 |
| http://lebanonexpats.org |
Thursday, 09 September 2010 |
|
|
|
 |
Moghtarebee Lubnan |
|
Together we can create the future... |
|
Home
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Interesting Articles and Videos |
|
|
|
Be all you can be - be Lebanese
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/12/mexico.slim.ap/index.html
Something to be truly reflected on…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8326734789464462895&q=Zarka&hl=en
Miss World Australia is Lebanese:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/beauty-feels-like-she-doesnt-belong/2006/09/02/1156817145075.html
WHO IS KILLING OUR LEADERS? :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6169606.stm
Bush sending delegation to Lebanon :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060923/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_lebanon
Lebanese Want to Party:
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74681
Abu Abed jokes in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401195.html
 Lebanon Oil Spill May Rival Exxon Valdez of 1989
Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Lebanon's oil spill, caused by
Israeli bombardment of oil storage units at a power
plant, may rival the leakage from the Exxon Valdez in
Alaska in 1989 if left untreated, the United Nations
Environment Program said.
``In the worst case scenario, and if all the oil
contained in the bombed power plant at Jiyyeh leaked
into the Mediterranean Sea, the Lebanese oil spill
could well rival the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989,''
the UN said in an e-mailed statement today.
The spill has yet to be cleaned up or assessed more
than three weeks after the bombing of the coastal
Jiyyeh power plant south of Beirut because of the
continuation of hostilities, Achim Steiner, Executive
Director of the UN Environment Program, said in the
statement.
The spill, which has polluted around two-thirds of the
Lebanese coast and spread into neighboring Syria, may
threaten East Mediterranean countries such as Cyprus
and Turkey, Lebanon's Environment Minister Yacoub
Sarraf has said.
About 10,000 tonnes (about 3.1 million gallons) of oil
has escaped from the Jiyyeh power plant and 35,000
tonnes (10.8 million gallons) in total may be spilt,
the UN's shipping agency, the International Maritime
Organization has said.
The Exxon Valdez, which struck the Bligh Reef in
Prince William Sound in Alaska, spilled more than 11
million gallons of crude oil, making it the largest
spill in U.S. history.
``The quantity of oil spilled in Lebanon is already
comparable to the disaster caused in 1999 off the
coast of France when the Erika tanker spilled an
estimated 13,000 metric tonnes (about 4 million
gallons) of oil into the Atlantic Ocean,'' the UN
Environment Program said.
Marine Life Affected
Marine life, such as sea turtles and Bluefin tuna, has
been affected by the Lebanese spill because the
Eastern Mediterranean is a spawning ground for the
tuna, the program said.
The Israeli navy has maintained a sea blockade for
more than three weeks, preventing ships from entering
or leaving Lebanese ports without its prior approval.
Israel has bombed airports, ports, bridges, roads and
other facilities in Lebanon, inflicting losses
estimated at more than $4 billion, according to the
Lebanese government.
Israeli jets, which attacked the power plant twice,
deterred firemen from putting out the fire at the
storage units, which continued for 10 days, Sarraf
said in an interview on Aug. 3.
The Israel navy also prohibited Lebanese and foreign
officials from surveying the damage of the spill from
Lebanon's territorial waters, the minister said. The
spill has grown into a 3,000-square kilometer area
because it absorbed water, Sarraf said.
The Lebanese government is relying on the
international community to provide as much as $200
million to clean up Lebanon's territorial waters, the
minister said.
Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers
From Yonit Farago in Jerusalem
Source: www.timeonline.co.uk
WHILE Israel fights Hezbollah with tanks and aircraft, its supporters are campaigning on the internet.
Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.
In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special “megaphone” software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate.
Jonny Cline, of the international student group, said that Jewish students and youth groups with their understanding of the web environment were ideally placed to present another side to the debate.
“We’re saying to these people that if Israel is being bashed, don’t ignore it, change it,” Mr Cline said. “A poll like CNN’s takes just a few seconds to vote in, but if thousands take part the outcome will be changed. What’s vital is that the international face of the conflict is balanced.”
Doron Barkat, 29, in Jerusalem, spends long nights trawling the web to try to swing the debate Israel’s way. “When I see internet polls for or against Israel I send out a mailing list to vote for Israel,” he said. “It can be that after 15 minutes there will be 400 votes for Israel.
“It’s very satisfying. There are also forums where Lebanese and Israelis talk.”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry must avoid direct involvement with the campaign but is in contact with international Jewish and evangelical Christian groups, distributing internet information packs.
Amir Gissin, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director, said: “The internet’s become a leading tool for news, shaping the world view of millions. Our problem is the foreign media shows Lebanese suffering, but not Israeli. We’re bypassing that filter by distributing pictures showing how northern Israelis suffer from Katyusha rocket attacks.”
The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil
by Michel Chossudovsky
Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan - Tblisi - Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon. . . .
Israel's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Binyamin Ben - Eliezer was present at the venue together with a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.
The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. It transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which have become US "protectorates", firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US and NATO. Moreover, both Azerbaijan and Georgia have longstanding military cooperation agreements with Israel. In 2005, Georgian companies received some $24 million in military contracts funded out of U.S. military assistance to Israel under the so - called "Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program".
Israel has a stake in the Azeri oil fields, from which it imports some twenty percent of its oil. The opening of the pipeline will substantially enhance Israeli oil imports from the Caspian sea basin.
But there is another dimension which directly relates to the war on Lebanon. Whereas Russia has been weakened, Israel is slated to play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors out of Ceyhan.
Militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline. . . .
In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory.
Water for Israel
Also involved in this project is a pipeline to bring water to Israel, pumping water from upstream resources of the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Anatolia. This has been a long - run strategic objective of Israel to the detriment of Syria and Iraq. Israel's agenda with regard to water is supported by the military cooperation agreement between Tel Aviv and Ankara.
The Strategic Re-routing of Central Asian Oil
Diverting Central Asian oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean (under Israeli military protection), for re - export back to Asia, serves to undermine the inter - Asian energy market, which is based on the development of direct pipeline corridors linking Central Asia and Russia to South Asia, China and the Far East.
Ultimately, this design is intended to weaken Russia's role in Central Asia and cut off China from Central Asian oil resources. It is also intended to isolate Iran.
Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as a new powerful player in the global energy market. . . .
At this particular juncture, the replenishing of Israeli stockpiles of US produced WMDs points to an escalation of the war both within and beyond the borders of Lebanon.
--
Viewpoints
UN Peacekeeping in Lebanon: Global and Regional Challenges
• Source: FPA Features
• Author: Marco Vicenzino
July 27th, 2006
Instead of discouraging the international community from contributing
to a multinational force, the attack that claimed four UN soldiers on
July 26 th underscores the importance and fundamental need to insert such
a force as soon as possible to prevent further atrocities.
A strong multinational force for Lebanon must be backed by a strong
UNSC mandate with clear and assertive terms and conditions and a key
provision for the "use of any necessary means" to implement the mandate and
those previously existing, specifically UNSC Resolution 1559. The
mission should be composed of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 troops and a
paramilitary police force (gendarmes) of 1,500 to 2,000, responsible
for conducting searches, arrests and detentions. The military force
should consist of large size brigades, perhaps from South Asian countries
such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and smaller special forces
units from European countries. The multinational force would also
include a civilian staff of 400 to 500 persons in charge of critical
functions, including engineers, language specialists, translators, officers
responsible for political affairs, human rights, logistics and
communications and support staff. The mission's total annual cost would range
between $400-500 million.
Success can only be guaranteed if the Security Council's permanent five
(P5) members (U.S., Russia, China, France and UK) and the wider
international community become direct and primary stakeholders in the
operation together with full and complete involvement, participation and
coordination with the Lebanese central government, parliament, judiciary,
national army, law enforcement authorities and civil society.
With a full vested interest in the mission, the P5 would provide
credibility to the process and operation and essential guidance and
resources. In such a volatile environment, leadership cannot be outsourced to
smaller states which would be simply be devoured by the intricacies of
local power and politics. Furthermore, with a P5 presence and
involvement, those most inclined to conflict will be extremely reluctant to
interfere or present problems. A strategy must be devised for long-term
engagement, unlike recent missions in East Timor which was once thought
to be the ideal peacekeeping operation after just two years, only to
collapse in a few days of political turmoil.
In addition, seizing the initiative to oversee the creation and
implementation of an effective multinational force for Lebanon may provide
Secretary General Kofi Annan with the opportunity to conclude his
stewardship at the United Nations, which ends this year, on a very high note.
With a robust international presence, accompanied by the global
spotlight and international public opinion, Lebanon 's political class would
be called to order and pressured to break any political impasse and
implement desperately needed reform. In addition, the presence of
multinational forces would provide significant economic opportunities for
distressed local communities.
Although Iran backs Hizbullah and China and Russia maintain close
relations with Iran due to its geopolitical and strategic importance as a
source of energy, the Security Council duo is unlikely to assume the
regular role of opposition to the U.S.-UK-France trio in questions of
intervention, national sovereignty and interference in the domestic affairs
of states. Lebanon is simply economically insignificant in global
trade and commerce but politically important in a regional context.
Although support may not be fully unequivocal, cooperation from Russia and
China can be expected for a mission in Lebanon, particularly when
considering that such a high-profile and symbolically important operation
would require only limited investment in exchange for value-added
political capital, an improved diplomatic image, increased influence and
greater presence in a strategically critical and volatile part of the world.
By internationalizing the plight of Lebanon and involving the world's
major powers and wider international community, Iran and Syria will be
pressured to cooperate. Attempting to derail the process would risk
both countries further international alienation and diplomatic isolation.
Considering how much they have invested in acquiring influence in
Lebanon in recent decades, there is simply too much at stake to risk being
sidelined. Therefore, cooperation and not confrontation would be the
best policy for Iran and Syria to pursue throughout any reconstruction
process and beyond, provided the international community remains engaged.
In conclusion, the longer the current crisis continues, the higher is
the risk that events may descend into a vicious downward cycle and
develop an unpredictable, irrational and independent dynamic beyond the
control of the active participants and beyond the most sensible
expectations of all concerned parties.
Regional and International Factors
The crisis continues to demonstrate how unresolved regional disputes in
the Middle East will constantly resurface, the potential for regional
conflict remains real, and underscores the fundamental need for a
comprehensive settlement not only between Israel and Lebanon, but with the
Palestinians and other regional neighbors with which Israel has
outstanding disputes, specifically Syria.
Although the current conflict is clearly intertwined in the wider
complexities of regional geopolitics, its immediate impact is on local
populations caught in the crossfire, usually the innocent bystanders
aspiring to an ordinary life free of violence. In the case of Lebanon, it is
of a people struggling for normality and stability after decades of
turbulence.
Although few may disagree with the claim by Ehud Olmert at the
beginning of the crisis that the "rules of the game have changed", there may be
disagreement as to how these have changed and what are the new rules,
if any.
Just as the U.S. and Soviet Union pursued their rivalry through proxy
wars in third country, Lebanon is once again being used as a
battleground for regional powers to play out their competing interests. Although
present since the 1970s, Syria's full and complete control of most of
Lebanon materialized from 1990 to 2005. Although arguably a stabilizing
factor at first, it later proved an obstacle to Lebanon's political
development through the skillful exploitation of sectarian differences to
divide and rule Lebanon through manipulation, intimidation, fear and,
when necessary, force.
Since the birth of Israel in 1948, the Israeli/Palestinian issue has
had an enormous spillover effect on Lebanon 's internal politics, tipping
the fragile balance of sectarian power into civil war in 1975 and
leading to successive Israeli interventions since then. After the 1979
Revolution, Iran adeptly exploited the status of its Shiite brethren in
Lebanon to assist in the emergence of Hizbullah and gain a foothold in
the Levant to acquire influence and spread the ideals of its revolution.
United States policy, involvement and interest in Lebanon ranging from
the 1950s under Eisenhower to Reagan in the 1980's has often proved
temporary and short-lived based more upon immediate short-term concerns
and needs and rarely ever on a calculated long-term vision. Ultimately,
the intricacies of Lebanese politics have discouraged excessive
involvement on the part of: (i) a goals-oriented foreign policy establishment
struggling to grasp the complexities and unpredictable twists of
Lebanese political culture; and (ii) a political class hungry for quick
successful outcomes to sell to an electorate with a very short-term interest
span and often susceptible to sound-bites.
The obsession with "getting right" in foreign policy simply cannot be
applied to Lebanon in the short-term. Lebanon is still an historical
experiment in the making and evolving with each generation. Patience is
required and considering its size (but without realizing its uniqueness
and appreciating its potential) it may not attract the necessary
long-term U.S. attention, particularly in light of other foreign commitments.
Within the grand scope of U.S. foreign policy, there is a historical
tendency to reduce Lebanon to a geopolitical footnote, only to be
re-visited in times of crisis. In part, this may explain America's close
alliance with Israel since it is perceived as a more understandable state
in a complex and strategically important environment and consequently
more reliable in providing favorable results, particularly in times of
crisis.
With the U.S. firmly backing Israel, as evidenced by the international
conference in Rome, and Iran and Syria supporting Hizbullah, the
European Union may be in a unique position and possess an historical
opportunity to seize the diplomatic initiative as a regional power-broker and
increase its role, credibility and presence in the Middle East. It
would be an exaggeration to view this as an attempt at historical
redemption for the Sykes-Picot treaty of 1916, a secret understanding between
Britain and France carving up much of the region into spheres of
influence, which many Arabs view as Western betrayal and the root of the
region's present problems after Ottoman rule.
Since de-colonization, France has desired to continue playing the
rhetorical role of "concerned former master" of Lebanon only to find its
influence fading over the years. However, through the European Union, it
can continue playing an important role in Lebanon, but only within the
context of coordinating and collaborating with the U.S. when possible.
This was clearly demonstrated in the approval of UNSC 1559, demanding
Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and the disarming of Hizbullah and other
armed groups in Lebanon. Furthermore, recent calls for a European-led
stabilization in mission could also present a new dynamic for the EU,
particularly if Turkey (another former colonial master of contemporary
Lebanese territory) participates in a significant manner. In addition,
the fact that the first international meeting on the recent crisis was
held in Rome (though failing to achieve a cease-fire) may reflect this
diplomatic evolution. Furthermore, economic incentives by the EU, such
as market access and trade preferences, for Lebanon can have a
significant impact. Ultimately, with the U.S. engaged in numerous global
commitments, principally Iraq, the time is ripe for more active EU
engagement in the region.
Regional Divisions
The recent crisis in Lebanon has also further exposed the historical
but deteriorating Sunni-Shia rift which is increasingly playing itself
out in Lebanon and throughout the region, particularly through the
political leaderships in competing states, and principally in Iraq, but also
beyond. Many of the region's Sunni-led states condemned Hizbullah's
July 12 th raid on Israel's northern border which triggered the current
crisis, while the Shiite-led states and organizations expressed support
for Hizbullah. However, among ordinary people throughout the Arab and
wider Muslim world, Nasrallah is revered as a hero and resister against
the common "Zionist enemy", at least for the time being and during the
conflict.
As the greatest threat to Saudi Arabia's national security and
influence in the Middle East, Iran and its long-time support for Hizbullah is
matched by Saudi support for the current government and the Hariri
faction, of which the current Prime Minister is part of. While the UN has
called for an aid package of $150m for 800,000 over the next 3 months
and the U.S. has offered $30m for immediate aid, and Saudi Arabia has
begun with a pledge of $1billion. As different camps continue to compete
for influence in Lebanon, Iranian funds for Hizbullah and
reconstruction will not be lacking and Syrian willingness to act as a reliable and
indispensable conduit in order to exert its own influence, though with
limited economic means, will not be in short supply.
The prospects for Lebanon's political future may have more wide-ranging
and far-reaching implications for regional transformation over time
than policy-makers may realize, or may care to admit. The failure or
inability to appreciate this may again result in a vicious cyclical turn
of events.
|
 Go To Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
