"The Syrian Opposition," by Joshua Landis and Joe Pace has been translated into Arabic by al-Qabas, a Kuwaiti paper. It has also been published by Levant News or Akhbar al-Sharq. Here is the first part.

???????? ??????? (1) 
?????? ???? ????? – ????? – ??????? – ?????? – ?????? ??????? ????

 ???? :????? ????? ??? ????
(???? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????????)

??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????.

 ??? ??? ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? '????? ?????'? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????. ??? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ?????.

??????? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????. ????? ???????? ??????? – ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ????.

????????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???? 2004. ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????. ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?1559 ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ???????. ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???????.

??? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??14 ?????? ?2005 ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????????. ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? '???????? ??????' ????? ?????? ???????.

??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? 30 ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? 2005 ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????. ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????.

??? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????????????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????. ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??????.

??? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? 2006 ??? ???? ???? ????? ???: ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????

????? ???? ??????? ????????

?? 10 ????? ??? ?2000 ???? 30 ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???????: '??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????'. ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ? '???? ????'.

??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? '?????? ??????'? ??? ??? ? '?????? ??????' ???????? ??????? ??????? ????????. ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? '?????' ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????. ????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? 400 ???? ????? ?? ??? 1993. ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? 300 – 1000 ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????.

????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? – ????????? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?????? – ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????????. ????? ????? '???? ????' ????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?? 1000 ???? ??????? ???? ?? 1000 ????? ???? ?? ????? 2001 ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????. ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????????. ??? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????.

??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?'???? ????'. ????? ?????? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ?????????? ??? ??? ??? ????????? ????? ??? ???????. ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????.

???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? '???? ????' ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???????. ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??????. ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????. ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ????????.

???? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ??? ??? '???? ????' ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????. ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????. ?? ????? ???????? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ????????? ????????. ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????.

?????? ???? ???????

???? ?? ????? 10 ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?????????. ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? (????????) ???????? ?? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?????????. ???? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????. ??????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ???????. ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ??? ?????????? ????.

????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???????. ???????? ????? ????? ???? ????. ??? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????. ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?2004 ?? ?????? ????? ?????. ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? 10 ????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????. ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ????????.

??? ???? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???????????? ???? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????????? ???????? ???????. ??? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? '???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??'. ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????.

??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????. ???? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????????.

????????? ????? ??????? ??????

?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ???. ??? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????.

???? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ???????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? '???? ????' ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????????. ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????? ??????. ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??????????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????? ???????? ????????.

?? ????? ??????? ??????. ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???????. ????? ????? ???? ????????: '???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????'. ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????. ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ????. ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????.

??????? ????????

?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????. ????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????? ??? ?? 1000 ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ????????.

????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ????????. ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ?? ??????? '???????' ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????. ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????. ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ????????? ????? ????.

???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? – ????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? – ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? 2002 ??? ??? 2005 ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????. ???????? ????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????????. ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??????: '??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ???????.. ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ????????'.

??????????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? '?????? ?????? ???????????'? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????????. ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? '?????? ?????? ???????????' ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???????. ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????????. ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (???? ????) ????? ?? ???????? ????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? '???? ?? ???? ??? ?????????.. ????? ?????? ????? ???????'.

???????? ????????

??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????????. ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?1982 ???????? 49 ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? 12 ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????.

???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???????. ??? ???? ???? ???????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????. ???? 30 ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????? – ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????????.

??? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? 1000 ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? '??????' ??????? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????????.

?? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????. ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????.

???? ??? ?2005 ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ????????. ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???????. ?? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????. ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????.

??? ??? ????? 2004 ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?????????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????.

??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ??? ?? '?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????????. ?????????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????'.

???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????. ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????????. ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????.

?????? ??????? ???
??????:????? ????????

UNIFIL – Peacekeepers in the Line of Fire
By Timur Göksel
Beirut, August 8, 2007 
Published by Heinrich Boell Foundation

Since October 2006, a beefed up UN force of some 15,000, including a naval force led by Germany, has deployed in Southern Lebanon to prevent new hostilities between Hizbullah and Israel, and to assist the Lebanese government in establishing its authority over the border region. But can the 'new' UNIFIL really make a difference, and be more effective than its predecessor? Timur Göksel, spokesperson for UNIFIL for more than 20 years, attempts an assessment.

Timur Göksel joined the United Nations in 1968 and was assigned as Press Information Officer/Spokesman to UNIFIL in 1979, where he served for 24 years and became Senior Adviser in 1995. Göksel's extensive experience on the ground has made him into an expert on the inner workings of UN peacekeeping in general, and an authority on South Lebanon in particular. Since his retirement in 2003, Göksel continues to lecture on theory and practice of peacekeeping at the demand of international ith a special focus on the UN at a variety of Lebanese Universities.

The United Nations, which has been running peacekeeping operations in multiple formats since the 1956 Suez war, and which now fields some 100,000 peacekeepers around the world, is a slow and, sadly, an inept learner, and an even slower doer. It is still to grasp that the nature of conflicts has changed after the end of the Cold War, and that most conflicts today do not occur between but within states. Furthermore, in many cases the belligerents are not states that are susceptible to international pressures, but non-state actors who may have ethnic, political, religious or economic objectives. Such difficult terrain requires high sensitivity for local political conditions, and flexibility in interpreting the individual mission in ways conducive to civil peace- building rather than military peace-enforcement.

What was wrong with the original UNIFIL?

UNIFIL was set up in 1978 after Israel's limited invasion of South Lebanon up to the Litani River (excluding the Tyre region) in reaction to a Palestinian terror operation in Israel that ended with close to 40 civilian deaths. UNIFIL was an American brainchild to salvage the momentum for peace in the Middle East created by the visit of the late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem. A prolonged occupation of South Lebanon by the Israeli army was threatening to unravel this momentous development. Hence, and despite the opposition expressed by experienced UN senior staff to placing a peacekeeping force in the middle of a country wrecked by several civil wars raging at the same time, not to mention the armed conflict between Israel and the Palestinians who had turned South Lebanon into an armed mini-state of their own, UNIFIL was created with the promise of eternal political and material support from the US, and with a mandate that was entirely unrealistic and ambiguous.

With generous participation by countries such as France and Norway that provided not only infantry units but significant logistical input as well, UNIFIL was set up and dispatched in a short time mainly thanks to the credibility and acumen of a few UN bureaucrats led by Sir Brian Urquhart who was then the Undersecretary for Special Political Affairs and who managed the entire UN peacekeeping with a few dedicated staff members, unlike the hundreds that are employed today.

Lebanon as a host country was most welcoming but being in the midst of a brutal civil war it was also completely incapable of supporting UNIFIL in any meaningful way. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), on the other hand, was designated as the key party to deal with on behalf of more than a dozen Palestinian and scores of Lebanese factions, some of them nothing more than armed gangs. The PLO under the late Yassir Arafat who enjoyed the political recognition bestowed upon it by the UN, insisted on being the sole contact with UNIFIL and was actually helpful in incidents that involved forces it controlled. But when Palestinian or Lebanese groups it did not truly control (but often paid their salaries) were involved, PLO leaders all became conveniently unavailable. Thus, UNIFIL had to survive on its own with no support from the national government and no national judiciary or security forces available to back it up.

Since UNIFIL was designed as a force to operate within Lebanon and not as a buffer between two states, Israel, on the other hand, assumed no official responsibility towards it. Instead of handing over the areas it evacuated to UNIFIL, it put them under the control of a Lebanese proxy militia who it continued to pay, arm, feed and dress but for which it nevertheless denied any responsibility. UNIFIL, a lightly armed peacekeeping force, was thus thrown into a maelstrom of a conflict, a force sandwiched between heavily armed, undisciplined militias merrily firing at everybody else.

Over the years, UNIFIL was often cited as a symbol of UN's ineffectiveness. One classic line was that the UNIFIL did not stop Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon with 90,000 troops, more than 4,000 tanks and armored vehicles, an unchallenged air force, its navy, countless artillery batteries and local allies. On June 6, 1982 when the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) advanced with thirteen Centurion tanks towards the first UNIFIL checkpoint at the Hamra Bridge on the coastal road to launch the invasion, facing them were six Dutch soldiers with their rifles. Those soldiers who had not come to Lebanon to fight off a full-scale Israel invasion actually managed to immobilize two tanks with their simple anti-tank barriers after which they ran out of defensive measures.

That UNIFIL, despite its unworkable mandate and with no political support except for a small group of dedicated UN bureaucrats, turned out to be a resilient force that held its ground despite suffering more than 100 fatalities killed in action (out of 250 total fatalities) was an achievement in its own right. The real and rarely noticed success story however is how this force became a part of the land, how it established close links with the ignored people who had no state services whatsoever, gained their gratitude, enabled them to rebuild their lives and helped to transform an abandoned landscape into a thriving, secure region during the 1990s.

To be sure, for Israel, a UN force on its Northern border was only the second best option. It would have much preferred to see a strong NATO force deployed in the area that would come and eliminate Hizbullah, something its own army could not do. Only after the reality set in that no country would send its troops to get killed in a mission irrelevant to their own national interests did Israel agree to a beefed up UN force. 1

When the new UNIFIL was being discussed in the aftermath of the July 2006 Israel-Hizbullah war, it became a habit to refer to the original force as toothless and ineffective. The new, expanded UNIFIL on the other hand would have sweeping powers, would be heavily armed, and would have strong European countries as its components – for all practical purpose, a NATO-force under UN auspices. It would march into Lebanon and teach everyone a lesson on robust peacekeeping after the disastrous experiences with meek UN forces in Somalia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. The UN would never be caught off guard again, we were assured, as if the weaknesses of the UN and the caveats of its member states had been remedied. Actually, nothing has changed except that the new forces have better armed contingents who still won't use their guns unless they are directly threatened themselves.

The outstanding feature of the new UNIFIL was to mobilize leading European countries as its key components. Self-sufficient, well-trained and well-equipped infantry troops from France, Italy and Spain were able to move faster than the UN could ever dream of. More importantly, with the addition of Germany as a naval unit and participation of other European nations in varying capacities and numbers, UNIFIL acquired a political clout the UN could never match by itself.

Initially, all those major European countries and the UN failed to note one small detail: That force could not deploy in South Lebanon, even with an official Lebanese request and a UN decision, unless Hizbullah agreed. Hizbullah's consent was built one three straightforward conditions: One, the UN force may not come as an independent actor but only in support of the Lebanese army. Two, UNIFIL and the Lebanese army would not search for Hizbullah's weapons but would only be allowed to confiscate any weapons they happen to come across. Three, UNIFIL's mandate would be limited to the area south of the Litani River and the force would not expand its operations to any other part of Lebanon.

Very quickly all the talk of a new type of robust UN force subsided. Nevertheless countries agreed to participate and an impressive array of troops began to arrive. Here the UN failed miserably in its public diplomacy. The predominantly Shiite population, guided by mostly Hizbullah-affiliated local administrators, could not understand the difference between old and new UNIFIL. The old one was people-friendly, non-aggressive. Why was the new one so heavily armed? Why were they in an aggressive, fighting posture that did not include talking to people and trying to solve their problems? Certainly, those main battle tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft missiles would not be used against Israel. Then, against whom they were to be used? What was all that this talk of providing security for Israel about? Were these UNIFIL troops actually spies collecting information on the resistance for use by Israel as charged by Hizbullah leaders? Politicians of the contributing countries and UNIFIL personnel on the ground, unaware of the growing hostility to their presence and potential repercussions for the evolving power struggle between the Lebanese government and the Hizbullah-led opposition, were going on and on about new, robust rules of engagement. What did "liberal use of self-defense" mean? Would UNIFIL raid villages? Open fire whenever they felt threatened?

Already the original UNIFIL had wide authority to use self-defense that included resisting any attempt to prevent it from carrying out its mandate. The new Security Council Resolution 1701 provided for similar powers but used more paper space in explaining it. But what is the actual practicality of ever using such powers? In April 1980, on a Saturday night, because of a confrontation with Irish troops elsewhere in South Lebanon, and with full knowledge of the IDF, the Israeli proxy militia in South Lebanon, the South Lebanon Army (SLA), decided to attack UNIFIL's headquarters in Naqoura with heavy mortar fire. The UNIFIL hospital caught fire, its helicopters were damaged, the camp lost all its communications and the Operations Room where the command had congregated had no idea what was going on, including how many casualties UNIFIL had sustained. It was definitely a survival situation. One 120-mm mortar into that Operations Room and UNIFIL would have ceased to exist. But senior officers from 10 countries were still arguing if UNIFIL had the right to return fire. I discreetly arranged for UN observers on the border to pinpoint the source of the mortar fire. Luckily one was a sharp US artillery officer who came back with precise coordinates within minutes. Meanwhile, the Dutch battalion up the road had moved their 120mm mortars in place and said they were ready to fire in support of headquarters. I begged for firing at least two smoke rounds to show that we can respond. It wasn't done. We had the authority; we had the weapons and the best reasons in the world to open fire. Why didn't we?

For the same reasons why the new UNIFIL, despite all its impressive armor, will not get involved in any military confrontation with Hizbullah. Senior officers know that they cannot sustain a prolonged clash. Their sources for reinforcements and supplies are back in their home countries. Moreover, in today's South Lebanon with its militant villagers loyal to Hizbullah, UNIFIL cannot last especially if it starts killing civilians. Very quickly, casualties among the multinational troops will be going up, and back home political support for the mission will plummet. That is why with the old UNIFIL we eventually sent back the mortars some of battalions had because they were just getting rusty and the UN was paying for them.

So if all this impressive equipment that has been employed over the past year, including the largest naval force that these shores have ever seen, will not be capable to en force peace, then what can they actually achieve? In all fairness, the new UNIFIL caught on quickly to the realities of peacekeeping in South Lebanon and realized that more than a combat force, they were supposed to be a conflict management tool with heavy emphasis on winning the hearts and minds of the population; and that good relations with the people would also be key to force protection because true, useful intelligence information would come from them. Smaller contingents and the culturally more aware Italians quickly established close ties with villagers and began offering humanitarian services from donating generators to schools to organizing language courses. In time, fully professional French and Spanish contingents as well eased their aggressive postures. The UN, which had given the original UNIFIL humanitarian missions with a zero dollar budget, also contributed money and personnel for quick impact projects. The mood in South Lebanon began to change and the people began to rely more and more on UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army for their needs. Even Israel noticed that change in South Lebanon would lower the levels of hostility and eased back its perennial efforts to intimidate UNIFIL into serving its own interests. Thanks to the efforts of UNIFIL to perceive of its mission in more than just military terms, an atmosphere has started to emerge that may be conducive to finally end the conflict in South Lebanon. South Lebanon may now experience a period of calm and peace it has not known in decades.

The Shifting Sands of South Lebanon : How to Deal with Hizbullah?

Peacekeeping in South Lebanon is an extremely complex undertaking where Lebanese, regional and international factors and actors interact. Yet, the UN persists in perceiving the mission through a logic tailored to conflicts between sovereign states, whereas the conflict in South Lebanon today is basically between Hizbullah, an ideological non-state actor with an impressive paramilitary force, and Israel.

The new, expanded UNIFIL came with a pronounced reluctance to even talk to Hizbullah because key UN member states such as the US and (to a lesser degree) the Europeans look upon Hizbullah as a terrorist organization with global reach that serves the interests of countries such as Iran and Syria. Furthermore, some of the European states participating in the force insisted that the fact that Hizbullah is an armed group constituted an insurmountable impediment to conducting contacts, even if those contacts would be restricted to just sitting and listening to the other side's point of view. By refusing to acknowledge that Hizbullah is a party with legitimacy derived from democratic parliamentary elections and participation in government, not to mention the high degree of credibility it enjoys among its own constituency, UNIFIL jeopardized its initially high acceptance among the local population, thus denying itself essential sources of intelligence information. It is hard to understand what the UN or the players that influence the UN operations hoped to gain through by-passing Hizbullah. One has to wonder whether some actually thought that Hizbullah would be replaced by another, more pliant dominant force or at least, marginalized.

However, realities on the ground are different. Soon realizing that Hizbullah was still a dominating force and ideology in South Lebanon, some UNIFIL contingents established their own discreet channels with the party, by-passing the UNIFIL headquarters. Some of the contingents imported their own non-UN political staff and others mobilized their embassies in Lebanon.

Actually, there is nothing really new about UNIFIL's liaison channels with Hizbullah. But in the past those channels were publicly acknowledged, meetings were never held in secrecy and the UNIFIL command and therefore the UN Headquarters were always informed. When Hizbullah was consolidating its presence in South Lebanon in the early 1980s while pursuing an initially hostile attitude towards UNIFIL, contacts were established between the UN peacekeepers and the party to reduce misunderstandings and hostility. That arrangement became permanent and even more effective after Hassan Nasrallah became Hizbullah's leader in 1992.

Not surprisingly, Israel has continuously deplored and denounced such contacts that were established by UNIFIL, first with Palestinians groups, then the Lebanese resistance and now Hizbullah, and has quoted them as a paramount example of the UN's bias and unreliability, and as a reason why it opposes UN peacekeeping forces in general. Such public attitude does not however reflect the thinking of Israel's true policy makers, the military. In fact, the Israeli Defense Forces actually encouraged the UN personnel to maintain contacts with hostile non-state forces as the only available channel of communication to avoid misunderstandings and inadvertent clashes and at times reach understandings.

However, if not subjected to a set of stringent rules and monitoring, such channels of communication, useful as they are, can easily turn into a slippery slope. Without supervision from the command level, the forces on the ground may be tempted into local "deals" with groups operating in their area, and that usually means compromising the mission goals. UNIFIL suffered from such deals shortly after it was deployed in 1978 and in response the force developed strict rules on liaison with local forces. By setting strict rules of who is allowed to conduct such contacts and how they are to be handled, UNIFIL was able to neutralize the hostility of some groups, establish friendlier relations with the public and the local news media, and generate valuable local intelligence support. The current mix of official and clandestine backchannels, on the other hand, endangers the unity of command of UNIFIL, opens inroads for playing different contingents or command levels against each other, and in general threatens the integrity and the reputation of the force.

Dangers facing UNIFIL

Grossly inflated expectations of UN peacekeeping operations to the effect that the force will be capable of taking over and "fixing" a country usually end up with a loss of credibility for the world body and even with physical attacks against it. The UN cannot act like new colonialists on a civilizing mission. It cannot get ahead of its hosts who would rather solve their problems in their own way, usually through bargaining and negotiations. In Lebanon, there are UN resolutions that call for the disarming of militias, including Hizbullah. Some think the UN should do it. But the Lebanese government says that disarming cannot be done by foreign armies using force as that will lead to internal conflict, and that the Lebanese will do it their way, through negotiations and persuasion with full attention to civil peace in the country. Countries contributing troops to UNIFIL have seen the danger and insist that the force stick to its rules of engagement that forbid it to engage Hizbullah without coordinating first with the Lebanese army, in order to avoid any scenario that may drag UNIFIL into Lebanon's endless internal conflict.

Another danger facing UNIFIL is the UN's archaic mindset. A multinational force with the participation of 30 countries is not an ideal setup for operating in southern Lebanon. True, its parades are so colorful with so many flags and varieties of food and cultural shows. That would be all fine and well if South Lebanon wasn't still a conflict zone where hostilities could erupt without much warning. The UN still subscribes to the view that balanced geographic representation ensures impartiality of the UN force. It doesn't. It is the national interests of its powerful members that set the course. Differences in training, doctrine, officer quality, communications and other capabilities make a mockery of any claims to unified command and control. Costs of maintaining such a force skyrocket because of separate services that have to be provided to all these contingents, including meeting special dietary requirements. Transport costs add up given the distances and the need to arrange for frequent rotations. Soldiers from poorer countries often arrive with very basic equipment and expect the UN to provide everything else from transport to radios. Language at times becomes a paralyzing barrier. UNIFIL is already facing severe command and support problems with its diverse contingents trying to get away with their own way of doing things. In the case of renewed hostilities or other serious incidents, UNIFIL could rapidly disintegrate and deliver a serious blow to any further role for the UN and the European Union in the Middle East conflict.

Hassan Fattah of the NYTimes gets the zibde of the Lebanon story. Washington is its own worst enemy. It is making compromise, the element most important to democracy, impossible in Lebanon through its interventions. It is taking sides not supporting democracy.

U.S. Backs Free Elections, Only to See Allies Lose  (Read the whole story. This is just a bit. Via "friday-lunch-club")
By HASSAN M. FATTAH

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Aug. 9 — Lebanon’s political spin masters have been trying in recent days to explain the results of last Sunday’s pivotal by-election, which saw a relatively unknown candidate from the opposition narrowly beat a former president, Amin Gemayel.

There has been talk of the Christian vote and the Armenian vote, of history and betrayal, as each side sought to claim victory. There is one explanation, however, that has become common wisdom in the region: Mr. Gemayel’s doom seems to have been sealed by his support from the Bush administration and the implied agendas behind its backing.

“It’s the kiss of death,” said Turki al-Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched last Sunday’s elections closely. “The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win.”

The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.

Lebanon’s voters in the Metn district, in other words, appeared to have joined the Palestinians, who voted for Hamas; the Iraqis, who voted for a government sympathetic to Iran; and the Egyptians, who have voted in growing numbers in recent elections for the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. “No politician can afford to identify with the West because poll after poll shows people don’t believe in the U.S. agenda,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, until recently the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. Mr. Hamarneh is running for a seat in Jordan’s Parliament in November, but he says he has made a point of keeping his campaign focused locally, and on bread-and-butter issues. “If somebody goes after you as pro-American he can hurt you,” he said.

In part, regional analysts say, candidates are tainted by the baggage of American foreign policy — from its backing of Israel to the violence in Iraq. But more important, they say, American support is often applied to one faction instead of to institutions, causing further division rather than bringing stability.

“The Americans think that supporting democracy should create positive reactions,” said Nicola Nassif, a columnist with the left-leaning Lebanese daily Al Akhbar. “No one can be against democracy, sovereignty, independence and freedom. But not if it upsets the internal power balance, not if it empowers one party against the other, especially in a country where supporting one group can lead to violence and even civil wars.”

Arab liberals who have embraced America continue to see their influence fade in the region, as more conservative and Islamist forces continue to rise, Mr. Rasheed said. Voters invariably frown on strength coming from abroad, he said; the only legitimate sources of strength any Arab politician can turn to is based on either tribal power or religious ties.

“Last Sunday we saw that even if you are a former president running for a seat in Parliament, in a small area where everybody knows you, you can’t make it either with American support,” Mr. Rasheed said….

From AP, here.  US Opens New Front in Diplomatic War Over Lebanon

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration has quietly opened a new diplomatic front in its efforts to free Lebanon from Syrian influence, with a move to undermine the authority of the country's pro-Syria president.

The behind-the-scenes campaign began to bear fruit last month when the State Department sought and won the replacement of Lebanon's ambassador to the United States, Farid Abboud, an ally of President Emile Lahoud who had served in Washington for eight years, officials said.

The Lebanese foreign ministry, run by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's Western-backed government, transferred Abboud to Tunisia and chose career diplomat Antoine Chedid to succeed him in Washington. But Lahoud, the country's head of state, has refused to sign Chedid's letter of accreditation, meaning he is not considered an ambassador…..

Syria's Asking Price For a Vacuum in Lebanon
Walid Choucair     Al-Hayat     – 10/08/07

A number of international and most regional players are anticipating a political vacuum after the 24th of November – the end of the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.

Both opposition members and loyalists are taking measures and planning contingencies on the basis that the presidential vacuum will last at least a few days if not months. They will then await the arrival of a God-sent solution in the form of an international, regional and Lebanese settlement – after which a true Lebanese President can be elected.

After initially basing their demands for a national unity government on the importance of political participation and a lack of trust towards the current government, Lahoud and Hizbullah among others are now using the dangers of a presidential vacuum as an argument for a transitional national unity government that could hold presidential elections. The current majority government is threatening in turn to unilaterally elect a president in the second round of parliamentary voting – for which the government possesses the requisite 50% + 1 majority – if the opposition makes good on its threat to withhold parliamentary quorum in case they are not assured the election of a candidate of their choice.

The Western and Arab nations, adamant that elections be held on time (between September 25 and the end of Lahoud's term), are alternatively offering carrots and sticks to actors threatening to stall them – namely: Syria.

Naturally, these actors – along with the March 14th majority – assume that the emergence of a presidential vacuum would be the work and choice of Syria. Thus, many regional powers are counting on Speaker Nabih Berri to push for avoiding such a vacuum and on Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir to pressure Christian MPs from Michel Aoun's bloc to attend the parliamentary session in accordance with a key Church 'principle' of upholding national and constitutional processes.

Meanwhile, Western nations – including France, Italy and Spain – are offering carrots to Syria in the form of promises to end its isolation from Europe. The United States brandishes the stick by threatening more measures (like its freezing of assets of those seen to be undermining Lebanese sovereignty and democracy) against Syria should they push their allies in Lebanon to set up a second government to rival that of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora…..

A European Commissioner Underlines EU-Syria Dialogue

Beirut, (SANA)- European Union Foreign Relations Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, has stressed the importance of dialogue between the European Union and Syria as the only way for finding solutions to the pending issues.

.

In a statement published by the Lebanese daily, alSafir, on Friday, Ferrero-Waldner said that there were deeply-rooted cultural and economic ties in the joint history of  Europe and Syria , expressing hope that such relations would develop further in the future by signing the Association Agreement. On Lebanon, Ferrero-Waldner expressed hope that the Lebanese parties will reach an internal political settlement since it is a necessityfor dealing with the standing challenges in Lebanon.

General Aoun confirms that Bush’s Executive Order on Lebanon has worried some of his donors in an interview with Le Monde in French.  I have translated some bits below. He also defends his election tactics.

President Bush's wide-ranging executive order proclaims that the US is prepared to ban, freeze the money of, and investigate anyone "undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic process and institutions." This comes perilously close to criminalizing anyone who opposes the March 14 government of Lebanon and seems designed to intimidate Aoun and his FPM party backers. The World Council of the Cedars Revolution, a right wing Lebanese-American lobby group seems to be behind Bush's executive order. They were outraged in April, when the Woodrow Wilson Institute invited two Aounist parliamentarians to visit Washington and participate in a roundtable discussion on Lebanon. Right wing Lebanese tried to have the invitation rescinded and the Aounists blocked from visiting the States on the presumption that they are supporters of Terrorism. They pointed to the FPM's alliance with Hizbullah as proof. Bush's most recent executive order adds nothing to Washington's ability to freeze Hizbullah funds. What it does do is make it possible to go after Aoun and his supporters.

On August 1, Bush issued an executive order, entitled, “Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions.”

Syrian meddling in Lebanon constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” Bush asserted, adding, “I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”

This executive order doesn’t limit sanctions to people involved in violent acts. Anyone who engages in any act-violent or nonviolent-against the government of Lebanon can now have his or her property frozen.

And it also gives the Treasury Secretary the authority to freeze the assets of “a spouse or dependent child” of any person whose property is frozen.

Below, I am copying

1. Aoun's interview with Le Monde
2. A Daily Star article that spells out how the FBI is making up a list of rich Lebanese with investments in the US who support "anti-democratic activity" in Lebanon. No one in Washington will define "anti-democratic." President Bush has already defined democracy in Lebanon to mean support for the March 14 government. One has to presume that any party opposing this government will be defined as anti-democratic, including the FPM and its supporters.
3. The statement by the World Council of the Cedars Revolution opposing American think tanks' invitations to Aounist parliamentary members as supporting terrorism.
4. The latest statement by the World Council of the Cedars Revoltion welcoming the President's order 

In his Le Monde interview Aoun defends his alliance with Hizbullah, saying he accepts that some Christians will not vote for him because of his willingness to work with Shiites. He points out that most Christian parliamentarians were voted into office with 50% Muslim votes. He claims this is good. Lebanon must get over its confessionalism. He is not ashamed to have Muslim votes.

When asked if Hizbullah does not bow to Iran and embrace “Velayat al-faqih” and Khomenei as its murja` al-taqliid, he says this is nonsense and that every party and person changes with time. He points out that when Nasrallah and Hizbullah embraced these principles, Walid Jumblat was talking about Druze borders and Jeajea was talking about Christian Cantons. "Les temps ont changé," he says. "Le Hezbollah, aujourd’hui, revendique sa part de pouvoir, rien de plus." "Today Hizbullah is contesting its share of power, nothing more." He adds: "son chef, Hassan Nasrallah, a déclaré il y a dix jours qu’il était prêt à discuter du désarmement de son mouvement, et d’un armistice entre Israël et le Liban, indépendamment de la situation dans le reste du Proche-Orient. Je défie nos adversaires, que l’Occident soutient, d’avoir un tel courage." In English, "Nasrallah declared 10 days ago that he was ready to discuss the disarmament of his movement and an armistice between Israel and Lebanon, independent of the situation in teh rest of the Middle East." (In other words, without waiting for an Israeli return of the Golan.) Aoun concludes, "I defy our adversaries, who the West supports, to have the same courage."

Michel Aoun : “Les Etats-Unis travaillent à la déstabilisation du Liban”
LE TEMPS.CH | 09.08.07, Le Monde 

Le Temps : Depuis que vous avez vaincu l’ancien président Amine Gemayel dans une élection dimanche, vos adversaires maronites disent que vous avez perdu : vous ne contrôlez plus, comme en 2005, cette communauté catholique…

Michel Aoun : Ils m’amusent! Ceux d’entre eux qui sont au parlement ont été élus avec une majorité sunnite dans laquelle le vote chrétien est dilué. Nos candidats sont en général élus par un vote moitié chrétien, moitié non chrétien. Mais c’est une vieille manière de penser. Je suis prêt à sacrifier 20% de ma popularité si c’est le prix à payer pour éviter une confrontation dans le pays. Or c’est précisément ce que nous avons cherché en signant l’an passé une entente avec le Hezbollah.

– Vous voulez la fin du système d’équilibre confessionnel dans les institutions ?

– C’est un système condamné, en voie de disparition. Nous voulons établir, pas à pas, la laïcité de l’Etat. Il faut que les Libanais s’habituent à l’exercice du pouvoir sur la base de choix politiques et non d’arrangements confessionnels.

– Votre entente avec le Hezbollah, n’est-ce pas une manière d’arrangement ?

– C’est un programme politique! Sur la réforme de l’Etat, son indépendance, les relations avec la Syrie, avec les Palestiniens. Le Hezbollah est acquis à l’idée d’un code civil libanais. Et son chef, Hassan Nasrallah, a déclaré il y a dix jours qu’il était prêt à discuter du désarmement de son mouvement, et d’un armistice entre Israël et le Liban, indépendamment de la situation dans le reste du Proche-Orient. Je défie nos adversaires, que l’Occident soutient, d’avoir un tel courage.

– Mais le Hezbollah est-il lui-même indépendant : le principe du “Velayat al-faqih” ne le lie-t-il pas directement au guide de la révolution iranienne ?

– Si vous pensez que l’homme est une pierre, et ne change jamais, alors vous avez raison. Quand le Hezbollah faisait référence au “Velayat al-faqih”, Samir Geagea, le chef des Forces libanaises, parlait de cantons chrétiens, et Walid Joumblatt de frontières druzes. Les temps ont changé. Le Hezbollah, aujourd’hui, revendique sa part de pouvoir, rien de plus.

– La Syrie n’est-elle pas plus pesante que l’Iran sur le Liban? Et n’avez-vous pas rencontré récemment en Allemagne un émissaire syrien, comme le disent les Saoudiens ?

– C’est une diffamation colportée par des moulins à mensonges. J’ai confondu Amine Gemayel qui reprenait cette calomnie. La Syrie joue contre moi. Des mouvements pro-syriens ont appelé dimanche à voter pour notre candidat, et ça lui a coûté des voix, par répulsion.

– Tenez-vous les Occidentaux, les Etats-Unis, pour vos adversaires ?

– Les Américains refusent notre tentative de sortir le Hezbollah de son isolement. Et ils soutiennent sans faille le gouvernement de Fouad Siniora contre ce projet. George Bush a annoncé il y a une semaine le gel des avoirs de ceux qui agissent contre le “gouvernement légitime” du Liban, dont nous contestons la légitimité depuis un an. Trois jours avant l’élection de dimanche, cette menace a effrayé ceux qui nous soutiennent de leurs dons.

– Vous appelez à un gouvernement d’union nationale. Croyez-vous l’unité du Liban menacée ?

– L’entente et l’union que nous proposons sont la seule voie de salut. Or l’Occident n’en veut pas. Je soupçonne les Etats-Unis de travailler à la déstabilisation du Liban, après celle de l’Afghanistan, de l’Irak, de la Somalie, etc. Je crois en fait que les Américains souhaitent un nouvel affrontement dans ce pays. Pour organiser, à la faveur de ce désordre, l’implantation au Liban des Palestiniens qui y résident, parce qu’on ne leur donnera pas d’autre pays.

Here is the The Daily Star article suggesting that US intelligence agencies have been tasked with making up lists of Lebanese to investigate. FPM supporters should be worried. Washington has clearly taken sides in Lebanon's constitutional struggle. It is hard to see how its partisanship has anything to do with democracy or Lebanon's sovereignty. Washington is increasingly defining one half of Lebanese as terrorists or terror supporters. This can only prevent any Lebanese effort to promote dialogue or compromise.

US makes list of Lebanese engaged in ‘anti-democratic actions’
FPM slams charge of undermining sovereignty as ‘ridiculous’
By Iman Azzi
Daily Star staff
Thursday, August 09, 2007

BEIRUT: The US is preparing a list of the names of wealthy Lebanese businessmen known to have various political and religious backgrounds, and identified with partaking in suspicious activity, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported Wednesday. The CNA added that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had opened an inquiry into a relative of a prominent Christian Lebanese leader who recently purchased land in North Carolina worth more than $10 million. The FBI charged that the salary of the man being investigated could not support such expensive real estate and is aiming to find the source of the funds.

In comments to Arab journalists on Monday, Under-Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch discussed last week’s executive order signed by President George W. Bush that aims to block property of persons undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic process and institutions, according to a White House statement.

The US would examine “any information there is about persons who may be engaged in anti-democratic actions,” he said.

“It is not a matter of opposition to one person in government, or to the government, it is not personal in that sense. And there are a variety of people who I think should receive scrutiny right away because their loyalty does not lie either to the Constitution or to the country,” added Welch without naming specific parties or people.

Welch was then asked how the executive order would affect the main members of Lebanon’s opposition, namely the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and Hizbullah if they refused to partake in a parliamentary election to elect a successor to President Emile Lahoud. Welch’s answer concentrated on the laws already in place targeting Hizbullah and pointedly avoided mentioning if or how this would be used against the FPM.

The daily An-Nahar on Tuesday, citing prominent sources, said “any citizen is subject” to the executive order issued by US President George Bush which aims at blocking property of persons undermining Lebanon’s sovereignty or its democratic process and institutions.

An-Nahar said the move reflects the US administration’s “never-ending concern” over the possibility of Aoun’s participation in any activity that could lead to the emergence of dual governments or hinder upcoming presidential elections if he figured he was not going to win.

A member of the FPM told The Daily Star that any attempt to charge the FPM of undermining Lebanese sovereignty was “ridiculous.”

“The FPM as a member of the opposition is participating in a very democratic manner. I don’t see how this would have any impact on the FPM or its members,” the official said, refusing to comment further until an official statement was released by the US.

Here is the press release of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution objecting to the invitation of Aounist parliamentarians and their ability to travel to the US. It reads:

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has invited, this coming Monday April 30, 2007, members of the Lebanese Parliament for a presentation on the Cedar Revolution. Unfortunately, those named: Ibrahim Kenaan and Ghassan Moukheiber, do not represent the Cedar Revolution and are members of the so-called Reform and Change parliamentary bloc, headed by MP Michel Aoun who has officially signed a memorandum of understanding with and lists Hezbollah as their closest Ally.

Hezbollah is on the State Departments list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
We urge all involved to disallow any opportunity to misrepresent the the Cedar Revolution by anyone connected with terror groups. An American Center promoting Democracy should never serve as the platform for pro-Terrorist groups.

We reject the fact that Think Tanks in the US would become a Public Relations tool to further the propaganda of Terrorists overseas. This undoubtedly will send a message that would confuse the supporters of the Cedar Revolution and the Civil Society in general in Lebanon.

US policy clearly forbids supporting the terrorists and those that support the terrorists. And as the leadership of both parties, Democrats and Republicans wisely co-signed the Syria accountability act in 2004; there is an American consensus on opposing Hezbollah’s Terror and propaganda.

Here is the WCCR press release welcoming Bush's executive order:

The World Council of the Cedars Revolution

www.cedarsrevolution.org

[email protected]

Monday 6th August 2007
Washington Bureau

 

              Barakat: Bush's executive order helps Lebanon against Terror

Commenting on President George Bush's executive order on freezing the assets of elements threatening security and democracy in Lebanon, Colonel Charbel Barakat, Terrorism Advisor to the World Council on the Cedars Revolution said "this is the best decision against Terrorism taken internationally regarding Lebanon so far."

 

Barakat, speaking with Cedars Revolution News (CRN) said: "What President Bush's executive order has done was to clarify that Terrorist organizations and individuals are threatening a democratically elected Government in Lebanon and that Lebanon's civil society needs to be protected." Barakat, who has testified in the past to the US Senate and writes with the Phoenicia News in Canada, said "it is no secret that the Syrian and Iranian intelligence services and Hezbollah have devised a plan to sink Lebanon in blood and reverse the democratic order by year end, if they can. As of July 2005, these forces have launched a terror campaign which has led to assassinations of politicians, journalists and legislators, urban insurrections, explosions and killing of innocents, as well as a war across the southern international border. Most recently, the axis has sent Fatah al Islam into battle assassinating Lebanese soldiers and officers. And while this terror war is bleeding Lebanon, members of Terrorist organizations and those allies and facilitating for them have been traveling to the West and to the United States unchecked."

 

"It is logical and long overdue," said Barakat that the US Government which is waging a war on Terror would freeze the assets of Hizbollah, Syrian intelligence, and other Lebanese organizations and individuals who are the allies of Hizbollah. It was time that the operatives of Terrorism in Lebanon  would be identified in the US and stopped from using America as a fundraiser launching pad and intelligence gathering on Lebanese exiles. President Bush has delivered a strike to Lebanon-based terrorism and made the United States safer by releasing that order. We thank him and hope other Western leaders in Canada, Europe and Australia follow the example. Lebanese around the world and in America are happy to see the leader of the free world leading the efforts to protect democracy in Lebanon and confront Terrorism internationally."  

 

Ret. Colonel Charbel Barakat

Terrorism Advisor to the WCCR

Investment in Syria to Rise 11%, Deputy PM Forecasts
By Massoud A. Derhally

Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) — Foreign direct investment in Syria will probably increase this year as oil-rich Arab investors put money into real estate, banking and tourism, ignoring U.S. sanctions, the country's deputy prime minister said.

Investment will rise 11 percent to $3 billion, Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdallah Dardari, 43, said in a  telephone interview from Damascus today.

“We are finding ways around'' the embargo, Dardari said. By “opening up for the private sector to come into Syria'' we are attracting increased investment. 

The U.S. imposed sanctions in May 2004, including a ban on trade transactions with the Commercial Bank of Syria, the country's largest bank, in an effort to halt exports to the country that is accused by President George W. Bush's administration of aiding militants in Iraq and pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign investment will continue to flow to the country, the third-largest non-OPEC oil producer in the Middle East, driven  primarily by Persian Gulf investors and Syrians living abroad, Dardari said.

That investment will help the economy expand more than 5.6 percent this year, compared with 5 percent in 2006, driven by tourism and exports, he said. Excluding the oil industry, gross domestic product will grow about 7 percent, he added.

Oil Wealth

The Syrian oil industry accounts for about a quarter of GDP, 10 percent of fiscal revenues and 40 percent of exports, according to a report released by Bank Audi SAL-Audi Saradar Group yesterday.

Syria's government aims to boost economic growth to 7 percent by 2010 by reducing paper work, easing state controls and attracting more investors, Dardari said. The ruling Baath Party, which came to power in 1963, began moving toward a market economy in the 1990s, allowing private banks and insurance companies to operate for the first time. In January, the country introduced a law that allows foreign
investors to own or rent land and to take profit out of the country in any currency.

“There is a move to make the country attractive for foreign investment,'' said David Butter, a London-based senior Middle East
analyst at the Economist Intelligence unit. “In some areas there has been some success and that's partly to do with the liquidity
in the Gulf and the interested of financial institutions seeking new horizons.'' 

Investment Projects

Emaar Properties PJSC, the Middle East's largest developer, said in 2005 that it plans to invest $4 billion in real estate projects in Syria.

National Bank of Kuwait, the Gulf state's biggest lender by  market value, said this week that it plans to operate a joint venture in Syria as it seeks to tap economic growth and continue its expansion outside the Persian Gulf.

Last week, Qatar National Bank SAQ, the Persian Gulf nation's  largest lender, said it plans to open a bank in Syria with three partners.

On Aug. 6, the government approved the central bank's decision to link the Syrian pound to so-called special drawing rights, certificates issued by the International Monetary Fund that represent a basket of currencies including the dollar, euro, yen and U.K. pound, Dardari said. The currency was fixed at 52.21 to the dollar for more than a year until July 11, since when it has been allowed to strengthen to 51.4.

The shift in policy will “reduce the impact of dollar exchange rate fluctuations with other currencies which will give more stability to the Syrian pound,'' Dardari said.

Syria is broadening its peg after the country's currency was  dragged lower against the euro by a 10 percent slide in the dollar last year, pushing up the cost of imports from Europe.

McCain, Obama clash over Syria question

Aug. 8 (UPI) — U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama found themselves at opposing ends of the diplomatic spectrum in dealing with Syria Wednesday.

McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona, called for a tough stand against Syria, while Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, urged talks.

Sooner or later, one way or another, Hezbollah must be disarmed and its patron in Damascus confronted, McCain wrote for a blog published by The Jerusalem Post. Syria's support of Hezbollah in Lebanon is a barrier to peace, McCain said.

But Obama called for bilateral talks with Syria, while insisting on our core demands.

The Bush administration's empty threats, he said, have merely gotten in the way of a productive relationship with Syria.

Other presidential contenders, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, also posted comments on Syria on the blog.

Elissa – No comment regarding her ban from traveling to Syria
Al-Bawaba, 07-08-2007

Lebanese singer Elissa has been banned from entering Syria, according to the London daily Elaph, just shortly after Lebanese singer Haifa Wahbi was also banned from entering the country.

Elissa declined to comment on the decision.  Her manger Ameen Abi Yaghi said he did not receive any documentation notifying him of such a decision.

Haifa claims that she has not been banned from traveling to Syria, and is preparing to hold a live concert there in the near future.
 
Head of the Union of Syrian Musicians, Sabah Obeid, denies any political motivation behind Syria’s move to ban a number of Arab singers like Haifa Wahbi, Elissa and Ruby. Obeid said the decision had been made after the Union determined that all three singers use their bodies, performing almost naked to market their music.  “They are not real singers,” according to Obeid.
 
Others view the Union’s decision as wholly political.  Haifa recently released a song for Lebanese army Chief Samir Ja’ja’, while Elissa was seen participating in a march advocating the removal of the Syrian army from Lebanon.  Elissa is one of many singers that have refused to perform for Syrian President Bashar Al Asad.   

Haifa Wehbe

Also see:

Kuwait: Lebanese singer Nancy Ajram banned

Officials at Ministry of Information in Kuwait say that its Censorship Department has refused a request for a concert during the Muslim holiday Eid Al Fitr for Lebanese Nancy Ajram and Kuwaiti singer Nabil Shu’ail.

A committee member stated that Nancy Ajram – known as "The Maria Carey of the Middle East" – should not be allowed to sing at public celebrations in Kuwait and supported the ministry’s decision to ban her.

Egyptian singer Ruby is also banned from performing in Kuwait.

"A destructive and serious threat"
According to Al-Arabiya, an official Israeli report issued by the General Agency for Israeli Cinema and Arts on September 2, 2005, has denounced Nancy Ajram and other Lebanese popstars as posing a destructive and serious threat to the Israeli state because of their “political activities which have great influence in the Arab world due to their great popularity.”

In Morocco, the mayor of Marrakech announced in May 2005 that Nancy Ajram will not be permitted to hold any future concerts in the city in order to avoid reoccurrence of the kind of incidents which supposedly took place during her performance in April 2005: “sexual harassment, theft, excessive alcohol consumption resulting in violence, people fainting.”

Her success continues unabated.

OR

RUBY: See the whole article at BBC

Ruby is one of the most-talked about performers. She is Egyptian, rather than from more liberal Lebanon like many current stars. Her raunchy moves, bare midriff and revealing clothing have had conservative MPs clamouring for a ban.

Kebab shop worker's rap is the hottest single in France
By Claire Soares
Published: 09 August 2007 THE INDEPENDENT

. 

From mutton grease to musical greatness, it has been an unconventional road for rapper Lil'Maaz and his hit anthem "Mange du Kebab" (Eat Kebab).

The 27-year-old Turkish immigrant, whose real name is Yilmaz Karaman, moved to Paris four years ago and took a job in a kebab house where he would sing as he served. "It all started with my interactions with customers, asking them whether they wanted tomatoes, mayonnaise," he explained. "The questions took on their own rhythm and very quickly it became a rap."

It turned out some of his kebab-hungry clientele worked in a recording studio and they decided to help him reach a wider audience.

A clip on the internet site Dailymotion clocked up half a million hits in a month, and caught the eye of big-time record executives. Now Lil'Maaz finds himself in the same stable as the Beatles after EMI released 25,000 copies of the single in France earlier this week.

"I'm in shock. My head's spinning and I keep asking myself if this is all a  dream," he said yesterday. "It's just totally exploded."

The video for the hit song was shot in "Chez Diyar", the purple and yellow kebab house where he works in the 18th arrondissement, which Lil'Maaz describes in the song as "the kingdom of grease." He raps to his regulars, as hunks of lamb burn on a spit behind him.

"Behind the counter, I prepare the bread, caressing it between my hands. I am the rapper of the doner kebab. Mayo, ketchup, sauce and lamb. Cooking mutton is a real art, and there's no pork for us. Here, you'll find smells of the Orient that will stay on your clothes," goes one verse.

So what does Lil'Maaz think is the appeal of his off-beat song? "The kebab is universal," he says solemnly, before breaking into giggles. "No really, we live in such a complicated world, and people need to have a laugh. I would laugh and crack jokes when I served people and this song is just an extension of that."

His family, including eight brothers and two sisters, are in south-eastern Turkey, but often call him to tease him and place joke takeaway orders. But given that he arrived in Paris with no French, they are very proud of his hit francophone song.

And his boss is happy, too. Fans are travelling from all over the city to visit the new rap star at his workplace.

All artists that strike gold with their first release worry about being a one-hit wonder, but Lil'Maaz says "Mange du Kebab" is not the last we will hear of him. "There will be a follow-up but I prefer to keep it secret. All I can say is that I don't think one should overdo the same theme, so don't worry, it won't be 'Mange du Hamburger.'"

. 

Addendum: (August 9, 2007)

Hi Joshua,

I've been a long time reader of your blog – its my no 1 source on Syrian affairs.  I just thought I should mention the irony that Elissa's mother is actually Syrian – she is from Kafra, part of the Wadi Nasara.  I know this because her aunty lives here in Sydney.

Cheers,

Assad

This is a frightening measure introduced by the Minister of Telecommunications. Websites have been the main avenue of intellectual freedom and expression in Syria. Many, if not most, of the commentators on Syria Comment use pseudonyms in order to protect themselves from the adverse effects that would surely ensue if they were to write under their real names.

It is hard to believe that Syria would want to close down all websites with comment sections. Already all Blogspot blogs have been blocked in Syria. They can still be read through Bloglines or any other RSS feed, but the comment sections are not so easily accessed.

Syria: Ministry Introduce Website Censorship Measure
2007-08-07 05:56 (New York, BBC Media) (Thanks Ehsani) 
Text of report by Lebanese newspaper Al-Safir website on 3 August  

Those working in the field of internet publishing were fighting the "ghosts" of censorship – given the lack of any Syrian law that organizes their work – when they received a blow from where they did not expect.

For more than a year, the Information Ministry has not spared any effort to reassure them, and it is promising them a new media law, "which will be issued soon," and will include clear provisions on the electronic media. The justification for the delay is that the ministry does not want any haste that could produce a flawed law.

However, and amid this delay, "a new player" came out: The Ministry of Telecommunications and Technology. The latter issued a decision, which drove the owners of the Syrian websites crazy, and they came out to oppose and defy [the decision]. In its circular, the Telecommunications Ministry says: "We ask the owners of the Syrian websites to exercise accuracy and objectivity (…) [ellipsis as published] and to post the name of the writer of an article and the one who comments on it in a clear and detailed manner. The failure to do so would result in warning the website owner and rendering his website temporarily inaccessible. In case the violation is repeated, the website will become permanently inaccessible." 

The ministry justifies its circular by saying that some articles and commentaries, without being coupled with evidence and attributed to certain persons, include "lies and expressions that run counter to the ethics of speech and that annoy others, which make them publicly committed crimes of defamation and violation of public morals." The ministry said that that "encroaches upon the credibility of the websites that post such articles on the one hand and creates confusion in the society on the other".

For the Syrians, the demand that the name be revealed means a threat, which is a purely security tradition. Those working in the field of internet publishing are now fed- up. Colleague Khalid Sumaysim, chief editor of the Syria Life website, says that the decision is "an attempt to restrict the freedoms of the journalists and ordinary people". He noted that requesting the posting of the personal profiles of website writers or commentators "make them refrain from expressing their opinions about any issue, and their opinions will therefore be kept absent, and they will desert the Syrian websites". He expressed surprise that the Telecommunications Ministry designated itself as a censor although the Information Ministry did not interfere in this context.

To prove his viewpoint, Sumaysim explained that when he asked those who write in the website he runs to reveal their true names, "they completely refused that". This is despite the fact that, as he said, "the decision is useless because anyone can post a comment using a pseudonym and send a fake email address". 

The Kulluna Shuraka [We Are All Partners] electronic newsletter was the first Syrian website, which has lately been blocked. The supervisors of the newsletter are preparing to launch a website carrying the same name. Colleague George Kadar, the website's managing editor, believes that the internet publishing issue "cannot beaddressed by a decision, and the minister himself said that in all world countries publication is organized by laws, not a decision!" He said that the decision was issued because "some officials were harmed by the comments made by employees in their institutions or ministries". 

It is worth noting that the Ministry of Culture faced a concentrated attack by some website commentators following the posting of some articles and reports on the demolition of some areas in Damascus, which were the subject of a long debate as to whether they are of a historical value or not. The Telecommunications Ministry also received a considerable share of the anger of commentators as a result of the problems from which the Syrian internet network is suffering and the delay in fulfilling the promises for developing it.

Kadar says he is not convinced that the decision of the Telecommunications Ministry can control the field of internet publishing. He asks: "Do they want to convince us that they can monitor all the Syrian websites and that they will take the rights of all citizens from among the hundreds of published items and commentaries? This is unless they want to make the website owners spy on their readers, something which does not befit the press work and the professionalcode of honour." 

Some of those working in the internet publishing field are surprised that the Telecommunications Ministry could not stand waiting for the issuance of the new media law and rushed to make a decision, which they considered "crucial" in a field that represented "a very big and actual democratic opportunity for the Syrians". 

For his part, Telecommunications Minister Amr Salim told Al- Safir that the decision was made by the cabinet and that "it asked the Telecommunications Ministry to follow it up." He noted that the cabinet "received many complaints (related to commentaries and other things) and there are laws that protect persons against defamation. The cabinet, therefore, decided to place the internet publishing within the framework of those laws, and it does not have to wait until a new media law is issued."

Salim said that the website owners were confused by the content of the decision. He explained that "the freedom of commentary and speech will remain protected, but what is meant by the decision are those commentaries that include defamation, which conflict with the civil law; and those who are harmed have the right to know who caused the harm". 

The telecommunications minister stressed that the cabinet law is binding. The decision involves all that is posted on the websites, including commentaries and articles, and does not differentiate between them.

Colleague Ali Jamalu, who works in the Sham Press website, got so angry that, in replying to the decision, he said: "Your Excellency Minister Amr Salim, with all due respect to you, we disagree with your wish, and we will not comply with your circular. If you wish to close our website down, you are welcome to do so."

Most of those in charge of Syrian internet sites frankly said that they will not comply with the decision, either out of defiance or inability [as published]. It remains to be seen what consequences the binding nature of the decision will have and whether the Information Ministry has heard of what is happening in its territory. 

(c) 2007 BBC Monitoring Media. Aug/07/2007 09:56 GMT

 Amal Saad-Ghorayeb's latest piece on US policy toward Lebanon and Palestine. An interesting comparison.

August 7th, 2007, 7:58 am

August 7th, 2007, 12:30 pm

August 7th, 2007, 1:17 pm

August 7th, 2007, 4:47 pm

Camille Khoury, the unknown candidate backed by opposition leader Gen. Michel Aoun, beat former President Amin Gemayel in the crucial Metn by-election by a very narrow margin. Interior Minister Hassan Sabei, announcing the results at around 4:00 a.m. Monday, declared Khoury the winner by a 418-vote edge. He received 39,534 votes against Gemayel's 39,116. Turnout was 46 percent.

In another election in Beirut, pro-government candidate Mohammed Amin Itani easily won a Sunni seat in parliament that came open when lawmaker Walid Eido was killed in a car bombing in June. The opposition did not officially sponsor a candidate to contest Itani and Shiites were asked not to vote. As a result his opponent came a distant second with 3,556 votes as opposed to 22,988 votes for Itani. Turnout was low at about 19 percent.

How are we to understand the results of this vote?

Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora claimed the results were a victory for democracy. In theory this should be good for America, but Washington does not see it as such, because the Bush administration wanted a March 14 victory. President Bush considers the March 14 coalition an ally in the contest for the Middle East, in which the West has pit itself against the "axis of evil" member, Iran, and its ally Syria.

General Aoun's party, the Free Patriotic Movement, or FPM, is allied with Lebanon's Shiite parties. They call for better relations with Damascus and an end to rule by Lebanon's traditional zaims. They also insist on new parliamentary elections before the deputies vote for Lebanon's new president, which should take place before late November when President Emile Lahood's term ends. Amin Gemayel's defeat by a relative unknown is significant because it will bolster opposition claims that the March 14 ruling coalition no longer represents public sentiment. This is the main justification for the opposition's refusal to hold presidential elections before a new parliament is elected.

Also, Amin Gemayel was not just any Maronite; he was Mr. Maronite. The Gemayel family dominated right wing Maronite politics for much of the 20th century. Pierre Gemayel, Amin's father, built the Kataeb, or Phalange paramilitary force in the 1930s. During the Civil War, the Phalange turned out to be the toughest Christian militia. It was commanded by Bashir Gemayel, Amin's brother. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 in alliance with the Phalange, Bashir was elected President, but was assassinated by a member of the SSNP before taking office. Amin Gemayel became president in his stead. A little over four months ago, Amin was invited to the White House to meet with President George Bush. This unusual invitation was interpreted by some to indicate that the Bush administration was sounding out Amin as a possible candidate for the Lebanese presidency. Amin's loss in the by-election will cast a long shadow over any possible run for the presidency in November. It would also seem to mark a nadir in the fortunes of the Gemayel clan.

The opposition painted the win as a rejection of Siniora's coalition. ''Metn democratically defeats Amin Gemayel and the (parliament) majority with him,'' the pro-opposition daily As-Safir said.

Associated Press began its story with "The government suffered a blow Monday when a little-known opposition candidate defeated a former president in a tense parliament by-election that showed the divisions among Lebanon's once-dominant Christians."

Amin Gemayel, the losing candidate, ran as the anti-Syrian. He suggested that those who would vote for Aoun were against Lebanon and tantamount to traitors. "Are all these political parties that support the Free Patriotic Movement doing so free of charge, just to please General Aoun? Or do they have other motives and are there other allies trying to regain the Syrian role on Lebanese soil?" He also argued that Syria had assassinated his son, Pierre Gemayel, whose parliamentary seat was being contested. Thus, a vote for his opponent was a vote for Syrian domination of Lebanon and for murder. It must be remembered that no evidence links Syria to the murder of Gemayel's son or the murder of Walid Eido. Lebanese authorities have produced, however, considerable evidence and testimony that both parliamentarians were assassinated by Lebanese extremist Sunni groups.

The March 14th's pro-Maronite strategy led Naharnet, a March 14 outlet, to take consolation from the results by announcing, "but the anti-Syrian runner [Amin Gemayel] reaped a vast majority of Maronite votes." 

L'Orient le Jour claimed "les chrétiens non arméniens se prononcent clairement en faveur d’Amine Gemayel" and explained that because Aoun did not get 70% of the Christian vote, as he had previously claimed he would, he was in fact the loser as his bubble had burst. Its headline ran: Gemayel : Le scrutin du Metn a prouvé que le soutien de Aoun dans les régions chrétiennes est en net recul."

Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, backed this interpretation, claiming, "Amin Gemayel has won the political battle. This is a political victory for March 14. The legend of Michel Aoun as the sole representative of the Christians is over. Michel Aoun has fallen politically despite all his alliances."

Aoun rejected that interpretation. He insists that he has a majority of Christian votes and backing from the majority of Lebanese.

Members of the Lebanese Forces, backer's of Amin Gemayel, accused Aoun supporters of being lesser or bad Lebanese. (Ouwet), a forum for Lebanese Forces members, posted the following on the day of the elections:

Bye Bye Aoun ?  

Who would have thought ?? Where are the 70% ya General ?? Where are the 20000+ votes u won with ??

8000 Armenians, at least 10000 to 15000 btw Murr and SSNP and naturalized voters …

This leaves the so-called General with barely 15000 votes !

Thank you Matn people for destroying this virus …
Thank you for proving Sheikh Pierre right …

 Following the announcement of Gemayel's defeat, the same site responded with a poem:

So let me sum up the result of this election
You are miles from being the Christian selection

Holding hands with snoopies and baathies to vote
And some dead Armenians and a Syrian goat

Gemayel had refused to admit defeat until official results were announced and demanded a rerun of the vote in one mainly Armenian region where he claimed voter fraud. 

Friday Lunch Club, a blog written by an Aoun supporter, was irate at the anti-Armenian language used in the election campaign. In his post entitled, Lebanon's Armenians face a new "verbal genocide," he explained that: "[Armenians] were called "intruders upon Lebanon's realities", "ghetto dwellers" and "ingrates." He concluded, "Lebanon's Armenians face an onslaught of M14 incitements."

Amin Gemayel later said that he did not mean to insult anyone, adding that ''Tashnak [the Armenian party] is a Lebanese party. No one doubts that.''

Greek Orthodox Lebanese also largely voted for Aoun and against the Gemayel clan's traditional domination of the Metn and Christian Lebanon. Michel Murr, a wealthy Greek Orthodox entrepreneur who was Interior Minister of Lebanon for much of the 1990s, threw his considerable support behind the Free Patriotic Movement. He dominates the Metn town of Btighrin and his son is married to President Emile Lahoud's daughter. The Lebanese based Syrian Social Nationalist Party also backs Aoun. It was founded by the Greek Orthodox Lebanese Antoun Saade and its membership is dominated by Greek Orthodox. The Greek Orthodox have chafed under Maronite domination since the founding of Lebanon.

The deep rootedness of the Maronite – Greek Orthodox rivalry was driven home to me when I visited the Wadi Nasara a few weeks ago. The Wadi Nasara, or Christian Valley, is the southern most region of Syria's coast that abuts northern Lebanon. It is the only region of Syria where Christians form a compact minority. The Greek Orthodox of the region have always looked more toward Tripoli than Damascus for education, employment, and religious leadership. I asked elders of the region, who had all been members of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party since their high-school days, why the French had not included the Wadi Nasara in Greater Lebanon when it was first cut out of Syria. They told me: "The Maronites of Lebanon did not want us. They were frightened that the Greek Orthodox might become the majority and rule Lebanon. They insisted we become part of Syria." Many Lebanese Greek Orthodox still look to Syria as a counter-weight to Maronite domination and disregard. Aoun has promised that he will end the time-honored domination of Lebanon's traditional zaims. This resonates with many Lebanese. The Gemayel clan is one of the most notable of the zaim households. 

"The big winner today is Syria," said Michael Young, an opinion editor at the Daily Star, a Lebanese newspaper. Several days ago, Young wrote that Syria was working to undermine Aoun in order to divide and weaken Christians.

Syria is not the big winner of the elections, although it will be pleased by the results. The real winner was the Lebanese opposition. Michel Aoun has demonstrated that Christians and Shiites can ally to become an electoral force in Lebanon – one that can perhaps challenge the traditional Sunni-Maronite alliance that has dominated the Lebanese state for much of its short history.

This suggests that the US policy of insisting that only the March 14 coalition stands for democracy in Lebanon is misguided. As Lebanon's demographic composition changes and the coalitions this makes possible evolve, it will be a mistake if US policy does not evolve as well. Augustus Richard Norton has written a fine article explaining why the US should reconsider its one-sided policy, which will only continue to divide Lebanon.

Aoun supporters putting on a show. Lebanon may be the only country where elections produce as much party fever as they do in the US.

And to think that these two ladies might be branded as terror-supporters by George Bush's new executive order sanctioning anti-March 14 activity.

In Beirut, the vote for Eido's seat was expected to be easily won by Mohammed al-Amin Itani, a candidate of parliament majority leader Saad Hariri's Future Movement, particularly since the Hezbollah-led opposition did not officially sponsor a candidate and has boycotted the election.

But in the Metn, the vote for Gemayel's seat is a bitter contest between two candidates including the assassinated politician's father, Amin Gemayel, who was president of Lebanon for much of the 1980s.

Turn out was estimated at 36% of the 140.752 registered voters in Beirut and 51% of the 165.734 voters in the Metn when polling centers closed at 6 p.m.

Ballot counting started and final results are not expected before midnight, but both sides are claiming victory.

Reported acts of violence were minimal with only three people wounded in fist fights and 10 arrested for alleged fraud, which is rather customary in Lebanon's elections since independence from French mandate in 1943.

Amin Gemayel faces off against Kamil Khoury, who is supported by Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun, a former army commander and interim prime minister allied with the Hezbollah-led opposition. Aoun's party dominated the district in the 2005 legislative elections, but al-Nahar, a newspaper that backs Gemayel is predicting his victory, claiming the Aoun's popularity has fallen off due to his alliance with Shiites rather than Sunnis.

This picture is of young Gemayel supporters helping an elderly lady
to the polls. The rose is an Amin Gemayel symbol of mourning
for his son, Pierre, who Lebanese authorities claim was murdered
by Sunni extremists and Gemayel claims was murdered on Syria's orders.