New York City, March 17, 2005, the green day.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released an article by
its
executive director, Mr. Steven Stalinsky, quoting Sheik Hassan
Nasrallah,
the leader of Hezbollah, as calling the USA, in Iranian Ayatollah
Khomeini
and in Al-Qaeda fashion, “the Great Satan”, and following up with “We
consider the current administration an enemy of our nation… because
it is
the greatest plunderer of our treasures, our oil, and our resources…
this
American administration is an enemy. Our motto, which we are not
afraid to
repeat year after year, is: Death to America”.

I understand “oil”, but my question is here what Nasrallah meant by
“our
nation” is this Iran, is this the Arab world, is this Lebanon? But
Lebanon has no oil. Is this plain Iran or “Arab Nation” demagoguery,
or is
this actually a sign of common sense that propels him to say we should
not
rely on Middle East oil?
We know that Hezbollah is a military organization backed by Iran and
Syria
and its terrorism reached to Argentina. In any case, with President
Bush
advocating now the incorporation of Nasrallah’s Hezbollah into the
politics
of Lebanon, based on the fact that today over 10% of the Lebanese
parliament
are Hezbollah supporters, I wonder what does Washington think about the
MEMRI report?

At the UN, with the Secretary-General just back from the Middle East,
and
the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Implementation of the
Security
Council Resolution calling for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon (SC
Resolution
1559) just back from meeting the Syrian President at Aleppo, an
official
statement was released that says “the Secretary-General expects the
full
withdrawal of all Syrian troops, including the intelligence apparatus
and
military assets, to take place before the Lebanese parliamentary
elections…. the elections to be free and fair and take place as
scheduled”.
At the UN Department of Public Information Press Conference, at noon,
it
became clear Mr. Terje Roed-Larsen, the Special Envoy, is in dialogue
with
the Presidents of Syria and Lebanon, but he can not give out the
details of
the dialogue, neither can he say that the Secretary-General’s
understanding
(which is concurrent with the American President’s demands, and backed
by
everyone else) is indeed also the understanding of the Syrian and
Lebanese
Presidents. In effect, my clear feeling was that it is not. To the
question about Syrian arms left behind for the use of Hezbollah, Mr.
Roed-Larsen said that it is the SG’s understanding that they are
removed as
military assets, and we can hope that at this stage the weapons are
moved at
least to the Bekaa Valley and are not left on the borderline with
Israel
were Nasrallah would like to have them. Mr. Roed-Larsen could also not
name
any Syrian intelligence officers that left Lebanon and returned to
Syria.
Even though some Syrian intelligence offices were closed in Beirut,
what
evidence is there of them leaving Lebanon? What guarantees exist that
the
one- third, and two third, movements to the Bekaa Valley mean actual
withdrawal from Lebanon?
In short, the SG’s understanding seem not be based on clear Syrian
promises.

After leaving the dim UN DPI-PC, going out to the New York streets, one
was
greeted by the green clad folks celebrating San Patrick’s day. I could
not
but think that I wish these folks take a stand on recommending U2’s Bono
for
President of the World Bank. A fresh breeze is required in order to
come up
with clear improvement to the world’s ailments.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day and don’t think of the IRA either!