Lebanon’s hour of agony

By Robert Fisk


Sunday July 23

TO Sidon. Ed Cody has found a cool, 120-mile-an-hour driver called Hassan — he has a black Mercedes which I nickname “Death Car” (because that will be the fate of anyone who gets in our way) and we zip down the coast road and turn east into the hills at Naameh, where the Israelis have just blown the bridge.

Thirty years ago, Cody was an Associated Press correspondent in Beirut and taught me how to cover wars. Cody is from Oregon, a slim, brilliant, highly subversive journalist who is now Beijing correspondent for the Washington Post. A great guy to travel with, eyes sharp for F-16s, brave without being a poseur, fluent in Arabic, he understands the dirty war we are watching and thrives on cynicism.

“Look,” he says, pointing to a blown-up highway interchange. “It’s a terrorist bridge! And if you take the road to Zahle, you’ll find a burned out terrorist flour and grain lorry!” If the world became a better place, I fear Cody would contemplate suicide.

Sidon is full of Shia refugees, and I hunt down Ghena Hariri, daughter of Sidon’s MP and niece of murdered ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri. She is a Georgetown graduate and reckons three more Hezbollah buildings will be bombed in her city. The Israelis have just bombed a Hezbollah mosque. Cody and I mosey over to take a look at the crushed cupola, and the local Lebanese “Squad 112” — a kind of paramilitary police — arrive to shoo us away.

We race back to Beirut, joining the coastal highway south of the city. It is a bleak, desolate, empty road and we watch the sky, detouring round the airport, the air filled with smoke from burning oil tanks and the vibration of another massive Israeli bomb on the southern suburbs just as we pass.

Monday July 24

To southern Lebanon on a humanitarian convoy. No problems as far as Zahle in the Beka’a — though we pass Cody’s “terrorist” flour truck, a missile hole through the cab door — and then turn south towards Lake Qaraaoun. A bright, wonderful day of sun and fluffy clouds, and then the scream of high-flying jets. We watch the skies again. I’m becoming an expert on light and cumulus clouds.

In the middle of a field of tomatoes, I see a London bus. I turn to the driver. “Isn’t that a London bus?” I ask, like the man who sees the sheep in a tree in ‘Monty Python’. “Yes, that’s a London bus.” It is. It’s a great bright red Routemaster double decker. In the Beka’a Valley. In Lebanon. During the war.

Seventeen miles south and the road is blown up, craters in the middle and narrow tracks on the edge for our vehicles to pass. One Israeli bomb has blown away most of the road above a 60ft chasm and it reminds me of that scene in ‘North West Frontier’ where Kenneth More has to manoeuvre a steam locomotive over a blown-up railway bridge, on which the tracks are still connected but there’s nothing underneath. More turns to Lauren Bacall and says: “Of course, it’s one of my hobbies, driving trains over broken railway bridges.”

We inch forward along the narrow section of road and the stones spit out beneath our wheels. The vehicle starts to lean to the right and I lean to the left. So does the driver. Then we are across and turn our heads to see how the second driver copes. North of Khiam, I can see fires burning in the forests of northern Israel and smoke drifting from Metullah, and hear the thump of shells into Lebanon. Great weather. Pity about the war.

Tuesday July 25

I prowl around Marjayoun, the Christian town wedged between two slices of Hezbollah territory. This was the headquarters of Israel’s brutal South Lebanese Army proxy militia, and there are still a lot of ex-SLA men here, all with Lebanese mobile phones, but a few of them, I suspect, with Israeli ones. No shells fall on Marjayoun — not yet — so the locals gather at Rashed’s Restaurant and watch the war. You can sit on the ridge and hear tank fire, Katyusha fire, bombs from jets and bombs from helicopters. Far across the valley, beside the old fort at Khiam, there is a UN post where four unarmed UN observers are watching the battle at first hand, reporting each shell burst.

Wednesday July 26

Indian UN soldiers bring what is left of the four observers to the rundown hospital in Marjayoun. All day they had been reporting Israeli shellfire creeping closer to their clearly marked position. An officer in the UN’s headquarters at Naqoura phoned the Israelis 10 times to warn them of their fall of shot, and 10 times he had been promised that no more shells would fall close to the Khiam post.

But the four soldiers did not run away — as the Israelis presumably hoped they would — and so yesterday (July 25) evening an Israeli aircraft flew down and fired a missile directly into their UN position, tearing the four brave men to pieces and flattening their building. I notice that they are brought to the hospital in unwieldy black plastic bags, apparently decapitated. One of the Indian soldiers is wearing a turban, painted the same pale blue as the UN flag.

The schools of the region are now crammed with refugees, white flags on the roofs. I go to a classroom where 15 Shia families are squatting on the floor. The lavatories are blocked, the place stinks of urine. “What are you doing to us?” a dark-haired man with a heavily lined face asks me quietly. How should I reply? I just remain silent and say “Haram” in Arabic. It means shame or pity, depending on the context, which I am happy to leave vague.

Thursday July 27

I sit with a French friend on a small hill, looking across southern Lebanon at dusk, watching aircraft swooping like eagles on to patches of scrub and blasting rocks and trees into the air. To our left, Israeli artillery is ranged on to a house this side of Khiam. The first shell bursts in a bubble of flame and there is a double report, then a barrage of fire consumes the house and we can see bits of it high in the air, then more bubbles and eventually a grey cloud of smoke covers the wreckage.

All over southern Lebanon, the dead are sandwiched between the floors of bombed houses.

To Nabatea at lunchtime, a few shops bravely open amid the rubble of houses on the main road, a market blasted across the fields and then, just by Arab Selim, a plane puts a bomb on the bridge in front of our vehicle and we beat a hasty retreat from this unpleasant ambuscade and return to the sanctuaire of our little house on the hill.

Friday July 28

At 3am, a huge bombardment starts across the valley over Beaufort Castle, the massive Crusader keep to the west. It looms over us as 46 shells ripple across the next-door village of Arnoun. My mobile phone rings. An American journalist is walking south of Tibnin towards the Hezbollah-Israeli battle at Bint Jbail — a wise precaution because all cars are now prey to Israel’s eagles — and has found two wounded Druze men lying by the road. One of them cannot stand. Can I help? I am 15 miles away. “Can I tell them they will be rescued?” Don’t lie to them, I say. Tell them you will try to get help. I promise to call the Red Cross.

I phone Hisham Hassan at the ICRC in Beirut and tell him the precise location. Both men are lying by a smashed roadside stall with an orange flag in the ground, a kilometre past a road sign which says “Welcome to Beit Yahoun” and next to a huge bomb crater. Hisham promises to call the Tibnin Red Cross ambulance centre. Ten minutes later, I get a text message: “Red Cross on the way.” Angels from heaven.

I start my way back to Beirut on another convoy, grinding back over the same dangerous roads and past the same bomb craters. There are new ones, and a man shouts that we must detour down a dirt track. “Big rocket on road,” he says, and that’s good enough for me. We trail past an old, tree-shrouded cemetery. Three hours later, we stop for sandwiches in a Christian town, among people who traditionally despise Hezbollah. I find that they are all watching Hezbollah’s station, and when I talk to them, an old man says he believes Hezbollah tells the truth.

Saturday July 29

Home. I shower and sleep in my own bed and hear the wash of the Mediterranean on the rocks below my window. I receive a call from a Turkish journalist to talk about the 1915 Armenian genocide and do an interview with a New Zealand television crew who are about to set off for southern Lebanon with “TV” written in giant silver letters on the roof of the car. I don’t think it will help them.

A call from DHL. Proofs of the paperback edition of my book have arrived from London. Someone drove them and DHL’s other parcels from Amman to Damascus and then — beneath the jets — across the Beka’a to Beirut. I get a bill for $30 for the extra risks involved in the freight transit. Then go through my notes of the week for this diary. I find that my handwriting briefly collapsed after the air attack on Thursday. I was so frightened that I could hardly write.

I sit on the balcony and read Siegfried Sassoon. Cody also reads to calm himself in war. But Cody reads Verlaine. — (c) The Independent

As Lebanon bleeds

By Najmuddin A. Shaikh


THE devastating bomb attack on Qana, a village that suffered a similar assault in 1996, highlights the ruthlessness of the Israeli air campaign against Lebanon. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was able to secure a pledge from the Israelis to halt air attacks for 48 hours to allow for an investigation into the Qana bombing and to enable civilians to leave the area.

The refusal of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to welcome her in Beirut until an unconditional ceasefire had been agreed upon, the strain that the current US policy is placing on relations with Europe and the anxiety of friendly Arab governments are some of the messages that she has taken back to Washington.

She also had to note that Israel followed its own interpretation of the temporary halt in attacks and that it recommenced aerial bombing within 24 hours on the grounds that it reserved the right to resume air action to support ground troops or stave off threats. The Israeli action belied what was generally perceived as Ms Rice’s one solid achievement in an otherwise fruitless Middle East visit. It may have made her realise that proteges very often develop ideas of their own and are prepared to disregard the demands of their mentors and benefactors. It is also possible, as much of the world is inclined to believe, that the Americans never wanted the Israelis to stop the bombing or to ease the ferocious assault.

Blind support for Israel has been an article of faith with the Bush administration. Had this not been so there would perhaps have been greater criticism of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose visit to the Al Aqsa mosque in September 2000 sparked the second Intifada and provided the excuse the Israelis needed to halt the Oslo accords and the roadmap.

Had this not been so the Bush administration would have pursued more assiduously the tentative agreement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators reached in Taba in January 2001, shortly before Sharon took office as Israeli prime minister. The agreement called for Israel to vacate between 93 to 96 per cent of the occupied territories. The area that remained with Israel was to be compensated for by ceding Israeli territory elsewhere.

Resistance to such policies by the more sensible elements of the Washington foreign policy establishment was silenced by the traumatic events of 9/11. The neo-conservatives, who dominate the corridors of power in the Bush administration, argued that only Israel could protect American interests in the Middle East. This sort of reasoning was also helped by the growing strength of the Christian right. A 2003 Pew Research Centre poll found that 36 per cent of Americans believe that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming of Jesus and that Israel must be supported if this was to occur.

Has such an attitude in Washington been encouraged by Arab actions? Martin Indyk, American ambassador in Israel under President Bill Clinton, maintained in a recent online discussion in the Washington Post that “for eight years, President Clinton and his peace team dedicated themselves to trying to achieve a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace that would have met the reasonable requirements of the Palestinians and the Syrians. Those deals included formal offers, accepted by Israeli governments, of all of the Golan Heights, all of Gaza, and 95-97 per cent of the West Bank (with territorial compensation for the rest)...We thought that’s what the Arabs wanted. That’s certainly what they told us they wanted. So I fail to understand the argument that we didn’t take their needs and requirements into account.”

Certainly there is exaggeration here. The Palestinians had not rejected these proposals as was evident from the tentative Taba agreement. There was minor disagreement on the territory and major differences on the issue of the “right of return” for the Palestinian diaspora. Once the Sharon government came into power and Bush had been elected, it became clear that implementation was virtually out of the question. There is no doubt, however, that fearful of their own extremists the Palestinians never expressed their unequivocal acceptance of such proposals.

In the present crisis, too, Hezbollah and Hamas are both now saying that the capture of Israeli soldiers played into Israeli hands. In an article in the Washington Post, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said, “The current Gaza invasion is only the latest effort to destroy the results of fair and free elections held early this year...The ‘kidnapped’ Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago.”

The Guardian reported on July 26 that “Mr Nasrallah said the US-Israeli ‘assessment’ had identified obstacles to their vision of a ‘new Middle East’ and had set out to eliminate them. He said Israel had been looking for a pretext to launch an offensive; the abduction of two of its soldiers two weeks ago gave it the perfect excuse”. There is no doubt that the Palestinians had legitimate grievances but did providing “the perfect excuse” to Israel resolve these grievances or give them a public relations victory?

I mention the contribution of Arab elements to the crisis because a day after my last article appeared, a senior colleague, whose capacity for dispassionate analysis I had long admired, telephoned to say that he felt my article had been too “soft” on Israel and had not highlighted enough the Israeli role in creating the crisis while focusing on what the Hamas and Hezbollah had done to precipitate the crisis.

I am not sure whether I was able to convince him of the validity of my thesis that given the current correlation of forces it was a major miscalculation on the part of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders if the purpose was to further the Palestinian cause, and highly irresponsible if the purpose was to protect the interests of individual leaders or groups. I sensed I was being told that Khalid Meshal and Hasan Nasrallah had no choice but to do what they did because in the face of Israeli intransigence and American support there was no hope of any just solution emerging.

This is a point that the Americans will need to ponder. In their view, encouraging and abetting the Israelis in the destruction of Hezbollah, with no regard for the colossal damage done to Lebanon, is “a draining of the swamp”, an obliteration of a terrorist group and the destruction of a strategic weapon that “terrorist Iran” could wield against Israeli and American interests in the Middle East.

The reality, however, is that all they succeeded in doing is to convince even their most ardent supporters in the Muslim world and ordinarily dispassionate analysts that no justice can be expected, that no Muslim life is precious and that no Muslim property worth saving.

The Americans know that on this issue they are isolated not only from their Arab friends but also from the Europeans with whom they had been seeking to build bridges after the serious split that Iraq occasioned. The Sunni Arab states may have misgivings about the growth of Shia power but that is subsumed by their outrage at the destruction of Lebanon and the growing perception that Israel, with American support, is intent on destabilising all countries in the Middle East.

From the perspective of the international community, the Americans are not eliminating a terrorist threat but merely ensuring that the ranks of the extremists in the Islamic world will grow and that further centres of terrorism like the one created in Iraq and the one that is now gaining strength in Afghanistan will sprout in other parts of the world. With American assistance the Israelis can destroy Hezbollah’s military power and with it Lebanon. But the movement will live on and will find many new recruits not only from the Shia population of southern Lebanon but from further afield.

Rejecting a ceasefire until it can be made “sustainable” is clearly a delaying tactic designed to give Israel time to destroy Hezbollah. It is nonsensical to believe, given the experience with the deployment of Nato in Afghanistan, that such a force can be assembled and provided with an agreed mandate and agreed rules of engagement in a week’s time. Nato took months to work out the mandate and to agree that different national units would have different rules of engagement in Afghanistan. Many countries insisted that such deployment be debated by the elected representatives before the forces went out.

Why should it take less time now? It is also nonsensical to believe that a sustainable ceasefire can be brought about by the injection of an international force. What will be the mandate of such a force? Will it be to help the Lebanese army to prevent the rearming of Hezbollah? How? The Lebanese army is almost one third Shia and its loyalties will lie at least in part with their co-religionists in Hezbollah. Will it be to wave a magic wand and solve the difficulties that have bedevilled Israel-Lebanon relations over the last many years?

Clearly, these problems need to be negotiated between Israel and Lebanon with the active but neutral assistance of the international community and the Americans, primarily the latter. This requires, as the international community has been demanding, an unconditional ceasefire and the commencement of negotiations.

If this does not happen, Hezbollah will become along with a Hamas led by Khalid Meshal the new symbol of Arab resistance. President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Haniyeh in Palestine and moderate Lebanese leaders like Prime Minister Siniora and Saad Hariri in Lebanon will be eclipsed.

All the “moderate” governments already condemned by the Arab masses as supine and subservient to America will cower and look desperately for ways to maintain their hold on power, becoming not more democratic but more dictatorial. As one observer put it, Al Qaeda will run out of enrolment forms as angry Arabs and Muslims flock to their recruitment centres.

If the past is any guide the first victims of the new situation will be the Muslim countries where “peaceful demonstrations” will turn violent. The next will be Muslims in the West as increasingly provocative statements fan fears of terrorist attacks in Europe and America and bring resident Muslims under greater suspicion.

The American way of life, already under threat from the measures taken by the Department of Homeland Security, CIA and the National Security Agency, will be further jeopardised as new sources of terrorist attacks arise and as oil prices increase.

Is this what America wants? Is there no lesson the neo-conservatives are prepared to learn from the current chaos in Iraq and the threatening one in Afghanistan? It may be hard to achieve in an election year and at a time when influential people see Israeli and American interests as congruent but one hopes against hope that saner counsel will prevail and that the Americans will move the world back from the brink of the abyss on which it now stands.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.

Lebanon war and US interests

By Javid Husain


“THE relationship between the US and Israel is like that of a dog and the tail,” remarked an American diplomat in a friendly conversation with me some time ago. “The only difference is that in the case of the US and Israel, the tail (Israel) wags the dog (the US),” he added to drive home the nature of this relationship.

I was reminded of these remarks when I read that both the US Senate and the House of Representatives had adopted with near unanimity resolutions of total support to Israel in its ongoing conflict with Lebanon. Apparently no attempt was made in either of the two legislative organs to look at the situation in the region in perspective and draw the right conclusions for the long-term interests of the US in the region.

We are all aware that Hezbollah launched a guerilla attack across the Israel-Lebanese border on July 12 as a result of which two Israeli soldiers were captured, eight killed and two wounded. Israel launched air attacks on Lebanon the following day. These attacks which have continued since then have killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians, displaced over 800,000 people, and destroyed Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure including roads, ports and airports, bridges and houses worth over $ one billion. Since July 19, Israeli land forces have also been operating in the Lebanese border areas to search and destroy Hezbollah bases. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has continued firing rockets at Israeli border towns causing some casualties and limited damage to Israeli infrastructure.

Israel has so far rejected all calls for an immediate ceasefire. Its prime minister Ehud Olmert, has outlined three conditions for the military operations to end: disarming Hezbollah in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, ending rocket attacks from Lebanon on Israeli towns, and the return of the two captured soldiers. On the other hand, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has announced that a prisoner exchange is the only way to secure the release of the two captured Israeli soldiers. Quite obviously, Hezbollah would resist attempts for disarming the group.

It would, however, be a mistake to consider the Hezbollah attack on Israeli soldiers an isolated event. The attack needs to be seen in the wider context of the calculated attempts by Israel to derail the peace process initiated by the Quartet’s roadmap, its continued occupation of Arab territories not only in Palestine but also in Syria (Golan Heights) and in Lebanon (Shebaa Farms), its denial of national rights to the Palestinian people, its policy of creating Palestinian Bantustans instead of allowing the establishment of an independent and viable state side by side with Israel, its frequent and indiscriminate attacks on Gaza resulting in the loss of innocent lives and material destruction, and innumerable acts of atrocities against the Palestinians.

Israel’s aggressive activities and atrocities against the Palestinians and the inability of the international community to check the former have radicalised the situation in Palestine and Lebanon. The failure of the Arab states to play their due role in the restoration of national rights of the Palestinian people and the recovery of occupied Arab lands has provided an opportunity to non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas to gain prominence in the Palestinian/Arab struggle against Israel.

It was against this background that on June 9, 2006 Hamas, in response to the killing of seven members of a young family on a Gaza beach by shells fired by Israeli forces, formally ended a 16-month truce by firing rockets at Israel. On June 25, an Israeli soldier was captured by Hamas in a cross-border attack which left two Israeli soldiers dead. Israel launched military operations in Gaza to free the Israeli soldier after rejecting the proposal by Hamas to exchange the captured Israeli soldier for Palestinian officials in Israeli prisons. Seen in this context, the Hezbollah attack of July 12 has opened a second front for Israel.

It has been Israel’s attempt to project the Hezbollah attack as an isolated event without any background and history, and to portray its indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon as legitimate acts of self-defence. In this attempt, it has largely succeeded particularly in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe. President Bush has unequivocally backed Israel’s right to defend itself while urging it to exercise restraint and avoid weakening the Lebanese government. Russia and France have criticised Israeli attacks on Lebanon as merely disproportionate.

The G-8 summit statement issued from St. Petersburg on 16 July avoided calling for an immediate ceasefire in view of the US opposition and instead laid down a list of conditions for a sustainable ceasefire including the cessation of rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel, an end to Israeli military operations in Lebanon and the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza, the return of Israeli soldiers, release by Israel of arrested Palestinian ministers and lawmakers, disarming of Hezbollah in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and a request to the Security Council to consider the deployment of an international force to prevent cross-border attacks between Lebanon and Israel. The Israeli game plan is to use the opportunity provided by the current situation to crush the Arab/ Palestinian resistance by militarily degrading the capabilities of both Hamas and Hezbollah through attacks in Gaza and Lebanon. According to the New York Times, the Bush administration has given a green signal to Israel in its attempt to militarily subdue Hezbollah. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the US has stalled all international calls both at the UN and elsewhere for an immediate ceasefire despite the death and destruction caused by Israel to civilians in Lebanon with no apparent connection to Hezbollah’s activities.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice resisted calls for an immediate ceasefire by Lebanon and the Arab states, which were backed by countries such as France and Russia, at the international meeting held at Rome on July 26. She said that the root causes must be addressed first to make the ceasefire sustainable. This, in the US view, would involve the disarming of Hezbollah in accordance with UNSC resolution 1559 and the stationing of an international security force to monitor the Israel-Lebanese border. While the multilateral negotiations at the UN Security Council to achieve these objectives will take time, Israel has interpreted the failure of the talks at Rome as a green light to continue its assaults on Lebanon in blatant violation of international humanitarian law and the principles of the UN charter.

Even the Qana air attack, which resulted in the death of 60 Lebanese civilians including 37 children, merely led to a 48-hour suspension of aerial attacks by Israel and a UNSC presidential statement (issued on July 30) expressing shock over the incident and underscoring the urgency of a sustainable ceasefire but not demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities as had been recommended by the UN secretary general.

The near-total support extended by the US to Tel Aviv not only reflects the deep and pervasive influence of the Israeli lobby in American politics, which has been analysed in depth in a recent American study, but also the fact that the Israel’s attempts to crush the Arab/Palestinian resistance, after having subdued the Arab states in its quest for total security, are viewed by the neo-con dominated Bush administration to be in consonance with US strategic goals in the region.

Those US strategic goals in the Middle East are the reconfiguration of the political map of the region to prevent the possibility of any challenge to US supremacy in the Middle East, the tightening of its stranglehold on the oil and gas resources of the Middle East, and the strengthening of the security of Israel as a US outpost in the region. The invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were meant to serve these strategic goals more than anything else.

By now the US has pliant states almost everywhere in the Middle East, with the exception of Syria and Iran which have not yet fallen in line with US demands relating to Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. This is the real reason for US hostility towards these two states. Similarly, non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are resisting Israeli acts of aggression thus deviating from the path dictated by Washington, are like thorns in Washington’s eyes. It is strange that while the US considers the Arab/Palestinian resistance to Israeli aggression and occupation indefensible, it justifies Israeli attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians as legitimate acts of self-defence.

In view of the intertwining of the strategic goals of the US and Israel, and the pervasive influence of the Israeli lobby in the US, it is unrealistic to expect Washington to play the role of an honest broker in the realisation of a just settlement of the Palestine issue and the Arab-Israel conflict. The Quartet’s roadmap for a peaceful settlement of the Palestine issue, which has now been declared dead by the Arab League secretary-general, was, therefore, still-born in any case.

Ironically, the biased policies that the US is pursuing in support of Israel and Washington’s pursuit of hegemonic designs in the region are generating such a strong reaction in the Arab and the Muslim world that in the long run they will prove to be counterproductive and defeat the very strategic goals which they are supposed to achieve. Even if the US and Israel succeed in crushing Hamas and Hezbollah, other resistance movements may succeed them as long as the fire of freedom remains alive in the hearts of the Arabs and the Palestinians. Similarly, the growing anti-American sentiments in the Arab and the Muslim world may result in the overthrow of moderate and pro-US governments in the region. The ultimate fate of the US policies towards the Middle East, if not corrected in time, may, therefore, turn out to be like the denouement of a Greek tragedy.

The writer is a former ambassador. E-mail: javid_husain@yahoo.com

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.