LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِApril
03/2010
Bible Of the
Day
Good Friday is observed
on the Friday before Easter Sunday. On this day Christians commemorate the
passion, or suffering, and death on the cross of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Christians spend this day in fasting, prayer, repentance, and meditation on the
agony and suffering of Christ on the cross. The biblical account of Jesus' death
on the cross, or crucifixion, his burial and his resurrection, or raising from
the dead, can be found in the following passages of Scripture: Matthew
27:27-28:8; Mark 15:16-16:19; Luke 23:26-24:35; and John 19:16-20:30.
John 19/23-37: " Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his
garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat. Now
the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. 19:24 Then they said
to one another, “Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to decide whose it will
be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which says, “They parted my garments
among them. For my cloak they cast lots.”* Therefore the soldiers did these
things. 19:25 But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his
mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 19:26 Therefore
when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he
said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 19:27 Then he said to the
disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour, the disciple took her to his
own home. 19:28 After this, Jesus, seeing that all things were now finished,
that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty.” 19:29 Now a vessel
full of vinegar was set there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on
hyssop, and held it at his mouth. 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the
vinegar, he said, “It is finished.” He bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.
19:31 Therefore the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, so that the bodies
wouldn’t remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special
one), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be
taken away. 19:32 Therefore the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first,
and of the other who was crucified with him; 19:33 but when they came to Jesus,
and saw that he was already dead, they didn’t break his legs. 19:34 However one
of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water
came out. 19:35 He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true. He
knows that he tells the truth, that you may believe. 19:36 For these things
happened, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, “A bone of him will not be
broken.”* 19:37 Again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they
pierced.”*
Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special
Reports
The Concept of “Resistance”/By::
Hassan Haidar/Al Hayat/April 02/10
When will Israel invade Lebanon
and Syria?/By:
Conn Hallinan/April
02/10
Lebanese leaders need to pull together/Daily Star/April 02/10
Obama's Foolish Settlements
Ultimatum/by Steven J. Rosen/The Middle East Forum/April
02/10
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for April 02/10
Wife of condemned 'sorcerer' pleads for mercy/CNN
Saudi
'witchcraft' beheading can still be stopped - Beirut/AFP
Damascus committed to Mideast peace - Kerry/Daily
Star
Debate persists over Lebanon-US aid program/Daily
Star
Hezbollah worried about spies/UPI.com
Leaders praise Nasrallah's 'calm'
response to STL questioning/Daily Star
Kerry says Syria is committed to Mideast peace/The
Associated Press
UN probe quizzed Hezbollah members says Nasrallah/BBC
News
US Sees Talks with Syria as a Priority/CBS
News
Senator Kerry: Syria 'Very Important' to Peace
Efforts/Voice
of America
Jumblatt: Syria ties will be based
on suporting resistance/Daily Star
Lebanon's gross public debt up 8.6
percent in 2009 to reach $51 billion/Daily Star
Israeli judge orders release of detained Fatah leader/AFP
Turkish envoy to return to US after 'genocide' row/AFP
Jumblat:
Future with Syria Begins with Supporting Resistance, I'm Not Restricted by Any
Commitments toward Damascus/Naharnet
Kouchner: Hizbullah Not Far From Justice/Naharnet
Hizbullah's Fayyad Slams Kouchner: He is Not Guardian on Court Matters/Naharnet
May Chidiac Named
International Press Heroine?Naharnet
Iran nuclear envoy warns West to
stop threats/Naharnet
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
31 March 2010
For Immediate Release
AI Index: PRE01/115/2010
Lebanese authorities urged to intervene to halt expected Saudi Arabia execution
Amnesty International today urged Saad Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister, to
intervene to help halt the possible imminent execution of a Lebanese national in
Saudi Arabia, after the organisation received reports that an execution is
scheduled for tomorrow.
Amnesty International fears that former television presenter 'Ali Hussain Sibat
convicted on charges of "sorcery" in Saudi Arabia may be the Lebanese national
facing execution.
On 10 March 2010, a Saudi Arabia court upheld the death sentence against 'Ali
Hussain Sibat, after he was convicted in November 2009 on charges of “sorcery”,
for giving advice and predictions about the future on a Lebanese satellite TV
show.
"‘Ali Hussain Sibat appears to have been convicted solely for the peaceful
exercise of his right to freedom of expression," said Malcolm Smart, Director of
Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa programme.
"We urge the Lebanese authorities to do all they can to prevent this execution"
said Malcolm Smart "and we are calling on King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia not to
let this or other executions go ahead. It is high time the Saudi Arabian
government joined the international trend towards a worldwide moratorium on
executions."
‘Ali Hussain Sibat was arrested by the Mutawa'een (religious police) in May 2008
while he was visiting Saudi Arabia on a form of Muslim pilgrimage, the 'umra.
His lawyer believes that the TV presenter was arrested because members of the
Mutawa'een had recognized him from his show, which was broadcast on the
Sheherazade TV station.
The police asked 'Ali Hussain Sibat's to write down what he did for a living,
reassuring him that he would be allowed to go home after a few weeks if he
complied.
The defendant was convicted after the statement he wrote was presented during
the trial as a "confession”.
He was sentenced to death by a court in Madina on 9 November 2009 following
secret hearings where he was given no legal representation or assistance.
In January 2010, the Court of Appeal in Makkah accepted an appeal against the TV
presenter’s death sentence, on grounds that it was a premature verdict.
The Court of Appeal said that all allegations made against 'Ali Hussain Sibat
had to be verified, and that if he had really committed the crime he should be
asked to repent.
But on 10 March, a court in Madina upheld the death sentence. The judges said
that he deserved to be sentenced to death because he had practised “sorcery”
publicly for several years before millions of viewers and that his actions “made
him an infidel”.
The court also said that there would be no way to verify that his repentance, if
he should repent, would be sincere and that imposing the death sentence would
deter other people from engaging in “sorcery” at a time when, the court said,
there is an increase in the number of “foreign magicians” entering Saudi Arabia.
The crime of "sorcery" is not defined in Saudi Arabian law but is used to punish
people for the legitimate exercise of their human rights, including the rights
to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, belief and expression.
The Saudi Arabian authorities arrested scores of people for “sorcery” in 2009,
and have continued to arrest people on the same charges this year.
The last known execution for "sorcery" was that of Egyptian national Mustafa
Ibrahim, on 2 November 2007. He had been arrested in May 2007 in the town of
Arar, where he worked as a pharmacist, and accused of "apostasy" for having
degraded a copy of the Qur'an.
At least 158 people were executed in Saudi Arabia in 2007 and at least 102 in
2008. In 2009, 69 people are known to have been executed, including 19 foreign
nationals. Since the beginning of 2010, at least eight people have been
executed.
Amnesty International called on the authorities to release 'Ali Hussain
immediately and unconditionally if he has been convicted solely for the peaceful
exercise of his right to freedom of expression.
END/
Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London,
UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org
-------------------------------------
East Mediterranean Team
Amnesty International, International Secretariat
Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street
London WC1X 0DW
United Kingdom
E-mail: Eastmed@amnesty.org
Tel: +44 (0)20 7413 5500
Fax: +44 (0)20 7413 5719
Sfeir in Easter Message Warns Against Splits, Urges Lebanese to Unite Around
Their Nation and President
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir on Friday used his Easter message to
warn against splits in opinion and attacks on dignitaries and urged Lebanese to
come together and unite around their nation and President Michel Suleiman.
"Robberies, housebreaks and attacks on citizens have increased in Lebanon,
despite the improvement in the situation," Sfeir said from Bkirki.
"Citizens are complaining about the security situation as laws and regulations
are not being respected and this is due to a split in opinion at the state
level," he added.
Sfeir called on the Lebanese to "come together and unite around their nation and
their President." Beirut, 02 Apr 10, 09:40
Saudi 'witchcraft' beheading can still be stopped - Beirut
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Friday, April 02, 2010
W.G. Dunlop
Agence France Presse
DUBAI: Beirut’s envoy to Riyadh said on Thursday he has yet to be informed of a
Saudi decision to behead a Lebanese former TV presenter convicted of sorcery,
which was expected to be carried out this week. Ambassador Marwan Zein said that
“until now, the embassy had not been informed” that Ali Sabat will be put to
death imminently, and that his case was “still being considered by the court.”
Sabat’s Lebanon-based lawyer May al-Khansa said on Wednesday that she had
received news he would be beheaded “within 48 hours,” but a rights group said on
Thursday legal steps remain before the execution can be carried out.
Human Rights Watch senior researcher Christophe Wilcke said the case still had
to go before “the supreme court [in Riyadh] and it has to go to the king for
ratification.”
Asked about Zein’s statement, Wilcke told AFP by telephone that the Saudis “may
well not have complied with their duty to inform [the Lebanese] of what’s
happening with this case.”
But he also said that since “this whole thing came to light … we did not see a
lot of action by the Lebanese diplomats and government officials to try to seek
clemency or advocate on behalf of their national.” The office of Lebanese Prime
Minister Saad Hariri declined to comment on the matter on Thursday. However,
Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar told AFP in Beirut: “I hope I have done the
required [concerning this case] and I hope other Lebanese officials have done
the same. “I hope that Saudi authorities realize the same offense is not dealt
with in the same manner in other countries and that they will be sensitive to
all recommendations,” he added, stressing Lebanon’s respect for Saudi
sovereignty and sharia, or Islamic law.
Sabat, a 46-year-old father of five, was arrested in May 2008 by religious
police in Medina, where he was on a pilgrimage. According to Amnesty
International, he was sentenced to death by a Medina court in 2009 for
practicing “sorcery” because he “gave advice and predictions about the future”
on a Lebanese television program.
Khansa said Sabat’s appeal was rejected but that he can still be pardoned by the
ruler of the province where he was judged.
Sabat had not practiced “sorcery” in Saudi Arabia, and was only arrested because
he was recognized from his program, Khansa said, adding Sabat has no lawyer in
the kingdom as he cannot afford one. Amnesty on Wednesday joined other rights
groups expressing concern about the Sabat case. “Ali Hussain Sabat appears to
have been convicted solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of
expression,” Malcolm Smart, head of the group’s Middle East and North Africa
program, said in a statement Thursday.
“It is high time the Saudi government joined the international trend toward a
worldwide moratorium on executions,” Smart said, urging Lebanese authorities and
Saudi King Abdullah to stop the execution. Rape, murder, apostasy, armed
robbery, drug trafficking and sorcery are among the crimes punishable by death
in Saudi Arabia, which applies a strictl version of Sharia.
In November 2007, Mustafa Ibrahim, an Egyptian working as a pharmacist in Saudi
Arabia, was beheaded after being found guilty of sorcery.
Riyadh announced in 2009 that it would launch a campaign against sorcery in the
kingdom.
The
Concept of “Resistance”
Thu, 01 April 2010
By:: Hassan Haidar/Al Hayat
In his interview with Al-Manar TV, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad affirmed
that he fully supports the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine “without
reluctance or shyness” regarding it as the [ultimate] “solution.” He said that
when it comes to the resistance, “we cannot be neutral.” Asked why he doesn’t
stage a war to liberate the occupied Golan Heights (i.e. a resistance movement),
he said that “the resistance is not formed upon a decision from the state, but
from the people, when there isn’t a state that works for liberating the
land…After all, you only go for a war when you lose hope in achieving peace.”
Then he stressed his tendency to peace and unwillingness to [engage] in a war
which is “the worst case scenario” unless he was forced to do so. He pointed out
that “Israel only has the option of peace because its power is corroding while
the choice of resistance is taking precedence among Arabs. Its military power is
no longer a guarantee [for its victory].”
During the Arab League Summit that was held in Libya a few days after this
interview, Al-Assad underscored “the need to spread the culture of resistance
since all other choices have proven their failure.” While referring to
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Al-Assad noted that “we have discovered in
the region that the price of resistance is less costly than the price of defeat
and submission.”
It should be said that this new Syrian wisdom and inclination to peace is a
positive and desired thing, but it should not be restricted to what concerns
Syria only, as it should support the similar peaceful approaches and tendencies
in other Arab countries, namely in Lebanon and Palestine, especially since
Israel is common in all cases. The same terminologies could not be used in a
conflicting way at the same time, whereby the Palestinian Authority’s endeavor
to restore the rights by negotiations – albeit indirect ones – is seen as a
“defeat” and “submission” while the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations under a
Turkish sponsorship mirror a desire for peace. Likewise, the endeavor of
Lebanese sides to restrict the arms to the state raises doubts and suspicion,
while restricting the arms to the Syrian State comes in the framework of
management and legitimacy.
Moreover, it cannot be said that the state in Lebanon does not obviate the need
for the resistance, while the state in Syria does, although the governments that
took office in Lebanon throughout the Syrian tutelage era, particularly in its
last years, identified completely with the Syrian vision of the resistance and
devoted all its capabilities to its service. In addition, the human, economic,
and geographical capacities of both countries, in terms of size and
significance, and the capability of each country to launch resistance, cannot be
compared.
If we were to compare Israel’s positions on the occupied Lebanese and Syrian
territories, we would find a major difference. The vast majority of the Lebanese
had never heard of the Shebaa farms before the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon
in 2000, while the Golan Heights have been occupied since 1967 and the
occupation decided to annex it to Israel 30 years ago. It also issued a law in
this regard that allows it to establish settlements and exploit the land and
water at will. Besides, while an extremist Israeli rhetoric on the Golan Heights
is adopted, the Hebrew State (without acquitting its intentions) says that the
Shebaa Farms are Syrian land and that it is willing to return them to Damascus
in the framework of a peace
agreement, or to Lebanon, provided that Syria acknowledges that they belong to
Lebanon.
So, in your opinion, why does the Lebanese people launch a “liberating war”?
Damascus committed to Mideast peace - Kerry
Senator says US concerned about arms flow to Hizbullah
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, April 02, 2010
DAMASCUS: US Senator John Kerry said on Thursday during a visit to Damascus that
Syria is committed to engaging in peace making and is essential to the Mideast
process.
The Democratic senator, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, told reporters after a three-hour meeting with President Bashar Assad
that Washington is also concerned about the flow of weapons to Lebanon’s
militant Hizbullah group through Syrian territories.
“That is something that must stop in order to promote regional stability and
security,” Kerry said about the weapons.
Washington has reached out to Syria in recent months by nominating the first US
ambassador to Damascus since 2005 and sending top diplomats to meet with Assad.
Kerry’s visit to Syria is the latest in a series of American officials to make
the trip, as Washington pushes for the country’s cooperation in Middle East
peace efforts and the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Washington is hoping
to draw Syria away from Iran and the militant groups Hizbullah and Hamas.
Its decision in February to appoint the first US ambassador to Damascus in five
years was “evidence that engagement with Syria is a priority at the highest
levels of our government,” said the former US presidential candidate. Envoy
Robert Ford is still awaiting US confirmation of his new post, but “he will be
an excellent representative of the president’s policies and an outstanding envoy
to the Syrian government,” Kerry said. Syria is a strong supporter of militant
groups such as the Iranian-backed Hizbullah and the Palestinian Islamist group
Hamas, whose exiled leadership is based in Damascus. “Syria is an essential
player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” Kerry said.
Turkey mediated several rounds of indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel
in 2008, but the discussions made no significant headway. Direct talks between
the Mideast enemies broke down in 2000. The Syrian news agency said that Kerry
and Assad stressed the need of continuing “constructive dialogue” between Syria
and United States based on “mutual respect and common interests to reach
positive solutions for issues of common interest” the agency said. Kerry said
Washington and Syria “have a very deep interest, a mutual interest” in having a
very frank exchange on any differences if they exist. The senator added that he
has long advocated American engagement with Syria and “I am very committed to
working on a continued effort to achieve progress in our bilateral
relationship.” – AP, AFP
Lebanon's gross public debt up 8.6 percent in 2009 to reach $51 billion
Finance Ministry report shows domestic currency dues totaling nearly LL45
billion
By The Daily Star /Friday, April 02, 2010
BEIRUT: The Finance Ministry said on Thursday that Lebanon’s gross public debt
reached LL77,019 billion ($51.09 billion) by the end of 2009, 8.6 percent higher
than at end December 2008. As for the net public debt, it stood at LL66,497
billion 6.3 percent higher than the end 2008 level. The ministry said that the
domestic currency debt totaled LL44,973 billion, increasing by 15.3 percent
compared to end December 2008. In the fourth quarter of 2009, it added,
commercial banks remained the main subscribers of treasury bills and notes with
64 percent of subscriptions, followed by public institutions with 21 percent and
BDL with 7 percent. Primary market rates on treasury bills and notes also
continued their downward trend across all maturities. The ministry said that the
highest decrease in rates was seen for the 24-month instrument whose rate went
down by 194 bps since year-end 2008 to reach 6.32 percent at end the fourth
quarter in 2009. The 36-month instrument’s rate went down by 190 bps during the
same period reaching 7.10 percent by the end 2009, it said.
On the other hand, it stated that the foreign currency debt totaled LL32,046
billion by the end of 2009, an increase of 0.5 percent since the end of December
2008.
On December 3, 2009, the Lebanese Republic issued a $500 million dual-tranche
offering. The first series (Series 53) consisted of a $250 million 5.8 percent
coupon
Eurobond due January 2015. The second (Series 54) was a $250 million 7 percent
coupon Eurobond due December 2024. Both series were issued at record-low market
rates for the republic and attracted international investor demand of 27 percent
on the aggregate issue. –The Daily Star
Obama's Foolish Settlements Ultimatum
by Steven J. Rosen
ForeignPolicy.com/April 1, 2010
The Middle East Forum
http://www.meforum.org/2630/obama-settlements-ultimatum
U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to confront Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu on Israeli construction activity in East Jerusalem has been
greeted by a hail of praise, especially from people impatient to proceed with
peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The belief seems to be that meeting
this issue head-on will accelerate progress toward an agreement ending a
conflict that has festered for generations. The historical record suggests a
different conclusion.
The assumption that a faceoff over construction in Jerusalem will advance
negotiations has not been subjected to much scrutiny. But the last two decades
show that progress has occurred not when this issue was put first, but when it
was finessed and left for the final status negotiations on Jerusalem.
Consider this: If, 17 years ago, U.S. President Bill Clinton or Palestinian
leader Yasir Arafat had insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
freeze all settlement construction, including in Jerusalem, before Arafat would
sit down with Rabin, there would have been no Oslo agreements. By Rabin's own
account, in comments before the Knesset, Israel's parliament, he had to fudge
the issue.
"I explained to the president of the United States," he said,"that I wouldn't
forbid Jews from building privately in the area of Judea and Samaria ... I am
sorry that within united Jerusalem construction is not more massive."The same
year as the famous handshake on the White House lawn, 1993, the Rabin government
completed the construction of more than 6,000 units in the Pisgat Zeev
neighborhood of East Jerusalem, out of a total of 13,000 units that were in
various stages of completion in areas of the city that had been outside Israeli
lines before 1967.
So Arafat did sit down with Rabin, even while Israel's construction in Jerusalem
continued. And, on Sept. 13, 1993, the Oslo peace accord was signed -- by the
same Mahmoud Abbas who refuses to sit down today. And on October 14, 1994,
Rabin, who built homes for Jews in East Jerusalem, was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize.
Altogether, Israel completed 30,000 dwelling units in the West Bank, Gaza, and
Jerusalem in the four years of Rabin's government. Even the Jan. 9, 1995,
announcement of a plan to build 15,000 additional apartments in East Jerusalem
neighborhoods beyond the 1967 borders (especially Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaacov, Gilo,
and Har Homa) did not stop negotiations, which resulted in the Oslo II accord of
September 28, 1995. Israeli construction continued while Abbas and Rabin signed
an historic accord.
And what was the American policy toward Rabin's construction of Jewish homes in
East Jerusalem? Mild annoyance.
On Jan. 3, 1995, the State Department spokesman said mildly, in response to the
Rabin government's announcement of expanded construction, "The parties
themselves ... have to judge whether it presents any kind of a problem in their
own dialogue. The important thing is to continue to meet." The spokesman added
on Jan. 10, 1995, "We admit that settlements are a problem, but we ... enjoin
the parties to deal with these issues in their negotiations."
Clinton's Middle East peace advisor, Martin Indyk, told the U.S. Senate on Feb.
2, 1995, that Rabin's government had recently "given approval for something like
4,000 to 5,000 new housing units to go up in settlements around the Jerusalem
area." But, he said, Clinton had decided to stay out of it. "To take action now
that would in one way or another ... would be very explosive in the
negotiations, and frankly, would put us out of business as a facilitator of
those negotiations." Had Clinton taken Obama's approach, it might well have
exploded the negotiations and brought the Oslo process to a halt.
Nor was this example of construction in Jerusalem while diplomacy made progress
an isolated exception. Two years after Oslo II, in January 1997, Abbas and
Arafat sat down with another Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, to sign the
Hebron Protocol, which provided for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces
from 80 percent of the very sensitive area of Hebron in the West Bank. Arafat
and Abbas had no illusions that Netanyahu intended to freeze Israeli
construction in East Jerusalem. In fact, Netanyahu had announced that he would
proceed with the building of Har Homa, a controversial Israeli suburb conceived
by Rabin. Nor, another 18 months later, did the Palestinians' fierce objections
to Har Homa stop them from joining the Wye Plantation negotiations from October
15-23, 1998. These talks led to an agreement known as the Wye River Memorandum,
in which Netanyahu, under considerable pressure from President Clinton, agreed
to pull the Israel Defense Forces out of an additional 13 percent of the West
Bank. This move was fiercely opposed by Netanyahu's right flank, and it led to
his downfall in January 1999 when the hard-liners in his coalition defected.
Had Clinton demanded Netanyahu freeze construction in Jerusalem and Arafat made
it a precondition for negotiations, neither the Hebron nor Wye agreements would
have been signed.
The Labor government that was elected in the wake of Netanyahu's ouster
continued the pattern of building in Jerusalem while moving forward in
negotiations with the Palestinians. At the Camp David Summit (July 11-25, 2000),
then Prime Minister Ehud Barak went past Israel's past "red lines" and the
Palestinians most of the West Bank and a capital in Jerusalem, along with land
swaps. But, at the same time that he was taking these unprecedented steps, Barak
was accelerating the construction of Har Homa and other Jerusalem communities
across the pre-1967 line. While the talks accelerated, Barak also moved ahead
with the Ras al-Amud neighborhood on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. President
Clinton said he " would have preferred that this decision was not taken." But
Clinton added that the United States "cannot prevent Israel from building in
Har-Homa." Haim Ramon, Rabin's minister for Jerusalem affairs, said "I would
like to make it clear that the government has no intention of stopping the
building at Har Homa."
Here again, had Clinton taken Obama's position and issued an ultimatum demanding
that all construction in Jerusalem stop, and had Arafat made that American
demand a precondition to begin negotiations, the Camp David Summit of 2000 and
the Taba talks in January 2001 would not have occurred.
The next Israeli government, headed by retired general Ariel Sharon, did not
seek any breakthroughs in negotiations with the Palestinians. But Sharon ordered
the most dramatic territorial concession in Israel's history since 1967: the
withdrawal of all Israeli soldiers from every square inch of Gaza along with the
abandonment of 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank, in the
"unilateral disengagement" of August-December 2005. Sharon pulled 8,000 Israeli
settlers from their homes against fierce opposition from his right flank.
President George W. Bush played a key role in making Sharon's withdrawal from
Gaza possible by softening U.S. policy on the settlement issue. To offset the
concession that Sharon was making, and counter opposition to it from Israel's
right, he wrote a letter to Sharon on April 14, 2004, acknowledging that, "In
light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli
populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final
status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of
1949. ... It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be
achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
One implication of the letter was that the United States would treat Israeli
construction in communities that all parties knew will remain part of Israel in
any future two-state agreement, like the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem,
differently from settlement activity on controversial areas in the interior of
the West Bank.
Elliott Abrams, the White House advisor who negotiated the Bush administration's
compromises on the natural growth of settlement, explained the significance of
the step Bush took last June in the Wall Street Journal: "There were indeed
agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli
settlements on the West Bank. ... The prime minister of Israel relied on them in
undertaking a wrenching political reorientation ... the removal of every single
Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza. ... There was a
bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to ... confront his former
allies on Israel's right by abandoning the 'Greater Israel' position. ... He
asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not
demand a total settlement freeze."
There were expressions of unhappiness by Palestinian leaders and European
diplomats about the Bush policy of giving a green light to limited construction
in Jerusalem and certain settlement blocs. But the Bush administration defended
it as a realistic policy that moved the peace process forward.
Four months after the disengagement from Gaza, on Jan. 4, 2006, Sharon went into
a coma. His deputy, Ehud Olmert, became prime minister. Olmert sought a
resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. Following the Annapolis Summit
in November 2007, Abbas, who had taken over as president of the Palestinian
Authority and head of the PLO after Arafat's death in November 2004, agreed to
begin intensive negotiations with Olmert. While Abbas expressed his unhappiness
with continued Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the settlement blocs,
he did not make cancelation of these projects a precondition for talks. In fact,
Olmert said, "It was clear from day one to Abbas ... that construction would
continue in population concentrations -- the areas mentioned in Bush's 2004
letter. ... Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be
construction in Pisgat Zeev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem ...
areas [that] will remain under Israeli control in any future settlement."
These negotiations produced significant results: on Sept. 16, 2008, Olmert
offered Abbas 93 percent of the West Bank, partition of Jerusalem, and a land
swap. Abbas's deputy Saeb Erekat boasted to a Jordanian newspaper that he and
Abbas had achieved considerable progress with the Olmert government between the
November 2007 Annapolis talks and the end of 2008 in as many as 288 negotiation
sessions by 12 committees -- all while Israeli construction continued.
The record is clear and consistent: The United States has never liked Israeli
construction in East Jerusalem, and frequently stated that it complicated the
peace process. But until Obama, no U.S. president had made its cancelation a
precondition for negotiations, and until Obama, Palestinian leaders including
Abbas did not make it a precondition either. For 19 years -- from the Madrid
conference of October 1991 through the Olmert/Abbas negotiations that ended in
2008, negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid,
Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba,
the disengagement from Gaza, and the Olmert offer to Abbas -- all these events
over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to
disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods
outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem.
Today, for the first time in 19 years, we have an aministration unable to
produce Israeli-Palestinian negotiations . Abbas is following Obama's lead in
demanding an unprecedented precondition that Israel cannot satisfy. This is the
same Abbas who negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers -- Shamir,
Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu (in his first term), Barak, Sharon, and Olmert, without
the precondition that he now demands of Netanyahu. We have a crisis. Netanyahu
is doing something that every past Israeli prime minister of the left and right
has done, but Obama is doing something that past American leaders considered
unwise. It is the U.S. behavior that has changed.
At this moment, Obama's decision to confront Netanyahu about construction in
Jerusalem wins wide praise. Whether Obama's policy will still look good in six
months, when people realize he has mired the negotiations in quicksand, remains
to be seen.
Obama would do better to take the advice of his own Mideast envoy, George
Mitchell, who wisely told PBS host Charlie Rose, "For the Israelis, what they're
building in is in part of Israel. Now, the others don't see it that way. So you
have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is, let's get
into negotiations, let's deal with the issues and come up with a solution to all
of them including Jerusalem. ... The Israelis are not going to stop settlements
in or construction in East Jerusalem. ... There are disputed legal issues. ...
And we could spend the next 14 years arguing over disputed legal issues or we
can try to get a negotiation to resolve them in a manner that meets the
aspirations of both societies."
**Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and was a defendant in the recently
dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle
East Forum.
Israeli judge orders release of detained Fatah leader
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Friday, April 02, 2010
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: An Israeli military judge Thursday ordered the release of 10
Palestinians, including a senior Fatah official, detained at a protest march
through a West Bank checkpoint, supporters said. A spokesman for the group who
attended the military trial said the demonstrators, including senior Fatah
leader Abbas Zaki, were ordered to be freed without charges or conditions. “The
judge criticized the police and said very clearly that this was a peaceful
protest and that no violence was used except by the police and the military,”
the spokesman, Jonathan Pollak, told AFP. The military confirmed the 10 were
ordered released.
The arrests were made on Sunday after about 150 demonstrators protesting against
Israeli restrictions on travel from the West Bank walked through a lightly
manned checkpoint outside Jerusalem with a donkey and a horse. Israeli security
forces halted the group a few hundred meters past the checkpoint but Pollak said
the arrests were made after the protestors had delivered speeches and started
walking back to the West Bank. The 10 were detained along with five Israelis,
who were released later that day.
A protest on Wednesday outside the military prison where the 10 were being held
turned violent, with Israeli border police firing tear gas and rubber bullets at
Palestinian youths hurling stones. Senior officials from the secular Fatah
movement, which is led by the Western-backed president Mahmud Abbas and supports
a negotiated two-state solution to the Middle East conflict, had attended
Wednesday’s protest. Israel has restricted access to its territory from the West
Bank to all but humanitarian cases and the holders of special permits since the
start of the Jewish Passover holiday on Monday. The closure was to continue
until the end of the holiday next week.
Demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza have increased over the past few weeks
following the announcement of 1,600 new settlement homes in East Jerusalem.
The announcement drew ire from the United States and led to a public row with
Israel. On Wednesday, Israeli press reported that the United States wants
a four-month Israeli building freeze in occupied East Jerusalem, one several US
demands aimed at reigniting dormant peace talks.
In return for a Jerusalem freeze – something Israel has refused to contemplate
in the past – the United States would pressure the Palestinians to hold direct
talks with Israel, the Haaretz daily reported. The paper, quoting unnamed
Israeli officials, said the four-month freeze would coincide with the period the
Arab League had backed for renewed indirect talks between the two sides. Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned last week from a tense visit to
Washington that appeared to deepen a bitter row with the administration of
President Barack Obama over the building of Jewish settlements, including in
annexed Arab East Jerusalem. He was reportedly given a set of demands for
wide-ranging measures that included the extension of a partial settlement halt
and the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners to promote a restart of the
stalled peace process. Neither Israel nor the United States have said what the
US demands are. However, Netanyahu has been meeting with his security cabinet to
craft a response. Israel’s Channel Two news, which also reported the demand for
a Jerusalem freeze, said no answer was expected from Israel until the Passover
holiday ends next week. – AFP
Leaders praise Nasrallah's 'calm' response to STL
questioning
Sfeir impressed ‘by pragmatism, calmness’ in Hizbullah chief’s remarks
By Wassim Mroueh
Daily Star staff
Friday, April 02, 2010
BEIRUT: The remarks made by Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
Wednesday evening prompted conflicting reactions from different political
figures.
Lebanon First bloc MP Oqab Saqr spoke Thursday to reporters following a meeting
with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir. “Sfeir was impressed by the pragmatism
and calmness of Nasrallah’s remarks and said that the country is now moving in a
better track toward improving and fortifying its status,” Saqr said.
Speaking to Ash-Sharq radio station, Education and Higher Education Minister
Hassan Mneimneh described Nasrallah’s remarks as “acceptable and natural,”
adding that allowing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) to work without any
advanced judgments will enable it to issue its verdict which “we should all
accept.”
In an interview on Hizbullah-owned Al-Manar channel Wednesday night, Nasrallah
confirmed rumors and media leaks claiming weeks ago that the STL questioned a
number of Hizbullah members. “They called in 12 of our brothers in recent weeks,
and I believe they are now in the process of summoning six more,” Nasrallah said
adding that his party was not currently in the tribunal’s line of fire. However,
Nasrallah doubted the credibility of the STL, saying the resistance would
continue to cooperate with investigators but only if the court’s work proved to
be on the right track away from politicization attempts. He stressed the
investigation committee could regain trust and restore its image by halting
media leaks and trying witnesses who committed perjury. Public Health Minister
Mohammad Jawad Khalifeh labeled Nasrallah’s remarks regarding the cooperation
with the STL as “clear and logical.”
“The best way to protect STL is distancing it from media leaks,” said Khalifeh
voicing support for Nasrallah’s policy of cooperating with STL.
MP Khalifeh, who made his remarks to Ash-Sharq radio station, said that
questioning Lebanese citizens belonging to certain political parties by the STL
does not mean charging those individuals. Lebanese Forces (LF) MP Antoine Zahra
voiced fear that questioning the credibility of the STL was a prelude to
rejecting cooperation with it.
For his part, Phalange Party MP Sami Gemayel branded the STL as “an opportunity
to discover and try those who committed crimes in Lebanon” and that it should
not be wasted.
“In his last media appearance and comments, Nasrallah appeared as if he has an
independent nationality and entity, for he refuses to abide by all what Lebanese
abide by,” said a statement issued by the “National Bloc” that held a meeting on
Thursday.
“Just like the International Law, the Lebanese law is applicable on all Lebanese
regardless of their levels, and he who is not subject to suspicions should not
fear testimonies and not be affected by conspiracies or descriptions,” the
statement added Thursday.
Future Movement MP Mohammad Hajjar ruled out the possibility that the STL
targeted Hizbullah.
“No one has information about the way the STL is pursuing its work or about its
track,” said Hajjar to Lebanese MTV channel adding that the nature of the duties
performed by the judges and their diverse nationalities prevented politicizing
or hiding the truth. Echoing Hajjar, Future Movement MP Nidal Tohme said
Nasrallah’s remarks intersected with many positive points in the March 14 Forces
vision. “Hizbullah members were summoned as witnesses and not as accused
individuals, and I think that there’s no one in Lebanon who wishes to question
them in another status,” the MP said.
“Nasrallah stressed that he will continue his cooperation with the STL while
waiting for the direction of its track,” Tohme added.
Lebanese leaders need to pull together
Friday, April 02, 2010
Editorial/Daily Star
Walid Jumblatt has made his long-awaited trip on the Road to Damascus, but
unlike Saint Paul, he experienced his conversion prior to his journey, which
means this week’s events appear to be a bitter anti-climax. With this visit,
Jumblatt has certainly defused his personal problems with the Syrian regime, but
the rest of us have to make do with living in a country called Lebanon. Jumblatt
has indicated that there will be follow-up work, so we’ll have to wait for the
coming days, weeks and months, to see how his visit will impact things here, and
specifically our long list of thorny domestic issues. After reviewing the last
few days, we’re left with images of an intensely personal act. A type of apology
has been offered by Jumblatt, and apparently accepted. It will take considerable
effort to convince our cynical public that much more will come out of this. For
this to happen, Jumblatt’s ministers and MPs, and his Progressive Socialist
Party apparatus, will have to show signs of change. Will Jumblatt’s visit have
any affect on the way our fractious leaders do business? Will they be
cooperating any more intelligently on the wide array of issues we face, such as
reforming the bureaucracy, re-tooling the judiciary, or fashioning a
diplomatic-defense initiative?
Jumblatt played a key role in the division of recent years, which obstructed
progress on these pressing items. Will he offer any added value to the equation
now, after having made such a “dramatic” move toward Damascus? Or was it all
about a handshake, and a traditional picture of two people sitting in chairs?
Jumblatt was not surprisingly obliged to hold a news conference the day after
his visit, to answer questions. What came out of it, however, was a slogan and
perhaps a policy suggestion.
The slogan was “support the resistance.” While useful as a marker of where
Jumblatt stands, it’s not exactly new or useful, especially when the question
that divides everyone is “what kind of resistance?”
The policy hint came when Jumblatt mentioned border demarcation with Syria in
areas that aren’t under Israeli occupation. This is the kind of arrangement that
could have been put forward much earlier in the game, and signals how
dysfunctional our political system is. The Syrians can certainly make hay with
this week’s events, and consider it a brilliant move. But they can also act
positively and go beyond the personal apology, to remember that the future of
two countries, and not two individuals, is at stake.
In the end, if Jumblatt and his partners in the Lebanese political class don’t
pull together to generate something positive from this visit, we will continue
to be treated like a divided country, one that lacks consensus.
.When will Israel invade Lebanon and Syria?
By: Conn Hallinan
April 2, 2010
When Israeli Minister without Portfolio Yossi Peled said recently that a war
with Lebanon’s Hezbollah was “just a matter of time” and that such a conflict
would include Syria, most observers dismissed the comment as little more than
posturing by a right-wing former general. But Peled’s threat has been backed by
Israeli military maneuvers near the Lebanese border, violations of Lebanese
airspace, and the deployment of an anti-missile system on Israel’s northern
border.
The Lebanese are certainly not treating it as Likud bombast.
“We hear a lot of Israeli threats day in and day out, and not only threats,”
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri told the BBC. “We see what is happening on
the ground and in our airspace…during the past two months—every day we have
Israeli airplanes entering Lebanese airspace.” Hariri added that he considered
the situation “really dangerous.”
The increasing tension was behind the recent visit to Beirut by Senator Philippe
Marini, French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s special envoy to Lebanon. After
Marini met with Hariri, Christian Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, and
Hezbollah leaders, the envoy said that he feared a Hezbollah-Israel rematch
could easily become a regional war.
Rhetoric all over the region is heating up.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman first said that Israel would never
return the Golan Heights to Syria, prompting Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem
to comment that Israel “should not test Syria’s determination.” Lieberman
responded by taking direct aim at Syrian President Bashar Assad: “In the next
war, not only will you lose, but you and your family will lose the regime.”
Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006 following a Hezbollah raid that captured two
Israeli soldiers. The 34-day war cost Lebanon more than 1,000 dead, and tens of
billions of dollars in damage to bridges, roads, airports, and towns. But the
war also saw the once-invincible Israeli Self-Defense Forces (IDF) fought to a
bloody standstill, and a barrage of some 4,000 Hezbollah rockets into Israel.
Many in the Israeli military would love to re-establish the IDF’s reputation by
beating up on Hezbollah, but the Shiite-based militia has broad support
throughout Lebanon, as the last elections demonstrated. While the “pro-western”
March 14 Movement won the most seats—largely as a result of ethnic
gerrymandering—the Hezbollah bloc won the most votes. In any case, the March 14
Movement has begun to unravel with the defection of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.
Lebanon is a deeply fractious place, but an Israeli attack would unite the
country as it did in 2006. “I think they’re [Israelis] betting that there might
be some division in Lebanon if there is war against us,” said Hariri, “Well,
there won’t be a division in Lebanon. We will stand against Israel. We will
stand with our own people.”
Lebanon’s military is no match for Israel. It has a small army and its air force
consists of two grounded 1950s vintage Hawker Hunter fighter-bombers, plus a
motley collection of helicopters, most of which are not operational. In the 2007
fight with Islamic extremists in Tripoli, Lebanese Army soldiers pitched bombs
out of French Gazelle helicopters by hand.
As the IDF found out in 2006, however, Hezbollah is a different matter. Of
course, a massive Israeli ground invasion would overwhelm the group’s militia,
but any occupation of South Lebanon will conjure up old nightmares for Tel Aviv.
It was Hezbollah’s roadside bombs and ambushes that drove the IDF out of the
same area in 2000.
The Israelis are threatening to flatten the entire country if it comes to
war—“taking off the gloves” as Israel military analyst Yisrael Katzover puts
it—and they certainly have the capabilities to inflict a stunning amount of
damage. But Hezbollah claims it has some thunder of its own. Hassan Nasrallah,
the group’s leader, vows to bring Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion Airport under fire if
Israel bombs Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International Airport as it did in 2006. “If
you hit our ports, we will hit your ports,” Nasrallah said Feb. 21.
According to Israeli intelligence, Hezbollah has 42,000 rockets, some with the
range to hit Tel Aviv and targets further south. Whether the group actually has
that many rockets is unclear. Israel tends to pump up the threat its antagonists
pose. In any case, Hezbollah certainly has rockets and demonstrated its ability
to strike northern Israel in 2006. If Nasrallah is to be believed, it may be
able to bring central Israel under fire as well.
Does the war have the potential to become regional?
Only if Israel decides to make it so. While the Netanyahu government talks about
Hezbollah being little more than a cat’s paw for Iran and Syria, the group has
deep roots in the country’s long-repressed Shiite majority. It does receive arms
from both Damascus and Iran, and Teheran also gives the group about $200 million
a year in aid. That is, however, a tiny portion of Hezbollah’s annual budget.
Lebanon’s Shiites are also quite different than their Iranian counterparts.
While Iran’s mullahs dominate civil and economic matters, Lebanon’s Shiites are
suspicious of direct involvement in government, because they believe that it
will ultimately corrupt Islam. A number of Iraq’s Shiites, including Grand
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, come from a similar current in the Shiite sect.
Hezbollah is quite aware of the damage that Israel can inflict, and, is
consequently unlikely to do anything provocative. As Azmi Bishara, a Palestinian
and former Israeli Knesset members writes in Al-Ahram, “Hezbollah has made it
clear it intends to avoid giving Israel any excuse to go to war.”
As for Syria, the last thing Damascus wants is a war. Its economy is humming,
its careful diplomacy has lifted it out of isolation, and over the past several
months world leaders from France and Spain, and regional governments—including
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey— have beaten a path to President Assad’s
door. When U.S. Special Forces violated the Syrian border while looking for
al-Qaeda terrorists last year, the Assad government’s response was a mild
protest. When Israel bombed a site in northern Syria, the Damascus government
did nothing. Syria has nothing to gain, and much to lose, from a war.
Israel has moved its new Iron Dome anti-missile system to its northern border,
even though the original plan was to deploy it in the south to intercept rockets
fired from Gaza. The system is supposed to be up and running by June. “Making
Iron Dome operational will transform Israel’s diplomatic and security
situation,” says Israeli Defense Ministry director general Pinhas Buchris.
Given that Hezbollah has not fired a rocket at Israel since the summer of 2006,
why would Tel Aviv move Iron Dome to the northern border unless it was to assure
the Israeli public that it will not come under fire in the advent of a new war?
In any case, Iron Dome is unlikely to transform anything, since anti-missile
systems tend to be more about hype and hope than performance.
There is, of course, the possibility that the Israelis will bet the house and
hit Lebanon, Syria and possibly Iran’s nuclear facilities. The rhetoric coming
out of the Netanyahu government ties all three countries together, which is why
Peled lumped Syria with Lebanon. The standard line coming out of Tel Aviv is
that Iran is behind everything, including Hamas.
Any rational reading of the Middle East makes that charge difficult to credit.
Iran commands neither Syria nor Hezbollah, and while Teheran might provide arms
to Hamas, a radical Sunni organization is unlikely to go to war because a Shiite
government told it to. The only one of those parties that might welcome a war
with Israel is Iran, but only so that the Ahmadinejad regime can use it as an
excuse to crack down on internal dissent.
Many in the Israeli establishment openly advocate attacking Iran. Danny Yaton,
former head of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, told the German Council on
Foreign Relations “The entire world should take military action to prevent Iran
from getting the bomb.”
The Sunday Times (London) reports, “According to well-placed sources, Israel is
speeding up preparations for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.” The
Israeli daily Haaretz says that the Netanyahu government is asking the Obama
administration to supply Israel with GBU-28 “bunker buster” bombs and refueling
tanker aircraft, both which would be essential for a strike at Iran.
But some in the Israeli military establishment seems reluctant to launch such an
attack. Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, an Israel war hero and a man the Sunday
Times calls a “pillar of the defense establishment,” says that Iran is a “very,
very, very long way from building a nuclear capacity.” Eilam charges, “The
intelligence community is spreading frightening voices about Iran,” and that
such an attack would be “counter productive.”
Maybe this is all saber rattling aimed at getting the U.S. to step up the
pressure on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Maybe, as Eilam charges, it is all about
the IDF getting “a bigger budget.” Maybe it is a diversion from the charges that
Israel committed war crimes in its invasion of Gaza, its settlement building on
the West Bank, and the diplomatic storm it has reaped from its assassination of
a Hamas official in Dubai.
But ramping up the rhetoric of war in a volatile region can lead to a misstep—by
accident or design—and once the dogs of war are off their leash, it will be hard
to bring them to heel. Israel Threatens Lebanon
A New Middle East War? By CONN HALLINAN
Conn Hallinan can be reached at: ringoanne@sbcglobal.net
Back to an old game with Syria
Michael Young, April 2, 2010
Now Lebanon
By most accounts it was a confident Bashar al-Assad who received Walid Jumblatt
in Damascus on Wednesday. When it comes to Damascus’ regional position, the
Syrian president sees the stars aligned in his favor. Which means that, at
worst, he can afford to do nothing at all, and, at best, negotiate to arrive at
nothing at all.
John Kerry, the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
returned to the Middle East this week, visiting both Lebanon and Syria, and it’s
not difficult to see what he had in mind. With the prospect that the
Palestinian-Israeli track will remain stalled, ambitious foreign policy players
in Washington are looking to the Syrian-Israeli track for a possible
breakthrough. And these days when Americans propose openings toward Syria, they
come to Beirut first, as did Kerry, to insist that “anything we do with respect
to the peace process in this region will not come at the expense of Lebanon.”
That’s good to hear, but also irrelevant since the Syrians have already managed
to largely reimpose their writ in Beirut. And this they’ve done because of many
factors, Lebanese divisions chief among them, but also because people like John
Kerry have spent years feeding Assad political oxygen by lauding the advantages
of engaging Syria, even when Syria was destabilizing its neighbors.
Kerry’s trip will likely yield few tangible results. But the senator already
knows that. His primary aim is to register his political stake in a
Syrian-Israeli negotiation process, if one eventually resumes.
That may sound familiar. The Syrian regime spent the decade of the ‘90s
receiving buoyant Americans in Damascus wanting to talk about peace with Israel.
And while it’s true that the Syrians were prepared at one stage to conclude a
final settlement, which was rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, it
was always essential to their approach that peace should not undermine the Assad
regime. Peace had to be on Syrian terms and defined in such a way that it would
preserve Syria’s complex security scaffolding propping up the regime.
Little has changed. For Bashar al-Assad, finalizing a negotiation process with
Israel is far less important than using negotiations to advance other Syrian
priorities. The first (not in any special order) is the consolidation of Syria’s
hegemony over Lebanon, which is moving forward at a brisk speed. This means
weakening all independent, potentially refractory Lebanese figures, above all
Saad al-Hariri.
A second priority is positioning Syria advantageously regionally at a time when
the Middle East is going through major transformations. Assad has maneuvered
well. The Saudi and Egyptian regimes are getting old and Syria is, for now, on
good terms with two of the more powerful states of the Arab periphery, Turkey
and Iran. But the latter relationship only makes Assad more reluctant to engage
in serious negotiations with Israel, unless it first accepts his minimal
condition: a full withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 lines in the Golan Heights.
A third priority for Assad is to bolster his regime internally. The president is
running Syria in a more centralized, hands-on fashion than his father. The
notion that he was controlled by an “old guard” was untrue five years ago, and
is utterly ridiculous today. Those from his family or community who had any
leeway to threaten his position have either been eliminated or pushed to the
sidelines. Under these circumstances, Assad will think long before embarking in
resolute talks with Israel. He is more likely to prefer talking just for the
sake of talking, which little threatens Syria’s domestic equilibrium.
Finally, there is the United States. With the Americans ensnared in Afghanistan
and heading toward the exits in Iraq, Assad has nothing to worry about. Time is
on his side, even as American envoys knock at his door in the name of
engagement, but without any clear idea of how this is supposed to benefit the
United States. Assad has already made clear that he has no intention of breaking
with Iran or changing his policy toward Hezbollah. Yet the Americans just keep
coming.
The natural reflex in a positivist place like Washington is to generate optimism
in one direction when pessimism characterizes another. You know that soon the
Syrian-Israeli track will again excite foreign policy actors, wonks and pundits
in the American capital, because the Palestinian track might remain closed.
We’ll be back to the old game the Syrians played so well in the past. That means
don’t expect much from Bashar al-Assad. He’s perfectly at ease where he is.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.