Iraqis Flee to Kurdish North in Search of Safety

By Barry Newhouse Irbil 06 June 2007

Download

The U.N. refugee agency reported this week that some 4 million Iraqis have been displaced by the war and more than half of those have left the country. The rest are looking for a safe haven in Iraq, and some of those have found it in Iraq's Kurdish north. VOA's Barry Newhouse visited an office keeping track of the displaced Iraqis and has this report.

A worker in the residency office for the Kurdistan Regional Government stamps documents for newly arrived Iraqis in a crowded waiting room. Most of the people here are Sunni Arabs who have come from Baghdad, Mosul and Ramadi. Many of them refuse to talk about their plight.

One man says the situation in Baghdad has become so dire, that despite the ongoing security operation, this week he finally decided to leave.

Displaced resident 'Bashar' at work in an Irbil barbershop

He says he faced many problems in Baghdad from terrorist gangs and from Iraqi security forces that have sectarian agendas. He says the dangers and the economic situation became so bad that he had to flee.

This office issues permits for one of Iraq's three Kurdish-controlled provinces. Since 2005, it has granted temporary residency permits to nearly 30,000 people - a small fraction of those in need.

U.N. refugee agency officials say fleeing Iraqis have overwhelmed local governments in some areas of the country. But U.N. officials also have criticized regions that turn away people who need assistance.

Kurdish security forces restrict entrance to fleeing Iraqis at tightly controlled checkpoints, denying entry to people considered security risks. In general, Kurdish officials say they let in professional workers, such as doctors and engineers, or those who can have a local resident vouch for them.

Recently arrived Arabs in Kurdistan say they understand the need for controlling access.

This man says that he is not disturbed by the practice, because there are some
Iraqis who work with terrorist gangs, and the Kurdish forces must protect the region.

Those Iraqis who qualify for entry say staying in Iraqi Kurdistan is much better option than fleeing to Syria or Jordan. This businessman from Baghdad says in Syria, Iraqi refugees live in a legal limbo, in constant threat of deportation.

He says many families sell their homes and their possessions and go to Syria. But there, even if they have the permit from the U.N. refugee office, they will spend all of their savings, because there are no jobs. He says life there is expensive. In Kurdistan, he says, you can work.

But the influx of wealthy Iraqis has pushed up the cost of living for Irbil residents as well. This Iraqi man, who has arrived recently, says he understands the locals are getting upset.

He says we know that rents are getting high, and it is bad for the poorest people here. But, he says, "We don't have a choice."

U.N. officials say the plight of Iraqis fleeing violence is getting worse, yet calls for international help have brought few results.

In Irbil's residency office, several Iraqis said they were not looking for handouts, but merely a chance to start over after losing everything.

US Cool to Israeli Dialogue With Syria

By David Gollust State Department 06 June 2007

Download

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz discussed Syria, and the Iranian nuclear program, in a meeting Wednesday that opened an annual bilateral strategic dialogue. U.S. officials are making clear their misgivings about an early resumption of Israeli-Syrian talks. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.

Condoleezza Rice at the OAS meeting in Panama, 4 Jun 2007

The talks here were preceded by reports of Syrian overtures to Israel about possible negotiations, and comments by Mofaz about the need for Israel to test Syria's intentions.

However the Bush administration has been publicly cool to the idea, with some U.S. officials saying Syria may be seeking dialogue with Israel to relieve diplomatic pressure over its behavior in Lebanon and Iraq.

In comments after a 45-minute meeting between Rice and the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said the issue was raised at the meeting and that the Bush administration is unenthusiastic.

"Look, we're not going to manage Israeli foreign policy," he said. "They'll make their own decisions. But take a look at Syria's behavior over the recent past, and I don't think you're going to find many indications of Syria showing the rest of the world that they are interested in playing a constructive, positive role in trying to bring about a more secure, peaceful region."

For his part, Mofaz told reporters after the meeting Israel agrees with Washington that progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, rather than a Syrian track, should be the "first priority."

The former Israeli defense minister and army chief of staff confirmed that Israel has been monitoring Syrian military exercises near the Golan Heights, but he said his government believes the activity is mainly defensive in nature.

The meeting here, to be followed by more detailed U.S.-Israeli security discussions Thursday, also dealt with Iran and its nuclear program.

Mofaz said Israel is willing at least until year's end to allow diplomatic efforts to curb the Iranian program to produce results, while also stressing concerns about Iran's support for Lebanon's Hezbollah militiamen, with whom Israel went to war last year:

"Iran continues a military nuclear program, and I believe that diplomatic efforts should [be allowed to] bear results, until the end of 2007," he said. "Speaking about Iran, I would like to add that the Iranians are continuing to re-build and re-supply the Hezbollah, mainly with long-range rockets that endanger the southern and central parts of Israel."

Spokesman McCormack said both Mofaz and Secretary Rice expressed hope that the postponement of Wednesday's planned meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will be brief, that the leaders' dialogue, brokered by Rice earlier this year, will continue.

Officials say Rice is preparing another trip to the Middle East later this month that is expected to include a meeting in Cairo of the international Middle East Quartet and officials of the Arab League.

The Quartet, which includes the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, is seeking to revive Israel-Palestinian talks based on its 2003 Middle East peace "road map."

The Arab League, for its part, reaffirmed several weeks ago its 2002 overture offering Israel Arab-wide normalized relations if it reaches a peace deal with the Palestinians and withdraws to 1967 borders.

There are reports that Prime Minister Olmert and Mr. Abbas will be invited to the Arab League-Quartet meeting, but a senior U.S. diplomat said he could not confirm that.

Mr. Olmert is due to meet President Bush in Washington June 19, less than a week before the anticipated Cairo gathering on June 25.

In Egypt, Legacy of 1967 Defeat Still Burns

By Challiss McDonough Cairo 06 June 2007

Download

Egyptian airplanes are seen destroyed on the runway after being bombed by Israeli warplanes during the Six Day War, June 1967

As countries throughout the Middle East mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Six-Day War, the sting of the rapid military defeat is still sharply felt in Egypt and across the Arab world. Increasingly, critics are noting another side of the war's legacy, saying the humiliating military loss to Israel has been used to justify authoritarian rule. VOA Correspondent Challiss McDonough has more from Cairo.

The rapid and extreme military defeat stung all three Arab states that fought in the war. All three lost territory; in six days, Israeli troops took the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt.

For the people of Egypt, where then-revered leader Gamal Abdel Nasser had touted the country's military might as unparalleled, the defeat was especially shocking, because it shattered the nation's carefully cultivated myth of invulnerability.

Cairo resident Ahmed Awad was 22-years old at the time, and remembers the war well.

He says "In the beginning I can tell you that everyone truly believed that in two hours, we could invade Israel and seize it all, and that would be it, we would have taken it. Because what is this Israel? And how many millions are we?"

The Egyptian press tried to convince the people that they were winning the war. Awad, now 62, was then living in the town of Suez, near the canal. As he saw exhausted and battered Egyptian soldiers returning from Sinai, he slowly realized that the reports of victories were lies.

Political and military analyst Mohamed el-Sayed Said is a deputy head of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

Egyptian prisoners are guarded by Israeli troops after being captured near Al Arish in the Sinai during the Six Day War, June 1967

"The 1967 defeat was like throwing us all into the gates of Hell," he said. "It shocked us to the bones, and obviously changed dramatically the chemistry of political and cultural life in the country."

People in the Arabic-speaking world usually refer to the Six-Day War as "naksa," the Arabic word for setback. Originally, the term was aimed at downplaying the significance of the defeat. But this year especially, critics are saying the Arab world has suffered 1,001 setbacks since 1967.

In the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a political cartoon showed a man with a calendar, where every single day is June 5.

The lingering legacy is still felt acutely in Egypt, which at the time of the war was a leader of the Arab world. But in the 40 years since, Egypt has lost much of its stature. A newspaper columnist recently wrote that Egyptians blame the 1967 defeat for everything from price hikes to sexual impotence.

The complaints echo a common frustration with what many people here see as the stagnation or regression of Egyptian society in many areas, including education, culture, politics, the economy and even sports.

Mohammed el-Sayed Said says one legacy of the defeat is the rise of political Islam, as disappointment in Mr. Nasser's secular Pan-Arabism began to turn more and more young people toward Islamist movements. He says secular reformers, having failed in their bid to democratize Egypt, are "totally demoralized."

"Well when we reminisce over the last 40 years, the greatest frustration is not the defeat itself, it is in fact the failure of the reform movement to bring about democracy, because that was the focus of all political and cultural criticism that focused on explaining the 1967 defeat," Said said. "We have all come to agree that the defeat is caused by the lack of transparency, lack of checks and balances, lack of accountability and lack of, you know generally, democracy."

To mark the anniversary, Arab satellite TV stations are broadcasting grainy old television footage of the battles and speeches surrounding the war. Egyptian newspapers are full of bleak commentary, much of it critical of the Arab regimes.

An unsigned editorial in the Egyptian opposition weekly newspaper Al-Dustour said after 40 years, Egypt has failed to learn any true lessons from the war. The paper wrote "The lesson was clear: If we want victory over our enemies, we must build a democratic country."

But Al Dustour said after 40 years, Egypt is still ruled by one man "who always takes us backward while other nations move forward."

In the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, columnist Abdullah Iskandar blasted Arab leaders for failing to analyze and address the root causes of the defeat. He accused them of focusing more on retaining their own power. Iskandar says the 1967 war has been used as "a justification for despotism and totalitarianism, and a pretext to suppress Arab society."

He writes that "forty years ago, the choice was between a military regime resulting from a coup, or a pluralistic democratic system." He says today, the options are "a despotic ruler on the one hand, and fundamentalism and civil wars on the other."

Somali Radio Stations Silenced After Ethiopian PM's Visit

By Katy Migiro Nairobi 06 June 2007

Download

The Somali government has closed down three main FM stations in the capital, Mogadishu. Katy Migiro reports for VOA that the media clampdown follows a surprise visit by the Ethiopian Prime Minister aimed at shoring up confidence in the Somali government.

Shabelle Media Network, Horn Afrik and IQK, a Koranic radio station, were all shut down by a Somali government decree.

This is the second time these three radio stations have been targeted in the past six months. No reason has been given for this latest closure.

But announcer Mohamed Kawashito, of Radio Puntland that operates in the semi-autonomous northern region of Somalia, says private radio stations are shut down when they criticize the government. The stations have in the past been accused of pro-Islamic bias.

"Several times the traditional government has banned the Shabelle radio, Horn Afrik radio," he said. "We do not know the reason, but I think sometimes the local station and local media pointed to bad things or the bad situation in the central government or traditional government."

Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi (l) is welcomed by Somali PM Ali Mohamed Gedi (r) on his arrival at Mogadishu airport, 05 Jun 2007

Tuesday, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi paid a surprise visit to Mogadishu. Mr. Meles' trip was aimed at boosting the morale of his troops, which invaded and occupied Somalia in December, as well as that of Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi who survived a fourth assassination attempt on Sunday.

But the secretive nature of the unpublicized Meles trip only underscored how dangerous and violent the Somali capital is.

Nairobi-based Somali analyst Daudi Aweis compares Meles trip to the surprise visits by U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Iraq, which he fears Somalia is starting to resemble, especially in the increasing numbers of suicide attacks against targets regarded by some as supporting a foreign occupying force.

Aweis says the only solution to Somalia's problems is through negotiations, not violence.

"The best way forward is to have negotiations, because all these problems are well known," he said. "If they are discussed deeply, a solution can be obtained. But the military solution will not be the best option to solve these problems. Because if you try to defeat one side or to exclude one group from the Cabinet or from the government, it means that that group, according to their clan lines, they are going to regroup. It takes for them two or three years and they can come back. So the problem is there again."

Aweis believes there is little hope that progress will be made at the national reconciliation conference, due to open on June 14.

The transitional government has said it will not talk with the Islamic Courts, ousted in December, and the Islamic Courts say they will not come to the negotiating table until Ethiopian troops withdraw.

Iraqi Commander Defends Security Operation Despite Report Citing

By Barry Newhouse Irbil, Iraq 06 June 2007

Download

Iraqi police say two car bombs in a Shi'ite district of Baghdad have killed at least seven people and wounded more than 25 others. The Iraqi commander in charge of the Baghdad security plan has defended the operation's success, following an internal U.S. military report indicating progress in securing neighborhoods in the capital has been slow. Meanwhile, U.S. military says four American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, pushing the U.S. death toll in more than four years of war in the country toward 3,500. VOA's Barry Newhouse reports from northern Iraq.

Two massive car bombs exploded near Baghdad's most revered Shiite Muslim shrine, located in the capital's Kazimiyah district. Witnesses said the blasts appeared to target civilians in the Shi'ite majority district.

Large vehicle bombs continue to obstruct American and Iraqi efforts to secure the capital. In several raids Wednesday targeting al Qaida-linked car-bomb networks, U.S. forces killed two suspected terrorists and captured 10 others.

Iraqi police commandos man a checkpoint on Baghdad's Palestine street, 05 Jun 2007

A U.S. military report this week said efforts to secure the capital are moving more slowly than expected. An Iraqi military spokesman for the Baghdad security plan defended the operation, saying troops are changing tactics to clear violent neighborhoods.

General Qasim al Muslawi says commanders are rotating troops out of troubled neighborhoods and replacing them with larger numbers of soldiers. He also says he needs more cooperation from citizens to help limit the ability of terrorists to move around.

The success of the Baghdad security plan is key to stabilizing the country and strengthening Iraq's divided government. But many Iraqi and American lawmakers remain skeptical of its chance for success.

On Tuesday, a faction of lawmakers loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr pushed through legislation that will require Iraq's government to seek the approval of parliament before extending the U.N. mandate for U.S. forces. The current mandate expires December 31.

In an interview with an American radio network, NPR, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said if American forces leave Iraq, the situation could worsen.

Nouri al-Maliki (file photo)

Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki urged Iraqi forces to continue efforts to secure the country and to focus on pursuing foreign-supported militia groups.

The prime minister says some countries think Iraq is weak and the current situation is a chance for them to gain power by supporting militia groups. He says one, strong unified Iraq is the best thing for everyone.

Sectarian attacks continue to hurt efforts at unifying the country's numerous religious and ethnic groups.

On Tuesday, near the Shi'ite holy city Najaf, a close aide to the country's most revered Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani was killed at home. Police said unidentified gunmen drove by the house of Raheem al-Hasnawi, shooting him dead.

VOASE0606_Education Report

06 June 2007

Foreign Student Series: Studying Religion in the US
We look at one of the largest seminaries in North America in Part 40 of our Foreign Student Series.

Download
Download

This is the VOA Special English Education Report.

A Chinese woman studying business law in Japan has a question about studying a different kind of law. Wang Yuxian says she is a Christian and would like to know about theological seminary programs for foreign students in the United States.

A ceremony at St. John's Seminary in Boston

A theological seminary is a graduate school of religion and a professional school for training religious leaders.

Foreign students who want to study at a seminary in the United States apply just as they would to any other graduate school. They have to meet the academic and English language requirements and prove they would be able to pay for their studies.

Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, is one of the largest in North America. Today it has more than four thousand students from about seventy countries.

Fuller is one of two hundred fifty-three schools accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. An accredited school is one that has passed inspection by a rating group like the association. All of the schools are Christian. But other schools train leaders in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and other faith traditions.

The Fuller Theological Seminary opened in nineteen forty-seven. It has three schools: Theology, Intercultural Studies and Psychology. It also has a center for lifelong learning.

Students at Fuller can earn a doctor of ministry degree or more than twenty other graduate degrees. Examples include a master's degree in marital and family therapy and a master's in global leadership.

There are also degree programs taught in Korean and Spanish. And Fuller admits some students through its English as a second language program.

Some degree programs cost more than others. One year at Fuller can cost anywhere from twelve thousand to twenty-four thousand dollars.

International students can apply for scholarships and grants. But Fuller says that normally they will not be permitted to work during the time of their studies. The same is true for family members.

And that's the VOA Special English Education Report, written by Nancy Steinbach. We began our Foreign Student Series on higher education in the United States in September. We are almost at the end of the series. But all of the reports, including this one, can be found along with links to helpful sites at voaspecialenglish.com. I'm Steve Ember.

VOASE0606_The Making of a Nation

06 June 2007

American History: Jimmy Carter Wins the 1976 Presidential Election
The Democrat had been governor of the southern state of Georgia and, before that, a nuclear engineer and a peanut farmer. He defeated Gerald Ford, who took office after Richard Nixon resigned.

Download (Hell! This mp3 audio has 28.8MB! I will put it in the collection of this month.)
Download

VOICE ONE:

This is Rich Kleinfeldt.

VOICE TWO:

And this is Richard Rael with THE MAKING OF A NATION -- a VOA Special English program about the history of the United States.

(MUSIC)

Today, we tell about the presidential election of nineteen seventy-six.

VOICE ONE:

Gerald Ford is sworn-in by Chief Justice Warren Burger. At center is Ford's wife, Betty.

When Vice President Gerald Ford became president in nineteen seventy-four, he took office during a crisis. For the first time in American history, a president -- Richard Nixon -- had resigned.

He resigned as a result of the case known as Watergate. It involved the cover-up of illegal activities. Officials in Richard Nixon's administration had lied about Watergate. They also had misled the public about the war in Vietnam.

VOICE TWO:

After Vietnam and Watergate, many Americans no longer believed their public officials. At this difficult time, Gerald Ford dealt with the public calmly. In one speech, for example, he said, "The state of the Union is not good."

One political observer said President Ford brought respect back to the government. Yet just a little more than two years after Ford became president, American voters rejected him. In the presidential election of nineteen seventy-six, they chose the Democratic candidate, Jimmy Carter, instead. Why?

VOICE ONE:

One reason was that Ford had pardoned Nixon. He announced a presidential pardon for any crimes for which Nixon might have been responsible. This made many people angry. Another reason was that Ford refused to give federal money to New York and other cities with special needs. Many voters felt this showed that he was not concerned about poor people and their problems.

Others believe that unemployment and inflation defeated Gerald Ford. He was not able to deal effectively with these problems during his short presidency.

For these reasons, there was competition for the Republican Party nomination in nineteen seventy-six. Ford's chief opponent was Ronald Reagan, governor of California.

VOICE TWO:

The Democratic Party thought that voter anger about Watergate would help the Democratic candidate become president. Eleven Democrats campaigned for the nomination. Two well-known politicians did not campaign. But they said they would serve if no other candidate won the party's support. They were former Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Senator Edward Kennedy.

VOICE ONE:

One of the lesser-known candidates was the former governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter. Political experts gave him little chance of winning the nomination, because most Democrats did not know him. Whenever his supporters talked about him, others always seemed to say, "Jimmy, who?"

Carter used this problem to help win more recognition. Whenever he met voters, he would say, "Hello! I am Jimmy Carter, and I am running for president."

Jimmy Carter

VOICE TWO:

People liked Jimmy Carter. Before becoming governor of Georgia, he had been a nuclear engineer and a peanut farmer. Again and again, he told people that he was not part of the established political power system in Washington. He also had strong religious beliefs. This appealed to a lot of Americans.

Many voters supported Carter in the local Democratic primary elections before the party's nominating convention. His victory in the Florida primary was especially important. He defeated another southern politician, Governor George Wallace of Alabama.

VOICE ONE:

Carter represented what was called the "New South" in the United States. He made it clear that he opposed ideas of the "Old South". These included racial separation and mistreatment of black Americans.

George Wallace spoke of creating a better life for both blacks and whites. Yet he had strongly defended racial separation for most of his political life. Many people remembered pictures of Governor Wallace at the University of Alabama in nineteen sixty-three. The pictures showed him blocking the door to prevent two young blacks from attending the school.

(MUSIC)

VOICE TWO:

The Republican primaries had mixed results for President Ford. In New Hampshire, he won only fifty-one percent of the vote. Ronald Reagan won forty-nine percent. It was a poor showing for a president in office. But in Massachusetts he got two votes for every one vote that Reagan got.

Reporters said Ford and Reagan debated about issues that were not very important or interesting. The campaign did show, however, that Reagan was more conservative than Ford.

For example, Reagan talked strongly about United States control of the Panama Canal. "We built it," he said. "We paid for it. And we are going to keep it." In his campaign speeches, Ford denounced extremism. It was clear he was speaking about Reagan.

VOICE ONE:

Ford and Reagan won almost the same amount of support in the Republican primaries. Yet many convention delegates remained undecided. This was a dangerous situation for the Republican Party. Party leaders did not want a fight over undecided votes at the nominating convention. Such disunity could damage the chances of the party's candidate against the Democratic candidate in the general election.

VOICE TWO:

The situation was similar in the Democratic Party. As support for Jimmy Carter increased, Democrats who did not like him began to say, "Anybody but Carter." But Carter was not to be stopped. He kept repeating that he did not have ties to groups that tried to influence government policies. He would be different, he said. And that sounded like what the people wanted.

VOICE ONE:

Carter won the Democratic primaries in Georgia, Alabama, and Indiana. The other candidates fell hopelessly behind.

At the party convention, he was nominated on the first vote. In his acceptance speech, he repeated the line he had made famous: "I am Jimmy Carter. And I am running for president." Carter said there was a fear that America's best years were over. He said the nation's best was still to come.

The Democratic convention chose Walter Mondale, a senator from Minnesota, to be the party's vice presidential candidate.

VOICE TWO:

A month before the Republican Party convention, Ronald Reagan made a costly political mistake. He said that -- if he won the nomination -- he would want Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania to be the vice presidential candidate.

Conservatives were angry, because Schweiker was a liberal Republican. Some political observers say this is why Reagan lost the nomination to President Ford. Ford won by one hundred-seventeen votes.

Many of the delegates then wanted Reagan to be the party's vice presidential candidate. But Reagan was not interested. Instead, the nomination went to Senator Robert Dole of Kansas.

(MUSIC)

VOICE ONE:

The general campaign started in September nineteen seventy-six. In one speech, President Ford said, "The question in this campaign is not who has the better vision of America. The question is who will act to make the vision a reality."

Political experts said that what happened during the next two months was uninteresting. One newspaper said the campaign left the voters feeling sleepy.

Ford and Carter agreed to debate each other on television. Nobody had done that since Nineteen-Sixty, when Richard Nixon and John Kennedy held several television debates.

VOICE TWO:

Many people thought Ford did a little better than Carter in the first debate. In the second debate, however, President Ford made a mistake. He said the Soviet Union did not control eastern Europe -- and never would in a Ford administration. For some voters, the statement added to their belief that President Ford was not very intelligent.

The third debate did not have a clear winner. Public opinion studies showed that many voters were still undecided.

VOICE ONE:

Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter in the inaugural parade

The race for the presidency was very close. Jimmy Carter won with fifty-one percent of the popular vote. President Ford won forty-eight percent.

Two years before, most Americans had not known Jimmy Carter's name. Now, many of those same people had elected him the thirty-ninth president of the United States.

(MUSIC)

VOICE TWO:

This program of THE MAKING OF A NATION was written by Jeri Watson and produced by Paul Thompson. This is Richard Rael.

VOICE ONE:

And this is Rich Kleinfeldt. Join us again next week for another VOA Special English program about the history of the United States.

US Military Plays Down Baghdad Security Progress Report

By Barry Newhouse Irbil, Iraq 06 June 2007

Download

U.S. military commanders are playing down a military report that says the Baghdad security operation is moving more slowly than expected, with American and Iraqi forces now in control of about one third of Baghdad's neighborhoods. VOA's Barry Newhouse reports from northern Iraq that commanders say it is still too early to assess the security operation, now in its third month.

US helicopter over Baghdad

The report says U.S. and Iraqi forces are able to protect citizens and maintain influence over 146 of Baghdad's 457 neighborhoods. In other neighborhoods, US and Iraqi troops are still rooting out enemy fighters, or trying to disrupt insurgent operations before clearing can begin.

U.S. military officials say the report is an internal assessment tool and is not meant as a review of the effectiveness of the security operation. They say they expect to start seeing results from the operation later this summer.

U.S. Army Colonel Bryan Roberts commands U.S. forces in western Baghdad's al Karkh district, where he says Iraqi and American troops have succeeded in providing security for the district's 250,000 people.

In a televised press conference from Baghdad Tuesday, he attributed the success to the competence of the Iraqi commander he works with.

"I think this success that we're achieving right now will be long-term, it's depending largely on the Iraqi security forces who have stepped up to the plate and are performing quite nicely," said Colonel Roberts.

The military report says the Baghdad security operation has been slowed by Iraqi forces who have been unable to maintain security in cleared neighborhoods. The report says some Iraqi units lack sufficient manpower or have sectarian loyalties.

U.S. forces have had to revisit cleared neighborhoods to root out militants.

American commanders have warned of more U.S. casualties as troops clear Baghdad's insurgent-held neighborhoods. The 122 American troop deaths in May were the highest monthly tally in two years.

Iraqi casualties have also mounted as the security operation continues. The Iraqi government reported nearly 2,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in May, an increase of some 30 percent since April.

Palestinian President Warns of Civil War

By Jim Teeple Jerusalem 05 June 2007

Download

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, smiles while heading up a meeting with PLO executive committee in Ramallah, 04 Jun 2007

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is warning that factional infighting has put Palestinians on the verge of civil war. VOA's Jim Teeple reports from Jerusalem, the comments were made as the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah fought a three-hour gunbattle near the main commercial crossing point between the Gaza Strip and Israel.

In a somber speech to mark the occasion of the beginning of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Palestinian infighting was as dangerous to Palestinians as being occupied by Israel.

Mr. Abbas told Palestinians they had to stop fighting each other in order to re-establish a cease-fire with Israel. He also said the infighting was putting future talks with Israel in jeopardy.

The Palestinian president is scheduled to meet with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert later this week. In his speech, Mr. Abbas said he will try to start discussions about a final peace deal with Israel with Mr. Olmert.

Israeli officials say they will try to confine the talks to humanitarian issues, and will not discuss substantive issues because the current unity Palestinian government is dominated by Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel.

Hamas rejects peace talks with Israel and the idea of a two-state solution in the Middle East. Speaking to mark the occasion of the beginning of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, when Israeli forces conquered East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, a leading Hamas militant condemned Israel.

Haniyeh says all the obstacles Israel has put in front of Palestinians have made it impossible to build a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 War borders.

In the West Bank city of Hebron, about 200 Israeli protesters staged a demonstration against their country's occupation of the West Bank. The city is a frequent flashpoint for violence. About 500 Jewish settlers live in heavily fortified compounds in the center of Hebron surrounded by about 160,000 Palestinians.

Issues From 1967 Arab-Israeli War Remain Unresolved

By Jim Teeple Jerusalem 05 June 2007

Download

Forty years ago Tuesday, June 5, the 1967 Arab-Israeli War began. Lasting just six days, the war was an unqualified victory for Israel and a complete defeat for the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. As VOA's Jim Teeple reports, nowhere did the war have a greater impact than in Jerusalem, where - 40 years later - the future of this historic city and its residents remains unresolved.

Gamal Abdul Nasser's voice dominated the airwaves in early June, 1967. His threats against Israel, broadcast on his Voice of the Arabs radio station, raised tensions to a fever pitch, across the region.

Israeli soldier lines up captured Egyptian troops to be checked for identification, 06 Jun 1967

In May, Nasser had forced United Nations troops in the Sinai Peninsula to leave and blockaded Israeli shipping in the Red Sea. Israelis viewed the developments with foreboding - nowhere more so than in Jerusalem, a city divided between Jordan and Israel. Yisrael Medad was a student in 1967. He now directs information programs at the Menachem Begin Center and is an advocate for Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

"Jerusalem was always at the end of the highway from Tel Aviv and it was always sort of off on the periphery. So, for three weeks, it was very unsure of what was happening and there were many memories of earlier periods of a lack of confidence in the political leadership, a hesitation about military power and also about international guarantees," he recalls. "I must say it became very historical, in the sense of are we alone again."

On the morning of June 5, Israel launched air strikes against Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi airfields. In the days that followed, Israeli ground forces swept into the Sinai, up the Golan Heights and eastward to the River Jordan, fighting their way into the heart of Jerusalem's Old City and to the Western Wall. In six days, Israeli forces defeated three Arab armies and reunified Jerusalem. Yisrael Medad says the 1967 War resolved issues left over from Israel's War of Independence in 1948.

"You could say a lot of people felt that the '67 War was the last stage of the '48 War that had never been finished," he explains. "Here, we felt what should have happened in '48 - a very strong military and uncontested victory - made clear that Israel is here to stay and we are not temporary and foreign. That was a sense of emotion that ran through many people."

For Palestinians in East Jerusalem, who had lived under Jordanian sovereignty since 1948, the 1967 War opened old wounds. Many had fled to East Jerusalem from the western part of the city in 1948. As Israeli forces swept through their neighborhoods, there was great fear. Ziad Abu Zayyad worked for the Jordanian government in 1967. Now, he publishes the Palestine-Israel Journal, which examines issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. He says it soon became clear to Palestinians that Israel was in East Jerusalem to stay.

"While Israel said, at the beginning, the occupied territories would be a deposit until the Arabs accepted to speak with Israel and negotiate with Israel, Israel started in the '70's to establish Jewish settlements all over the occupied Palestinian territories," he says. "Now, after 40 years of this occupation, I look back and I see what happened during the 40 years. I believe Israel's policy of expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and changing the status and image of East Jerusalem and settling East Jerusalem with Jewish neighborhoods and building Jewish neighborhoods inside the Old City of Jerusalem - I think this policy undermines any solution to the conflict."

Palestinian refugee camp of Kalandia is seen behind section of Israel's separation barrier near West Bank city of Ramallah, 04 Jun 2007

Forty years after the 1967 War, more than 400,000 Jewish settlers are in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - living among 2.5 million Palestinians. In recent years, Israel has also constructed a three-meter-high barrier through East Jerusalem - part of its controversial West Bank Barrier. Israeli officials say the barrier is necessary to stop suicide bombers from attacking Israelis. However, Palestinians like Ziad Abu Zayyad say the barrier is a land grab that is destroying Palestinian East Jerusalem.

"No one should underestimate Israeli security fears and concerns. But, at the same time, Israel is using the wall to annex Arab territories. If Israel wants to wants to build a wall along the 1967 borders - the fourth of June borders - then there is no objection. But, when they build this wall in the heart of the West Bank, annexing thousands of dunams (hectares) from the West Bank, this is not accepted. The wall in Jerusalem is not dividing the Jews from the Arabs or the Israelis from the Palestinians. It is dividing Arabs from Arabs. You see the wall going through between the houses like a snake, separating a brother from his brother."

Israel says Jerusalem is its eternal capital and will never be divided again. Palestinians say East Jerusalem must be the capital of their future state.

Forty years after Israeli troops conquered East Jerusalem, the city is governmentally unified. But it remains solidly divided between two peoples.

VOASE0605_Health Report

05 June 2007

Unapproved Uses of Drug-Treated Heart Stents Questioned
Studies find risks in "off-label" use of the increasingly popular devices for keeping arteries open.

Download
Download

This is the VOA Special English Health Report.

A coronary stent is a small tube that is used to treat heart patients. The tube is made of

A stent is a tube of wire mesh

wire mesh. Doctors place it inside an artery that has narrowed. They expand the stent to hold the walls of the artery open so blood can flow normally to the heart. If an artery is blocked, people can suffer chest pain and heart attacks.

In most cases, a stent is left permanently in place to keep the artery open after a treatment called angioplasty.

Increasingly doctors use what is called a drug-eluting stent. This kind has medicine on it that is released slowly over time. The drug is designed to prevent the creation of scar tissue in the artery. Scar tissue can cause the artery to narrow again.

Millions of people now have drug-eluting stents. The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the first one in two thousand three. The devices are approved for use in patients with simple blockages and no history of a heart attack.

But once the F.D.A. approves a drug or other treatment, doctors do not have to follow only the approved uses. They may try other uses, including untested uses, if they think it could help their patients. This is called "off-label" use.

But recently some studies have questioned the safety of off-label use of drug-treated stents.

In early May, the Journal of the American Medical Association published two studies. These were based on the records of several thousand patients.

A stent maker, Cordis, helped pay for one of the studies. The study found that at one year, the patients with the least risk were those who met the conditions for approved or "on-label" use.

For example, restenosis, which is when the artery narrows again, was reported in four percent of those patients. Patients with more serious artery problems had rates of seven to eight percent. Still, the researchers say the number of patients affected was small.

Compared to the first study, the second study found a higher risk of problems with off-label use of drug-eluting stents. Millenium Pharmaceuticals and Schering-Plough helped pay for the second study. These companies make drugs that can be used in place of the stents.

Now, additional research is examining how outcomes could be affected by the methods that doctors use when they put a stent into a patient. We will discuss this part of the issue next week.

And that's the VOA Special English Health Report, written by Caty Weaver. I'm Katherine Cole.

VOASE0605_Explorations

05 June 2007

National Wildlife Refuge System: Protecting America's Furred and Feathered Friends
The Fish and Wildlife Service announces success in increasing the numbers of American's national bird, the bald eagle.

Download
Download

VOICE ONE:

I'm Steve Ember.

VOICE TWO:

And I'm Barbara Klein with EXPLORATIONS in VOA Special English. Today we tell about the National Wildlife Refuge System that protects wildlife in the United States.

(MUSIC)

VOICE ONE:

In nineteen-oh-three, the twenty-sixth president of the United States heard about a

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge

small island in the state of Florida that had many birds. President Theodore Roosevelt was told that hunters were killing most of the pelicans on the island. He soon decided the nation should protect these beautiful water birds.

President Roosevelt declared the island the first federal protection area for birds. This refuge was named the Pelican Island Reservation. It was established on a very small piece of land in the Indian River Lagoon, near the Atlantic Ocean. The island became the first protected area in what later would become the huge National Wildlife Refuge System.

VOICE TWO:

Today the Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest land network for managed and protected wildlife. The refuge system is part of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Among other duties, the system enforces the Endangered Species Act. This law protects wildlife threatened with disappearing from Earth. Wildlife refuges also help the environment. They help protect wetlands that control flooding and pollution.

VOICE ONE:

The refuge system has more than five hundred forty centers. They cover more than thirty-eight million hectares of land and water. Most are open to the public. More than thirty-nine million people visit them every year. Visitors can fish and hunt at more than half of these wildlife centers.

Activists say the refuge system is one of the nation’s greatest successes in protecting nature. National wildlife refuges exist in all fifty states and twelve American territories and possessions. Almost all the refuges contain water. Many of these refuges include national parks.

(MUSIC)

VOICE TWO:

Theodore Roosevelt served as president from nineteen-oh-one to nineteen-oh-nine. During that time he created fifty-one bird refuges in seventeen states and three territories. He also created five national parks and one hundred fifty national forests. Historians say it is especially interesting that President Roosevelt did this. The energetic former soldier was known for hunting large animals. History remembers him as one of America’s most important activists for wildlife.

VOICE ONE:

Before President Roosevelt declared Pelican Island a wildlife refuge, both Florida and the federal government had tried to protect America’s wildlife. Congress had enacted two laws aimed at wildlife protection. In eighteen sixty-nine, the lawmakers created a protected area in the Pribilof Islands of Alaska. The goal was to give seals a safe place to have their babies.

In eighteen ninety-four, Congress made it illegal to harm wildlife inside the huge Yellowstone National Park in the western part of the country.

VOICE TWO:

In nineteen-oh-one, a Florida law prevented shooting birds on Pelican Island for their feathers. But people disobeyed this law until President Roosevelt intervened. Some other animals were already threatened with disappearance when President Roosevelt took the first step toward a national conservation agency.

For example, many bison had lived in the western part of the country. But by the nineteenth century, hunters had killed hundreds of thousands of these big animals.

(MUSIC)

VOICE ONE:

Over the years the birds on Pelican Island have survived many threats. Human activities on the water produced waves that reduced the island’s shorelines. The island decreased to half its size. In nineteen sixty-eight, the refuge was expanded to protect nearby islands and wetlands.

In two thousand, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies and businesses provided money to restore the refuge. Mangrove trees and plants natural to the area replaced plant life that did not belong there. A lake was added. Experts restored tidal wetlands and a forest.

VOICE TWO:

To protect the island, visitors now watch the birds from the Centennial Trail on nearby land. A tower also was added so people can look at Pelican Island from above. Not long ago, a visitor was watching the island late in the day. Many huge birds were spreading their wings and floating against the darkening sky. The visitor said she will never forget that sight.

(MUSIC)

VOICE ONE:

A bald eagle sits on a nest in Cartersville, Georgia

Last month, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced its great success protecting America's most famous bird. It announced results showing the largest population of breeding bald eagles in the United States since the nineteen forties.

In nineteen sixty-three, there were only four hundred seventeen nesting pairs of bald eagles in the lower forty-eight states. This was an all-time low. Today, there are an estimated nine thousand seven hundred eighty-nine breeding pairs. This is an all-time high. Nesting or breeding pairs are a male and female that are able to reproduce.

You can find wild bald eagles in every state in the lower forty-eight states and in the District of Columbia. The state of Minnesota has the largest number of pairs of eagles, followed by Florida and Wisconsin. The three states all have more than one thousand pairs.

VOICE TWO:

The bald eagle is a large brown bird with a white head and tail. It is the national bird of the United States. The bald eagle is on the Great Seal of the United States, the presidential flag and the back of the dollar bill.

The bald eagle has been protected as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service says the bird needed protection because it was threatened by the widespread use of DDT, a chemical that kills insects.

VOICE ONE:

Starting in the nineteen forties, DDT was used to control mosquitoes and insects harmful to agriculture. When it rained, DDT washed off the soil and into waterways. There, plants and animals took in the chemical. Fish ate the plants and animals. And eagles ate the fish. DDT built up in the fatty tissues of female eagles. This prevented the formation of calcium needed to make strong eggshells. The female eagles produced eggs. But the eggshells were thin and broke when the birds sat on them to keep them warm.

VOICE TWO:

Rachel Carson was a biologist and writer for the Fish and Wildlife Service until nineteen fifty-two. She recognized the dangers of insect-killing chemical products, including DDT. But she also knew that the agriculture industry needed such pesticides for crop production.

In nineteen sixty-two, Carson produced a book, "Silent Spring," after years of research in the United States and Europe. It examined the effects of DDT and other pesticides on the health of people and animals. The book became a best-seller. And it caused fierce debate. In nineteen seventy-two, the United States banned the use of DDT.

VOICE ONE:

Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" launched the environmental protection movement in the United States. But she did not live to see it. She died in nineteen sixty-four.

May twenty-seventh was the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Rachel Carson. Many activities are being carried out across the United States to celebrate her life and work as an educator, scientist and writer.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is also celebrating the recovery of the bald eagle. The service is taking steps to remove the national bird from the federal list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

(MUSIC)

VOICE TWO:

This program was written by Jerilyn Watson and Shelley Gollust. Mario Ritter was our producer. I'm Barbara Klein.

VOICE ONE:

And I'm Steve Ember. You can download transcripts and audio archives of our programs on our Web site, voaspecialenglish.com. Join us again next week for Explorations in VOA Special English.

Germany Prepares to Host G8 Meeting

By Barry Wood Washington 04 June 2007

Download

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is set Wednesday to host the annual summit of the G8 leading industrial democracies plus Russia. VOA's Barry Wood reports a recent sharp deterioration in western relations with Moscow is casting a chill over the meeting that will take place at a Baltic Sea resort in eastern Germany.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, 31 May 2007

What a difference a year makes. Only 11 months ago Vladimir Putin proudly hosted the G8 leaders in St. Petersburg. It was an historic first for Russia which became a member of the summit club in 1997. Other members are the United States, Japan, Canada and four west European powers (Britain, France, Germany and Italy).

Enriched by oil and gas, a newly assertive Russia has clamped down on dissent at home and is at odds with the West over Iran, Kosovo and missile defense.

David Satter, a Russia specialist at the Hudson Institute in Washington, says western leaders need to be blunt with Mr. Putin.

"What we need to do is make it clear to the Russians that we're not going to check our freedom of speech at the door," said Satter. "That we fully intend to insist that they fully adhere to the principles of the organization of which they're a part."

Satter believes Russia should never have been admitted to the summit club.

"It doesn't really belong there now because the G8 is an organization of industrial democracies," he said. "Economically, Russia doesn't qualify even with its windfall gains in oil and gas revenues."

There are two new G8 leaders, Japan's Shinzo Abe and the new French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, 24 May 2007

Chancellor Merkel wants this year's G8 meeting to yield action on eliminating greenhouse gases and boosting aid to Africa.

Colin Bradford of the Brookings Institution, a Washington research organization, says action on climate change is possible, in part, because President Bush has modified his opposition to limits on carbon emissions.

"The American position on this [climate change] is changing and has changed in the last six to eight months since the U.S. election in the fall of 2006," said Bradford.

Democrats, who now control both houses of Congress, favor action against global warming.

Julianne Smith, foreign policy analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, says President Bush and the Europeans are eager to find common ground on climate change as a way of rebuilding the transatlantic cooperation that has been strained by the Iraq war.

"All of the leaders who will be there would welcome that development," said Smith. "So the instinct is, again, to move away from the shadows of Iraq and try and craft some new action points for the transatlantic partners."

Colin Bradford of Brookings says the G8 climate talks are taking on added importance because five additional countries are taking part.

"This will be a G8 plus five discussion on climate change that will include China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa," said Bradford. "The heads from those five countries will be for the first time involved fully in the substantive discussions on climate change."

Bradford and others would like to see the G8 expand to become a more representative global group. That is unlikely anytime soon as the G8 is still having trouble absorbing its newest member, Russia.

Ruling Puts Guantanamo Trials in Doubt

By Al Pessin Pentagon 04 June 2007

Download

A U.S. military judge has dismissed charges against a detainee at the Guantanamo detention center, based on a technical issue that could affect all the current and potential charges against detainees. The Defense Department says the prosecutor will appeal the ruling. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

US guard at the military-run Camp Delta prison in Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base

The military judge, U.S. Army Colonel Peter Brownback, ruled Monday during a hearing at Guantanamo that charges against Canadian Omar Khadr are invalid. Khadr is charged with murder and other crimes related to the death of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002.

Pentagon spokesman Commander J.D. Gordon told VOA the judge decided Khadr cannot be tried because an earlier process did not designate him an "unlawful enemy combatant," as a new law requires. Gordon says Khadr and the other detainees at Guantanamo were only designated "enemy combatants," without the word "unlawful."

"For all intents and purposes it's the same thing," said Commander Gordon. "It's just an issue of semantics. We've already said they were unlawful in 2004-2005 because of a variety of factors. They don't wear a uniform. They're not members of [the] armed forces of another nation-state. They don't display arms openly. They don't have a chain of command. All those issues make them unlawful enemy combatants. So they were already 'unlawful enemy combatants' back when they were designated as such, however the technical verbiage was just 'enemy combatant.'"

But the director of Terrorism and Counter-terrorism at Human Rights Watch in New York, Joanne Mariner, says that technicality has some important substance behind it.

"There is a question about whether some people held at Guantanamo are lawful combatants, members of the Taleban who were the armed forces of Afghanistan during the conflict with the United States, so, in fact, under international law, were considered soldiers and had the right to fight," said Joanne Mariner. "This is something that the United States has always dismissed. The court is correct to say there is a meaningful distinction between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants."

Judge Brownback at Guantanamo said Khadr could be re-charged if he undergoes a new hearing to determine his status, and if that process officially designates him an "unlawful enemy combatant." That is the phrase used in the law passed last year by Congress to establish what is called the Military Commissions process for trying Guantanamo detainees.

News reports from Guantanamo quote the chief defense attorney for the detainees, who is also a U.S. military officer, as saying the judge's ruling applies to all the detainees and is further evidence that the process is, in his words, "a failure" and should be stopped.

But the Pentagon spokesman, Commander Gordon, says the military prosecutor will appeal Monday's ruling to a review panel in Washington set up to supervise the detainee tribunals. Commander Gordon says it will be the first time the panel has been activated.

Joanne Mariner at Human Rights Watch says the military judge did the right thing in this ruling, but she is still not convinced the Military Commissions process is fair, or that this ruling will have a significant, long-term impact.

"It is showing that they are trying to follow the procedures as they exist," she said. "But I wouldn't go so far as to say this reflects a substantive independence. I think this is probably something that the military is going to remedy fairly easily."

Mariner says if the judge's ruling is upheld on appeal, a new status hearing could be held for Omar Khadr fairly soon, with others to follow in the coming months.

Khadr is a Canadian citizen. His case is particularly controversial because he was just 15 years old at the time he allegedly threw a hand grenade during a battle in Afghanistan that killed an American soldier. He has been in U.S. custody for five years.

In March, Australian David Hicks became the first detainee processed through the new tribunals. After a pre-trial agreement, he was convicted of one charge of providing material support to terrorism and is serving his nine-month sentence back in Australia. He had a different military judge, who did not address the difference in terminology between the old process and the new one.

Hicks and Khadr are two of only three detainees who have been formally charged under the new system. There are about 380 detainees at Guantanamo, but some have been approved for release without trial, and others may be released this year through a separate annual review process.

Lebanese Army Clashes With Militants in 2nd Palestinian Refugee Camp

By Margaret Besheer Beirut 04 June 2007

Download

Lebanese troops continued fighting Islamic militants in a northern Palestinian refugee camp and clashed with another group in a southern camp Monday. The new violence has sparked concerns that the fighting that began three weeks ago in the northern camp could spread to more of Lebanon's 12 refugee camps. From Beirut, VOA's Margaret Besheer has more.

Palestinian child sleeps near family who fled Ein el-Hilweh refugee camp, 04 Jun 2007

As the Lebanese Army kept up its offensive against Fatah al-Islam militants near the northern city of Tripoli, a new front was opened about 100 kilometers to the south.

Gun battles first flared Sunday evening in the southern city of Sidon, near Ein al-Hilweh, Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, after militants from another group, Jund al-Sham, threw a hand grenade at an army checkpoint wounding five people.

Sporadic fighting continued overnight and resumed briefly Monday. Authorities say two Lebanese soldiers and two militants were killed in the clashes.

Sidon's residents stayed indoors and the city's usually bustling streets were quiet as many shops closed for the day.

Concerns have been high that fighting would spread to one or more of Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps since the army took on Islamic militants at the northern Nahr el-Bared camp 16 days ago. Fighting at that camp has displaced thousands of Palestinians who have relocated to some of the country's 11 other refugee camps.

Lebanese parliament member from Sidon, Bahia Hariri, said Palestinian officials and the Lebanese army are working to quickly contain the situation.

Shell explodes on a building being used by militants in the besieged Nahr el-Bared refugee camp near Tripoli

Hariri told Lebanese television that there is a Lebanese-Palestinian decision not to let this escalate because it would have severe repercussions for both sides.

On Monday, Fatah al-Islam deputy commander Abu Hureira told the Associated Press his group would spread its battle with the Lebanese army to the southern Ein el-Hilweh camp. About 200,000 refugees live at Ein el-Hilweh.

Meanwhile, at Nahr el-Bared, the army continued its assault on Fatah al-Islam, cautiously advancing on the militants' positions inside the camp.

In a telephone interview Sunday, Fatah al-Islam spokesman Abu Salim Taha claimed his fighters are well-prepared and can continue fighting the army for a couple of months.

More than 40 Lebanese troops and an estimated 60 militants have been killed since the fighting erupted last month at Nahr el-Bared. About 20 civilians are also believed to have been killed in the clashes.