LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 02/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 16,20-23.  Amen, amen, I say to you, you will weep and mourn, while the world rejoices; you will grieve, but your grief will become joy.  When a woman is in labor, she is in anguish because her hour has arrived; but when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the pain because of her joy that a child has been born into the world. So you also are now in anguish. But I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you. On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
An eye on the North. Jerusalem Post 02/05/08
Why Israel’s Withdrawals Are A Mistake.By Dave Gordon.FrontPageMagazine.com 02/05/08
stalemate and external pressure/Lebanon - the never ending story of internal stalemate and external pressure. By: Manuela Paraipan 02/05/08
The struggle for Syria-By: Hassan Nafaa. 02/05/08
Damascus ascendant-By: Mustafa El-Labbad 02/05/08
What’s Behind Olmert’s Flirtation With Syria?by Joshua Mitnick. 02/05/08
Politics in labor’s name-NowLebanon.com 02/05/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 02/08
Lebanon: Remove the Mufti-Global Voices Online
US Drops Opposition to Israel-Syria Talks-Forward
Jailed Syrian rights activist wins award from Ireland-The Associated Press
Moussa Meets Lebanese Leaders-Naharnet
Syrian official: No severing of ties with Iran, Hezbollah even in ...Ha'aretz
Moussa Speaks of Chance to Achieve Progress-Naharnet
Moussa to Hold Crisis Talks in Beirut-Naharnet
Arab League chief resumes mediation between rival Lebanese ...International Herald Tribune
Lebanon Goes Into the Dark-Naharnet
Geagea Determined on Confronting Iran's Ancient Middle East-Naharnet
Azour: Pay Raise on its Way-Naharnet
Communists Demonstrate Against 'Foufou'-Naharnet
Cheney Tells Mouawad: International Tribunal is a Priority-Naharnet
Trad Hamadeh for Unions-Resistance Alliance-Naharnet
Ghosn Declares Opposition to Saniora Government-Naharnet
Imprisoned human rights activist in Syria wins international award.International Herald Tribune
Collapse of the Turkish mediation Between Syria and Israel-Naharnet
Jouzou Accuses Hizbullah of Armed Invasion, Vows Response if Government Treatment Fails-Naharnet
Jumblat Okays 13+10+7 Government with Guarantees-Naharnet
4 Amal Members Wounded in Fire Fight, 2 Soldiers by Stones Thrown at Them-Naharnet
Moussa to Hold Crisis Talks in Beirut-Naharnet
Gemayel: March 14 for 1960 Electoral Law that Secures Proper Christian Representation-Naharnet
U.S.: Iran Most Active State Sponsor of Terrorism for Aiding Hizbullah, Others-Naharnet
Human Rights Watch: More Protection for Lebanon's Domestic Workers-Naharnet
Hizbullah Accuses Majority of Rejecting the Berri-Offered Dialogue-Naharnet
Jamaa Islamiya for Electing President on May 13-Naharnet
Aoun: Visiting Syria is Important to Us-Naharnet
Fear That Israel-Syria Progress Could Harm Palestinian Talks-New York Sun
Ex-UN Ambassador Reacts to Revelations on Israeli Bombing of Syria-Human Events
Ex-UN Ambassador Reacts to Revelations on Israeli Bombing of Syria-Human Events
A citizen, whether we like it or not-Globe and Mail
Caravan against torture heading to Ottawa-Rabble.ca
Israeli Jews Remember Nazi Holocaust Victims
Rice to Try to Revive Stalled Peace Talks in New Mideast Trip
Iran Remains most Active State Sponsor of Terrorism

Arab League chief resumes mediation between rival Lebanese factions on presidential deadlock
The Associated Press
May 1, 2008/BEIRUT, Lebanon: The head of the Arab League has resumed talks with feuding Lebanese factions in a fresh try to break the country's political deadlock that has left Lebanon without a president for more than five months. Thursday's visit by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa — two weeks after a similar trip by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch — highlights mounting Arab and international concern over Lebanon's failure to fill the top post. The sharply divided parliament has failed to elect Army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman as a consensus president because the U.S.-backed parliamentary majority and the Syrian-backed opposition remain at loggerheads over power-sharing and the shape of the future Cabinet

Moussa Speaks of Chance to Achieve Progress
Naharnet/Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa on Thursday discussed with Lebanese leaders the ongoing political crisis two weeks ahead of a presidential election session stating that a chance for real progress is available within the framework of the Arab initiative. Moussa, who would also address an economic forum hosted in Beirut, held talks separately with Army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman, Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. The Arab League chief, talking to reporters after meeting Berri, said "there is a chance that we can invest to achieve serious progress."He said his mission is based on the Arab initiative. Moussa is to meet later in the day with Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri. Moussa has been entrusted by the Arab League with implementing a three-point plan designed to end the political impasse. The Arab initiative calls for the election of Suleiman president, formation of a national unity government and adoption of a new election law. Beirut, 01 May 08, 18:45

Lebanon Goes Into the Dark
Naharnet/Lebanon goes into the dark as of Friday as its power-generating stations start running out of fuel, a reliable source cautioned Thursday.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said power production goes down by 200 megawatts as of Friday reaching a bottom line of only 30% of production capacity by Sunday. "A tough power rationing program would be applied," he said. Two tankers loaded with fuel oil for the power stations have been waiting in Lebanese territorial waters for almost two weeks pending settlement of cost by the finance ministry, the source said. The finance ministry refuses to settle the account before receiving a transaction from the power authority covering production costs for the past three months, the source added. The power authority, however, has not managed to collect fees for its services from areas that are not under state authority, mainly regions controlled by Hizbullah "that is why it does not have enough revenue to cover fuel oil purchases for its stations," the source explained.
A statement released by Interior Minister Hassan Sabaa said police has not been able to prevent 160 illegal construction sites in Hizbullah-controlled south Beirut.
"If police cannot prevent illegal construction, and power authority fee collectors get beaten up while trying to carry out their duties in areas where they cannot have police protection, how would the power authority be able to cover its expenses?" the source asked. Beirut, 01 May 08, 19:20

Geagea Determined on Confronting Iran's Ancient Middle East
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Thursday accused the opposition of seeking to divert attention from the presidential elections issue by issuing a decoy call for dialogue. "They don't want serious dialogue. They merely want a photograph" of leaders gathered at a dialogue hall, Geagea told reporters. That is why, Geagea added, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri did not schedule a meeting with Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri.  Dialogue, according to Geagea, "can only be serious if it was carried out back stage. Its result would then be declared.""There would be no progress in the absence of an elected president. That is why our first step should be to fill in the vacant presidential office, Geagea added. He said the March 14 alliance is determined on confronting the "ancient Middle East scheme that Iran is trying to implement. This is not the Middle East that we hope for."
Beirut, 01 May 08, 17:15

Cheney Tells Mouawad: International Tribunal is a Priority
Naharnet/Social Affairs Minister Nayla Mouawad on Thursday said the March 14 majority alliance would not get involved in dialogue aimed at exonerating Syria from blocking presidential elections. Mouawad, on a visit to the United States, made the remark to reporters after meeting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In answering a question about her stand on Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri's call for dialogue, Mouawad said: "We are ready for dialogue and for the declaration of intentions. But, certainly, we are not for dialogue that aims at hampering the election of a president and legalizing void by Lebanese tools in order to exonerate Syria and Iran."Mouawad also held a meeting at the White House with Vice President Dick Cheney and quoted him as saying the international tribunal is a "priority for the international community.""The rule of law in Lebanon cannot be established unless the criminals were brought to justice," Cheney was quoted as saying. He was referring to the international tribunal that would try suspects in the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri.
Mouawad also quoted Cheney as saying there "would be no bargains at all on the international tribunal" issue. Beirut, 01 May 08, 15:02

Jouzou Accuses Hizbullah of Armed Invasion, Vows Response if Government Treatment Fails
Naharnet/Mount Lebanon Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Ali Jouzou on Wednesday accused Hizbullah of carrying out an armed invasion of Lebanon, vowing an eye-for-an-eye response if Hizbullah gunmen do not withdraw from Sunni sectors under his jurisdiction.
Jouzou declared his stand to reporters after meeting Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri at the latter's Qoraitem Palace residence in Beirut.
"This is an invasion by Hizbullah and a deployment of its weapons in the Lebanese street," Jouzou said of clashes that raged in the Saadiyat area south of Beirut on Sunday evening between Hizbullah gunmen and Sunni residents of the Kharroub Province.
"We are with Hizbullah when it fights Israel, but it is not permitted at all for Hizbullah to fight us in our neighborhoods and areas," Jouzou added.
"So long as Hizbullah has resorted to weapons, then let the state (government) allow us to carry weapons and arm our sons to enable them defend themselves," angry Jouzou said. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," he vowed. Jouzou said: "We advise Hizbullah leaders to withdraw those gunmen … this is not accepted. Pull them so that we can safeguard Shiites at first.""What happened in Saadiyat couple of days ago was a real combat. Buildings have been hired and gunmen have been deployed in them … this poses a direct threat to all of us," he added. He accused Hizbullah of "erecting barriers between the Sunnis and Shiites, between Shiites and Shiites and between Sunnis and Sunnis."Jouzou called for a "speedy treatment by the government of this issue by pulling Hizbullah-controlled gunmen out of the Kharroub Province … We would not allow those to reside in our region with their weapons." Beirut, 30 Apr 08, 15:05

Jumblat Okays 13+10+7 Government with Guarantees
Druze leader Walid Jumblat said he favors a 13+10+7 government under the new president, provided that both political camps offer guarantees.
This cabinet shape-up was proposed a while ago by Arab League chief Amr Moussa in which the majority gets 13 ministers, the opposition 10 and seven members loyal to the president. "I agree to the formation of a national unity government based on 13+10+7 with mutual guarantees," Jumblat said in remarks published by the daily As Safir on Thursday.Jumblat also said he approves the qada-based 1960 electoral law. "I'm also in favor of adopting the qada-based election law with some improvement," he said. Jumblat said the ruling March 14 alliance has no intention of electing a president by simple majority. "I reject any move that could drag the country into sectarian strife and inflict massive destruction," Jumblat concluded. Beirut, 01 May 08, 10:07

Gemayel: March 14 for 1960 Electoral Law that Secures Proper Christian Representation
 Naharnet/Former President Amin Gemayel said that the ruling March 14 coalition is not against the qada-based 1960 electoral law, but only after amendments are introduced in the code."We stress that we want an election law that would secure a truly complete Christian representation," Gemayel told Voice of Lebanon radio station. "What is more assuring is that March 14 leaders are totally with this point," he said. "But no matter what, we do not accept the (2000 election) Law of Ghazi Kenaan," Gemayel stressed. Beirut, 01 May 08, 09:01

Moussa to Hold Crisis Talks in Beirut
 Naharnet/Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa will hold crisis talks in Beirut on the sidelines of an Arab economic conference to be held May 2-3.
Moussa, who is due in Beirut later Thursday, is expected to meet leaders of the March 14 coalition and the Hizbullah-led opposition in an effort to help end the ongoing political crisis. Moussa has been entrusted by the Arab League with implementing a three-point plan designed to end the political impasse.
The Arab initiative calls for the election of army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman as president, formation of a national unity government and adoption of a new electoral law for the 2009 parliamentary elections. March 14 and the opposition agree on Suleiman but differ on the other two issues. Beirut, 01 May 08, 12:23

4 Amal Members Wounded in Fire Fight, 2 Soldiers by Stones Thrown at Them
Naharnet/Four people were wounded when a fight between members of Speaker Nabih Berri's Amal movement sparked gunfire in Beirut overnight. Two soldiers also were injured by stones thrown at them, security sources said Thursday.  Initial clashes took place in Beirut's Khandak al-Ghamik neighborhood at 6:30 pm Wednesday, only to renew around 10 in the evening. Assailants tossed stones at security forces who stepped in to disperse the gunmen. A Lebanese army officer and a soldier were wounded in the attack. No more details were available about the incident. On Tuesday, bodyguards of Lebanese Baath Party leader Fayez Shukr fought each other with fire guns, the daily al-Mustaqbal reported. It said one bodyguard was wounded in the clash which took place in the vicinity of Shukr's house in Beirut's Bir Hasan neighborhood.Al Mustaqbal said security forces quickly quelled the fight at Bir Hasan, only to spread to Ras el-Nabaa district where Baath party headquarters is located. It said security forces again stepped in and arrested two people involved in the shooting incident. Beirut, 01 May 08, 07:36

Jouzou Accuses Hizbullah of Armed Invasion, Vows Response if Government Treatment Fails
Naharnet/Mount Lebanon Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Ali Jouzou on Wednesday accused Hizbullah of carrying out an armed invasion of Lebanon, vowing an eye-for-an-eye response if Hizbullah gunmen do not withdraw from Sunni sectors under his jurisdiction. Jouzou declared his stand to reporters after meeting Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri at the latter's Qoraitem Palace residence in Beirut. "This is an invasion by Hizbullah and a deployment of its weapons in the Lebanese street," Jouzou said of clashes that raged in the Saadiyat area south of Beirut on Sunday evening between Hizbullah gunmen and Sunni residents of the Kharroub Province. "We are with Hizbullah when it fights Israel, but it is not permitted at all for Hizbullah to fight us in our neighborhoods and areas," Jouzou added. "So long as Hizbullah has resorted to weapons, then let the state (government) allow us to carry weapons and arm our sons to enable them defend themselves," angry Jouzou said. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," he vowed. Jouzou said: "We advise Hizbullah leaders to withdraw those gunmen … this is not accepted. Pull them so that we can safeguard Shiites at first.""What happened in Saadiyat couple of days ago was a real combat. Buildings have been hired and gunmen have been deployed in them … this poses a direct threat to all of us," he added. He accused Hizbullah of "erecting barriers between the Sunnis and Shiites, between Shiites and Shiites and between Sunnis and Sunnis."Jouzou called for a "speedy treatment by the government of this issue by pulling Hizbullah-controlled gunmen out of the Kharroub Province … We would not allow those to reside in our region with their weapons." Beirut, 30 Apr 08, 15:05

U.S.: Iran Most Active State Sponsor of Terrorism for Aiding Hizbullah, Others
Naharnet/Iran remained the world's "most active" state sponsor of terrorism as it tries to build regional influence and drive the United States from the Middle East, a U.S. government report said Wednesday. The State Department report added meanwhile that al-Qaida and associates "remained the greatest terrorist threat" to the U.S. and its partners especially now that it has a "safe haven" in Pakistan's northwestern tribal areas. Officials also said terrorist attacks doubled last year in frontline U.S. counter-terrorism ally Pakistan, mainly on its northwestern border with Afghanistan, and that they also rose in Afghanistan.
The State Department report said Iran remained last year both "the most active" and "most significant" state sponsor of terrorism, though it also listed Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Sudan as terrorism sponsors. It said non-Arab Iran provides aid to Palestinian "terrorist" groups like Hamas, Lebanon's Hizbullah, "Iraq-based militants," and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
Iran aided such groups to advance their "common regional goals," according to the 2007 "Country Reports on Terrorism."
The Islamic republic of Iran uses terrorism abroad as a protection strategy, the report said.
It believes it does so by "deterring United States or Israeli attacks, distracting and weakening the United States, enhancing Iran's regional influence through intimidation, and helping to drive the United States from the Middle East," it said.
It said Iran is a threat both to regional stability and U.S. interests in the region because it backs groups that reject the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and "undercut the democratic process in Lebanon."
In Lebanon, the goal is "to build Iran's and Hizbullah's influence to the detriment of other Lebanese communities," it added.
State sponsors help terrorist groups obtain funds, weapons and materials, but some of them are capable of manufacturing "weapons of mass destruction that could get into the hands of terrorists," the report said.
"Sudan continued to take significant steps to cooperate in the War on Terror. Cuba, Iran, and Syria, however, have not renounced terrorism or made efforts to act against foreign terrorist organizations," it said.
"Iran and Syria routinely provided safe haven, substantial resources, and guidance to terrorist organizations," it said.
It said North Korea "was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987," but still "harbored four Japanese Red Army members who participated in a jet hijacking in 1970."
In its 2006 report, the State Department also listed Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan as state sponsors of terrorism.
The 2007 report said "al-Qaida and associated networks remained the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners in 2007."
It added that al-Qaida has "reconstituted some" of the operational capabilities it had before the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington partly by exploiting Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
The State Department report showed that terrorist attacks in Afghanistan rose to 1,127 in 2007, up from 969 the previous year.
The National Counterterrorism Center, which helped compile the report, said the number of attacks in Pakistan rose to 887 last year from 375 the previous year; and the number killed soared to 1,335 from 335 in 2006.
It said most of the attacks were in tribal northwestern Pakistan which is outside the control of U.S. ally President Pervez Musharraf.
"Portions of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan have become a safe haven for AQ terrorists, Afghan insurgents, and other extremists," the report said.(AFP) Beirut, 01 May 08, 05:59

Human Rights Watch: More Protection for Lebanon's Domestic Workers
 Naharnet/Lebanese employers, recruitment agencies and authorities must improve the treatment of domestic workers, New York-based Human Rights Watch said on Wednesday. "On the eve of Lebanese Labor Day, we would like to highlight a huge segment of laborers who are not recognized as such. They are domestic workers, almost a 100 percent of whom are foreigners," Human Rights Watch's Beirut-based researcher Nadim Houry told Agence France Presse.
The group says the most common complaints from domestic staff, who are mostly women, are unpaid wages, lack of time off, restrictions on movement and verbal or sometimes even physical abuse. Around 200,000 domestic laborers, mostly from Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Ethiopia, are not protected by Lebanese labor laws, HRW said. A statement from the organization cited a 2006 survey of 600 migrant workers by Dr. Ray Jureidini which found 56 percent reported they worked more than 12 hours a day and 34 percent had no regular time off. Some workers have died attempting to escape from their working conditions, the statement said, some of them jumping from balconies. "The Lebanese authorities have an obligation to ensure that these women are protected by law," Houry said adding that the campaign, named "Put Yourself in Her Shoes," is targeting employers and employment firms.(AFP) Beirut, 01 May 08, 05:40

Hizbullah Accuses Majority of Rejecting the Berri-Offered Dialogue
 Naharnet/Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc on Wednesday accused the majority in parliament of "flooding" Speaker Nabih Berri's calls for dialogue with preconditions with the aim of blocking it. The stand was outlined in a statement following a meeting of the bloc under its chairman MP Mohammed Raad.
"The only guarantee for electing a president is full understanding on all the agenda of the proposed dialogue," the statement said. "Intra-Lebanese entente is the priority that should top all other issues," the statement added. Hizbullah also accused the majority of "abiding by the instructions of influential international powers that do not want a settlement in Lebanon." Beirut, 30 Apr 08, 17:09

Israeli Jews Remember Nazi Holocaust Victims
Naharnet/Israeli Jews on Thursday stopped in their tracks for two minutes as sirens wailed around the country in memory of the Holocaust when six million Jews perished in Nazi death camps. From the northern city of Haifa to Beersheba in the southern Negev desert, in Jerusalem and on every collective village kibbutz, sirens sounded at 10:am (0700 GMT) to mark the annual Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day. On hearing the signal, the vast majority of Israeli Jews stop what they are doing, whether at home or at work, drivers pull over to the side of the road and pedestrians stand still. The two-minute pause in the day's activities is Israel's most visible event on Holocaust Remembrance Day, which began at sunset on Wednesday with an opening ceremony at Jerusalem's Yad Vashem memorial to the genocide of Jews during World War II. This year's commemoration ends at sunset on Thursday and comes one week before the start of events celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. Jews account for slightly more than 80 percent of the country's population, with Arab Israelis about 18 percent.(AFP) Beirut, 01 May 08, 11:32

Collapse of the Turkish mediation Between Syria and Israel
Naharnet/Negotiations between Syria and Israel through Turkey have come to an end and would not be resumed, as-Safir's Sataa Noureddine wrote on Wednesday. Noureddine said the negotiations "that cannot be described as serious … were a mere diplomatic maneuver by the three states.""Ankara realized from the beginning that it is not a credited mediator. Had Israel and Syria wanted such a mediation they would have sought the help of lots of credible Arab, European and American mediators," he added. "Israel used the Turkish channel because it had hoped that it would lead to direct negotiations behind closed doors, similar to the Oslo accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis," Noureddine noted. "However, Israel carried out the air raid on Syria and killed Hizbullah's military commander Imad Mughniyeh during the diplomatic maneuver," he added. "Israel wanted to destroy Syria's image prior to direct negotiations," he concluded. Beirut, 30 Apr 08, 14:28

Stalemate and external pressure
Lebanon - the never ending story of internal stalemate and external pressure Manuela Paraipan
30 Apr 2008
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2018
WSN Editor "Broader Middle East", Manuela Paraipan, in Beirut: "If Lebanon is to get through this storm in one piece, the dialog is the only way to do it."
After almost 6 months since my previous visit, I returned to Lebanon and found that it had changed but was also still the same. This may sound confusing, but in reality it is not. On the one hand, Lebanon remained the beautiful, energetic country where day and night, as in New York, become almost one. I was glad to have the chance to observe the ups and downs of life lived in a country where you wake up in the drums of new political schemes, gossip and rumors, and fall asleep with the bitter taste of a yet another day spent without a solution to be found by former warlords, today all great political leaders. More than anything else, it is frustrating.
This time I traveled more within the country, especially in the areas known as Hezbollah's strongholds - from Bint Jbeil to the Blue Line and to the Bekaa Valley. The echoes of political tension were to be found within the society. However, in spite of all of the propaganda - and make no mistake, both blocks deserve to be nominated for the biggest prize here - most of the people I met, talked to and spent time with were eager to get on with life.
It is true that I found a hard core in each and every party - individuals and groups whose ideology, beliefs and loyalty cannot be changed. However, even within these groups I noticed the willingness to sit down and find a solution through dialog. This is crucial. If Lebanon is to get through this storm in one piece, then dialog is the only way to do it.
The terrific momentum Lebanon had back in 2005 is now almost completely lost. All parts share the guilt for this. Back then, the Cedar Revolution was in full swing and important leaders in the international community from both the West and the East expressed considerable support for the March 14 block and its struggle to regain sovereignty, strengthen democracy and bring justice. The mistake of the March 14 block was that it was in a defensive mood for far too long. Their political adversaries understood this as a sign of weakness.
As a result, Tehran and Damascus discuss Lebanese internal political matters and decide which course of action or reaction should be taken next. Let us not be fooled. In today's world, states do not stand alone. The most important international and regional players will always influence the internal matters of other countries. The question is, to what extent? And in this respect the national players can use the joker or be the joker themselves.
The problem in Lebanon is that politicians see the interests of the country through their selfish interests. With few exceptions, the present leadership, which in many respects is the same one that led Lebanon since the 1970s has never put the nation before its own private or clan-selfish interests. Religion can and is being used as a cover to preserve or obtain even more power and through that have access to money and influence. Of course, there are some who truly believe in the righteousness of a religious cause, but these are few. When national affiliation is this diluted, it is extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to uphold the very concept of a unitary state let alone strengthen it.
Worth being taken into consideration is the rather deep division and mistrust between the Sunni and Shias. However, there is also a tacit agreement not to rush things onto a path that leads to conflict.
In spite of Iran's from time to time excessively confrontational discourse, and Hezbollah's sophistication as a militia, Shias are a minority in the region. On the other hand, the Sunnis are also wary of a conflict in Lebanon that is likely to drag them into a larger one, in the region and worldwide. Not to mention the destruction a conflict would have on the cities where the Sunnis have their businesses. Pragmatically, neither side is keen to go beyond a clash of words. However, when the leaders escalate their rhetoric in the media, there is no way to foresee how things will develop on the ground, as they cannot keep every person who is a part of their respective groups on a tight leash.
For the time being, Lebanon is on hold. The first to blame are the leaders who asked for a bolder intervention from outside the country, hoping that this would give them leverage at the local level. This is the perfect example of one not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Each side is looking for guarantees from the other and for outside guarantors to supervise the partnership. Time is not yet lost to go back to the discussion table and find an acceptable solution for all involved. However, a satisfactory solution and not a winner ticket, will not solve the core problems that stand before the society as a whole and its leadership. Will, in time, a compromise lead anyway to an open conflict? This is a distinct possibility.
I remember what Dr Joseph Hitti said not long ago, that in Lebanon, "you cannot have social or economic or any other type of substantive change to improve the country and the lives of its people, because religion and sectarianism stand in the way. If you demand social reforms on one side, the other side is offended. If you demand secularism, both sides rally together against you. If you ask for administrative reform to end corruption and cronyism, the traditionalists who hold power accuse you of being an Israeli-Western agent. If you ask the Patriarchs or the Muftis to stay outside of politics, the traditionalists accuse you of blasphemy and straying from God's will for the country." He went on to say that some "are tired of Lebanon being burned to the ground only to maintain the illusion that Lebanon has to live up to some standard or model of coexistence and tolerance. The price has been too high for the Lebanese over the past four decades that it no longer makes sense. Many would rather see a decentralized, partitioned, segregated, separated Lebanon than the unlivable, non-viable nightmare that it has become."
This is the point where Lebanon is today. It may take a while for Lebanon, to rise up from the ashes of a state in decline and become the nation that it has always prided itself to be. It will only happen when accountability is the rule in Lebanon, and not the exception. For a broader insight into the political interaction at the local and regional levels, I spoke with, among others:
MP Samir Frangieh, who is one of the leading intellectuals of the March 14 block
Mr. Alain Aoun, Political Officer of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) party
Samy Gemayel, a young, talented politician, member of the Kataeb (Phalange) party and son of former President Amine Gemayel
MP Ali Bazzi of the Amal party. He represents the southern village of Bint Jbeil and also in charge of the foreign affairs department of the party
Pierre A. Maroun, Secretary General of the American Lebanese Coordination Council
Pierre A. Maroun, Secretary General of the American Lebanese Coordination Council
The alliance between the Christian Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) of General Michel Aoun, the Shiia Amal party of Speaker Nabih Berri and the Shiia Hezbollah of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and their allies is known as the March 8 block.
The group has been labeled as being on Iran and Syria's orbit. While the Free Patriotic Movement claims its independence, both Amal and Hezbollah have publicly admitted their ties and relationship to the abovementioned countries.
The alliance between the Sunni Future Movement led by Saad Hariri, the Christian Lebanese Forces party led by Samir Geagea, the Druze Progressive Socialist Party of Walid Jumblatt, the Christian Kataeb (Lebanese Phalanges) party of Amine Gemayel and their allies are known as the March 14 block.
March 14 has been labeled as a pro-West group, close to the United States, Saudi Arabia and the few European countries active in the region.

What’s Behind Olmert’s Flirtation With Syria?
by Joshua Mitnick- Israel Correspondent
New York Jewish Week- 30/04/08
With Palestinian talks going nowhere, analysts say prime minister looking to new Golan track for peace momentum.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s new interest in Syria is seen as rewarding intransigent regime.
Tel Aviv — Is Ehud Olmert serious about returning the Golan Heights to Syria?
When President Bashar Assad said Turkish intermediaries forwarded him a message from the Israeli prime minister about giving back the strategic plateau, government officials in Jerusalem quickly clammed up. But the Israeli press and observers are convinced that Israel is mulling reactivating the Syrian negotiations track eight years after the collapse of talks in Sheperdstown, W.Va.
And while most expect that a deal will have to wait at least for the new U.S. administration to take office next year, many observers believe that Olmert wants to keep negotiations with Syria a viable option if talks with the Palestinians bear no fruit.
That’s because, while it is highly doubtful whether
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could implement a peace deal, few question whether the Syrian regime would have the power to uphold a peace treaty.
“In Israel there is a real crisis with the Palestinians, and I don’t think there is any possibility of reaching an agreement or implementing it in the near future,” said Alon Liel, a former Foreign Ministry director general. “On the other hand, there is an interest on Israel’s part in keeping the peace momentum. If you cannot move on the West Bank, everybody is looking up to the Golan Heights and looking to see what can be up done up there.”
Liel, who conducted second-track, unofficial talks for two years, said that a peace agreement with Syria now would give Israel more strategic dividends than a deal with the Palestinians.
A deal with Syria has regional repercussions by weakening Iran’s stable of allies and potentially cutting the supply line to Hezbollah. It would also make it nearly impossible for Hamas’ leadership in exile to operate from Damascus, and indirectly boost Palestinian moderates led by Abbas.
In Syria, there are a group of leaders who are uncomfortable with the country’s growing dependence on Iran and are looking to join the orbit of Western-allied countries in the Middle East, Liel said.
“It’s no longer an issue of the Golan,” he added. “It’s changing the balance of power between the moderates and the extremists and pulling Syria into the moderate camp. In the Palestinian arena it’s a chance to change the balance of power inside the Palestinian people to the Fatah.”
Of course, many Israelis are deeply skeptical about giving the commanding Golan plateau back to Syria, especially at time when Damascus has been isolated politically from the West for its cooperation with Hezbollah in Lebanon and for alleged efforts to build a nuclear reactor.
“In our eyes, it seems so bizarre, and so incorrect, that we, the State of Israel, would rescue Syria after it was uncovered that he was building a nuclear reactor,” said Eli Malka, a 30-year resident of the Golan who heads its regional council.
“Assad is supplying the Hezbollah. Why should we go against the Europeans, and the Americans,” he continued. “There is no chance for this move. It is destined to failure. The people of Israel don’t think it’s appropriate to give a prize to Assad. Israel, under no circumstances, should concede its security assets, or its settlements, or water.”
Pointing to the rise of Islamic militants in Gaza and Lebanon, right-leaning politicians like opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu argued this week that if the Golan is returned to Syria, it will bring Iran to the banks of the Sea of Galilee. Olmert countered that it was Netanyahu who offered to give back most of the Golan to the Syrians. The comeback hasn’t convinced right-wingers and probably much of the Israeli center.
“Ehud Olmert, without any mandate from the Israeli people, is ready to declare giving up all of the Golan Heights. That’s a real scandal,” said Aryeh Eldad, a lawmaker from the far-right National Union party.
“He knows what the public opinion about it is. He knows that nobody trusts him, not in war time, and not in peace time. He’ll cause such damage to Israel, even though everyone knows he’ll never be able to retreat from the Golan Heights. Any prime minister in the future will find it difficult to set a lower bar.”
Eldad agreed with other observers that Olmert’s flirtation with the Syrians stems from the growing sense that the Palestinian talks may be running aground and the need to show Israelis some signs of progress in the peace process.
Indeed, Olmert won election on a platform pledging a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. But that idea became discredited when missiles started flying from areas of southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip where Israel withdrew its forces a year and a half ago. Now that the idea of reaching a framework agreement with the Palestinians on final-status issues like refugees, borders and Jerusalem seems difficult to imagine, Olmert must turn elsewhere, observers said.
“He has one more political bullet in the barrel, before the likely collapse of his government,” said Gidi Grinstein, president of the Reut Institute, a leading Israeli think tank. “What we're seeing is an exploration by the prime minister and his team, where should this bullet be used.”
Grinstein said that the coalition government required to support a deal with Syria isn’t necessarily the same coalition needed to back an agreement with the Palestinians.
Grinstein said that the risks of giving back the Golan are much higher compared to giving back the West Bank to the Palestinians. Accordingly, Israel is expected to insist that Syria end cooperation with Iran and Hezbollah in return for retreating from the Golan.
In any case, any agreement will have to wait until at least 2009 because of the Bush administration’s opposition to Israeli discussions with the Syrians, Israeli officials said.
For the time being, however, Turkey is filling the diplomatic vacuum in the Israeli-Syrian go-between. After a year of secretly passing messages between the sides, the Turkish mediation efforts came out into the open last week when Assad spoke of the message relayed through the Turks and the public visit of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.
The Turkish foreign minister said this week that the goal of the shuttle mission is to restart direct negotiations between Israel and Syria, which were broken off eight years ago in Shepherdstown.
“Both sides trust us as an honest broker,” said Turkish Ambassador to Israel Namik Tan through an embassy spokesman in Tel Aviv. “We have good relations with both sides. But it is not our initiative. We were requested by both sides.”
But why would Turkey insert itself in a mediation effort with such long odds? Analysts say that regardless of the outcome, Ankara is poised to reap political dividends on the international stage — something which could help Turkey’s bid to join the European Union.
“It’s the sense that we are a regional power and we want to prove it,” said Sami Kohen, a Turkish columnist and foreign policy expert. “The Turks have the feeling that as the descendants of the Ottoman Empire, which used to rule the region, we are brothers of this region, so we have a responsibility to help a member of the family.”

Damascus ascendant
By: Mustafa El-Labbad*
Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly
Turkish approaches to Damascus confirm that diplomatically Syria is the lynchpin of the region, writes Mustafa El-Labbad*
Syria once more took centre stage in regional events. A few days ago, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan brought to Damascus an Israeli offer to pull out of the Golan Heights in return for a peace treaty. His mission, following months of mediation, marked Turkey's most remarkable foray into the Arab-Israeli conflict to date. Its outcome could be wide-ranging.
When Erdogan went to Damascus he had more than mediation on his mind. For sometime now, Turkey and Iran have been seeking a major role in the region, one matching at least that of Israel. At a time when the Arabs have failed to offer anything new on the regional scene, other regional powers have decided to try their hand at regional power brokering.
Since the 1950s, three Arab countries courted Syria: Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Egypt took Syria into a merger union. Saudi Arabia broke that merger. And Iraq's Baathists briefly courted the Syrians before going off on their own pursuits.
When Hafez Al-Assad took power in Syria in the early 1970s, he made a point of keeping aides who were close to the Saudis. The tradition was discontinued by his son, Bashar, whose regime stands accused of involvement in the killing of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, a friend of the Saudis. As Iran's influence grew across the region, Cairo and Saudi Arabia frowned on Syria's ties with Tehran, going as far as boycotting -- at least at the level of heads of state -- the recent Arab summit in Damascus.
The Iranian-Syrian alliance is central to Tehran's regional ambitions. The Iranians are hoping to build a train of loyalties extending through Iraq, Syria, South Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories. If successful, Tehran would be calling the shots on the borders with Israel, an immense form of leverage at a time when the peace process is stalled.
Iran has historic and sectarian links with Jabal Amel in Lebanon, and therefore sees Syria as its corridor to Lebanon. The Syrian-Iranian alliance has now endured for nearly three decades, a remarkable feat in a volatile region. Ironically, as Tehran boosted its regional influence, Damascus saw its relations with its Arab neighbours ebb. Syria has no real influence in Iraq and Lebanon is slipping out of its hands.
Now Turkey wants in. But unlike Tehran it has failed so far to promote itself as a credible player in the region. One reason for that is that Turkey has other things on its mind -- the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the EU. And Turkey is unlikely to get anywhere in the region without edging Iran out first.
The Turkish model, as promoted by the Justice and Development Party, is one of peaceful rotation of power combined with economic development. The Arabs could use such a model, everyone says. And the US has tried to promote Turkey as a lynchpin in a "Greater Middle East" scheme, one in which modernity (US- style) is reconciled with cultural and religious traditions.
A few months ago, Turkey established a buffer zone on its borders with Iraq. Now it is entering regional dynamics from another door, wearing the hat of peace mediator. As a power broker, Turkey would have a chance of attaining regional credibility. Once the Syrians start negotiating seriously with the Israelis, Iran would have to step aside -- exactly Ankara's plan.
In an ethnic and geopolitical sense, Syria is a microcosm of the Middle East. You may recall that the Sykes- Picot Treaty of 1916 -- the treaty that created the regional divisions we now have -- was born in Syria. Ironically, the current borders of today's Syria are so detached from its past that one must think less of Syria as a nation- state than a regional catalyst.
Syria's geopolitical potential may explain why regional powers are knocking on its doors. With Iraq under occupation, the Arabs divided, and Iran pushing its luck, Turkey saw its chance. Damascus must be pleased with the rivalries all around it. While forging closer links with Tehran, the Syrians are talking with the Turks and biding their time. Anything they say or do may affect not only their country's future, but also that of the entire region.
The Syrian regime is not rich or popular. But it holds the strings to a game that non-Arab powers want to play. More than any other Arab country, Syria is calling the shots today. As has been the case in the past, the quest for Syria is a quest for the region.
* The writer is a political analyst specialised in Iranian affairs. © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

The struggle for Syria
By: Hassan Nafaa*
Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly
Israel's offer to return the Golan is a ruse betraying ulterior agendas, writes Hassan Nafaa*
The Struggle for Syria is the title of Patrick Seale's 1965 book in which he reviews internal and external Syrian developments from 1946 up to its merger union with Egypt that gave birth to the United Arab Republic on 22 February 1958. In retrospect, the book's accounting of Syria's regional situation and the modalities of its interaction with the surrounding international environment turned out to be nothing short of prophetic.
The struggle for Syria, which started since World War II, has not ended. A pattern seems to exist in which Syria acts as the region's tipping point. At crucial moments, Syria turns out to be in a position to call the shots and influence the direction and speed of events in the region. Those crucial moments have been recurring frequently of late. Even before the US invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003, Syria managed to become a main player amid power relations that evolved in the region following the Camp David Accords, the Iranian Revolution, and the Iran-Iraq war.
Certain developments in the region allowed Syria to especially bolster its influence in Lebanon. Within a few years, Syria evolved to become the supreme power in Lebanese political life. Since then, Syria went into Kuwait with other coalition forces. It also participated in the Madrid peace conference.
Damascus, however, didn't keep all its eggs in one basket. It cultivated cordial ties with Washington but otherwise kept its options open. It negotiated with Israel, but refused to be pushed around. Syria's desire to retain room for manoeuvre may explain its firm, though flexible, opposition to the Oslo Accords Yasser Arafat signed in 1993 without consulting Damascus. The Syrians also forged close ties with Iran despite the latter's opposition to peace with Israel. And they continued to provide support to Hizbullah and Palestinian resistance factions.
While hedging their bets, the Syrians managed to: consolidate their position in Lebanon, take charge of the country's political scene, and link the Lebanese track of Arab-Israeli peace talks with their own; cement relations with Hizbullah and provide it, in coordination with Iran, with all the help it needed to stand firm -- as a result, Hizbullah managed to escalate its military resistance and eventually forced Israel to unconditionally withdraw from Lebanon in 2000; host the political and media offices of various Palestinian resistance factions, something that alienated the Americans while Washington knew it needed Syria on its side, particularly after the failure of the 1999 Geneva Conference on the Golan and the 2000 Camp David summit on Palestine.
The US administration kept cordial ties with Damascus up to the moment President Bush and his coterie of right-wing conservatives took power. Things took a turn for the worst following 9/11 and the US decision to invade Iraq. Syria's utter and firm opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the last straw breaking what used to be a workable relation. As the invading US army became Syria's next-door neighbour, all bets were off. Damascus was left with two choices. One was to cooperate with the new US policy, which meant agreeing to a settlement on Israel's terms and endorsing whatever regional map the US and Israel had in mind. The other choice was to reject US policies. Damascus didn't have to think long. Agreeing to US demands would have been suicide for the Syrian regime.
In effect, the Syrians were being asked to give up the regional influence they had long enjoyed. The US wanted Damascus to sever its relations with Iran, Hizbullah and the Palestinian resistance without giving it anything in return, not even a guarantee that Israel would withdraw from the Syrian land it occupied in 1967. What the Americans were really after was Iran and Hizbullah and the Syrians knew that. The US administration, having taken control of Iraq, was hoping to change the map of the Middle East, either peacefully or militarily.
Having assessed the situation carefully, the Syrians dug in their heels. Damascus refused to renew the term of president Emile Lahoud, despite promises it is said to have given to that effect. President Bashar Al-Assad perhaps didn't expect Chirac to make such a big deal out of the Lahoud debacle. But Chirac was eager to use the occasion to placate the US and expiate for his opposition to the US invasion of Iraq. Lebanon soon became a testing ground for newfound US-French cooperation, one that resulted in UN action. Security Council Resolution 1559 was the first shot in a new phase of the "struggle for Syria". In the ensuing drama many lives would be lost, including that of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri.
Even after the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon, Hizbullah wasn't left alone. The Lebanese resistance movement was asked to lay down its arms and be a strictly political party. When these pressures failed, preparations started for military action against the Lebanese resistance group. The right moment came when Hizbullah waged a military operation during which it captured and killed Israeli soldiers. This sparked the summer 2006 war in Lebanon.
The 2006 Lebanon war was but another chapter in the "struggle for Syria". Its main objective was to disarm Hizbullah and end Syria's alliance with Iran. The next step would have been a military strike against Iran. But this wasn't to be, for Hizbullah managed to teach the Israelis a lesson. Since then, Hizbullah has been coming under mounting pressure from its Lebanese opponents. And Syria was again asked, mostly in secret talks, to abandon its coalition with both Iran and Hizbullah. Were it to do so, Damascus was promised the Golan as reward.
Israel has seemingly just informed the Syrians that it would be willing to give up the land it occupied in 1967 in future talks. The offer, relayed by Erdogan, is but another episode in the "struggle for Syria". You would think that the shift in Israel's position removes a major obstacle to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. But that would be wishful thinking. Israel's strategic position, in my view, remains unchanged. If news of the recent Israeli offer is confirmed, this can only indicate a tactical shift on the part of Israel -- an attempt to extract certain concessions from the Syrians. And even if the Israelis really mean what they say, their timing is suspicious.
Israel's overture towards the Syrians comes at a time when Palestinian-Israeli and Palestinian-US talks are stalled. It is highly unlikely that any progress will be achieved on the Palestinian track before the end of Bush's term. Even more remarkably, Israel has been building settlements at an accelerating pace since Annapolis, without a word of protest from the US. Meanwhile, various Arab mediators have been actively trying to reconcile the Palestinians in order to lift the blockade and provide a more favourable climate for peace talks.
Israel, in my opinion, is simply trying to distance Damascus from Iran, the Palestinians, and perhaps Hizbullah. The Israelis are feigning readiness to give up the Golan and to sit down and discuss all details. The whole exercise is designed to neutralise Damascus while Israel and US ponder strikes against Iran and Hizbullah.
No one can ask the Syrians to turn down an offer to get back the Golan. But one must question the sincerity of the Israelis. Even if they are sincere, they will inevitably ask Damascus to give up supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. Are the Syrians, with their well-known pan- Arab record, willing to play along?
* The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Politics in labor’s name
NOW Staff , April 30, 2008
It’s Eid el-Ommal, May Day, Labor Day or International Workers’ Day, as you will. By any name, it is the day on which workers around the world celebrate the achievements of the international labor movement. For Lebanese this year, however, the day has special significance, as it comes just six days ahead of a general strike called for by the Lebanese General Federation of Labor Unions (GFLU).
Sadly, the bear-baiting event is more about March 14 vs. March 8 than it is about workers’ rights. The Lebanese have a proud labor legacy, but this event – just like the January riots and the Mar Mikhail shooting – is going to compromise it once again.
The 1930-1937 world depression hit urban Lebanese particularly hard. Real wages fell by more than half in urban centers during these years, and many workers were unable to provide for their families. To protest French policies exacerbating the crisis, the fledgling Lebanese labor movement joined forces with women’s groups and student groups across the country to strike and protest with such severity that colonial administrators were compelled to suspend the constitution and impose martial law in 1933.
But by 1934, protesting workers secured the legal right to organize. By 1935, they pushed through a law setting general standards for industrial hygiene safety and protecting the rights of women and children in the workplace. By 1936, they won a much needed raise in the minimum wage. And finally, by independence in 1943, organized labor had become a powerful voice in Lebanon’s parliamentary system.
This was the heyday of Lebanese labor. The men and women who led this movement like Fuad al-Shamali, author of the 1929 Workers’ Unions manifesto, Mustafa al-Aris, jailed for organizing strikes, Ibtihaj Qaddura, a prominent union founder, and Nazik Abid, who petitioned relentlessly for equal pay for women and for the right to maternity leave, were heroes.
Unions, syndicates and other manifestations of organized labor have proven time and time again – in country after country – that they can help the little guy stand up to even the biggest of bullies. Workers want a safe working environment, a living wage, job security, fairness in the workplace and a voice in employer decisions that might affect their lives and livelihood.
Organized labor can and should fight for these rights, and we ask those who might disagree to take up their dispute with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 23 assures us “the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.” It also states that “everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”
But, is that what these May 7 strikes are about? No, the impossible demands from the opposition-aligned leaders of the GFLU are evidence enough that this is more about heckling Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his finance minister, Jihad Azaour, than it is about alleviating the economic plight of the working man and woman. (The minister of labor, Trad Hamadeh, incidentally, resigned in November 2006 as part of an opposition stunt and has since refused to service his portfolio.)
The GFLU has thus far rejected up to a 50% increase in the minimum wage to 450,000 LL ($300 US) and called instead for a 320% increase to 960,000 LL ($640 US) a month. The organization has also called for a 63.3% hike in private sector wages.
No one denies that the minimum wage needs to be upped considerably and as soon as possible. It has not changed in 12 years. The current minimum of 300,000 LL ($200 US) a month is outrageously low and represents a painful fall in the last decade of real wages.
But Azaour was not joking when he said this month that any dramatic move on the minimum wage would literally break the bank. Even healthy economies can’t sustain minimum wage hikes as dramatic as 50%, much less 320%. Even the 25% increase first proposed in March by the Siniora government to the GFLU will increase prices on basic commodities at exaggerated rates, experts at the Ministries of Finance and Economy and Trade have cautioned.
Take the United States as an example. It, too, did not raise the minimum wage for nearly 10 years, from 1997-2007, but when it finally did, it settled on an 8-12% increase per year for three years. Any greater raise, lawmakers and economists feared, would drive prices up at such a rate as to make the increase in the minimum wage negligible in real terms.
Plain and simple, the Lebanese government could not even pay its own employees if it caved to GFLU demands. Lebanese workers across the board would suffer too, as employers laid off workers and/or refused to pay the new wage, with prices skyrocketing all the while.
The only reasonable solution is for the GFLU to sit down with the government in good faith and agree on a schedule to incrementally increase the minimum wage over the next 3-5 years, ideally indexing it to inflation at the end of this period.
The present GFLU demands and their call for a general strike are little more than an abusive political stunt. And if the organization’s leaders keep it up, it is the hundreds of thousands of workers it ostensibly represents who are sure to suffer the most. Labor has always been – and doubtless will always be – politicized, but labor in Lebanon has become so politicized in the last decade and so opposition-laden in the last 2-3 years, that it has severely compromised its most basic mandate: to protect the worker.

Why Israel’s Withdrawals Are A Mistake
By Dave Gordon
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, May 01, 2008
Pundits and scholars may argue about what Israel and the Palestinians should do in order to continue the elusive peace process, but there is one person who has been to the negotiating table with all sides, time and again, who has the insight from the inside -- Dennis Ross.
Ross, a former American ambassador, served under President George H.W. Bush and was special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. For twelve years Ross helped shape various Middle East peace accords between Israel and her neighbors.
In his 2004 memoir, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, he concedes that after several hundred meetings with Yasir Arafat, over the course of many years, it was only until after the Camp David Accords that Ross was finally convinced the dictator had never been negotiating in good faith.
Ross spoke last week at Toronto’s Shaarei Shomayim synagogue, on the topic of: “Israel at 60: the players, the promise and the process.”
It was a well-timed speech to discuss peace. Ten years earlier to the day, The Northern Ireland peace talks had ended with an historic agreement called the Good Friday Agreement. Five years ago to the day, the famous Saddam Hussein statue toppled in Baghdad.
In this interview, Ross talks about where the Israeli/Arab peace process has failed, and what Israel needs to do to secure its future.
Dave Gordon: You had mentioned in your talk that Arab states point to UN Resolutions and, at least on paper, say they recognize Israel, and its existence. Do you think the Arab world recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, or only recognizes Israel as a state?
Dennis Ross: I don’t think that anybody in the Arab world explicitly recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. And what I was saying was that this is what they would say. The only ones who officially recognize Israel are Egypt and Jordan, because they have peace treaties with Israel. But even they, if you ask them, ‘do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state,’ would say that they recognize Israel. But the rest of the Arab world, they would simply point and say, that by accepting these resolutions, … that doesn’t mean that they have in fact accepted Israel as a Jewish state. In the Arab world that’s simply not been done.
DG: What do you think Israel and the U.S. should have done to stop the growth in support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and could they have foreseen this?
DR: In terms of the growth of Hezbollah and Hamas – I think one thing, the unilateral withdrawals have been a mistake. Because the unilateral withdrawals strengthened Hezbollah and Hamas; strengthened them within Gaza. One thing you’ve got to learn from the past is that unilateral withdrawals end up strengthening terrorists. Hezbollah was able to say, ‘look we succeeded through violence not through negotiation,’ and Hamas was able to say the same thing. Rather than Israel taking a step that was seen as a goodwill gesture that others should then reciprocate, it was seen as a sign of weakness, and those who emphasize violence were able to say they succeeded where those who talked failed.
So I think one thing would have been to frame the issue in a way where Israel says, ‘look we’re ready to get out, and the only thing we require is that someone assumes responsibility for security, and that can’t be done rhetorically.’ That has to be done practically. In other words, the issue is not about our occupation; the issue is solely about security, and if Israel’s going to withdraw, someone has to accept that responsibility. We’ve now seen what happened in Lebanon; we’ve seen what happened in Gaza. We also see how Egypt has not fulfilled what it needed to do, when it came to its side of the responsibilities as it related to the broken border corridor, and to the smuggling there. So I think one way to have made it more difficult for these groups to emerge in a stronger position was also to realize that they shouldn’t be the beneficiaries of Israeli withdrawal. And they have been, and they use that to build their appeal.
DG: How do you rate all the Israeli-Palestinian accords and meetings of the past, both the official and unofficial meetings?
DR: I think the key, if one wants to look at the whole exercise, is to see if there’s a success there. Because look where we are today. On the other hand, I would say it’s not easy for Israelis to want to live without hope, and I think you want to have political processes. The key is, can we learn the lessons from the past political processes that did not succeed, and see if we can draw from their failures?
What are the sources of failures … so in the future if you’re going to pursue a political process you have a better chance of success? I think one of the things we should learn from the past is there has to be mutual obligations, and the obligations of each side have to be fulfilled. And that the process goes forward so long as each side is fulfilling their obligations, and it does not go forward if they’re not. And I think that has to be part of the DNA of the process from here on out. There has to be a sense of mutuality and responsibility; it can’t always be one side. I would say that we’ve got to focus, certainly on the Palestinian side, with what is it that Palestinians can do, so we can also demonstrate that those who do believe in coexistence are able to show that their pathway works.
DG: Why do you think the U.S. has yet to move its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, despite the fact that several American administrations and Congress have agreed to the move?
DR: I think that almost every presidential candidate promises that they will move the embassy, and then when they’re in office they suddenly worry about what the backlash may be, and will it complicate the negotiations. And so there’s been legislation that’s been adopted, but always with the presidential waver. If there was a security concern, that it will simply roil the atmosphere in a way that just makes things far harder than it needs to be. So I think the presumption is someday the embassy will be moved. But not until such time as, either you have resolved questions related to Jerusalem, or it becomes clear that you’re in such a period where nothing has been changed for a long time, so you decide to go ahead and act accordingly. But at this point, no administration has ever felt that we’re at that point, either in terms of resolving the issue, or deciding that it’s not going to be resolved any time soon.
DG: The Western world has been very worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons – is there reason to be worried about other groups and countries also developing or buying these weapons?
DR: I think there needs to be a concern worldwide about any illicit trade in nuclear materials that you could have non-state actors get a hold of. That’s the nightmare scenario, the worst weapons in the worst hands.

An eye on the North
Jerusalem Post 1/05/08
Something odd may be going on in southern Lebanon, and the Israeli security apparatus needs to be watching.
As London's Observer newspaper reported on April 27, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Hizbullah military recruits from the area are actively drilling for war. There is an "unprecedented build-up of men, equipment and bunker-building." Most men of fighting age are training in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, Syria or Iran.
With generous Iranian funding, Hizbullah's secretive military wing is intensifying its transformation from a guerrilla and terrorist outfit into a full-fledged army with a well-trained militia.
Of course, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 mandates no military activity anywhere in southern Lebanon save for the 10,000 soldiers of the Lebanese Army deployed there, supported by 13,000 UNIFIL troops and 1,500 personnel of the UNIFIL Maritime Task Force stationed along the coast. These forces are tasked with implementing that cease-fire resolution, which "authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action... to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind." It also forbids any country to bring weapons into Lebanon.
In practice, Hizbullah shamelessly violates the cease-fire. And when UNIFIL forces do stumble upon a Hizbullah violation, they tend to file vague and partial reports given only fleeting attention back at UN headquarters.
Last year, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon did say he was "deeply worried" about arms trafficking across the Lebanese-Syrian border. His concerns, well-founded, are unlikely to prompt steps by the Security Council.
The reluctance of UNIFIL forces to "take all necessary action" in confronting Hizbullah is understandable. Twelve "blue helmets" have been killed during the past year. And UNIFIL troops are anyway authorized to open fire only in self-defense. They can't even enter local villages without a Lebanese army escort.
WHAT IS happening in the south must be seen in the context of the overall fragmentation of Lebanon's body politic. "Byzantine" doesn't begin to describe the complexity of Beirut's unraveling political system.
Christian Arabs lost their demographic and political control of Lebanon years ago. The presidency, by custom held by a Maronite Christian, has been vacant since November 2007. The previously disenfranchised Shi'ite Arab majority has overwhelmed the Sunni Arabs, even as Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, a Sunni, hangs onto power.
Hizbullah has become the major player inside Lebanon. Its roots date back to the 1970s, when a dynamic Iranian-born (Arab) imam, Musa al-Sadr, began mobilizing Lebanon's Shi'ites for social, political and economic equality. The 1979 revolution in (Persian) Iran greatly empowered Lebanon's Shi'ite Arabs.
Initially, the Shi'ites did not oppose the IDF's operations against Palestinian terrorists in south Lebanon, and the PLO was indeed defeated there. But whether because of Israeli blunders or Iranian successes, Hizbullah has long since morphed into a menacing foe of the Jewish state.
THIS BRINGS us back to Hizbullah's military build-up. One would have thought that Hassan Nasrallah would be deterred from launching another unprovoked attack given the millions of dollars in damage Lebanon suffered when Israel struck back after its soldiers were kidnapped in what became the Second Lebanon War. But Iran has deep pockets, and building a global caliphate doesn't come cheap.
Moreover, notwithstanding Israeli assertions that hundreds of Hizbullah fighters were killed in that war, a US military study reportedly places the death toll at "only" 184. That's a "martyr" toll the Hizbullah-supporting Shi'ites appear well able to absorb. Anyway, Nasrallah answers to a higher authority. If Iran is becoming jittery over the possibility that Syria might truly move out of its orbit, there's nothing like a war with Israel to reshuffle the deck.
Hizbullah watcher Guy Bechor, writing at www.gplanet.co.il, does not foresee a Hizbullah assault in the near term. But he doesn't discount the prospect of a large-scale surprise attack down the line. He warns that hundreds of guerrillas could burst through the entire length of the border, seize territory and take hundreds of hostages. Nasrallah could then claim to be the first Arab leader to have successfully invaded "Palestine" since 1948, thus solidifying Hizbullah's hold on the Arab imagination.
With so much attention focused on the Hamas threat and Independence Day security concerns, and given the degree to which Israel was taken by surprise in summer 2006, all we're urging is: Keep an eye on southern Lebanon
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209626988868&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The McCain Hezbollah "Connection
April 30, 2008 8:37 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-mccain-hezb.html
The campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., removed a man from his Michigan Finance Committee today.
It started after conservative writer Debbie Schlussel called Michigan businessman Ali Jawad not only a supporter of Hezbollah -- a group the US State Department labels a "terrorist organization" -- but also claimed he was a "key agent of the terrorist group in the Detroit area." After Schlussel started asking questions the McCain campaign removed him from the finance committee for a May fundraiser. "Apparently he is a well known member of the Arab-American community in Dearborn," a McCain staffer tells ABC News. "He is also a known Republican donor and former Bush finance committee member. When these rumors surfaced he notified the campaign and we removed him from the finance committee. The guy never raised a dime for us and he isn’t even a contributor." Yes, that's right, the McCain campaign said they removed him because of "rumors."
Jawad is president of Armada Oil & Gas Company and founder of the Lebanese American Heritage Club. In 1997 he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor insurance fraud. Prosecutors accused him of submitting names of non-employees to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to receive health insurance benefits and claims. He received two years of probation and he paid approximately $6,000 in fines and restitution. In this 2002 story, Jawad is quoted saying he "rejects talk that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that should be shunned by the United States and other governments. 'Killing innocent people -- we reject that,' he said. 'Hezbollah does not fit this category. It has protected its people.'"Read Schlussel's story -- she lays out many charges against him.
You will note in one photograph in Schussel's story, Jawad is sitting at a table with Michael Rosen, a lawyer and policy advisor with the U.S. Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes of the U.S. Treasury Department, and Andrew Arena, Michigan FBI Special Agent in Charge, and formerly in charge of Counterterrorism for the New York FBI.This all seems a little odd to me.
Is there anyone out there who thinks McCain supports Hezbollah? Was McCain truly offended by the notion that an Arab-American businessman with sympathy for Hezbollah supports him? Or was today's move just to deprive Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, of some future rebuttal?
* I don't mean "Connection" literally.

Top Syrian emissary: We won't sever ties with Iran for peace with Israel
By Yoav Stern and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondents
Syria will not sever ties with Iran and Hezbollah even as part of a possible peace agreement with Israel, a senior Syrian analyst who is handling the government's contacts as it relates to the peace process said on Tuesday.
"It would be naive to think Syria will neglect or abandon its strategic alliances that do not stem from the Arab-Israeli conflict," the analyst, Dr. Samir Taqi, said in an interview with Al-Manar television.
When asked why Syria elected to trumpet messages from Israel and relayed by Turkey of Jerusalem's willingness to cede the Golan Heights in exchange for peace, Taqi replied that the intent behind the media campaign was "to solidify the right" of Syria to the strategic plateau it lost as a result of the Six-Day War.
Advertisement
As such, Taqi sought to emphasize that he is personally not involved in the recent developments, but is rather providing commentary on the matter.
Israeli officials told Haaretz Taqi was very close to decision-makers in Damascus and enjoyed the confidence of the Turkish government. People who know Taqi personally said yesterday they believed he was very well-connected to the Syrian intelligence services.
Taqi served for years as an adviser to the previous Syrian president, Hafez Assad. In recent years he received the official title of adviser to the prime minister, and heads the Center of Oriental Studies, a political think tank.
Prior to taking up his advisory posts, Taqi, who is a Christian, was a cardiac surgeon, who studied medicine in London. In recent years he has has frequently met with journalists and academics to discuss political issues.
Last year, the Turks welcomed Taqi's visit to northern Cyprus at the head of an unofficial Syrian delegation, when he met with with the foreign minister of the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. His act aroused the ire of Greek Cypriots, who oppose recognition of the Turkish part of the island as an independent state, which only Ankara recognizes.
Haaretz has learned that Taqi was the bearer of Israel's main message to Syrian President Bashar Assad more than a week ago, following his visit to Ankara. Taqi's principal contact in Ankara is Ahmet Davutoglu, a close associate of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Taqi, in an interview broadcast on Saturday on Al Jazeera, spoke from Damascus and said Syria was interested in moving ahead in talks with Israel even during the present American administration. He said now was the time to prepare for for the pre-negotiation phase, to declare intentions and points of view, until the parties reach the point at which the Americans would be prepared to intervene.