeli town of Sderot on Tuesday afternoon, it said in a statement.

The attacks were claimed by the DFLP’s National Resistance Brigades, as well as the National Resistance Committees’ Salah Ad-Din Brigades, in a statement.

The military wing affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the National Resistance Brigades, claimed responsibility on Tuesday morning for firing two mortar shells at the Kissufim military post east of Al-Qarara in the southern Gaza Strip.

Twenty minutes earlier, according to a statement the group released, they fired a homemade projectile at Kerem Shalom crossing.

the above items are just from this week, but you can also find from previous weeks similar pflp and fatah actions. and, yes, of course, hamas is also engaged in resistance as is their right:

The military wing affiliated to Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades released a statement on Thursday morning briefing the group’s military activities over the first twenty four hours of an operation they called “Oil Stain” which started Wednesday morning.

According to the statement, a total of 87 shells have been fired at Israeli targets bordering the Gaza Strip including 54 mortar shells, 31 homemade projectiles which Hamas calls “Qassam”, and two Soviet-made Grad missiles.

Al-Qassa Brigades threatened to enlarge the “Oil Stain” to get more thousands of Israelis “under fire”. The group asserted that its fighters are “far greater than surrendering to Israeli threats and that they became much more prepared to counter Israeli aggression and to defend themselves than in the past.”

In a different regard, Hamas announced death of six of its activists on Tuesday and Wednesday in Israeli airstrikes.

i find this isolating of one particular group, when many others participate in/support the same acts, troubling for so many reasons. it reminds me, for instance of the israeli invasion of lebanon in the summer of 2006 when israel’s rhetoric was all about its war against hezbollah, but of course all the people were subjected to their brutal bombings. moreover, there are many sunnis, christians, communists, and druze who support hezbollah’s resistance so framing this as some sort of isolated group not connected to the society is deeply problematic whether you’re talking about hezbollah or hamas. not incidentally, israel’s partner in crime in all of their war crimes, the united states, decided to send a new york man to jail for broadcasting al manar television on satellite dishes (n.b.: israelis have al manar on their satellite dishes).

equally problematic is the bullshit olmert was peddling on al-arabiya television yesterday. i mean, who does he expect to believe his double speak? viewers of al arabiya know better: they know that to interpret all of this crap all they have to do is invert it to its opposite to find some semblance of the truth. they are smarter than that. they know that it’s not just hamas but palestinians in general involved in armed resistance. they know it is the right of palestinians to engage in this resistance. they know that it is the zionist regime and not palestinians–hamas or otherwise–who is intent on murdering innocent civilians. nevertheless, this is the bunch of hooey that olmert was attempting to sell the viewing audience:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appealed to the Gaza Strip’s residents on Thursday, urging them to stop Hamas. “We don’t want to fight the Palestinian people, but we won’t let Hamas hurt our children. We have a lot of power, which we are not eager to use. Gaza’s residents, don’t let the Hamas murderers, who are acting against the values of Islam, put you in danger,” Olmert said in an interview with the UAE-based al-Arabiya television news channel.

The prime minister went on to say that Israel left Gaza about three years ago, not in order to return.

He turned to the Strip’s residents and added, “I’m talking to you as a father, as a grandfather, and I know there’s nothing I want less than putting my children and grandchildren in danger.

“Is killing innocent children the spirit of Islam? Is it firing missiles at kindergartens and on civilians? I don’t think this is the spirit of Islam. Hamas is the main reason for your suffering, for the suffering of all of us.”

Olmert told the residents that this was “a last call” to stop the rocket fire.

“I know how much you want to wake up in the morning in peace, take your children to the kindergarten or to school, just like we want to, just like people in Sderot and Netivot want to,” he said.

“Hamas is the residents’ enemy – not only in Israel but in Gaza too. I think about the tens of thousands of children and innocent people who will be put in danger as a result of Hamas’ activities.”

He directed a rhetorical question to the viewers as the Israeli prime minister, saying, “Can I afford more missiles on Israel’s residents? Seeing children and civilians get hurt and doing nothing? Of course not.

“Hamas is firing at us and at the power station providing electricity to Gaza. Stop them. Stop your enemies and ours. Tell them to stop firing at innocent people.

“I’m not here to declare a war. I’ve said this in the past: As long as I’m prime minister I plan to reach peace, not to fight the Palestinians. But Hamas must be stopped, and this will happen.”

As for the humanitarian situation in the Strip, Olmert said Israel won’t let Gaza’s residents sink into a crisis and that they would not suffer from a shortage of food or medications.

meanwhile, the zionist regime started dropping leaflets along the border telling palestinians that their only lifeline–the tunnels along the rafah border–are about to be bombed:

Israel announced on Thursday a ultimatum for smuggling tunnels’ owners on the Egypt-Gaza border lines.

Leaflets dropped by Israeli warplanes on the border lines read that all those working on tunnels must leave the place in 24 hours, before the Israeli air crafts destroy the tunnels.

This is the first time in the past few years that Israel declares so, as the tunnels trade on the border lines has flourished over the past 18 months, with Israel closing all Gaza’s border crossings, allowing limited quantities of commodities from time to time.

and of course in all of these zionist threats against people of gaza, made through the cloak of threats against hamas, palestinian christians in gaza are not faring any better:

The Gaza Strip is home to about 4,000 Palestinian Christians, many of whom will not be celebrating Christmas this year. Gaza Latin Church pastor Manuel Musalam said yesterday he was canceling midnight mass prayers in protest against Israel’s siege of Gaza. It was also a protest against the Israeli decision not to grant permission to Gaza Christians who sought permission to visit the holy city of Bethlehem, the Xinhua news agency reported.

Thousands of pilgrims from around the world have flocked to the West Bank town of Bethlehem to celebrate Christmas, Al Jazeera said.

The Palestinian ministry of tourism said it expected about 40,000 people to visit Bethlehem over the next week and the Palestinian Authority deployed hundreds of security forces in the area to safeguard the celebrations.

“The Catholic leader in the Holy Land Thursday prayed for Mideast peace, telling the faithful at the traditional birthplace of Jesus the silent night of Christmas overpowers the voice of guns,” AFP reported.

all gazans, whether they are christian or muslim, whether they are from gaza or refugees from 1948 palestine fare the same fate just as when israel bombs lebanon whether you are a member of hezbollah or not you suffer the same fate. and one of the repercussions of the zionist siege on gaza is that palestinians have had to return to the “stone age” in order to do simple tasks like cooking:

In their struggle for survival amid Israel’s on-going economic blockade, people in Gaza have found a new weapon. In the absence of electricity or cooking gas, families have gone back to the age-old cooking fire—burning whatever they can get their hands in order to feed themselves and their children.

Restaurants in Gaza too have gone back to Stone Age techniques to keep their business from failing. And even the Food Bank, Gaza’s only food charity, is now cooking on makeshift fires to be able to feed Gaza’s poor and homeless.

Om Osama is a 40-year-old housewife and mother of 12 children living in Northern Gaza. In order to cook the leftovers from yesterday’s dinner, she says she took some of her children’s clothes to throw on the fire.

“It is the only way I can manage to cook anything these days”, she says. “My kids need food and my husband is doing his best to provide it. I am not ashamed of doing this—I’m only trying to feed my family. How am I supposed to do so with no cooking gas or even wood?”

Wood for cooking has in fact become a luxury item in the Gaza Strip. “Rich people can buy wood,” says Om Osama. “Even more lucky people can afford to buy gas, but that is not the case for us.”

and yet christmas or not the world does nothing. it goes on without thinking or feeling about or with the people in gaza or in refugee camps or in 1948 palestine. worse: the united nations in spite of all the ways in which the zionist regime has consistently thwarted, since its inception, any attempt at justice for palestinians. in electronic intifada ali abunimah and hasan abu nimah explain this in the context of the recent un security council resolution 1850 and the damaging effect it may have:

The resolution “Calls on all States and international organizations to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations and to support the Palestinian government that is committed to the Quartet principles and the Arab Peace Initiative and respects the commitments of the Palestinian Liberation Organization …”

This translates as a call to continue boycotting the democratically-elected Palestinian government that is now caged in the Gaza Strip, while the so-called international community continues to grant legitimacy and money to the “government” headed by Salam Fayyad and appointed by Abbas in violation of Palestinian law, after the failed US-sponsored attempts to overthrow the elected government in June 2007. Abbas’ own term as Palestinian Authority president expires on 9 January. By all indications he will simply remain in his chair illegally. Lacking all democratic legitimacy, Abbas will now be able to point to the UN resolution as his basis for clinging to power just because he, unlike the elected government, has capitulated to the Quartet’s one-sided conditions.

In short, the Security Council has decided that it, not the Palestinian people, has the right to choose Palestinian leaders. This is not only a usurpation of a fundamental aspect of Palestinians’ right to self-determination, but an assault on democracy everywhere.

While masquerading as an attempt to support peace, resolution 1850 is replete with other cynical gestures. Corrupt Palestinian Authority officials and external peace process industry consultants and non-governmental organizations will no doubt be thrilled by the Security Council’s call on “States and international organizations” to “maximize resources available to the Palestinian Authority,” and to continue to fund the failed “Palestinian institution-building program.” This is also an indirect way to legitimize the efforts of outside powers to arm and train the militias loyal to Abbas whose purpose is to crush Palestinian resistance to the occupation.

The Arab League’s irrelevance is confirmed when the resolution merely notes in passing “the importance of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.” And, the declaration that “the two-state solution” is the “only” possible solution is an effort to cover up decades of failure, and silence the growing debate about democratic alternatives.

It is disappointing that Russia, after it was subjected to the same kind of arbitrary and illogical decisions from the West after Georgia’s surprise attack on South Ossetia last August, should collude in the further erosion of Palestinian rights and UN authority. But that was probably the price Russia had to pay for a petty reward: the resolution promises yet another sterile “international meeting” of the Quartet in Moscow next year. It is not the first time that Palestinian rights have been traded for such insignificant benefits for others.

With its latest intervention, the Security Council sought to bestow legitimacy on Israeli occupation, colonization and those who abet its oppression. Instead it simply exposed ever more shamelessly its own illegitimacy and subservience to powers who have no regard for international law and for the rights of those it is supposed to protect.

is this really what we have to expect in the coming year(s)? more of the same? worse? or is it all hot air?

BEIRUT (AFP) Lebanon’s Western-backed Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said his country has no interest in holding peace talks with neighbouring Israel at the moment.

“I see no interest for us right now to discuss direct negotiations or indirect negotiations with Israel,” Siniora said in an interview with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation broadcast on Wednesday.

“No one has challenged our claim of authority and ownership of the land that Israel occupies. So we see it as premature to take a decision in this regard as yet,” he added.

Israel withrew from south Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation, but Lebanon claims it is still occupying land on the border, including Shebaa Farms, a mountainous sliver of land rich in water resources.

Lebanon’s former power broker Syria began Turkish-mediated indirect peace talks with Israel in May, eight years after the previous negotiations broke down over the fate of the strategic Golan Heights plateau.

However, the talks have been suspended since Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced in July that he would step down.

On Monday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said his country would eventually embark on direct peace talks with Israel, but that they must be based on UN Security Council resolutions.

“We are closely following what the Syrian Arab Republic is undertaking, but that is the decision of the Syrian Arab Republic… we in Lebanon have to look at our situation very carefully,” Siniora said.

“We always have said it is in Lebanon’s interest to be the last country to enter into a peace process (with Israel),” he added.

Siniora also welcomed the imminent opening of the first-ever Syrian embassy in Beirut after the two countries agreed to reestablish ties for the first time since independence 60 years ago.

“It is a very important and fundamental step that lays the groundwork for other steps,” the Lebanese premier said.

Relations between the two neighbours have been tense since 2005 when Syria was forced to withdraw from its tiny neighbour after an almost 30-year military presence in the aftermath of the killing of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri.

Syria is still believed to wield considerable political power in Lebanon through its local allies.

© 2008 Agence France-Presse

http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/12/25/lebanese_pm_says_no_interest_in_israel_peace_talks/afp/

Most of us following Middle East news or Lebanon news know a few things about Hezbollah: it emerged in the early 1980’s during the heyday of the Lebanese civil war; its external allies are Iran and Syria; it is likely the strongest and best-trained armed group in Lebanon right now, on par or surpassing the Lebanese army itself; and because of this, it claims to be Lebanon’s stalwart and necessary defender against Israeli aggressions. Many of us are also aware that Hezbollah has established several conditions in order for it to voluntarily disarm its military wing.   Briefly, until 2000, the main condition for its military existence was the occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel.   Following Israel’s redeployment outside of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah emphasized the fact that it had to maintain its military character as the Shebaa Farms, a fertile parcel of land of about 22 km² (8 sq mi) remained occupied by Israel.  (For the sake of a more complete picture, I should also add that Hezbollah cites the regular violations of Lebanon’s airspace by Israeli fighter jets as  another reason for it to keep its arms). 

In the past few months, Hezbollah officials have begun citing if not an entirely new demand, then certainly a less frequently-branded one.  I’m talking about the territorial claim over “The Seven Villages”.  Heard about it? I hadn’t.  It seems that there are seven villages and twenty farms lying just within Israel’s northern border, and which Lebanon has historically claimed as Lebanese, albeit with much less fanfare than its other grievances against Israel.   Nicholas Blanford, a Beirut-based journalist and author of a book on the Hariri assassination that I haven’t quite finished_reading_yet , has a 17-page  study posted on the Now Lebanon website in which he explains the “Seven Villages” demand.

The study is quite an intriguing historical review of the events, negotiations, communications and most crucially, cartography, done by the British and French in the early 1920’s, along with a description of the Zionists’ involvement in these interactions. I highly recommend reading Blanford’s paper, but for those who are eager for the punch line of the story, Blanford concludes that the Seven Villages should have been included in the Lebanese state created by the French.  However, he predicts that raising this issue of re-drawing the borders of northern Israel/southern Lebanon might open the door for Israel to make demands of its own regarding territory it thinks should be part of Israel.   Although Blanford does not expressly say it, his implicit suggestion here seems to be that Lebanon should drop any claims it might have on the Seven Villages because this would complicate any peace talks with Israel.  He specifies that because Lebanon’s past behaviour suggests that it has tacitly accepted its present borders, Israel is unlikely to concede the concerned territories. 

I might be incorrect in interpreting Blanford’s last paragraphs as I have, however, I cannot help but think of two of the most elementary rules of any negotiation:  1)  if you don’t ask for something, you’re no likely to get it; and 2) always ask for more than what you think you will or can get.  In this vein, although I recognize that the idea of incorporating the Seven Villages into Lebanon is quite illusory,  I would never recommend that a party relinquish some of its demands before negotiations even begin simply because it might complicate the bargaining, or because the other party might retaliate with its own demands.  Why not keep the Seven Villages on the list of items to be negotiated with Israel, and use them as bargaining chips for obtaining something that might be more of a priority to Lebanon, like the Shebaa Farms?   For the time being though, it’s safest to say that the Seven Villages are just an added element to what Blanford aptly calls the “psychological warfare” between Hezbollah and Israel.

Già pronto il nuovo pretesto per la guerra di Hezbollah contro Israele

“Non dobbiamo accettare la Linea Blu come un confine, la Linea Blu non è il confine fra Libano e Israele: è solo la linea che segna dove si sono ritirate le forze israeliane dal Libano meridionale nel maggio 2000”. Lo ha dichiarato il 3 novembre scorso Nawaf al-Moussawi, responsabile per i rapporti internazionali di Hezbollah, in occasione di un incontro con l’ambasciatore norvegese in Libano Aud Lise Norheim.

La cosiddetta Linea Blu venne segnata dai cartografi delle Nazioni Unite nel giugno 2000 nel momento il cui verificarono il completo ritiro israeliano dal Libano in conformità con la risoluzione 425 del Consiglio di Sicurezza: pur differendo leggermente dalla linea di confine fissata nel 1923 fra Mandato Britannico e Mandato Francese nonché dalla linea di armistizio del 1949, la Linea Blu viene considerata il confine internazionale fra Israele e Libano.

Secondo Moussawi, la linea del 1923 sarebbe stata fissata dalle “organizzazioni terroriste sioniste” che in questo modo avrebbero derubato il Libano di sette villaggi e una ventina di fattorie. Il riferimento è a sette villaggi sciiti in Alta Galilea che vennero inclusi nel Mandato Britannico in base al trattato di demarcazione del confine firmato fra Francia e Gran Bretagna nel 1923, dopo che un primo testo di accordo non definitivo di alcuni anni prima li aveva inclusi nel Mandato Francese.

“Dobbiamo stare in guardia rispetto al tentativo di farci riconoscere la Linea Blu come il confine, perché ciò priverebbe il Libano di milioni di metri quadrati di territorio nazionale”, ha aggiunto l’esponente Hezbollah.

Con questa affermazione in pratica la milizia sciita libanese filo-siriana e filo-iraniana dichiara per la prima volta in un contesto internazionale quale sarà il prossimo pretesto per muovere guerra a Israele, quand’anche venisse raggiunta un’intesa sulla questione delle cosiddette Fattorie Shabaa (catturate da Israele alla Siria nel 1967, ma ora rivendicate da Beirut) e del villaggio di Ghajar (cresciuto negli anni a cavallo della linea di confine). “Stanno giocando con questioni insignificanti a cui praticamente nessuno in Libano dà la minima importanza – afferma Magnus Ranstorp, un esperto di Hezbollah dello Swedish National Defense College – Stanno montando una questione relativamente irrilevante: così, se anche Israele si ritirasse dalle Fattorie Shabaa ci saranno i sette villaggi… Ci sarà sempre qualcosa che sapranno confezionare”.

(Da: YnetNews, Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 4.11.08 )

“Non mi fermerò finché Israele non sarà distrutto”

“La nozione stessa di Israele è morta: verrà spazzata dalla faccia della Terra”

Israele.net

Nasrallah: ” La lotta armata contro Israele non finirà con la conquista delle fattorie di Shebaa”

Libano, 08/09/2008 – Il leader di Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah ha dichiarato giovedì scorso alla tv che l’organizzazione jihadista libanese (filo-siriana e filo-iraniana) continuerà la lotta armata contro Israele anche dopo aver raggiunto l’obiettivo di “liberare” le Fattorie Shebaa e il villaggio di Ghajar. “Non usiamo le Fattorie Shebaa come una scusa per detenere armi – ha detto – Se l’area verrà liberata, manterremo le armi perché siamo un paese minacciato e Israele mira ad assumere il controllo del Libano. La mia ostilità verso Israele – ha concluso Nasrallah – è la più grande possibile”.

(Fonte: Israele.net)

Suleiman’s visit assures progress in badly strained bilateral ties since 2005

Lebanon and Syria have agreed to resume work on formally demarcating their common border as part of efforts to repair years of strained relations.

However, Syria said the work on borders would not cover one of the most contentious areas, the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, until Israel withdrew.

Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman is currently in Damascus for talks with his counterpart Bashar al-Assad.

They also confirmed the setting up of diplomatic ties for the first time.

If the Syrians will go ahead and demarcate the border between Lebanon and Syria, and respect its sovereignty in other ways, then this will have proved to be a very good step Condoleezza Rice US Secretary of State

The leaders also agreed to make further efforts to discover what happened to hundreds of Lebanese people who disappeared during the civil war.

Some Lebanese groups accuse Syria of holding them as detainees.

Bi-lateral treaties, which some Lebanese believe are too favourable to Syria, will also be reviewed.

Assad to Beirut

The outcome of the negotiations was announced at news conference by the two foreign ministers, Syria’s Walid Muallem and Lebanon’s Fawzi Salukh.

Other items agreed between the two sides included tackling corruption, economic co-operation and commitment to Arab initiatives in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In addition, President Assad accepted an invitation to visit Lebanon at a date to be decided soon, the foreign ministers said.

Lebanon and Syria have had badly strained relations since the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005. Many Lebanese blame Syria for the killing, but it has repeatedly and adamantly denied involvement.

Syria kept a large military and intelligence presence in Lebanon after the civil war ended in 1990, but it was forced to withdraw after the Hariri assassination because of massive public pressure in Lebanon with strong international support.

Settling relations with Syria is a top priority for the new government in Lebanon.

The US cautiously welcomed developments saying the opening of embassies was “one of the steps that has long been required”.

“Now, if the Syrians will go ahead and demarcate the border between Lebanon and Syria, and respect its sovereignty in other ways, then this will have proved to be a very good step,” US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said.

Libano: Suleiman,esercito dovrebbe abbracciare armi Hezbollah

(ANSA) – 10:41 Beirut, 01 ago – Il presidente libanese ed ex comandante dell’esercito Michel Suleiman ha oggi detto agli ufficiali delle Forze Armate che le loro armi dovrebbero “abbracciare” quelle che hanno colpito Israele, con un riferimento all’arsenale del movimento sciita Hezbollah. Suleiman si è così espresso nel corso di una cerimonia all’Accademia militare a Est di Beirut, in occasione del 63/mo anniversario della formazione dell’esercito libanese.”Le vostre armi devono abbracciare quelle che hanno colpito il nemico, che voi e la resistenza avete sconfitto”, ha detto Suleiman agli ufficiali, riferendosi alla guerra del 2006 tra Israele e Hezbollah. “Voi avete fatto fronte alla vile aggressione israeliana al Libano e avete dato oltre 50 martiri, il cui sangue è stato mischiato a quello della resistenza”, ha aggiunto il presidente. Il suo discorso interviene in una tesa disputa politica sull’ opportunità o meno che i guerriglieri Hezbollah mantengano le loro armi per combattere contro Israele al di fuori del controllo dello Stato. Il movimento sciita, che ha il sostegno di Siria e Iran, sostiene di aver bisogno del suo arsenale per “liberare” la zona delle Fattorie di Shebaa controllata da Israele. Suleiman ha oggi affermato che “il conto alla rovescia per la liberazione di Shebaa è cominciato”. Fonti di stampa hanno affermato da tempo che i 25 chilometri quadrati di Shebaa potrebbero essere messi sotto il controllo delle Nazioni Unite.

This selection is of the coverage from the end of the week (mainly Friday) and covers a range from today’s news of the British Prime Minister’s trip to Israel, to feature stories about the struggle for survival in Palestinian towns, to the International Crisis Group’s evaluation of the Palestinian Authority’s record in the West Bank. There are also articles covering new talk of “peace talks” sponsored by the US and an analysis of the possibility of momentum being built on the Israeli-Lebanese front, following the prisoner exchange, through a breakthrough on the Shebaa Farms territorial dispute.

But perhaps of greatest interest is the astonishingly vicious op-ed published by Benny Morris in yesterday’s New York Times. Morris goes so far as to justify an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. The op-ed concedes Israel’s own possession of a nuclear arsenal but treats Iran’s alleged pursuit of the same as an intolerable threat to all humanity. He then goes on to build an argument on the assumption that so long as Israel initiates, the obliteration of a nation and a people in the Middle East by nuclear holocaust is justifiable and potentially legitimate.

The piece neither contemplates a reciprocal nuclear freeze or other mutual disarmament initiative, nor even the possibility of diplomacy to avert war. It asserts that the world has two choices: a nuclear holocaust initiated by Iran (offering no evidence of the likelihood of any such eventuality) or a round of Israeli conventional strikes (on which Morris tells us: “to be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation” for Iran) against Iran’s nuclear facilities, with American approval (and possible use of Iraqi air strips!). Faced with this choice, he finds it obvious that the world should prefer Israeli strikes and that if they fail, there is no choice left but a preemptive nuclear strike (the inevitability of which, presumably, the same supine world should also accept on the say-so of Israeli hawks like Morris).

I am speechless at the audacity and monstrosity of Morris’ vision and the fact that no one — on the basis of the obvious madness and bellicosity of much of the Israeli “elite” that Morris represents — is writing comparable articles on the need for serious action to take away Israel’s ability to menace the region with the repeated threat of nuclear attack.

______________________________________________________________

1. BROWN FLIES INTO ISRAEL FOR TALKS
BBC (UK)
July 19, 2008

2. A WEST BANK TOWN’S FIGHT TO SURVIVE
By Neve Gordon
The Nation
July 18, 2008

3.  RULING PALESTINE II: THE WEST BANK MODEL?
International Crisis Group
July 18, 2008

4. SHEBAA FARMS CAN CREATE MOMENTUM FOR PEACE
By Cesar Chelala
Common Ground News Service
July 18, 2008

5. UNEASE OVER WEST BANK RAIDS
By Griff Witte
In The Washington Post
July 18, 2008

6. U.S. PLANS PEACE TALKS WITH ISRAELIS, PALESTINIANS
By Sue Pleming
Reuters
July 18, 2008

7. USING BOMBS TO STAVE OFF WAR
By Benny Morris
New York Times
July 18, 2008

8. HOLY LAND LOST
By James Zogby
Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt)
July 16, 2008

9. TALKS SIGNAL MIDEAST SHIFT
By Michael Slackman
New York Times
July 18, 2008

LIBANO: ESERCITO OCCUPA FATTORIA SHEBAA EVACUATA DA ISRAELE NEL 2000

(ASCA-AFP) – Shebaa, 11 lug – L’esercito libanese ha occupato la fattoria di Bastara, l’unica delle fattorie ‘Shebaa’ evacuata dall’esercito israeliano dopo il ritiro dalla regione meridionale del Libano nel 2000. Per la prima volta veicoli e bulldozer militari libanesi sono stati visti entrare nella fattoria che si trova a 300 metri dalle altre occupate da Israele per piu’ di 40 anni. Inoltre e’ stata ricostruita una strada per collegare questa nuova postazione agli altri siti militari dell’esercito di Beirut nel sud-est del Paese. Le fattorie ‘Shebaa’, che si trovano in una piccola area montagnosa ricca di acqua (25 chilometri quadrati), si trovano al confine con Libano e Siria. Israele si insedio’ nella zona nel 1967 e annesse le Fattorie ai propri territori dopo aver occupato le alture del Golan. Lo status per la sovranita’ e’ ancora fonte di tensioni: il Libano continua a rivendicarle mentre Israele sostiene che fanno parte della Siria. Ora il premier libanese Fuad Siniora ha proposto di affidarne l’amministrazione e il controllo alle Nazioni Unite in attesa di risolvere la disputa.

ما الذي يقف وراء الحماسة الأميركية والدولية لحل قضية مزارع شبعا؟

كتب محمد الحسيني
الانتقاد/ العدد1275 ـ 24 حزيران/ يونيو 2008

هكذا وبسحر ساحر “أميركي” أصبحت مزارع شبعا، المتنازع على هويتها الوطنية والمضيّعة حدودها بين مساحات مثلث عربي مسلوب السيادة.. محتلة ولبنانية ولا بد من العمل على “انتزاعها من براثن الاحتلال” واستعادتها إلى حضن الشرعية اللبنانية.. وتنبري وزيرة خارجية “الشرق الأوسط الجديد” والعرّاب العسكري والسياسي والأمني لحرب تموز 2006 كوندوليزا رايس لتملي على الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة بان كي مون الأوامر، وتعطيه الضوء الأخضر لاستكمال الخطوات التي تكفل إعلان لبنانية المزارع بشكل رسمي تمهيداً لانسحاب قوات الاحتلال الإسرائيلي منها.. ولكن ليس بموجب القرار 425 بل بموجب القرار 1701.ا

وهكذا أيضاً وبقرار لبناني داخلي، مكتوب بحبر دولي، تحوّل فؤاد السنيورة إلى مقاوم وطني يكافح من أجل استرجاع الأرض المحتلة وتحريرها وخوض المعارك والمواجهات اللازمة في كل بقاع الأرض ليهنأ المواطنون المنسيون فيها بنعمة انتمائهم اللبناني.. وليكمل السنيورة فقرات “الفيلم الأميركي” الجديد سعى إلى تغطية التوجه الأميركي، فضلاً عن تسويق النقاط السبع التي صاغها السنيورة في مؤتمر روما إبان حرب تموز، وبرّر ذلك بالقول إن “القاعدة الأساسية التي بني عليها القرار1701 هي أن حدود مزارع شبعا غير محددة، وسوريا تقول عنها إنها لبنانية، ولكنها أرض سورية وفق اعتبار مجلس الأمن والأمم المتحدة ويطبق عليها القرار 242″. وهذا يعني أنه وبما أن الأمم المتحدة تعتبر أن القرار 425 قد تم تطبيقه في الانسحاب الإسرائيلي في أيار من العام 2000، فتصبح قضية المزارع مندرجة تحت القرار 1701.ا

ولا حاجة لبذل الكثير من الجهد لتلمّس عناوين وتفاصيل الوجهة الجديدة لهذا المسعى الأميركي اللامنطقي ظاهرياً، حيث يؤكد السنيورة أن الاهتمام بقضية المزارع ليس أميركياً بل هو لبناني بالكامل، و”نحن منذ ثلاث سنوات نثير هذا الموضوع مع كل رؤساء الدول في العالم، والأميركيون نحن أجبرناهم على ذلك” على حد قول السنيورة. وفي المقابل نسمع قائد ميليشيا “القوات اللبنانية” سمير جعجع أنه “لمس نية أميركية جدية بممارسة ضغط جدي على إسرائيل للانسحاب من مزارع شبعا”، معتبراً أنه “في حال نجحت الضغوط الدولية وانسحبت إسرائيل من مزارع شبعا وتم إطلاق سراح الأسرى، نكون قد دخلنا في مرحلة جديدة تحتاج إلى إعادة نظر بكل الواقع الحالي”.ا

في موازاة ذلك، جرت سلسلة خطوات ميدانية تمهيدية تمثلت بفتح مكتب لليونيفيل في تل أبيب دون انتظار تحصيل موافقة الجمعية العمومية وقبل رصد الاعتمادات اللازمة له، في وقت أعطى كي مون تعليماته إلى اليونيفيل لإعداد خطة مفصلة حول كيفية توليها لمزارع شبعا، ورسم خطوط الانتشار العسكري في المنطقة في إطار وضعها تحت الوصاية الدولية وبمؤازرة الجيش اللبناني، لتصبح خالية من الوجود العسكري.. والمدني على الأرجح تطبيقاً لبند توفير “البيئة الآمنة”، وخصوصاً أن “إسرائيل” تخشى وجود عناصر من المقاومة بأشكال مدنية في منطقة كانت خالية من السكان منذ أواخر الستينيات، وبذلك تصبح المزارع خطاً عازلاً يخضع فيها المواطنون لقيود وقواعد جديدة لا تختلف عن سابقاتها في ظل الاحتلال، ولكن هذه المرة مشرّعة ومقوننة وغير قابلة للنقد والاعتراض.ا

إن إثارة موضوع مزارع شبعا على نطاق أميركي ودولي واسع، ومن قبل الأطراف التي دعمت سياسة الحرب الإسرائيلية على لبنان، وغطت الانتهاكات الإسرائيلية بحق الفلسطينيين والعرب على مدى أكثر من نصف قرن وحتى اليوم، من شأنها لوحدها أن تشير إلى “طبخة” ما يحضرها الأميركيون، ولئن رحّب حزب الله بعودة الأرض المحتلة إلى كنف الوطن، إلا أن هناك جملة من النقاط التي يجب التوقف عندها في قراءة الحماسة الأميركية والدولية لإقناع “إسرائيل” بالانسحاب من مزارع شبعا وتلال كفرشوبا، وأهمها:ا

ـ ربط الملف بالقرار 1701، ما يعني ربطه بسلاح المقاومة ووجودها، في حين أنه وحتى اليوم لم يتم الإعلان عن وقف الحرب في تموز 2006، بل ما جرى كان إعلان وقف العمليات العسكرية. ويتحدث القرار عن مرحلة ثانية لوقف العمليات العسكرية نهائياً ووقف الانتهاكات الإسرائيلية للسيادة اللبنانية، وهو ما لم يلتزم به الاحتلال لإبقاء الوضع في حال نزاع وصولاً إلى الانتهاء من حسم موضوع سلاح المقاومة.ا

ـ إن القرار 1701 تحدث عن ترسيم الحدود اللبنانية، وبما أن المزارع قضية متنازع عليها حدودياً بين لبنان وسوريا وفق الاعتبار الدولي، فهذا سيقود حتماً، ليس إلى ترسيم الحدود مع فلسطين المحتلة فقط، بل إلى ترسيم الحدود مع سوريا أيضاً، من الجنوب إلى الشرق والشمال، وهذا مطلب أميركي قديم وأكيد وتولّى فريق السلطة وقوى 14 شباط إعلانه والمطالبة به.ا

ـ “كحّلها” السنيورة بالدعوة إلى الفصل بين الحديث عن سلاح حزب الله والانسحاب الإسرائيلي من مزارع شبعا، إلا أنه “أعماها” بالتلميح الصريح بأن هناك أطرافاً يريدون استمرار احتلال المزارع، ولئن كان هذا الكلام لا ينم عن بصيرة وتعقّل إلا أنه يتكامل مع إعلان رايس، ومن على منبر لبناني، أن واشنطن لا تزال تعتبر حزب الله “منظمة إرهابية”. وفي خلاصة رسالة رايس ـ السنيورة أنهما “يريدان تحرير الأرض اللبنانية، ولكن حزب الله الذي يدّعي مقاومة “إسرائيل” يريد إبقاءها محتلة”، وهذه محاولة سخيفة للنيل من عقول اللبنانيين بشكل عام وأهالي المزارع بشكل خاص.ا

ـ إن الحل المطروح يتجاوز الحديث عن الاستراتيجية الدفاعية بوجه الأطماع والاعتداءات الإسرائيلية، ليصل إلى السعي لدفع لبنان إلى الدخول في مفاوضات ثنائية مباشرة مع “إسرائيل”، بموازاة ما يحكى عن اتجاه لاستئناف المفاوضات السورية ـ الإسرائيلية، وهذا يقود إلى وضع المسار الفلسطيني جانباً مع ما يتعلق به من قرارات متصلة بالواقع اللبناني وفي مقدمتها توطين الفلسطينيين.ا