LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 26/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 20,20-28. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached him with her sons and did him homage, wishing to ask him for something. He said to her, "What do you wish?" She answered him, "Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom." Jesus said in reply, "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?" They said to him, "We can." He replied, "My cup you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left (, this) is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." When the ten heard this, they became indignant at the two brothers.
But Jesus summoned them and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."
 

Samir Kuntar no es un héroe, es un criminal-Link Informativo - San Miguel de Tucuman,Argentina

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
MP Samir Franjieh: Hizbullah Trying to Abort Doha Accord 25/07/08
Syria basks in diplomatic breakthrough. By: By Sami Moubayed 25/07/08
The Disengagement of Syria and Iran-By Huda al Husseini 25/07/08
Turning a new page.By: Bassel Oudat .Al-Ahram Weekly 25/07/08
Iran, Israel, and the risk of war. By Paul Rogers 25/07/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 25/08
MP Samir Franjieh: Hizbullah Trying to Abort Doha Accord 25/07/08
Syria basks in diplomatic breakthrough. By: By Sami Moubayed 25/07/08
The Disengagement of Syria and Iran-By Huda al Husseini 25/07/08
Turning a new page.By: Bassel Oudat .Al-Ahram Weekly 25/07/08
Iran, Israel, and the risk of war. By Paul Rogers 25/07/08
Israel's U.N. Envoy: UNIFIL's Negligence May Lead to New War-Naharnet
Obama Urges Support for the Lebanese Who Have Bled for Democracy-Naharnet
Tripoli Clashes Displace Hundreds of Families-Naharnet
At least three killed in north Lebanon clash-Reuters
Report: Syrian Official Says Hizbullah Cannot Win-Naharnet
Frustrated Berri Defends Hizbullah's Arms-Naharnet
Report: Lebanese Sergeant, Civilian Seized Following Clash with Syrian Unit-Naharnet
Murr: Policy Statement Will Be a Short-Lived Work Plan-Naharnet
Iran's Offer: Lebanon Settlement for Nuclear Program-Naharnet
Khoja: Riyadh Does Not Interfere in Cabinet's Policy Statement-Naharnet
Nasri Khoury for Maintaining his Post-Naharnet
MP Kabbara: No Elections if Armed Factions Persist-Naharnet
Karami Urges Syria to Demarcate Shebaa Farms-Naharnet
U.S. Ambassador Raises Concerns About Hizbullah-Naharnet
Sfeir for One Army in One Country-Naharnet
'Allah willing, I'll kill more Israelis'-Jerusalem Post
Hizbullah recruits s. Lebanese Sunnis-Jerusalem Post
At least one killed in north Lebanon clash-Reuters
Ministers wrangle over official stance on Hizbullah's arms-Daily Star
Bellemare won't take up post before 'end of September'-Daily Star
Graziano: New challenges lie ahead for UNIFIL-Daily Star
Sfeir says Hizbullah's arms contradict global norms-Daily Star
Karami calls for abolishing sectarianism in politics-Daily Star
Italian Embassy launches $1.56 million irrigation project in Baalbek-Daily Star
Siniora dismisses criticism over file of detainees in Syria-Daily Star
Despite calm, Lebanon's security industry thrives-Daily Star
Lebanon's contractors set to go on strike-Daily Star
New fire breaks out at Burj Hammoud dump-Daily Star
Mothers protest against law that denies their children nationality-Daily Star
Greenpeace launches project to create marine reserve along Jbeil coast-Daily Star
Archaeologists combing through Gemmayzeh excavation site unearth artifacts dating back to first century AD-Daily Star

Tripoli Clashes Displace Hundreds of Families
Naharnet/Fierce clashes raged in the northern town of Tripoli between rival gunmen in the districts of Baal Mohsen and Bab Tabbaneh, police said six people were killed and 20 wounded. The fatalities were two women and four men, according to a police report. The clashes that raged day long despite a cease-fire called by the Region's Mufti Sheikh Malek al-Shaar, also resulted in displacing hundreds of families from apartments in Bab Tabbaneh targeted by sniper fire from Baal Mohsen, according to police reports. Schools in Tripoli are "full of families displaced from Bab Tabbaneh," Tripoli resident Marwa Arabi told Naharnet by telephone.
Sheikh Bilal Baroudi, Imam of Tripoli's as-Salam Mosque, said "the immediate challenge is to accommodate refugees from Bab Tabbaneh. Public schools are full and we are holding contacts with privately-owned schools to accommodate refugees."Sheikh Baroudi said the cease-fire called by Mufti Shaar was not "respected at all. There was not a minute, all day, without clashes." "The main problem is sniper fire from Baal Mohsen. There are no advances and counter advances, They open sniper fire at any thing that moves in Bab Tabbaneh, even at residents in apartments, and also target streets deep into Tripoli," Baroudi added.
Sniper fire from Baal Mohsen has resulted in blocking traffic across several streets in Tripoli beyond the confrontation line. A security source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said efforts to put the cease-fire into effect have failed, so far. Security forces, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, are encountering "major challenges in dealing with snipers deployed in Baal Mohsen.""They open fire from residential apartments, from windows, from balconies and roof tops. What can the security forces do? Shoot at apartments?" he asked. Troops deployed in the two disputes districts have not been able to contain the violence. Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 08:07

Obama Urges Support for the Lebanese Who Have Bled for Democracy
Naharnet/Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama touched, during a speech in Berlin Thursday, on the ongoing issues in the Middle East, including Iran's nuclear threat, the political developments in Lebanon and Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions," Obama told a cheering crowd in the German capital. "We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace," he said as he strode confidently across a large podium erected at the base of the Victory Column in Tiergarten Park in the heart of Berlin.
"And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close," Obama added. He summoned Europeans and Americans together to "defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it" as surely as they conquered communism a generation ago. The U.S. Senator ended his speech by reminding Berliners about the need to share responsibilities in tackling global issues and warned that the challenges ahead would be long and tough. Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 12:47

MP Franjieh: Hizbullah Trying to Abort Doha Accord
By Dalia Nehme-Naharnet
MP Samir Franjieh blamed Tripoli clashes on Hizbullah that is trying to "abolish" the political concept of the Doha Accord and preempt any discussion of its weapons. Franjieh, in an interview with Naharnet, said Hizbullah is launching a "preemptive move" aimed at creating a "faite accompli."
The Tripoli clashes, he said, are "pressures that victimize innocent people." He called for "disarming the whole of Tripoli," and said Lebanon should ask Syrian President Bashar Assad to order Palestinian factions affiliated with Damascus to "pull their weapons out" of Tripoli and other areas. "Hizbullah is trying to abolish the political results of the Doha Accord and to block dialogue that is to be launched by President Michel Suleiman," Franjieh said. "There is no agreement between the Lebanese (factions) on mentioning either the resistance or the weapons in the new cabinet's policy statement," he noted. He recalled that a ranking Iranian official has offered a barter, pledging stability in Lebanon in return for approval by the west of the Iranian nuclear program. "This should be humiliating for Hizbullah," Franjieh said. "The Lebanese people have no say in Iran's nuclear program. In fact we are for banning nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East," he added.
"We want Lebanon pacified" in Middle East conflicts, he stressed. Franjieh denied reports that he would be a candidate in the 2009 parliamentary elections for the Maronite seat in the Tripoli constituency. "I would not be a candidate in Tripoli constituency. This is out of the question," he stressed.
However, he insisted that 'we would run for elections and we would win the elections. I have no doubt about this." "For us the elections (in 2009) are less difficult than what they were in 2005."Nevertheless, premier Fouad Saniora's cabinet is faced by the "major question: Would elections be feasible if we have an armed faction?" Franjieh said. "Weapons eliminate the principle of majority. In the year 2005 the March 14 won majority of parliamentary seats in the elections. The result was practically eliminated by the use of force," Franjieh explained. "Having armed factions (running for elections) would limit freedom of voters," he stressed.
Franjieh spoke of "differences in opinion" between March 14 factions and said one of the main problems that the alliance faces is the lack of "interaction between its leaders and masses.""The March 14 priorities should be set in a way to reflect the opinion of its masses, not of its factions, be they political parties or sects," Franjieh explained. "We have the will to overcome this problem," he stressed. Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 19:11

Israel's U.N. Envoy: UNIFIL's Negligence May Lead to New War
Naharnet/U.N. peacekeepers in south Lebanon are not fulfilling their mandate and are potentially laying the groundwork for another round of violence between Israel and Hizbullah, Israel's outgoing U.N. envoy Dan Gillerman told The Jerusalem Post. UNIFIL "should be much more proactive - more aggressive in going after Hizbullah - in detecting (and) identifying arms depots. They should be going in there, not just relying on the Lebanese armed forces…who often work in collusion with Hizbullah," Gillerman said. "The UNIFIL soldiers were not sent there to give out chocolates to children or write traffic tickets. They were sent there to carry out a mandate which was very clearly defined, and they are not (doing so)," he stressed. "They may be laying the groundwork for the next flare-up. So even in their own interest and for their (own) safety, they should be more proactive and go after Hizbullah, and find a way to control the Israeli-Syrian border," Gillerman said.
The ambassador, who will be succeeded by law professor Gabriela Shalev, told the Jerusalem Post that he expressed his "very grave concerns" about the situation in Lebanon to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon. He said that Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, was supposed to prevent the Shiite group from rearming. The resolution "did not achieve that. Hizbullah today has rearmed to the point that it is possibly even better equipped than it was before the war. The resolution also imposed an embargo on arms shipments to militias in Lebanon - namely Hizbullah - which was a huge achievement, but that wasn't implemented either," Gillerman told the daily. Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 12:07

Report: Syrian Official Says Hizbullah Cannot Win
Naharnet/Ex-MP Ahmed al-Taqi, an advisor to the Syrian premier, has reportedly said at the Saban Center in the U.S. that "non-state actors, meaning Hizbullah, cannot win, they can only bring the other side to the table." "Israel realized now that they need neighbors who are powerful enough to negotiate with them," a person who attended the discussion at the Brookings Institution's center quoted al-Taqi as saying. Al-Taqi, who also manages a Damascus-based think tank, is visiting the U.S. as part of a Syrian team that groups Samir Seifan, a businessman who manages a business studies center; and Samir Mobayed, a political analyst and university professor who had graduated from the American University of Beirut. The State Department has turned down the Syrian delegation's request for a meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said Wednesday that Welch would not meet the delegation. Earlier, the U.S. had said that the top official would schedule a meeting if requested. The source also quoted al-Taqi as saying that the nature of Syria's alliance with Iran "changes if there is peace with Israel. That is why we need the U.S." He said if the region is going to peace "all collateral issues can be dealt with." Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 13:09

Frustrated Berri Defends Hizbullah's Arms
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri has expressed frustration at the slow pace of the ministerial committee's work in issuing the cabinet policy statement and said it was "shameful" that the issue of Hizbullah's arms was obstructing the drafting of the statement. "The delay is a shame if we are in a hurry" to solve the country's political and economic problems, Berri told An Nahar in remarks published Friday. "It is shameful to deal with the resistance and its men this way," he said.
Media reports said Friday that differences persisted among committee members in their seventh meeting, adding that Hizbullah has rejected referring the issue of its arms to the national dialogue that will be sponsored by President Michel Suleiman soon. The newspaper said that the Shiite group's representatives in the committee insisted on adopting the version of the previous policy statement. An Nahar said it was unlikely that the committee would accomplish its mission anytime soon.
Berri told the newspaper that as long as Lebanese land remains occupied, a "real defense strategy" or a "council to defend Lebanon under the army's umbrella" are needed. Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 10:35

Murr: Policy Statement Will Be a Short-Lived Work Plan
Naharnet/Defense Minister Elias Murr has said that the cabinet's policy statement was a short-term work plan that would not bring a solution to the country's problems. The ministerial statement "is a working plan for (a period) of 10 months and not a comprehensive solution to a controversial issue in the country," Murr told LBCI's Kalam al-Nass talk show Thursday night. He stressed the need to avoid disagreement on the policy statement, saying the "solution comes through dialogue" which President Michel Suleiman is to sponsor soon. Murr's comments came amid disagreement between members of a ministerial committee tasked with drafting the policy statement over controversial topics, including the issue of Hizbullah weapons. "I have information that Hizbullah for the first time wants to seriously discuss the defense strategy with other parties," Murr said. He said the Lebanese army should be the only side that possesses weapons. "As a minister in the Lebanese cabinet I don't accept Hizbullah to continue holding weapons," Murr said. He also stressed that he is not affiliated with either March 8 or March 14 forces. Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 07:29

Iran's Offer: Lebanon Settlement for Nuclear Program
Naharnet/Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said Thursday that negotiations with world powers on Tehran's nuclear program could solve problems in Lebanon and Iraq. "If the negotiations get under way, then solutions could be found for many problems like Iraq, Lebanon or fuel prices," said Aghazadeh, who also heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. He spoke to reporters after his meeting in Vienna with Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, a week after Tehran lodged its latest proposals with world powers in Geneva.
The New York Times published Tuesday what it said was an informal document outlining Iran's strategy, calling for seven more rounds of talks, stressing the need for an end to sanctions, and making no mention of an incentives package offered by six world powers in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment by the Islamic republic. World powers have offered to start pre-negotiations during which Tehran would add no more uranium-enriching centrifuges and in return face no further sanctions -- the so-called "freeze-for-freeze" approach. Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- the so-called "P5+1" powers leading the talks -- have warned that Iran has only a fortnight to respond to their latest offer seeking to end a five-year crisis that has raised fears of regional conflict and sent oil prices spiraling. Aghazadeh did not comment on the "freeze-for-freeze" offer, saying only that the P5+1 group "needs time to study our proposal," adding that Iran hopes "it will merge into one single document in the end" that both sides can agree to.
The Iranian nuclear chief's talks with the IAEA come the day after Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed he would make no concessions in the country's nuclear drive. Iran is already under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt sensitive uranium enrichment activity, which the West fears could be aimed at making nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the allegations, insisting that its program is designed to provide energy for its growing population.
Iranian officials have repeatedly said they have no intention to freeze enrichment and that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to make its own nuclear fuel.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 24 Jul 08, 19:17

Khoja: Riyadh Does Not Interfere in Cabinet's Policy Statement
Naharnet/The Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Abdul Aziz Khoja said Thursday Riyadh does not interfere in efforts to draft a policy statement for the new cabinet.
"The Lebanese are capable of handling their own issues," Khoja told reporters after a meeting with Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh. "We discussed general issues," Khoja said of his talks with Salloukh. He said Saudi Arabia "encourages" the developing of Lebanon's relations with Syria. He termed "normal" the setting up of diplomatic ties between Beirut and Damascus. Beirut, 24 Jul 08, 21:59

Fire at Bourj Hammoud Garbage Dump
Naharnet/Fire broke out in piles of used rubber tires deserted at the Bourj Hammoud garbage dump on Beirut's northern edge Thursday, but rescuers managed to prevent the blaze from spreading to nearby butane storage facilities. A Civil Defense Directorate official said rescuers and firefighters managed to "besiege" the fire and were achieving progress in efforts to extinguish it. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the fire as "localized" and said there was no immediate threat of it spreading. The problem, he added, is with the "thik-black smoke billowing from the burning rubber. This causes respiratory problems to residents" of the densely populated suburb and most of Beirut's eastern sector. Beirut, 24 Jul 08, 21:42

Mitri: Major National Issues Would Be Discussed Later
Information Minister Tareq Mitri said the committee drafting a policy statement accomplished most of its mission and would tackle on Friday major national issues.
Controversial topics were not tackled during the committee's seventh session on Thursday, Mitri told reporters after the meeting.
He was apparently referring to the issue of Hizbullah weapons and related topics. Mitri said the committee has "accomplished most" of its mission and agreed on a joint approach to several topics such as the disappearance of Imam Moussa al-Sadr and his two comrades, the central fund for the displaced, the council for south Lebanon, compensation for the 2006 Israeli war victims and issues related to women activities. A reliable source told Naharnet that discussion of the thorny topic of Hizbullah weapons was suspended for the day pending consultations between committee members and leaders of their respective political factions.
Mitri said the committee would convene on Friday to tackle "major national topics." Beirut, 24 Jul 08, 21:19

Sfeir for One Army in One Country
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir said Thursday there should be no army outside state control, in an apparent reference to Hizbullah. Sfeir made the remark to members of the syndicate of newspaper editors who visited him at his seat in suburban Bkirki, north of Beirut. "States of the world have resistance (movements) but these are non-armed factions. The concept here contradicts common concepts in the world," Sfeir added. "Unfortunately differences persist," Sfeir said when asked about obstacles hampering agreement on a blueprint for the new cabinet's policy statement. He urged the various factions to "adhere to the nation's interests … so that the cabinet would be able to work for the interest of all the Lebanese." Beirut, 24 Jul 08, 16:58

Nasri Khoury for Maintaining his Post
Naharnet/Secretary-General of the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council Nasri Khoury warned Thursday that disbanding his council would take Beirut-Damascus relations "back to zero level." Khoury said despite calls by leaders of the March 14 majority for disbanding the council, a decision on the issue "should be taken by the cabinet.""In Lebanon, decision-making is restricted to the government," Khoury noted. "My impression is that the majority is for maintaining the secretariat general of the council after reviewing its powers," he added. Beirut, 24 Jul 08, 18:09

Report: Lebanese Sergeant, Civilian Seized Following Clash with Syrian Unit
Naharnet/Syrian security forces at the Abboudiyeh border crossing in northern Lebanon seized on Thursday night a Lebanese army sergeant and a civilian, al-Mustaqbal newspaper reported. Aliwaa newspaper said that heavy shooting took place between the Syrian military unit and Lebanese sergeant Asaad al-Sawmai and civilian Ahmad al-Mohammed, before the two were "detained" by the Syrian forces.Contacts to secure their release took place on the level of the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council as well as the Joint Coordination Committee, the daily reported. Whereas security sources denied that the detention occurred inside Lebanese territory, where the Syrian unit had penetrated, local inhabitants said that the clash took place within Lebanon, Aliwaa reported. The sources said that the problem was an individual one between the two parties, and that the Syrian unit had not crossed the border, Aliwaa added. Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 08:58

Clashes Over Power Rights Wound Two in Ouzai
Naharnet/Clashes broke out between members of feuding clans in south Beirut's coastal suburb of Ouzai on Friday, wounding two people. Police said the clash broke out due to differences over distributing electric power in districts controlled by the Khansa and Assaf clans. Army units intervened and brought the clash to a halt, reopening the Ouzai road to traffic, a police report said. The clash persisted for nearly one hour.Beirut, 25 Jul 08, 19:44

Syria basks in diplomatic breakthrough
By Sami Moubayed
Asia Times Online
DAMASCUS - "Our telephone number is 202-456-1414. When you are serious about peace, call us." These were the words of former United States secretary of state James Baker in June 1990 when he suspended dialogue with Yasser Arafat, claiming the Palestine Liberation Organization was still committed to armed war with Israel and thereby not interested in peace.
In 1991, the Americans insisted on bypassing Arafat during the Madrid peace conference, to punish him for his support of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, right after the invasion of Kuwait. When talks started in Washington - then Oslo - however, the Americans realized there could be no peace without Arafat's participation. That is why they had no choice but to dial his number when they wanted somebody to make the historical handshake on the White House lawn with Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in
September 1993. Arafat waited for nearly two years - almost in the dark - but in the end got things done - his way.
In similar fashion, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad got things done - his way - first in Doha in May and now in Paris at the weekend. In a series of meetings at a "Mediterranean" conference, Assad resumed diplomatic ties with Lebanon, continuing the trend started with indirect talks through Turkey with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Assad also made it clear that Damascus is central to solving problems in the Middle East. He also helped launch the Union for the Mediterranean with more than 40 other heads of state and government.
In April 2005, relations soured with Lebanon as the Syrian army packed up and left, implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, under the watchful eye of the United States and France. Relations also deteriorated between Damascus and then-president Jacques Chirac, who put his full weight behind a UN probe that tried to implicate Syrian officials in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri.
Then came the Israeli incursion into Lebanon of 2006 in which Syria was accused of funding and arming the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon with the aim of carrying out a proxy war on Israel, at the expense of Lebanon. All of this was in addition to the numerous assassinations that took place in Beirut, in which several prominent Lebanese figures were gunned down and accusations were again pointed against Syria.
Right after the war, which saw Israel withdraw after 33 days, Shi'ite lawmakers walked out on Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora (much to the pleasure of Syria), making his cabinet illegitimate and sparking a constitutional crisis that turned political - then military - in May this year.
Syria's friends took to the streets of Beirut, disarmed armed men loyal to anti-Syrian statesman Saad al-Hariri, and forced the international community into a new reasoning: we cannot get anything done in Lebanon without the Syrians. Neither the Syrian Accountability Act, nor resolution 1559 - and not even the Mehlis Report [1] - were able to break Syria's power base in Lebanon, which mainly includes Hezbollah, Amal and several Sunni and Christian heavyweights not amused with the hegemony of power practiced by the Hariri team over Beirut's politics.
An argument that repeated itself since 2005 was that Syria had the ability to destabilize Lebanon; then came the realization that those who can destabilize can also - logically - stabilize.
Three years ago, the entire world was on the verge of telling Syria what Baker told Arafat in 1990, "When you are serious about peace (or in this case Lebanon), call us. " They felt that Syria was bluffing - waving a friendly hand on one side - and carrying a rifle in the other. Syria's support for Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, its friendship with Iran, and its loud criticism of the US occupation in Iraq, all contributed to the international perception of Syria in 2005-2007.
Matters began shifting in Syria's favor after the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. The Europeans - more so than the United States - realized that "isolating" Syria had led nowhere, except to empower groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. If anything constructive was going to be done in the Middle East with regard to Arab-Israeli peace, it needed to include the Syrians.
The US-imposed isolation began crumbling when Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos visited Syria in 2006, right after the end of the Lebanon War, followed by Javier Solana, the European Union's chief foreign policy negotiator, in March 2007. Solana offered the Syrians a series of economic incentives, including the signing of the EU Partnership Agreement, in exchange to finding a solution to the crisis in Lebanon.
Seemingly, the perception of Syria started to change, from problem-maker to problem-solver. Among other things, it was reasoned that getting rid of Hezbollah through military force was impossible - as Israel found out in 2006. Israel clearly could not do it, and nor could UN Resolution 1701, which distanced the Lebanese group from Lebanon's border with Israel. The only way was to get the Syrians to cooperate on changing Hezbollah's behavior, either directly through their considerable weight in Lebanon, or indirectly through Iran.
Syria, for example, helped release the 15 British sailors taken hostage by Iran in 2007, and also helped release BBC reporter Alan Johnston from the hands of an Islamic group that was reportedly close to Hamas in Palestine. Syrian cooperation on Iraq and Palestine paid off, but the real breakthrough came at the weekend when Syria started indirect peace talks with Israel, and helped solve the crisis in Lebanon. The time difference between both events was no more than five minutes.
The fact that Syria was willing to enter into indirect talks with Israel - under the auspices of a world-recognized honest broker like Turkey - was proof that the Syrians were not as bad as the world had thought since 2003. Before that, the Syrians had gone to the Annapolis peace conference in the US in 2007, despite objections from allies like Hamas and Iran, aimed at showing the Americans that they were in fact serious about finding solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Annapolis is actually what got the Americans to refrain from vetoing the Syrian-Israeli talks, since prior to 2007 the George W Bush White House had shown absolutely no interest in re-activating the Syrian-Israeli peace track, which had been dormant since 1999.
Decision-makers in Paris were meanwhile watching the developments in Syria with interest. It is no secret that, unlike the Americans, the French cared more about Syrian cooperation in Lebanon, than Iraq. They even complain, as one statesman put it, that the Americans "wake up very enthusiastic about Lebanon, with loud words in favor of solutions in Beirut. By midday, so many other foreign policy issues swamp their agenda that Lebanon drops to 10th in priority."
The Syrians realized this early on, and capitalized on Franco-American differences towards the Middle East. The French are practical when it comes to Lebanon; they want solutions, regardless of how they are reached, and who is involved in reaching them, whether it is Hezbollah, Syria or Iran. They departed from Bush's earlier strategy of not talking to Hezbollah by inviting all Lebanese statesmen to a resort near Paris, including members of the Shi'ite group. French President Nicolas Sarkozy promised to re-engage the Syrians once a solution was reached in the presidential vacuum in Lebanon. If it meant departing from American dictates in Lebanon, then so be it.
From France's perspective, in the past two months the following has been achieved:
The election of a president for Lebanon, after a vacuum that had existed since November 2007. France - the former colonial power in Lebanon - remains very much committed to Lebanon and was sincerely worried about Lebanese affairs, unlike the Americans, who used Lebanon for political reasons to achieve other ends (like Iraq) since 2005.
French credibility was restored in the eyes of ordinary Lebanese - even the Shi'ites among them - thanks to Sarkozy's even-handed policy of standing at arm's length from all parties and talking with everyone - Hezbollah included.
The French balance in the entire Middle East was restored after things became too personal in 2005-2007, due to Chirac's links with the Hariri family. France now returns to Syria, both politically, culturally and economically. One immediate result of the rapprochement is a contract for a French firm to build two cement factories in Syria, worth US$1.2 billion. Another is serious talk about granting a French firm the right to construct a metro in Damascus.
From the Syrian perspective, the following are important:
Syria sidelined all of the anti-Syrian candidates running for the presidency and secured the election of Michel Suleiman, a man who is a friend of both Damascus and Hezbollah. It got its way when saying that it would not allow an anti-Syrian statesman to become the new master of the Baabda presidential palace. Suleiman is a staunch supporter of resisting Israel and will not tolerate any force being used to disarm Hezbollah. He is also a non-sectarian figure who believes in excellent relations with Syria and is on the payroll of neither the Americans nor the Saudis.
Greater representation has been given to the Hezbollah-led opposition in the 30-seat cabinet created by Siniora this weekend. They received 11 seats - thereby granting them veto power to obstruct any anti-Hezbollah legislation pushed for by the anti-Syrian March 14 coalition of political parties. Hezbollah got three portfolios - but only one will be occupied by an actual Hezbollah member - Labor Minister Mohammad Fneish.
Syria patched up with France without having to change a single policy it had been preaching since 2005. Nor did the Syrians have to make any concession with regard to Lebanon, such as cuddling up to Siniora or March 14, or working against Hezbollah's interests, or abandoning Iran.
Speaking at a press conference with both presidents Assad and Suleiman, Sarkozy announced that both countries had taken a "historic" step and had decided to normalize relations by opening embassies - something that has not happened since the countries received their independence from the French during World War II.
These are good days for Syria. They feel confident that the dark clouds of 2005 are gone and that the future is in their hands; they waited for Chirac to leave the Elysee in 2007, and it has paid off. They are now waiting for Bush to leave the White House in 2009.
Note
1. The Mehlis Report was the result of the United Nations' investigation into the February 14, 2005, assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik Hariri. The investigation was launched in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1595 and headed by the German judge, Detlev Mehlis. It involved questioning of Lebanese and Syrian officials. The final draft of the report was released on October 20, 2005, and found that high-ranking members of the Syrian and Lebanese governments were involved in the assassination.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

The Disengagement of Syria and Iran
Asharq Alawsat -By Huda al Husseini
17/07/2008
The region has entered into a superficial calm this summer; prisoners were officially exchanged between Hezbollah and Israel while Iran received new hint “A freeze for a freeze”. EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana verbally offered Tehran the following: Tehran must freeze any expansion of its nuclear program in return for the UN Security Council halting further sanctions measures.
Meanwhile, the Europeans and the Iranians are negotiating over an agreement for a full freeze [on further developing nuclear program] after which the US can officially join the negotiation table. This way, Iran can say that it did not halt its nuclear activities as a precondition for negotiations but rather as the outcome of negotiations while the US can say that it only joined the negotiation table after Iran suspended all uranium enrichment-related activities.
Will this suffice to limit Iran’s threat on the region? If we can surpass the nuclear threat and overlook what took place in Lebanon and the statements issued by Hezbollah’s officials in which they stated that the decision to go to war in July 2006 was made following consultation with the Supreme Guide [Iran’s Ali Khamenei], this was stated by Naim Qasim to AlKawthar TV and later confirmed by the party’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, we would find that the party had undertaken a double action. Moreover, it may also be observed that among Hezbollah that the Iran loyalists outnumber the Lebanon loyalists.
Iran is using Lebanon as a launch pad to fire thousands of missiles on Israel based on the unshakable idea among Iranian officials that Israel is plotting to attack it and destroy the revolution, which is why they must deter it and brace themselves for retaliation. Since Israel is able to conduct air raids on Iran using its air force, something Iran is can’t do; it [Iran] has chosen and transformed Lebanon into a strategic point for counterstrikes.
Following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Iran was able to build its lines of deterrence and defense in Lebanon. This plan was exposed in July 2006 during the war when Israel destroyed approximately 80 percent of the medium- and long- range missiles in a day.
A well-informed Western military expert who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity said, “There is no relation between the existence of these missiles and the issue of the Shebaa farms, the seven villages or Kafr Shuba or even the resistance. Hezbollah’s Secretary-General [Hassan Nasrallah] committed a gross mistake during the last war because he revealed the Iranian plan in Lebanon. In Tehran’s view, he was not supposed to divulge that and the plan has yet to be realized.”
In the aftermath of the war, Hassan Nasrallah said, “Had I known the nature of Israeli retaliation, I would not have given orders to kidnap the two soldiers.” This was interpreted as a double apology from the Lebanese and the Iranians as well.
Regarding the gravity of the Iranian threat, aside from the nuclear dimension, it lies in the Iranian officials’ dream to transform their republic into an empire and if it succeeded in dominating over the Gulf then it would be able to control the world economy.
The military expert added, “Try to imagine what would happen if Iran seized control of the Strait of Hormuz and decreed the passage of a specific number of oil tankers. If that were to happen, a new issue would emerge; the Arab Muslims would end up in a confrontation with the non-Muslim Arabs and we would regress back to the centuries past. The question would then be: Who is the rightful caliph after the Prophet, should he be exclusively Arab or will it be like the Ottoman Empire – will we have an Iranian caliph this time? This would mean a showdown would break out between the Sunnis and the Shia, so what would the situation be in the Gulf States in that scenario? If we were to consider Africa, we would find that the Shia in the Islamic Maghreb are connected with the Al-Qaeda route, reaching to Iraq where the Iranian intervention leads to the death of Iraqis and British and American soldiers.”
Iran’s approach in dealing with the international community has become common knowledge; when pressure on it rises, it releases a statement that lacks any real content but that is capable of drawing various interpretations worldwide. Then, two days later, it contradicts those statements or initial position.
This is also what Hezbollah did with regards to the issue of the Shebaa farms. According to my source, the international community agreed to help Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to resolve this issue by disarming Hezbollah. Once the topic was broached, the party’s response was: “there is no connection between the resistance’s arms and Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa farms because the party has its own agenda that includes the ‘third force’ and the ‘seven villages’.”
When the UN drew the Blue Line in 2000, Israel annexed a Lebanese village into its land that came to be known as Kibbutz Aram. Thus the Blue Line extended 10 meters into Lebanese territory and encroached upon three areas beyond the Blue Line. Those informed about the borders are familiar with this fact, including Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah links its arms with the liberation of the seven villages and the return to the 1949 borders.
At that time, according to the military expert, the areas surrounding the Marjayoun district were given to Lebanon while Israel was given the seven villages. So how did the land surrounding the Marjayoun district end up with the farmers? The expert said: “The Lebanese owners sold the land to the farmers and all of it is registered.”
So, is there no deal for the Shebaa farms? There appears to be no problem with them within the framework of what the international resolutions have stipulated with regards to the necessity of demarcating the Lebanese-Syrian borders, particularly since there are approximately 40 disputed areas between the two states, including the Shebaa farms. There seems to be an understanding between Syria and Israel that stretches from the north to the south where the Shebaa farms are located.
The military expert resumed talking about Iran describing the Iranians as brilliant because of their knowledge of the weak points and because they know perfectly well where their interests lay. Europe cannot reach the Security Council without China and Russia – even if the US was the first to issue any decision or impose a sanction. However, he still questions: If Iran only wanted to launch a missile strike on Israel alone then it would need rockets with a 1,500 kilometer range, so why is it now developing missiles with a 4,000 kilometer range? Europe is the reason behind this because Europe is Iran’s backyard.
Focusing on Iran leads to pondering what could take place in the negotiations between Israel and Syria. Syria wants an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights; the negotiations are presently revolving around points of intersection after which they may advance on to the next stage. They [the Syrians] insisted on declaring the negotiation to gain the ‘respect’ of the US following the Doha Agreement. However; “If Damascus wants to reach Washington, it will have to pay the price,” he said.
Regarding Iran, the Western expert said: “It is a simple matter, Syria wants Lebanon and Iran and Syria are like a tiger and lion; they walk alongside one another but if you tempt the lion with a victim it would immediately pounce on it and seize it. And it seems that the victim has been, and will remain to be, Lebanon.”
Syria has committed mistakes in Lebanon; however, it has learned from its mistakes and France appears to be the first that is convinced of that. Syria promised it [France] that it would facilitate the election of the new president [Michel Suleiman] and in return for that, French-Syrian communication was resumed and Syria was brought back into the international arena.
But will French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is close to both Washington and Tel Aviv, play this role without having covertly coordinated with these two capitals first? Has the time come for the key (Syria) to be drawn form the lock (Iran)? If that process is being undertaken by a number of states, to which Turkey has recently joined, requires a relatively low price, namely Lebanon, who would hesitate to pay for it?
The tragedy is that Lebanon is immersed in the ‘snatching’ of ministries and alliances completely oblivious to the fact that Syria and Iran and lurking and lying in wait so that it will be swallowed up by one of them – with regional and international blessing.
The question is: Are we headed towards a Syrian-Iranian showdown in which the world will stand by Syria

Iran, Israel, and the risk of war
Paul Rogers
Open Democracy
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/iran-israel-and-the-risk-of-war
The cautious optimism over Washington's hesitant dialogue with Tehran is counterbalanced by growing unease that Israel is intent on a military option, says Paul Rogers 24 - 07 - 2008
The prospect of war over Iran's nuclear plans seemed to recede in mid-July 2008 after a marked change in United States attitudes to the country. This was signalled by the decision to hold direct talks with the Islamic Republic for the first time since the revolution of 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis that did so much to embitter relations between the two countries. The outcome of the discussions held in Paris on 19 July was disappointing to western hopes of concessions from Iran over its uranium-enrichment plans, but the fact of the meeting has been hailed as a positive step that diminishes what had seemed to be the escalating risk of armed confrontation.
Between this hope and a stony reality, however, falls a shadow. For even if the momentum in Washington has moved away from the planning for a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, the option of an attack by Israel is very much alive. In the complex strategic calculations of the three main state actors, therefore, the mild and provisional rapprochement between the US and Iran is only one counter that in itself does not eliminate the possibility of war (see "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point", 13 March 2008).
A static momentum
The shift in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of pressure from two branches of government: the state department, where influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over Iran; and the defence department, where there has been real concern over the possible consequences of a military confrontation. This has been voiced by a number of senior military commanders, most recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the joint chiefs-of-staff (see "Top US admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil", Reuters, 20 July 2008). Mullen has conveyed a pithy scepticism about the fallout of war with Iran ("This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable") with a sharp awareness of the limits imposed by the US's own military overstretch ("Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one"). At the same time, he is emphatic that Iran has to be "deterred" in its ostensible ambition of achieving a nuclear-weapon capacity (see "U.S. admiral calls for global pressure on Iran", Xinhua, 21 July 2008)
This element of ambiguity was reflected too at the 19 July meeting (which included representatives from China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany). Although the US was represented by under-secretary of state William Burns, the highest ranking US official to be in dialogue with Iran for many years, the sense of a process almost immediately stalled was palpable. The secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was critical of the Iranian delegation immediately after the meeting (see Matthew Lee, "U.S. says Iran not serious at nuclear talks", Baltimore Sun, 21 July 2008). Members of other delegations that took part were scornful of Iran's preparation and input, including the paper distributed at the meeting which outlined Tehran's core positions (see Elaine Sciolino, "Iran offers 2 pages and no ground in nuclear talks", International Herald Tribune, 22 July 2008).
A vengeful disillusion
The Paris dialogue may nonetheless have confirmed that the balance within the George W Bush administration has moved away from planning for war with Iran. This would be a cruel disappointment to those inside (vice-president Dick Cheney and his team) and outside (neo-conservative and other hawkish voices) the administration who have long sought to match action against Iran to the "axis of evil" rhetoric.
Indeed, the reaction of the analysts who have promoted a hardline agenda on Iran to Washington's change of approach is instructive. For many, it has evidently been a bad dream which has confirmed their sourness towards Condoleezza Rice and the state department but also introduced a new note of disillusioned disgust against the George W Bush administration as a whole.
The hardliners' unsettled mood is compounded by Barack Obama's lead in the opinion polls, amid a more general positive coverage of the Democratic candidate's campaign reflected in the blanket coverage of his overseas tour to Afghanistan, the Middle East and western Europe (see Dan Balz, "Obama Going Abroad With World Watching", Washington Post, 19 July 2008).
In addition, the agreement of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki with Obama's call for a major US troop withdrawal from Iraq is a serious embarrassment for the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has been making much of Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs (see Jim Lobe, "McCain knee-capped by Maliki", Asia Times, 23 July 2008). The widespread frustration of Republicans and conservatives at the Obama summer festival is reinforced by the apparent media sidelining of the campaign of the Republican candidate, John McCain (see Linda Feldmann, "McCain camp cries foul", Christian Science Monitor, 24 July 2008).
Yet the neocon focus on Iran remains central, with a rising sense of aggravation that Iran has been rewarded with serious diplomatic attention from Washington even though it has made no effort (and has expressed no intention) to cease its uranium-enrichment activities. Such a cessation had long been a pre-requisite for any change in the US's attitude; its abandonment opens the administration to that toxic charge: appeasement, only one step from betrayal.
Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute described Bush's reversal as "diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime" (see Michael Rubin, "Now Bush is Appeasing Iran", Wall Street Journal, 21 July 2008). Indeed, Rubin contends: "As Ahmadinejad begins his re-election campaign, he can say he has successfully brought Washington to its knees through blunt defiance, murder of US troops, and Holocaust denial."
This is strong stuff, but others are even harsher on the Bush administration. Stephen F Hayes, a regular commentator in the neocon journal the Weekly Standard, makes a direct connection with the Bush about-turn on North Korea (which included, on 26 June 2008, removing Pyongyang from the United States's list of state sponsors of terrorism). After North Korea's nuclear test in October 2006, Bush initially rejected calls for negotiations; yet in a matter of weeks he allowed the state department's Christopher R Hill to meet a North Korean delegation, with a further meeting in Berlin in early 2007. This rapprochement notwithstanding, Stephen F Hayes notes that North Korea assisted Syria in developing the nuclear reactor that was (on 6 September 2007) to be bombed by Israel.
Hayes goes on to argue:
"Despite all of this - despite North Korean nuclear aid to one of the world's leading terrorist regimes and despite its subsequent failure to account for its nuclear programs - in June the Bush administration volunteered to lift sanctions on North Korea under the Trading with the Enemy Act and, over the objection of our close ally Japan, decided to remove North Korea from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terror" (see Stephen F Hayes, "'Stunningly Shameful': The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran", Weekly Standard, 28 July 2008).
Another stern reproach for the administration's u-turn on Iran comes from the former under-secretary of state for arms control and United Nations ambassador in the Bush administration, John Bolton. Bolton focuses too on Israeli concerns about Iran's nuclear plans, and is straightforward in arguing that the Bush policy towards Iran has failed, and that it is reasonable to expect Israel to take military action. Moreover, he argues:"we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is a compelling logic to make it as successful as possible" (see John Bolton, "Israel, Iran and the bomb", Wall Street Journal, 15 July 2008).
A spreading unease
Meanwhile, Israeli sources report that Iran is about to get the first shipments of the advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile system which can track multiple incoming aircraft simultaneously and can attack up to twelve at a time (see Yaakov Katz, "Officials: Advanced S-300 on way to Iran", Jerusalem Post, 23 July 2008). Some sources indicate that a number of the missiles could be deployed around nuclear sites later in 2008 or very early in 2009, making any Israel attack far more costly (see Dan Williams, "Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 - Israel", Reuters, 23 July 2008).
In Israel itself, there is now far more talk of the need to take action before the US presidential election comes to a climax on 4 November 2008, or at latest before the new president is inaugurated 20 January 2009. The Israeli academic Benny Morris is among those arguing that an Israeli attack is highly likely:
"Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months - and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country's nuclear program" (see Benny Morris, "Using Bombs to Stave Off War", New York Times, 18 July 2008).
For their part, the western European countries may have been buoyed by the US's leaning towards dialogue with Iran, but the overall mood in at least some capitals has otherwise darkened notably in recent weeks. In contrast to the relief engendered by Washington's cautious reach-out to Tehran, there is mounting unease at the chances of dissuading the Israelis from using their perceived window of opportunity.
A conflict involving Iran is not inevitable, but the blunt fact is that it is more likely in the next few months than at any time in the last five years. Alongside the incalculable - but almost certainly very grave, and possibly catastrophic - security and economic consequences, at least one likely political effect is not what the conflict's architects would wish. This is that a singularly hardline presidential candidate would gain a much needed boost in a forthcoming election as his country falls into line behind him at a time of crisis; thus might Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in mid-2009 help ensure himself four more years in power
**Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001.

Turning a new page
Al-Ahram Weekly
Bassel Oudat writes from Damascus
Speaking to reporters in Beirut Monday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem said his visit "will turn a new page in relations between the two countries". A day earlier, he announced in Damascus that the two countries should be able to "maintain equitable relations in various fields and lay the foundations for solid ties".
While in Beirut, Al-Muallem delivered a message from the Syrian president to his Lebanese counterpart, Michel Suleiman, inviting him to visit Syria as soon as he is able. The Lebanese president is expected to go to Damascus when the Siniora government announces its programme, in which it is likely to speak of a new era in which Lebanon's ties with Syria would be based on mutual respect and interests.
Since Rafik Al-Hariri's assassination three years ago, relations between the two countries have been marred by accusations and hostility. This changed when Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and Suleiman met in Paris, first in the presence of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifah, then in two sessions of private talks.
Ahead of the Paris meetings, Sarkozy said that Syria agreed to exchange ambassadors with Lebanon. The French president also commended Syrian conduct during the Doha talks among Lebanese factions.
While in Beirut, Al-Muallem had time to discuss the future course of bilateral ties. More talks would be needed if the two sides were to dispel the mistrust that marked their relations until recently. The Lebanese parliamentary "majority" used to say that Syria was opposed to Lebanon's independence and sovereignty. Many Lebanese see the earlier refusal of Damascus to draw borders between the two countries and exchange ambassadors as evidence of Syria's ill intentions towards Lebanon.
One of the issues that the Syrians and Lebanese need to discuss is that of the Higher Council the two countries used to have. The council, which hasn't met in the past three years, consists of the presidents, speakers and prime ministers of both countries. It was designed to meet regularly to assess various decisions related to both countries. Despite its extensive powers, the council remained largely ceremonial and many would want to see it disbanded.
Successive Syrian governments refused to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon ever since the countries gained independence in the mid- 1940s. The Syrians argued that the creation of Lebanon was a compromise reached hastily before independence between Sunnis who wanted unity with Syria and Maronites who wanted close ties with France. Syrian governments discouraged the use of passports for citizens of both countries, and to this day Lebanese and Syrians can cross common borders with their local identity cards.
Lebanese and Syrians also own property on both sides of the border without having to go through the same registration procedures as other non-nationals. Such arrangements may have to be reviewed once the two countries establish diplomatic ties.
The two countries will have to draw their borders, especially the Shebaa Farms area occupied by Israel since 1967 and that claims that it belongs to Syria though most Lebanese and Syrians agree that it is part of Lebanon. So far, Syria has refused to draw the borders until Israel withdraws, though to many this position is bewildering. It might help to remember that the two countries created a committee to draw the borders in 1966, but once the 1967 war broke out the committee's work was discontinued. Now is perhaps a good time to revive that committee's task.
The Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council approved several bilateral agreements in economic and financial areas during the period of Syrian presence in Lebanon. Many believe that these agreements were unfair to the Lebanese and need to be revised.
The normalisation of relations has been met with satisfaction in Lebanon, both among the former "opposition" and the former "majority". Hizbullah and Amal hope that these developments will help Syria maintain some of its former influence in Lebanon. The anti-Syrian "majority" hailed the normalisation of ties as a victory, but voice fears that Damascus may help Hizbullah and Amal win the upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled for next spring.
All in all, a major watershed has been crossed. Once Syria has determined out its ties with Lebanon, many think it will change tack on other regional matters -- Israel, Palestine and Iraq included.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved