LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 21/09

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 2,23-28. As he was passing through a field of grain on the sabbath, his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain. At this the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?" He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry? How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?" Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. That is why the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."

Aelred of Rielvaux (1110-1167), Cistercian monk
Mirror of Charity, III, ch.3 (trans. Geoffrey Webb and Alan Walker)/"The sabbath was made for man"
When a man goes in, as it were, to the secret place of his soul, turning his back on all the noise and worry and vanity of the outside world, he shuts the door and looks around, and what does he find? Here all is at peace, all is in order. There is nothing to cause remorse. Everything gives him joy and conduces to calm. Like a well-ordered family, all his thoughts, words and deeds are gathered about him, and he can smile on them benevolently like a father in a disciplined household. And this gives rise in his heart to a wonderful sense of security, and his security gives him such a joy and happiness that he cannot but thank and praise God the more fervently for his blessings. This is the seventh day of rest that is only made possible by six days of labor, for we must expend our energy in good works before we can take our rest with a peaceful conscience. A clear conscience is born of zealous works, and we cannot love ourselves unless we have a good conscience enabling us to love our neighbour as ourselves (Mt 22,39).

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Bush Will Be Vindicated Against Terror.By Walid Phares. 20/01/09
Syria, Lebanon and the U.S.Jean-Pierre Katrib 20/01/09
Despite its Threats, Hamas Put Up Light Resistance-AP 20/01/09
Decision Time for Hamas.By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed 02/01/09
Interview with Syrian Presiden Bashar Assad from the Spiegel news magazine 20/01/09
Keeping Iran's finger out of the post-war Gaza pie-Jerusalem Post 20/01/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 20/09
Sfeir Against Deadly Mixture of Politics with Religion-Naharnet
Arab leaders emphasize Gaza reconstruction efforts-Xinhua,
Gaza Reconstruction Efforts Face Political Hurdles-AHN
U.N. chief visits Gaza Strip to inspect damage from offensive-AP
Iraqi FM: Arabs unable to agree on Gaza statement-The Associated Press
Aoun: Rhetoric against President Reflects March 14 Way of Thinking-Naharnet
Aoun Attacks March 14-Naharnet
Saniora: Lebanon First Beneficiary From Kuwait's Reconciliation-Naharnet
Jumblat, Hariri Discuss Impact of Arab Reconciliation-Naharnet
Lebanon Informed U.S. of Measures to Curb Katyusha Fire-Naharnet
Sayyed Declined to Confront Fatah Islam Terrorist for 9th Time-Naharnet
Berri: Israel Would Monitor Gaza and Syria Borders-Naharnet
Hariri Calls for Solidarity with King Abdullah's Call-Naharnet
Pakradouni from Rabieh: The Understanding Between Hizbullah and the FPM Protected Lebanon-Naharnet
Jumblat Warns Against Setting Up Wiretap Program at Communications Ministry-Naharnet

Aoun: Rhetoric against President Reflects March 14 Way of Thinking
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun blamed the rhetoric against President Michel Suleiman in a recent demonstration on the March 14 "school of thought." "The school of thought of March 14 brought forth turmoil during demonstrations while the school of understanding that we had built (with Hizbullah) did not result in shattering a windshield," Aoun said Monday. The FPM leader, talking to reporters after the weekly meeting of his Change and Reform parliamentary bloc, denied Hizbullah had attacked President Suleiman during recent anti-Israeli protests in Awkar. He said his FPM would be the last faction to announce its candidates for the forthcoming elections. Aoun congratulated Arab leaders for the reconciliation achieved during the Kuwait summit. He recalled that he had said in a lecture in Damascus that Israel would not emerge victorious after its 2006 war with Hizbullah and expressed hope that "the recent events in Gaza have confirmed my viewpoint."
Beirut, 19 Jan 09, 20:09

Saniora: Lebanon First Beneficiary From Kuwait's Reconciliation
Naharnet/Prime Minister Fouad Saniora said Monday the initiative of Saudi King Abdullah has paved the way for Arabs to handle their basic issues and protect their rights. Saniora, who is attending the first Arab Economic Summit in Kuwait, said: "We in Lebanon are the first to benefit from this (Saudi) initiative. Our strength and unity is multiplied by theirs (the Arabs), and we are the first to encourage and welcome this reconciliation and initiative."
"President Michel Suleiman and I worked on joining and supporting (Arab) lines," Saniora said. He went on to add that the Saudi King has opened the door wide for all Arabs to unite in the face of Arab causes. "What happened is not the end of problems that we as Arabs face, rather it is the right path for confronting our issues," he said. "We have to seriously think of how best to invest this initiative to our interest on all internal Lebanese, inter-Arab and international levels" particularly when U.S. President-elect Barak Obama is moving into the White House. Saniora said that the Saudi monarch was a pioneer in proposing his (peace), initiative at the 2002 Arab summit in Beirut, adding: "He was a pioneer once again in stretching his hand to his brethren to overcome the past." The prime minister paid tribute to King Abdullah's $1 billion donation for rebuilding Gaza, reminding reporters of the monarch's similar donation to Lebanon following the July 2006 war. Beirut, 20 Jan 09, 12:23

Jumblat, Hariri Discuss Impact of Arab Reconciliation
Naharnet/Democratic Gathering leader Walid Jumblat met overnight with Future Movement leader Saad Hariri at his mansion in Qoreitem.
The daily Al Liwa on Tuesday said Hariri and Jumblat discussed the impact of the Arab reconciliation on Lebanon.They also discussed the impact of decisions taken at the Kuwait summit. Beirut, 20 Jan 09, 08:42

Lebanon Informed U.S. of Measures to Curb Katyusha Fire
Naharnet/Lebanon has assured the U.S. State Department that measures had been taken together with the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to curb further Katyusha fire from south Lebanon into northern Israel.
The daily An Nahar on Tuesday said the Lebanese stand was made after U.S. sources voiced fear over the rocket attacks against Israel during the conflict in Gaza.
The sources said the U.S. sources, however, hurried to announce that Washington is aware that the Lebanese government is exerting lots of effort to prevent recurrence of such attacks. They said Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman and his assistant David Hill exchanged views with Lebanon's ambassador to Washington Antoine Shedid on this matter. Beirut, 20 Jan 09, 08:23

Berri: Israel Would Monitor Gaza and Syria Borders
Naharnet/Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Monday said the most serious outcome of the Gaza confrontation is that Israel is "determined on achieving security arrangements with the United States and NATO to monitor the borders of Gaza and Syria." Berri, speaking to a delegation representing the Syndicate of Newspaper Editors, also said the military intelligence is aware of "the identity of those who had fired rockets from south Lebanon" towards Israel. He refused to disclose further details. He urged "all the Lebanese (factions) to be keen on Lebanese unity and Palestinian unity." Berri reiterated that "naturalization of Palestinian refugees would be achieved the moment the rifle and the resistance spirit fall." Lebanon, Berri concluded, "was united in the July (2006) war and is united this time."
Beirut, 19 Jan 09, 21:02

Sayyed Declined to Confront Fatah Islam Terrorist for 9th Time
Naharnet/Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed, who is facing charges of involvement in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, has refrained from appearing in court to confront leading Fatah al-Islam Suspect Ahmed Merhi. Sayyed refused to go to court in handcuffs, press reports said Tuesday. Merhi was arrested in an Ashrafiyeh hotel in the summer of 2007 during the fighting between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam fighters in the northern refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared only to find out later that he is a key Fatah Islam member. Beirut, 20 Jan 09, 10:01

Hariri Calls for Solidarity with King Abdullah's Call
Naharnet/Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri on Monday called for "solidarity with the pan-Arab trend" voiced by Saudi Monarch King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz during his address at the Kuwait Summit. Hariri also urged the various Palestinian factions to cooperate with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's efforts aimed at consolidating Palestinian ranks to "end the era of foreign hegemony … and put an end to controlling the Palestinians' right to take their own decisions without any foreign intervention." Hariri told members of his Mustaqbal Parliamentary Bloc that King Abdullah's address "re-launches the Arabs' role and sets the stage for a new era." Beirut, 19 Jan 09, 19:26

Pakradouni from Rabieh: The Understanding Between Hizbullah and the FPM Protected Lebanon
Naharnet/Former Minister Karim Pakradouni said that the understanding between Hizbullah and Gen. Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) "protected Lebanon." Following his meeting with Aoun at his residence in Rabieh on Monday, Pakradouni said: "The understanding between the two sides is more and more becoming a strategic stance."Pakradouni explained that Hizbullah is committed to this understanding, and has not used its arms in the interior despite the fact that it is closely related in thought and creed to the Palestinian cause. Regarding Gaza, Pakradouni said: "Clearly Hamas has defeated Israel. This is proof once again that Israel cannot defeat the resistance.""Furthermore, resistance is a shield, that is why Israel never dared to open any front in Lebanon," Pakradouni said.
He went further to add: "The resistance knows how to protect the country and take responsibility in not engulfing Lebanon in any battle." Beirut, 20 Jan 09, 10:07

Jumblat Warns Against Setting Up Wiretap Program at Communications Ministry
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist party leader Walid Jumblat on Monday warned that allies of Syria and Iran could "strike at the Doha Accord" prior to the forthcoming elections. Jumblat, in an article to be published Tuesday by the PSP's weekly al-Anbaa, also praised the stand voiced by President Michel Suleiman during the recent Doha meeting, especially his adherence to the Arab peace Initiative. He described Suleiman's stand as "important." "The consultative gathering held in Doha last week achieved only a decision to severe ties with Israel, which did not require a summit, or even a semi-summit," Jumblat wrote. He believed that launching rockets from southern Lebanon "necessitates the implementation of the decisions of the previous dialogue, particularly the issue of the so-called Palestinian arms outside refugee camps."Jumblat feared Palestinian weapons could "remain a sword hanging over the heads of the Lebanese people as well as the political authority and is capable of blowing up the situation in the south again without a decision taken by the Lebanese government." Jumblat also warned against "the reported setting up of a new wiretap monitoring department at the ministry of communications … It could aim at bugging calls and blocking efforts by the International Committee probing the Hariri crime."
"Do they want to block the International tribunal?" he asked. Beirut, 19 Jan 09, 14:45

Despite its Threats, Hamas Put Up Light Resistance
20/01/2009
JERUSALEM (AP) — Before Israel invaded the Gaza Strip, Hamas vowed to turn the territory into a "graveyard" for Israeli soldiers, and the military braced for dozens of fatalities. The results were markedly different.
The Islamic militant group's fighters put up little resistance to Israel's crushing offensive, and the army — still smarting from its stalemate with Hezbollah guerrillas in their 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon — emerged relatively unscathed and more confident.
Israel wrapped up its three-week offensive over the weekend, leaving behind widespread devastation and a death toll of more than 1,250 Palestinians, according to Gaza medical officials. In contrast, Israel suffered just nine combat deaths, four of them from "friendly fire."
To be sure, Hamas' battlefield losses could be offset by other gains, depending on how postwar politics play out. By standing up to Israel and firing hundreds of rockets into the Jewish state throughout the fighting, it appears to have boosted its standing, especially in the Arab world.
Yet soldiers returning from the battlefield said they were surprised by the lack of resistance from Hamas, a group that receives backing from Iran and had vowed to inflict heavy losses on Israeli troops.
In an interview, an infantry reservist who fought in Gaza said he and his comrades experienced only light combat during over a week inside. They took no casualties, he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because army regulations prohibit troops from giving interviews.
"There was some sniper fire and a few mortar shells, but face-to-face — nothing like that," he told The Associated Press, crediting the army's use of overwhelming firepower. The infantry were backed by tanks, artillery and airstrikes as they made their way into Gaza.
Another soldier offered a similar assessment.
"We set a date with Hamas, and they didn't come. They were afraid to come and face us, and they ran away," the unidentified soldier told Army Radio on Monday from an encampment just outside Gaza.
Israel opened the offensive with a weeklong aerial barrage. The surprise bombardment on the first day, Dec. 27, might have crippled Hamas, erasing many of its bases and driving its leaders into hiding. With an eye toward maintaining control in Gaza after the fighting, Hamas also might have decided not to risk its militiamen in battle.
Whatever the reason, Hamas fighters — using booby traps, missiles, mortar shells and light weapons — inflicted little damage on Israeli forces. For a guerrilla group operating on its urban home turf, it wasn't much of a fight.
One senior military officer said Israel partly owed its light casualties to luck. He mentioned a company of infantrymen from the Givati Brigade who spent a night in a commandeered school. In the morning, a soldier discovered the wire of a bomb that was supposed to blow the building up. The militants who were supposed to press the detonator apparently fled before the soldiers arrived, the officer said.
The army expected much fiercer fighting and dozens of Israeli fatalities, defense officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was classified. Despite its losses, Hamas remains firmly in control of Gaza, and the fact that it took on Israel is likely to boost its image. Throughout the fighting, the group managed to keep firing rockets and hit deeper than ever inside Israel — perhaps its main military achievement.
"There was a world war against Gaza. We, at least, were happy that somebody was able to retaliate," said Hatem Wahdan, a 49-year-old from the northern town of Jebaliya who spent much of the fighting sheltering in a U.N. school. Hamas claims its fighting strength is intact.
Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister of Gaza, declared a "heavenly victory" Sunday in an address televised from his hideout.
Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, claimed at a news conference Monday that Hamas fighters had killed 80 Israeli soldiers and shot down four helicopters. "We did not kneel down, we did not surrender, we did not raise the white flag," he said.
The Israeli army called his account "completely wrong."
Despite the initial praise for Hamas, the events of the past weeks could eventually hurt the group's standing among Palestinians and abroad, said Jamil Rabbah, director of Near East Consulting, a Palestinian polling institute based in the West Bank.
"What I've been seeing in many Internet chat rooms over the past two or three days is: `Where is Hamas? ... What happened?'," he said.
Hamas' results were far short of Hezbollah's performance in its 2006 war with Israel.
The Lebanese guerrilla group killed 120 Israeli soldiers during a month of hit-and-run fighting in southern Lebanon and an additional 40 Israeli civilians with rocket attacks, drawing adulation in the Arab world. Hezbollah has far more freedom of movement than Hamas and better equipment. But with both backed by Iran and motivated by radical Islamic theology, the two groups had become conflated in the minds of Israelis. That view was fueled by military intelligence reports that Hamas had turned itself from a ragtag militia into a Hezbollah-style force of many thousands that prepared fortifications and booby-traps to greet invading Israeli troops. During the fighting, Hamas sent out text messages to reporters claiming its fighters destroyed tanks and armored personnel carriers, blew up a house full of Israeli troops, and captured two soldiers. All of those things were accomplished by Hezbollah in 2006. None was true this time.
Both sides have an interest in inflating the results of the Gaza fighting: Hamas wants to avoid the humiliation of appearing weak, while Israel wants to give the impression that it crushed a formidable foe. "Whoever reads the Israeli media would think the military fought the most glorious war in its history, but that isn't accurate," said Israeli military analyst Reuven Pedatzur. "There wasn't even one battle."

U.N. secretary general visits devastated Gaza
(Reuters) – Confronted by stark scenes of destruction, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, and Israel was poised to withdraw its troops before the U.S. presidential inauguration later in the day. Ban, on a Middle East tour, was the highest-ranking international figure to visit the territory since separately declared ceasefires by Israel and Hamas ended a 22-day Israeli offensive and Palestinian cross-border rocket attacks.
"The secretary general was keen to express solidarity with the people of Gaza who have suffered so much over the past few weeks and the U.N. staff who have continued heroically to provide assistance despite the difficulties," said Ahmad Fawzi, a spokesman for Ban.
Israeli political sources said Israel planned to complete its troop pullout before Barack Obama's inauguration, scheduled for 1700 GMT. Analysts saw the withdrawal as an effort to avoid any tension with the new U.S. president. Amid crowds waving Hamas flags, Ban drove in a convoy to the compound of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the city of Gaza. Last Thursday, Israeli fire set ablaze the UNRWA facility's food and fuel warehouse, an incident Ban described at the time as "an outrage." Israel apologized but said it was prompted by fire from gunmen at the compound.
Many Palestinians returned to the rubble of what used to be their homes in Gaza city suburbs that were hard hit during the fighting. They picked through debris, trying to salvage belongings.Two children playing with unexploded ordnance were killed when it detonated, Hamas officials said.
Ban, who met Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before traveling to the Gaza Strip, planned to visit southern Israel, an area hit by Palestinian rockets during the Gaza war, later in the day.At the prime minister's office, Ban said he wanted to help to make the ceasefire "durable."
World leaders are keen to cement a truce and avoid any more bloodshed in Gaza where more than 1,300 Palestinians were killed in Israel's air and ground strikes launched on December 27 with the declared aim of ending rocket attacks.
RUINED INFRASTRUCTURE
In a report denied by the Israeli military, Hamas said an Israeli force holding a position near the town of Jabalya shot and killed a 17-year-old Palestinian.
Residents of Maghazi refugee camp said Israeli tanks had shelled houses, causing several casualties. An Israeli military spokeswoman had no immediate comment.
Gaza's infrastructure has been left in ruins and the repair bill was estimated by the Palestinian statistics bureau to be about $1.9 billion. Hamas said 5,000 homes, 16 government buildings and 20 mosques were destroyed and that 20,000 houses were damaged. Israel has said militants hid weapons inside the mosques.
Palestinian militant groups said 112 of their fighters and 180 Hamas policemen were killed. Israel put its dead at 10 soldiers and said three civilians were killed in rocket attacks.Gaza medical officials said the Palestinian dead included at least 700 civilians. Israel, which accused Hamas of endangering non-combatants by operating in densely populated areas, said hundreds of militants were among the dead.
In Geneva, World Health Organization head Margaret Chan warned of a looming health crisis in the Gaza Strip.
Saudi Arabia pledged $1 billion for rebuilding and the European Union said the bloc's foreign ministers planned to meet in Brussels to discuss humanitarian aid and Israeli demands for the prevention of weapons smuggling to Gaza.
Israel had launched its offensive with a vow to "change the reality" for southern border towns that had been the target of rocket fire from Hamas and other militant groups since 2001.
Olmert has declared the mission accomplished, noting diplomatic efforts by the United States, Egypt and European nations to prevent Hamas rearming. Israel has vowed to respond to any renewed flow of arms to Gaza.
The fighting ended just weeks before a February 10 Israeli election. Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party is still the front-runner but Defense Minister Ehud Barak's Labour party has gained in popularity.
Hamas proclaimed victory despite the destruction in Gaza, and its armed wing vowed to replenish its arsenal of rockets.
But Hamas official Mushir al-Masri said talks would continue on Egypt's proposal for a long-term truce that would assure the reopening of crossings into Gaza, including the Rafah terminal with Egypt that was the main access to the outside world.
Hamas seized control of Gaza from Abbas's Fatah forces in 2007 after winning an election the year before. Israel and the West boycotted governments led by Hamas because the group rejects Israel's right to exist.
(Additional reporting by Douglas Hamilton in Gaza, Adam Entous in Jerusalem; Writing by Jeffrey Heller; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Decision Time for Hamas
19/01/2009
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
We are entering a new era following the end of the Israeli war on Gaza; the positions have been examined and the results have become known, and things are presently less ambiguous. The leaders of the Hamas movement- because there is not one single leader that can be addressed- have two choices with regards to their [foreign] relations that will decide the fate of the movement, especially as they are aware of their strengths and weaknesses in confronting [Israel].
Hamas's strength revealed itself in their confrontation with Israel and endurance, despite the fact that the Gaza Strip did not provide them with what Hezbollah possessed in Lebanon, such as open borders, local allies, a large missile force, and a country under its control. Without any of these vital ingredients for confrontation Hamas has endured, and remains a player in the Palestinian political arena.
As for its weakness, this can be seen in the Hamas movement's powerlessness in the field of conflict as a result of the terrible bombardment campaign undertaken by the Israeli military machine, and their humiliation in the eyes of the Palestinian citizens due to Hamas's inability to protect them [the citizens] from the horrendous Israeli attack, add to this months of suffering from an unprecedentedly long blockade depriving the people of the most basic necessities for living. All of which have been blamed on the policies of Hamas. It will not be easy for them to convince many of the Gazan population of the logic behind an ant confronting an elephant, targeting Israel with cartoon rockets, while meanwhile families pay the [highest] price, the lives of their children.
The Arab cheers for the valiance of Hamas does not matter, because they [the Arabs] have become accustomed to welcoming the sacrifices of others, and this acclaim has stung leaders far more popular and better equipped than the Hamas leadership, for example [Jamal Abdul] Nasser and Saddam [Hussein].
Away from the tallying of losses and gains, Hamas is facing a new history, and has been given another chance to review its position and chose between staying in Iran's camp, or returning to the Arab side. Following the harsh experience [of the war] the Hamas leadership has a better [public] image after its traumatic experiences there, and the Arabs realize that their estrangement from the Hamas movement may have been a mistake that needs rectifying.
Today, due to the repercussions of the war- the region ha become even more divided than it was during the days of the Israeli war in Lebanon [Lebanon July War 2006] or Hezbollah's war against the Sunni population of Beirut [May 2008 conflict]. Hamas must be aware that they were used by Iran to attack the Arabs in an unprecedented way that surpasses any previous antagonism. Iran has progressed as a result of this, and made advancements on the ground to an extremely dangerous point, which includes the attempt to create chaos in Arab countries opposed to it, and explicitly seeking to destroy Saudi Arabia, and incite the overthrow of the Egyptian regime. Such audacity serves only to unite Arab countries against Hamas. However it is also just and reasonable to say that the door is still open; it is up to the Hamas movement to choose between returning to the Arab family or remaining a weapon in the hands of Iran.
Hamas is in a good position, and must negotiate with itself with regards to its own relationship with the Arabs, who can only respect Hamas and ensure its political and material rights on Palestinian soil. Generally speaking, we know that Hamas is not a singular organization, despite the similarity of its language and political façade; there is Hamas the hostage to Damascus and Tehran and whose leaders live in hotels, and there is the Gazan Hamas who have paid a high price in order to fulfill the orders of their brothers in Damascus, the results of which were always disastrous. The Gazan Hamas must chose between Tehran or Cairo.

Bush Will Be Vindicated Against Terror
By Walid Phares, For The Bulletin
Published: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
With the Bush presidency ending today, it’s time to take stock of the War on Terror, something that didn’t begin with George W. Bush but which entered the American collective consciousness on his watch. So, where are we now, as we get ready to usher in a new era with a new president?
The measurement of the successes and failures under the Bush administration isn’t a simple matter of calculus. Many questions make the final assessment complex and inextricable. Here are few examples:
1) Did the jihadi war against America begin on Sept. 11, 2001? Of course not! It began in the years and decades before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The ideology of jihadism rose in the 1920s. The Islamist movement, through both Wahabism and the Muslim Brotherhood, indoctrinated large pools of recruits around the world during the Cold War.
In the 1980s, the United States was targeted in Tehran and in Beirut. In the 1990s, Americans were attacked in New York in 1993, massacred in 1993 in Somalia, killed at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, attacked in 1998 in East Africa and again in 2000 in Yemen.
By the time Mr. bin Laden’s men crumbled the towers in Manhattan and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, four presidents had been advised by their experts to avoid a “global confrontation” with terrorism.
In contrast, George W. Bush broke that taboo and on Oct. 7, 2001 he declared a “War on Terror.” He should have identified the enemy with its real name, the jihadists, but at least he informed the nation, that indeed, we were at war with “an enemy.” And for that mere fact he was vilified for seven years.
The first root of Bushophobia in the region and within the West comes from those who wanted the U.S. public to remain numb until the balance of power would give the advantage to America’s enemies. Two players shattered this game: Osama bin laden (by attacking too early) and George W. Bush (by responding too quickly).
2) Why was there an unusual demonization of George W. Bush by the widest array of regimes, radicals and international opinion makers? Although it will fall to historians to uncover the forces behind this campaign, the unprecedented attacks against the president of the United States are proportional to the powerful changes he wished to accomplish, even if the results didn’t match his initial ideals. In short, Mr. Bush dared to “touch” the untouchable: the totalitarian regimes and the ideology of jihadism. The U.S. was tolerated when it bombed and changed regimes in the Balkans, Grenada, Panama and even when it supported Afghanistan’s Mujahidin. But when its president spoke of “spreading democracy” in the region, America was walking into a hornets’ nest.
The financial power of oil from Iran, the Wahabi quarters and even Qatar slaughtered Mr. Bush’s image. In a moment of history, his name and changing the status quo merged for seven years, rightly or wrongly, unleashing the wrath of those who wanted to march backward in history: denying women, minorities, and opposition rights and unwilling to reach peace.
3) But was George W. Bush representing his nation as he challenged regimes and ideologies overseas? The public is yes, the bureaucratic answer is: no. — Indeed, his re-election confirmed that on basic instincts and general directions, Americans mandated Mr. Bush to implement the content of his speeches on national security. Joe and Jane knew the enemy out there wanted to do harm unto them. But the intellectual elite of the U.S, including Mr. Bush’s own foreign affairs bureaucracy failed him and dodged his ideals. The president and many congressional leaders aimed to advance the agenda of democracy and de-radicalization in the greater Middle East. But undoubtedly the bureaucrats and media elite in the U.S. fought fiercely against these higher goals and crushed most of them. Hence, Mr. Bush’s words were aimed well but the high ideals expressed in his public speeches were rarely carried out by the executioners.
Here is a quick list of battlefields and the end results, so far:
Afghanistan: Removing the Taliban and throwing al-Qaida out of that country was a victory but managing the rise of democratic culture was insufficient.
Pakistan: Pressuring Gen. Pervez Musharraf to contain al-Qaida and the Taliban was slow but convincing him to allow elections brought about a more counter jihadi government.
Iraq: Removing genocidal Saddam under any plan was a duty for the UN to accomplish but America accomplished it. However, moving faster to achieve the successful surge earlier and to pressure Iran and Syria would have been a game changer.
Lebanon-Syria: Pushing the Syrian Army out of Lebanon was an achievement but allowing Hezbollah to cannibalize the country is a set-back.
Africa: Fighting al-Qaida on the continent and countering the Jihadi Mahakem in Somalia, along with local allies was a good first step.
Arab-Israeli Conflict: Backing the Palestinian Authority in its dialogue with Israel and staying firm on Hamas’ terror was right.
Homeland Security: Establishing a homeland security policy was a first step but Congress should have delivered the legal structure needed to isolate extremism and protect civil liberties. The debate will continue but the fact is that America has not been hit since 2001.
Ideological War: President Bush’s speeches until 2006 were cutting edge on trying to name the doctrines of the enemy. However his bureaucracy stopped him from his role as educator in chief. Americans were made to wonder again if Jihad is Yoga!
So what’s the historical bottom line? George W. Bush told the American people that it is a terrorist target and the U.S. needs to take action. The challenge now is for his successor(s) to stay the course or change it. Mr. Bush’s national security decisions will certainly be scrutinized by politicians and historians in order to assess their value; but guess what? Americans are growing mature in this increasingly threatening environment. Deep down, a large segment of our society knows that the jihadists aren’t going to practice yoga. The future will clarify further the difference between America’s instincts as embodied by George W. Bush and many of his critics and bureaucrats who got stuck in the 1990s.
**Dr. Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of “The Confrontation.”

Keeping Iran's finger out of the post-war Gaza pie
By SHIMON SHAPIRA /Jerusalem Post
Upon the end of the fighting in Gaza, the international community will enlist for an extensive rehabilitation project with the objective of enabling the Palestinian population to return to their homes and get on with their civil and economic lives. The pictures of the destruction of buildings in Gaza as a result of the war are increasing the salience of the reconstruction issue across the Middle East, especially in Iran.
Pictures of the week Middle Eastern states are likely to have a critical role to play in this effort. Presently, the states of the region are deeply polarized, as witnessed in the Doha Summit on January 18: Qatar, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and Hamas attended, while Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia stayed away. Unfortunately, the new Iraq was also present. The US, EU, and Israel have a collective interest in cutting off post-war Gaza from the Iranian-Syrian axis. It is of prime importance to identify who will provide the assistance funds for Gaza rehabilitation, and who on the ground will implement the wide-ranging renewal projects. A reliable international mechanism is urgently needed to prevent Iran from acquiring influence in post-war Gaza through any assistance programs.
There are important precedents to keep in mind concerning the link between rehabilitation and regional political influence. Following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Iran and Hizbullah grasped the political and economic significance of the rehabilitation project in the Shi'ite areas of southern Lebanon damaged during the war. Iran, in tandem with Hizbullah, quickly resorted to the Waad ("promise") Company and employed it to channel most of the Iranian assistance funds into the rehabilitation activities that Hizbullah performed in West Beirut and southern Lebanon. In this framework, immediately upon the cessation of fighting, Iran's emissaries appeared with suitcases stuffed with dollars and distributed $12,000 in cash to every Shi'ite family whose house was destroyed and applied for assistance.
Within a few short months, Iran had paved hundreds of kilometers of roads and rehabilitated houses and public institutions that were damaged during the fighting. Hizbullah directed the rehabilitation work among the Shi'ite population, while totally ignoring the central Lebanese government, and in this manner it regained and even reinforced its influence within the Shi'ite community. Hizbullah was savvy enough to transform the severe blows that it had sustained into a "divine victory" and into the principal leverage for buttressing its dominant status in Lebanese politics. It did so while rehabilitating its military strength and tripling the quantity of rockets and missiles at its disposal, and at the same time extending their target range.
The US Treasury understood the implications of what Iran was doing in Lebanon through the Hizbullah-run Waad company. Undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey bluntly noted: "The Waad Project is another example of Hizbullah's use of deceptive tactics to support its military and terrorist apparatus."
The US Treasury noted that Waad not only rebuilt Lebanese homes, it also built up Hizbullah's command center in southern Beirut, underground weapons storage facilities, and military infrastructure. In early 2007, the US blacklisted Jihad al-Bina, Hizbullah's construction company, for similar reasons. Clearly, funds moved through organizations controlled by terrorist groups can also be disguised and used for rearmament, as well.
Iran is already positioning itself for influence in post-war Gaza. On January 14, the Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, arrived in Lebanon heading a 40-man delegation. Mohtashami, who was the architect behind the establishment of Hizbullah in the early 1980s, arrived in Beirut in order to direct Iranian support for Hamas.
At a conference organized by Hizbullah under the auspices of the "International Forum for Resistance and Opposition to Imperialism and Solidarity Among People," Mohtashami sat in the first row next to the deputy secretary-general of Hizbullah, Naim Qassem, the deputy of Hassan Nasrallah. Mohtashami explained in his address to the conference, which he delivered in Arabic rather than Farsi, that the muqawama (resistance) in Gaza is defending the honor of the entire nation and that what is happening in Gaza will influence all the opponents of the US and Israel.
Based on the major lessons from the Second Lebanon War, it would be prudent to anticipate that Iran will seek to provide immediate assistance in order to rehabilitate Hamas in Gaza. Just as in Lebanon, Iran will strive to channel the rehabilitation funds for Gaza to its Sunni protegé - Hamas - in order to preserve Hamas's ability to reassert its rule over Gaza. Sealing the Philadelphi Route effectively will not only block the supply of Iranian rockets, but also the flow of Iranian cash into Gaza.
Juxtaposing the Doha Conference, attended by Ahmadinejad, and the Sharm e-Sheikh Conference on January 18 with the heads of government from the main EU states, it is clear that the main competition for influence in post-war Gaza is between Iran, allied with its regional partners, and Egypt, backed by the West. Therefore, the main objective for Israel and the international community should be to deny Iran the attainment of this objective and, conversely, to transform the Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, into the principal factor, along with Egypt, entrusted with the rehabilitation work in Gaza. The World Bank can provide oversight of how the funds are being used. This is the only way to guarantee the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza and convert Hamas's severe military debacle into political currency in Gaza.
**Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira is a senior research associate at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Syria, Lebanon and the U.S.
Jean-Pierre Katrib
January 16, 2009 |
Assad is gambling that the Obama administration will allow Syria to reassert itself in Lebanon, downplay the International Tribunal into the killing of Hariri, and mediate a peace deal with Israel. But when the time comes to reciprocate, Assad will be able to play the game his father perfected, at once embracing process and ignoring peace, and in the end leaving Washington with far less leverage than it had before.
Among the more controversial selling points employed by Barack Obama during his campaign for the presidency was his willingness, if elected, to engage regimes, principally Tehran and Damascus, which the Bush administration refused to do. “Not talking doesn't make us look tough— it makes us look arrogant,” Obama declared. In theory, of course, there is nothing wrong with engagement, in theory, talk is better than the severing of connections out of hand. That said, given the Syrian regime’s longstanding and destabilizing policies in Lebanon and the region, the Obama administration must make it contingent on tangible developments on the ground, and not just rhetoric and half-hearted measures if rapprochement between Washington and Damascus is to succeed.
Cost-free diplomatic gains
After Syria’s relationship with the international community collapsed in the wake of the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri, the regime took a number of steps to try to reopen lines of communication with the West. In a clear attempt to woo Washington, Syria restarted indirect talks with Israel, via Turkey, publicized in May 2008. Two months later, Syrian President Bashar Assad flew to France where he was granted the distinction of meeting his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy on Bastille Day. Soon after, Sarkozy pressed the case for expediting the European Union’s Association Agreement with Syria. And, in an official visit to Syria in November, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband announced that high-level intelligence links between the UK and Syria[1] would be renewed, a decision he defended by pointing to Assad’s declared intention to establish diplomatic ties between Syria and Lebanon as evidence of an encouraging transformation in Syrian attitudes.
Firm US commitment to Lebanon
Since Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution of 2005, which ended the decades-long Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the Bush administration has turned a deaf ear to Damascus’s demands in Lebanon, insisting that instead it stop destabilizing its smaller neighbor and commit to its sovereignty and independence. But as a new administration takes office on January 20, a considerable number of Lebanese worry about what this transition may hold for their country.
In this regard, reassuring statements by US officials were recently made. In a November interview with the pan-Arab daily, Asharq al-Awsat, former ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman— who is currently the principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs— stated that “contrary to the past, succeeding US administrations now have a clear and firm policy towards Lebanon that will not change.” Likewise, a recent statement by Rep. Gary L. Ackerman— chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia— included an assurance that “the election of Barack Obama will not mean any reduction in U.S. support for Lebanon… Whatever fears or suspicions exist, I want to state as clearly as I can, that when it comes to Lebanon there is a strong bipartisan consensus of support, and I fully expect our policy to remain rock-solid.”
Pending issues with Syria
Several unresolved issues impede Damascus’ relationship with Beirut, and consequently its relationship with Washington. Obama, with his expressed preference for direct diplomacy and negotiations rather than aggressive unilateralism, can help resolve these issues by insisting that they be addressed in any dialogue with Damascus. Even so, with the Assad regime, dialogue is not enough. For relations with the US to improve meaningfully, they must be tied to concrete evidence of change in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Among the most important issues Damascus must demonstrate progress on are:
Full diplomatic relations and representation: While the decision to establish diplomatic relations between Beirut and Damascus is a historic achievement, the prospect remains unfulfilled for two reasons. First, Syria’s insistence on maintaining, instead of abrogating, the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council, which was established following Syria’s occupation of Lebanon in 1990.[2] And second, Syria’s willful delay in appointing an ambassador to Lebanon, under the flimsy guise that the appointment should take place “gradually.”
Transfer of arms into Lebanese territory: As a number of UN reports repeatedly indicate, movement of arms into Lebanese territory for militias is routine from the borders with Syria. It is no secret that Syria continues to act as the main military conduit of Hezbollah and other pro-Syrian Palestinian factions, such as the PFLP-GC which just days ago recklessly launched a barrage of rockets into Israel, delivering a tacit message for Syria. Such actions, in addition to the regular flow of arms to paramilitary groups constitute a clear violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1680 and 1701, to both of which Lebanon remains committed.[3]
Demarcating the Lebanon-Syria Border: To date, there is no formal demarcation of the borders between Lebanon and Syria. It has been demanded time and again by various Lebanese officials to demarcate the entire length of the border, including the disputed Shebaa Farms, which Lebanon and Syria claim is Lebanese, despite Damascus having yet to provide any documentary evidence proving the area’s Lebanese identity. Formally demarcated borders are critical to a positive relationship between the two countries, as they provide clearly defined limits and responsibilities for each side in accordance with international law.
The International Tribunal: Established by UN Security Council 1757 (2007) to prosecute the assassins of former premier Hariri and the subsequent string of political murders targeting anti-Syrian politicians and journalists. The tribunal, which is to start its proceedings in March, serves as both a judicial deterrent and a moral solace to the families of victims. Most importantly, it indicates a significant evolution of international criminal law, with political assassinations now falling into the category of offenses so grave as to transcend national jurisdiction. The new administration should make it clear to Damascus that there can be no deal to undermine the international tribunal in return for warmer relations.
Lebanese Detained in Syria: During the Lebanon war (1975-1990) and under Syria’s direct occupation of Lebanon (1990-2005) hundreds of Lebanese military personnel and civilians were arrested by Syrian security forces and, in violation to international humanitarian law, transferred outside their country of origin into Syria. Away from political bickering, this dossier should be treated on humanitarian grounds by granting the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Syrian detention centers in order to reveal the fate of these Lebanese detainees. In addition, Syrian authorities should not be allowed to conflate these illegally detained individuals with Lebanese convicted of criminal offenses in Syria.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, as Obama takes office, he will be dealing with an already charged and volatile foreign policy agenda. With challenges in the region ranging from conflict in Gaza to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, it is not at all clear how Obama will prioritize his policies for the region. But as the tactics the new administration will employ in dealing with Syria remain undetermined, it is likely that US-Syrian rapprochement under Obama may be short-lived if the Assad regime retains its rejectionist posture vis-à-vis Iraq, Lebanon and Palestinian politics.
On the other hand, if the Syrians prove to be really serious about peace-making and engage in principled cooperation in the region, whether through US-Syrian or US-Syrian-Israeli talks, an Obama administration should set some red lines around Lebanon. All that Syria should get in return for just goodwill are: an end to sanctions and heightened trade, WTO membership, open doors to the west and returning the Golan, among other, but not Lebanon.
The reason is that in contrast to its Arab surroundings, Lebanon enjoys an impressive track record of pluralism, freedom, novelty and openness, notwithstanding its shortcomings. Today, Lebanon’s vibrant civil society and strong liberal educational sector continue to serve as a hub, exporting these values and yearnings to the region at large. In democratization terms then, Lebanon should not fade off the radar of the West in general and the US in particular. A retreat on this front, could well lead to the entrenchment of anti-Western forces of hatred and terrorism.
Jean-Pierre Katrib is a human rights activist and political analyst based in Beirut.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Links with the Europeans were being rebuilt on the basis of Syria’s declared opposition to al-Qaeda style Sunni Islamist forces-- some of which Damascus itself appears to have created, others of which it has provided with a safe haven.
[2] The Council’s role is to oversee the implementation of the notorious treaties that were signed between Lebanon and Syria and to strengthen “brotherly” cooperation between the two countries.
[3] Art. 5 of UNSCR 1680 (2006): “Commends the government of Lebanon for undertaking measures against movements of arms into Lebanese territory and calls on the government of Syria to take similar measures.”
Art. 8(5) of UNSCR 1701 (2006): “No sales or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government.”

Lebanon and the role of the Christians in the Middle East
By Dr. Robert Chahine
January 19, 2009/Lebanonwire
Since the painful events of early May 2008, the Doha agreement and the election of President Michel Sleiman have resulted in a stretch of uneasy peace and slow gradual normalization in Lebanon. Yet some of the crucial and vital problems remain unsolved and many Lebanese and friends of Lebanon wonder whether solutions are in progress or at all possible.
Despite heavy indebtedness (the government reportedly owes more than $40 billions) Lebanon has been an oasis of financial stability and security during this period of global economic turmoil, because of avoiding the craze of toxic investment security products. Nevertheless, Lebanese expatriates are hesitant about investing or returning to their country of origin, and questions continue as to whether the civil peace can endure and survive the upcoming important landmark dates and deadlines, the most critical of which being the upcoming parliamentary elections, next spring.
The fact that Lebanon has managed to avoid, so far, a violent confrontation with Israel, as a result of the painful violence in Gaza is very encouraging. Nevertheless, sadly but realistically we need to admit and recognize that Lebanon remains dangerously polarized and divided between the so called March 14 and March 8 groups and ideologies. The realignment of the Free Patriotic Movement from its March 14, 2005 participation into the March 8 understanding or alliance has brought more electoral balance between the two political groups. But at the same time it has made the situation more dangerous and unpredictable since the election results may remain too close to call until and possibly beyond the upcoming parliamentary election. Further, the arms of Hezbollah in opposition to UNR 1559 and 1701, which were originally accepted as an instrument of resistance and deterrence against outside aggression, have now become a subject of general anxiety, particularly to the March 14 group. Their use internally against West Beirut population, in the suburbs and other areas of Mount Lebanon generated questions and concerns that are difficult to resolve. Each side seems to be ready to delegitimize the electoral process if it perceives that the results may allow the opponents to achieve a possible majority in Parliament. Outside observes within the expatriate community and among experts and analysts wonder if a true democratic vote can take place peacefully and reliably, when several armed groups within some Lebanese Parties or part of Non-Lebanese Militias, remain outside government control.
We in the American Lebanese Foundation take pride of being non-partisan and non-sectarian, despite individual Board Member friendships, affinities and possible affiliation with various Lebanese groups or leaders. Nevertheless, our common denominator is moderation and the desire or passion to search for solutions that would minimize the divisive effects of confessional radicalism and ethnic short sightedness on Lebanon’s fate. We have always argued for a Lebanon that promotes the “Dialogue of Civilizations” and serves as an antidote to the Huntington vision of the “Clash of Civilizations”. Nevertheless, denying or ignoring that Lebanon’s consensual democracy is based on a proportional division of political power in relation to its confessional constituents will make any attempt to propose solutions doomed to certain failure. Lebanon’s history and the psychology and sensitivity of all major and minor factions will have to be taken into consideration for any chance at success and stability.
The reality is that the March 14 alliance is dominated by Sunnis and is supported in the Arab World by the Saudi Arabian/ Egyptian axis as well as by the United States and Europe. On the other hand the March 8 group is lead by Shiite parties and is aligned and influenced by Iran and Syria. Most of the current prominent Christian leaders and politicians have made a choice to align with one or the other ideology, setting the stage for a potential strong and tense confrontation within the electoral districts that have significant Christian presence or majorities. Is this truly in the best interest of Lebanon or the Arab World? Should the Christians be making confessional or ethnic alliances based on emotional, materialistic or selfish considerations at the risk of contributing or igniting dangerous and possibly violent confrontations among themselves and/or their respective allies? Can the Christians afford to become champions of perpetuating or intensifying confessional tension, whether Christian vs Moslem or Sunnis vs Shiites? Granted, these alliances may have some beneficial confessional and national effects. The Christian alliance with the dominant Shiite groups may have limited the scope and duration of the May 2008 rampage and may have contributed to the current restraint in the response to the Gaza violence. On the other hand the alliance with the dominant Sunni current may have strengthened and intensified the drive towards full independence and sovereignty. Both alliances have diminished the risks of Christian/Moslem confrontation. However, the question remains as to: how could Lebanon be really unified again in such atmosphere. What assurance there is that a Sunni/Shiite confrontation may not be triggered in Lebanon by a trivial political incident, only to spread later to neighboring countries and engulf the whole Middle East in violent clashes.
We all know that the Lebanese political atmosphere is conducive to confessional posturing. General Aoun, while in exile reportedly said “Please reject me if I talk with any confessional tone.” Yet since his return to Lebanon, he found himself dragged into constantly trying to assert and reassert his Christian representation and leadership in Lebanon and beyond. On the other hand his opponents within the March 14 alliance argue that they are the ones that represent the traditional Christian aspirations and vision of independence, sovereignty and peaceful democracy.
While the other major Lebanese denominations: Sunnis, Shiites and Druze have clear majorities within their ranks who have reached apparent understandings with their minorities, the Christians remain precariously divided and thereby they may be endangering Lebanon’s march toward full sovereignty, peace and stability. Various efforts to date have failed to produce any satisfactory progress toward unity.
President Michel Sleiman was elected to the highest office of the land with broad support from the Christians, all other Lebanese denominations as well as the Arab and International community. He earned this impressive support largely because of confidence in his equidistance from the opposing political groups and the belief that he would have a better shot at unifying the Christians and the overall Lebanese population. Those of us who know President Sleiman are aware of the fact that he has the necessary knowledge, determination and potential for the real unifying solutions. His actions since he acceded to the Presidency do not contradict such expectations. However questions have arisen as to whether he is acting aggressively and fast enough to protect Lebanon in general and the Christians in particular from looming risks that could be exacerbated by unpredictable internal or external events?
The role of the Christians in Lebanon and the Middle East should be that of mediators and/or catalysts for tolerance, understanding and easing of the tensions produced by the struggle for power or dominance by various players, locally or on the broad world scene. The Lebanese Christians’ destiny is also to serve as ambassadors for Arab issues and interests in the West and wherever needed. During the past three to four decades much of that has been happening through the efforts of individuals or groups within the Lebanese expatriate community. However, divisions on the Lebanese scene have frequently spilled into the expatriate world and neutralized the emigrants’ effectiveness. Thus it may serve the Lebanese and Arab causes that much of the ambassadorial and mediation responsibilities be entrusted to the Christian President.
President Sleiman remains the best possible potential messenger or spokesman for the unifying and tolerant strategies within Lebanon and amongst Lebanon’s neighbors and friends. Once he finds the appropriate moment (and hopefully sooner rather than later) other Christian politicians will have no choice but to coalesce around him and support his efforts, the same as they all came together to elect him to the Presidency. Many on the Lebanese political scene are wondering and debating whether or not President Sleiman should seek to establish a parliamentary group, loyal to him, and independent from the two opposing political alliances. This in itself, while very desirable, may be impractical and risky unless the President enunciates a plan for solutions and unity that will win internal and external support. Such plan can only be based on mediation and conciliation between the two main Lebanese groups and their Arab and International supporters. An important component of the plan has to be some level of Christian unity or at least some sincere understanding between the divergent philosophies President Sleiman is a quiet and patient leader and only few people may know the exact strategy he may have in mind at this point. The future of Lebanon as an independent, united, free, democratic and sovereign state will largely depend on the implementation and pace of such possible strategy.
**Dr Robert A Chahine, President, American Lebanese Foundation, www.alfusa.org

Interview with Syrian Presiden Bashar Assad from the Spiegel news magazine
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=19848#more
Free Internet Press
2009-01-19 21:29:57
Intellpuke: In the following interview with Spiegel news magazine, Syrian President Bashar Assad discussed the war between Israelis and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb, and his expectations for incoming United States President Barack Obama. The interview was conducted Thursday, January 15, 2009.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the world community is protesting Israel's aggression in Gaza, but they have also called upon Hamas to relent. No one in the Arab world has as much influence on Hamas as you do. Couldn't you have tempered the fighters?

Assad: It always depends on how one uses one's influence. Our most urgent objective is to stop the attack. The fighting must come to an end, and this applies to both sides. In addition, the Israeli embargo against Gaza must end, because sealing the borders is strangling the population. The blockade is a slow death. People don't just die as a result of bombs, but also because their supplies of medications and food are cut off.
SPIEGEL: Israel will only lift the blockade once the rockets are no longer being fired at its cities.

Assad: If the people in Gaza have only the choice between a slow death caused by the blockade or death in battle, they will choose to fight. This is why lifting the embargo is an indispensable part of an agreement. We agree with Hamas on this point. Basically, Hamas is not the problem in this conflict, but Israel.

SPIEGEL: Much of the world considers Israel's military action to be disproportionate. But Hamas provoked it by shelling southern Israel. Each additional rocket results in more violent retribution and increases human suffering.

Assad: That sounds logical. But politics is about realities, not logic. The fact is that for six months Hamas complied with the cease-fire that had been agreed upon. The Israeli government, on the other hand, continued to constrict the Gaza Strip during that time. One has to be aware of this background information.

SPIEGEL: The United States and the European Union see this background differently. They consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel

Assad: Oh, here we go with the same old labels and clichés. That's the American way. Whether you call it terrorism or resistance, and whether you like Hamas or not, it is a political entity that no one can ignore. There is no truth to the notion that Hamas is holding the people hostage, as some people claim. Hamas captured an absolute majority of votes in the internationally recognized parliamentary election three years ago, a landslide victory. You cannot declare an entire people to be terrorists.

SPIEGEL: Do you believe that all of the tools of resistance Hamas is using, which make it a terrorist organization in our view, are justified?

Assad: Definitely. There is no doubt about it. How can you accuse Hamas of terrorism without defining Israel's actions as terror? During the most recent six-month ceasefire, Israel targeted and killed more than a dozen Palestinians, but no Israeli died. And yet Europe remained silent. More than 1,000 people have already died as a result of the Israeli aggression in the Gaza Strip. Just this morning, I saw the picture of a three-year-old girl who was killed. Where is the West's outcry?

SPIEGEL: We can understand the argument of justified resistance against a military power. But Hamas has acquired its reputation as a terrorist organization primarily through suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Do you intend to excuse that, as well?

Assad: I don't want to talk about methods of killing. But what is the difference between a bomb worn on the body and one dropped from an airplane? Both of them kill people. Personally, I do not support the concept of suicide bombings. This is not part of our culture. But whether you condemn them or not, suicide bombings are a reality.

SPIEGEL: No Western politician wants to sit at the same table with Hamas.

Assad: That's not true at all. Many European officials have sought a dialogue with Hamas, especially recently.

SPIEGEL: With your mediation?

Assad: The Europeans have learned from experience. That's why they are now talking to the Hamas leadership here in Damascus -- not publicly, of course. I don't want to mention any names. But I do think it's telling that they include people who are especially critical of Hamas in their speeches. We try to help where we can.
SPIEGEL: The key Hamas representative abroad, Khaled Mashaal, was granted asylum in your country. He is at the very top of the Israelis' hit list. Many consider him to be far more radical than the Hamas leadership in Gaza. Are there any conditions to your hospitality?

Assad: Mashaal has changed. He already mentioned the borders of 1967 in 2006. What does that mean? It means that he accepts a two-state solution. Besides, a few months ago he also said that he would sign anything that the Palestinian people see as the right thing to do.

SPIEGEL: That's a very broad interpretation. In our view, it is little more than indirect recognition.

Assad: Talking about the 1967 borders means more than indirect recognition. We Syrians see it this way: We do not recognize Israel and Israel is still our enemy - it occupies part of our country, the Golan Heights. If the Israelis withdraw from Golan, we will recognize them. First comes peace, then recognition - not the other way around. We have been grappling with our relationship with Israel for more than 30 years now. With Hamas, the process began only three years ago. You have to exercise patience.

SPIEGEL: But the dramatic situation in Gaza requires more than thinking within a historic timeframe.

Assad: That's why we are active here in Damascus and have made proposals and presented them to Hamas, the French, the Turks and the government of Qatar…
SPIEGEL: …which invited countries last week to an Arab crisis summit in Doha. What do you see as a solution?

Assad: This is my peace plan: First, there must be a cease-fire, and it must happen at the same time on both sides. In the ensuing 48 hours, but within no more than four days, the Israelis must withdraw completely from the entire Gaza Strip.

During this time, negotiations to lift the embargo must take place. This could take a while, because controlling the borders is a very complicated issue, but it should take no more than a week. In addition, the people in Gaza need international guarantees that they will not be attacked again.

Part 2: 'The Situation In The World Has Worsened In Every Respect In The Last Eight Years'

SPIEGEL: You make no mention of guarantees for Israel.

Assad: Then Israel will have to make peace, and not just with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas…

SPIEGEL: …whose moderate Fatah movement, following a bloody internal conflict with Hamas, now holds power in the West Bank only.

Assad: Hamas must be included. Nothing will work without Hamas. As the next major step, it will be important to establish unity with in the Palestinian people. There can be no peace without unity. How they manage to do that is the Palestinians' business. I cannot and do not wish to apply pressure to Hamas in this context.

SPIEGEL: Then who should sign a treaty on behalf of the Palestinians?

Assad: Let's look at the reality, which is what matters. Israel and Hezbollah went to war in 2006. At that time, the Israelis treated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, as they do today. Nevertheless, they eventually signed an agreement that came about as a result of negotiations among the United States, France, Israel, Syria and Hezbollah. Like Hezbollah then, Hamas today must be part of an agreement. Otherwise, one cannot expect anything from them.
SPIEGEL: Large segments of the Israeli government seem to believe that Hamas could be eliminated.

Assad: Hamas will not disappear. Hamas will not raise the white flag. Hamas has the trust of the people, and anyone who wishes to destroy it must destroy an entire people.

SPIEGEL: Do you believe the Palestinians and Israel are capable of complying with a possible agreement and stopping the smuggling of weapons for Hamas?

Assad: They cannot prevent smuggling as a whole. But monitoring by a third party would certainly be helpful. I think that the Turks could take on this task. The Turks are highly trustworthy and influential, and they have good relations with Israel and the Arab world. On the other hand, the Egyptians share a border with Gaza, and the French are also very engaged.

SPIEGEL: And the Germans?

Assad: The German foreign minister is active in the region, but he hasn't come to Damascus yet. We would be pleased to see him here, and we would welcome it if the Germans, in general, played a larger role.

SPIEGEL: Chancellor Angela Merkel blames Hamas alone for the Gaza war. Do you accept the notion that Germany, because of its history, gives special consideration to Israel?

Assad: No. We understand the feelings of guilt stemming from your past. And we see that they influence Germany's Israel policies. . They shouldn't anymore.

SPIEGEL: Despite all of your criticism of Israel, you yourself negotiated with the Israelis - with the help of Turkish mediators - until recently. Do you have hopes of regaining the Golan Heights, which were occupied in 1967?

Assad: There are no longer any negotiations, not with this Israeli government. We had no great hopes before, because it was a weak government. We need a strong party on the other side to be able to make peace.

SPIEGEL: Would your ideal partner be someone like hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom you have already negotiated in the past and who is a favorite to succeed (Prime Minister) Ehud Olmert in the election on Feb. 10?

Assad: He was already the prime minister once before, and he was not a strong man. Ehud Barak, the current Israeli defense minister, has also been the prime minister and was also too weak for an agreement. In his memoirs, then US President Bill Clinton wrote quite clearly that while we were willing to compromise, Barak was too fearful. As far as the coming Israeli government is concerned, we will not lose hope. However, the tendency seems to be for each successive generation in Israel to become more radicalized. Perhaps the next one won't be interested in making peace at all, but just fighting.
SPIEGEL: Isn't that far more applicable to Hezbollah, the Shiite group in Lebanon with close ties to Iran and Syria?

Assad: Hezbollah presents no danger to anyone.

SPIEGEL: Did you lose your influence with Hezbollah because you withdrew from Lebanon?

Assad: Hezbollah is an independent organization that is part of the government today. And Lebanon is an independent nation, whose sovereignty we accept.

SPIEGEL: Many say that this conciliatory attitude toward Beirut is the consequence of Syria's involvement in the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Damascus could face an international tribunal in this context.

Assad: We are not worried about the proceedings. All investigators have emphasized our cooperation. We hope that the real perpetrators will be exposed.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, Washington counts Syria among the rogue states, partly because of your close relations with Tehran and Iran's nuclear bomb ambitions.

Assad: I don't believe that Iran is seeking to develop the bomb. Syria is fundamentally opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We want a nuclear-free Middle East, Israel included.
SPIEGEL: Other Arab heads of state clearly see the threat of an Iranian bomb and are concerned about Iran's growing influence. They fear dominance by the Shiite country.

Assad: The Americans are stoking these fears with their information policy. Washington is interested in the embargo, with which it hopes to weaken Iran.

SPIEGEL: Israeli politicians have developed concrete plans to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. What would such an attack mean for the Middle East?

Assad: That would be the biggest mistake that anyone could make. The consequences would be catastrophic and would destabilize the region for the long term.

SPIEGEL: You yourself experienced what Israel is capable of in the summer of 2007, when the Israeli air force leveled a complex of buildings in northeastern Syria. You reacted to this attack with great restraint. Why?

Assad: We could have struck back. But should we really allow ourselves to be provoked into a war? Then we would have walked into an Israeli trap. The facility that was bombed was not a nuclear plant, but rather a conventional military installation.

SPIEGEL: But inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency found traces of uranium during their inspection. How do you explain this?

Assad: That uranium did not come from us. Perhaps, the Israelis dropped it from the air to make us the target of precisely these suspicions. If we had in fact had something to hide, we would not have allowed any inspectors into the country.

SPIEGEL: The inspectors would like to take additional samples and inspect other Syrian facilities. Why are you no longer allowing the experts into the country?

Assad: We gave them the opportunity to conduct their research. This is a political game. They are trying to pillory us. We will not let that happen.

SPIEGEL: So you have no ambitions to produce weapons of mass destruction, not even chemical weapons?

Assad: Chemical weapons, that's another thing. But you don't seriously expect me to present our weapons program to you here? We are in a state of war.

SPIEGEL: Do you work closely together with countries like North Korea and Iran as part of these weapons programs?

Assad: We work trustingly together with many countries on research programs.

SPIEGEL: Do you expect greater cooperation from the new American president? Will you approach Barack Obama with your own proposals?

Assad: We speak of hopes, not expectations. The Bush administration brought us two wars. The situation in the world has worsened in every respect in the last eight years. Everything has gotten worse, including economic development. The Americans must withdraw from Iraq. The new US administration must seriously commit itself to the peace process. We must help it to do so, together with the Europeans.

SPIEGEL: Wouldn't rapprochement with Washington upset your Iranian friends?

Assad: We are independent. No one can tell us what to do. Our actions are determined solely by our interests. Good relations with Washington cannot mean bad relations with Tehran.

SPIEGEL: It is possible that President Obama will ask you to convince Iran not to build nuclear weapons.

Assad: We would like to contribute to stabilizing the region. But we must be included and not isolated, as has been the case until now. We are willing to engage in any form of cooperation that is also helpful when it comes to America's relations with other countries.

SPIEGEL: Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton has indicated that she will seek dialogue with Syria and probably Iran, but she also said that Damascus would have to change its irresponsible, "dangerous" behavior.
Assad: It depends what she means by that. I define our responsibility by our national interest. If we can agree on that point, then I have no problem with her statement.

SPIEGEL: Isn't the lack of unity in the Arab world an even bigger problem?

Assad: The Arab world is divided, no doubt. For example, we have had no direct dialogue with Egypt on the central problem of the Gaza war. We are not familiar with Cairo's specific position, because we have been unable to come to terms with Egypt in the last two years. It is not necessarily easier for us to talk to France, for example. But at least the French are interested in talking to us.

SPIEGEL: Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said that, in the Middle East, there can be no war without Egypt, no peace without Syria.

Assad: This is truer than ever. Peace without Syria is unthinkable.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we thank you for this interview.

Intellpuke: You can read this Spiegel interview with President Assad in context here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,602110,00.html
This interview was conducted by Spiegel journalists and editors Dieter Bednarz, Erich Follath and Mathias Muller von Blumencron. This interview was translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.