From an Associated Press dispatch today (carried in the Globe and Mail):
"Meanwhile, Lebanon sought support from fellow Arabs at an emergency session of foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. But sharp rifts erupted as moderate Arab states denounced Hezbollah for starting the conflict. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called the group's actions 'unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible,' telling his counterparts: 'These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.' Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, delegates said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. Another camp, led by Syria, defended Hezbollah as carrying out 'legitimate acts in line with international resolutions and the U.N. charter, as acts of resistance,' delegates said." * * * Is this report accurate? The Palestine and Iraq delegations aligned with the Saudi, Egyptian, and Jordanian regimes in condemning Hezbollah? The Palestinian foreign minister is Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader. If the Palestinian representative had been appointed by the President rather than the PA government, I'd have better understood his stance, given how far removed from its own mass base and opposed to Hamas and the rest of the Islamist bloc Abbas and the Fatah leadership is. But a Hamas minister condemning Hezbollah? The Iraqi government, of course, is sponsored by the US and welcomes its military assistance against the Sunni insurgents, and it's foreign minister is a Kurd, so on the surface it's position doesn't seem unusual. But the government is still nevertheless dominated by Iraq's Shia parties (Sadrists, SCIRI, Dawa), all with close ties to Iran, and I'd have thought this would have counted for something, perhaps at least abstention, given the conflicting pressures on the Shia leaders. There has had to have been a more than a little consultation between the Iraqi Shia parties and between them and the Iranians preceding this meeting, no? Anyone know more about it and, especially, about the stance taken by the Palestinians? And, in relation to Iraq, about Sadr's role in particular? He's hinted the Mahdi Army might attack US troops, with whom they've recently again been skirmishing, as a result of the Israeli aggression, so it's hard to see how the stance of the Iraqi government, to which the Sadrists belong, could sit well with him.
