LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 08/2010

Bible Of the Day
The Lost Son
 Luke15/11-31: He said, “A certain man had two sons. 15:12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of your property.’ He divided his livelihood between them. 15:13 Not many days after, the younger son gathered all of this together and traveled into a far country. There he wasted his property with riotous living. 15:14 When he had spent all of it, there arose a severe famine in that country, and he began to be in need. 15:15 He went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 15:16 He wanted to fill his belly with the husks that the pigs ate, but no one gave him any. 15:17 But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough to spare, and I’m dying with hunger! 15:18 I will get up and go to my father, and will tell him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. 15:19 I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants.”’
 15:20 “He arose, and came to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 15:21 The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’  15:22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 15:23 Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; 15:24 for this, my son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’ They began to celebrate.  15:25 “Now his elder son was in the field. As he came near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 15:26 He called one of the servants to him, and asked what was going on. 15:27 He said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and healthy.’ 15:28 But he was angry, and would not go in. Therefore his father came out, and begged him. 15:29 But he answered his father, ‘Behold, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed a commandment of yours, but you never gave me a goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 15:30 But when this, your son, came, who has devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’  15:31 “He said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 15:32 But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Obama Talks, Syria Mocks/The wages of appeasement/BY Elliott Abrams/March 07/10 
Obama's 'engagement' with Syria met with laughter/American Thinker (blog)/March 07/10 
Hezbollah's Penance--Hizballah works to rebuild its Tarnished Imag/By David Schenker/March 07/10 
What Does Assad Want?/By Jonathan Spyer/March 07/10 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 07/10 
Fneish: Hizbullah Disarmament Not for Debate at Tuesday's Dialogue Session/Naharnet
Chamoun: Hizbullah Changes Tone toward Israel/Naharnet
Sami Gemayel Declined to Confine Dialogue Talks Only to Defense Strategy/Naharnet
Biden's assurances to Jerusalem/Ha'aretz
Hezbollah: Not Responsible for Palestinian Arms in Lebanon/Asharq Alawsat
Hezbollah disarmament not for discussion: minister/AFP
Gemayel : Hezbollah weapons hamper State building/iloubnan.info
Arabia: Inshallah, Obama/New York Times
An unholy campaign/New York Daily News
Chávez under fire from international community/Financial Times
Suleiman Returns Home from Saudi, Urges Unified Arab Efforts/Naharnet
Young Lebanese, other Arabs Want Democracy, Jobs/Naharnet
Hariri Meets Kuwaiti Officials, Says All Lebanese Should Put Efforts to Cross to Statehood/Naharnet
Police Clash with Gunmen South of Beirut, Arrest 1/Naharnet
World powers draft proposal for new UN sanctions on Iran/Now Lebanon
Suleiman and Abdullah for Unification of Arab Efforts/Naharnet
Hariri Meets Kuwaiti Officials, Says All Lebanese Should Put Efforts to Cross to Statehood/Naharnet
Berri Criticizes Government for Delaying Municipal Draft Law Discussions and Immediately Sending it to Parliament/Naharnet
Police Clash with Gunmen South of Beirut, Arrest 1/Naharnet
Lebanese Women Wed to Foreigners Fight for Rights/Naharnet
Cassese's 1st Report: Murder Executed by Small Cell Induced by Wider Network, Suicide Bomber Geographic Origin Almost Identified/Naharnet
Senators to Obama: Don't send ambassador to Syria/Ynetnews
Turkish Foreign Minister in Syria for talks with President Al-Assad/Monsters and Critics.com
UN tribunal 'getting closer' to Hariri bomber ID/AFP

World powers draft proposal for new UN sanctions on Iran
March 7, 2010 /The US has agreed with Britain, France and Germany on a draft proposal for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, and has circulated it to Russia and China for comments. Russia's initial reaction to the new proposal has been negative, Western diplomats say, though Moscow has said it supports in principle the idea of new punitive steps against Tehran for defying five UN Security Council resolutions demanding that it halt its nuclear enrichment program.
China has yet to react, the diplomats said. -Reuters/NOW Lebanon

Hezbollah disarmament not for discussion: minister
(AFP) BEIRUT — A Hezbollah minister said on Sunday that disarming his Shiite militant group was not "a subject for discussion," two days before Lebanon's national dialogue on defence strategy is due to resume. "Some have implied that the dialogue session seeks to establish when Hezbollah will be disarmed," Administrative Reform Minister Mohammad Fneich was quoted as saying by the state news agency ANI. "This issue is not a subject for discussion and will not be debated at the dialogue session," Fneich said.
Politicians from rival parties are due to meet Tuesday for a new session on defence strategy to be chaired by President Michel Sleiman.
The US-backed government of Prime Minister Saad Hariri has failed to resolve the thorny issue of Hezbollah's weapons since its formation in November, when it defeated a Hezbollah-led coalition backed by Iran and Syria. The Shiite movement has refused to disarm since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war and insists that its weapons are necessary to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. The so-called national dialogue was launched in 2006, before the devastating war between Hezbollah and Israel, to determine the fate of the weapons held by the Shiite militant group. But it has been delayed several times because of the country's successive political crises. Israel says Hezbollah has built up its arsenal in recent years, from 14,000 rockets at the outbreak of the 2006 war to 40,000 now. The Shiite group fired around 4,000 rockets into northern Israel during the 2006 conflict. Last month, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah vowed to unleash the guerilla group's military might on Israel's infrastructure, including Tel Aviv airport, should the Jewish state attack Lebanon. Hezbollah has participated in government since 2005 and has two ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet.

An unholy campaign: Presbyterian Church elders are poised to defame Israel
Sunday, March 7th 2010,
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/07/2010-03-07_an_unholy_campaign.html
Related NewsIraq's Sunnis fear election could spark violence Iraqis go to polls in key test for a country25 killed in Iraq as voters head to the pollsLupica: 'Hurt Locker' has won even without an Oscar trophyAmerican Al Qaeda terrorist Adam Gadahn arrested in PakistanThe U.S. Presbyterian Church is on the verge of a blunder that would severely damage interfaith harmony. Its 3 million lay members must call the hierarchy to its senses.
A nine-member special committee of the religious denomination is set to release a report on the Middle East that takes moral equivalence to dangerous new heights - and embraces parts of a manifesto by Christian Palestinians who call for an end to Israel as a Jewish state. The document has yet to be published, but the church news service revealed it regurgitates the most specious anti-Israel canards. It even puts a footnote on the phrase "the right of Israel to exist."It reads: "The phrase 'the right of Israel to exist' is a source of pain for some members of our study committee who are in solidarity with Palestinians, who feel that the creation of the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights."How to stop Israel's sins, in the mind of the Presbyterian special committee? The U.S. ought to employ "the strategic use of influence and the withholding of financial and military aid in order to enforce Israel's compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts." Meaning tighten the screws on an ally until it stops defending itself from terrorism. No similar tactics are recommended against anyone else in the region. Not against Hamas, which fires rockets at Israeli homes and schools. Not against Iran, which pursues nukes and dreams of erasing Israel. Not against Hezbollah.
As for the manifesto by Christian Palestinians known as Kairos Palestine, the news service said the panel endorsed its "emphasis on hope, love, nonviolence and reconciliation." Saying nothing of how the manifesto ridicules the notion of Palestinian terrorism by putting quotation marks on the word. For example: "The roots of 'terrorism' are in the human injustice committed and in the evil of the occupation. These must be removed if there be a sincere intention to remove 'terrorism.'" Most perniciously, Kairos Palestine asserts that Israel itself is an error on the map: "Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state ... and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another."Those are the seeds of horrid divisiveness, not coexistence. Presbyterians - and everyone of sincere faith - should reject them.

Fneish: Hizbullah Disarmament Not for Debate at Tuesday's Dialogue Session
Naharnet/Hizbullah Cabinet Minister Mohammed Fneish said on Sunday that disarming Hizbullah was not up for discussion at a dialogue session to be held on Tuesday with a focus on national defense strategy. "Some have implied that the dialogue session seeks to establish when Hizbllah will be disarmed," Administrative Reform Minister Mohammad Fneish was quoted as saying by Anbaa News Agency. "This issue is not a subject for discussion and will not be debated at the dialogue session," Fneish said. Politicians from rival parties are due to meet Tuesday for a new session on defense strategy to be chaired by President Michel Suleiman. Prime Minister Saad Hariri has failed to resolve the thorny issue of Hizbullah's weapons since its formation in November, when it defeated a Hizbullah-led coalition backed by Iran and Syria. The Shiite movement has refused to disarm since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war and insists that its weapons are necessary to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. National dialogue was launched in 2006, before the devastating war between Hizbullah and Israel, to determine the fate of the weapons held by the group. But it has been delayed several times because of the country's successive political crises. Israel says Hizbullah has built up its arsenal in recent years, from 14,000 rockets at the outbreak of the 2006 war to 40,000 now. The Shiite group fired around 4,000 rockets into northern Israel during the 2006 conflict.
Last month, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed to unleash the group's military might on Israel's infrastructure, including Tel Aviv airport, should the Jewish state attack Lebanon. Hizbullah has participated in government since 2005 and has two ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet.(AFP) Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 16:02

Chamoun: Hizbullah Changes Tone toward Israel
Naharnet/National Liberal Party leader and MP Dori Chamoun on Sunday said Hizbullah appeared to have changed tone toward Israel. He said the new tone was clear in the recent address made by Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah when he said he will respond to Israel if Hizbullah was attacked. "This (statement), in itself, is a change in position given that Hizbullah has always called for the need to struggle until the liberation of Jerusalem," Chamoun said in a speech during a meeting of the National Liberal Party which reelected him uncontested as NLP leader. Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 21:06

Suleiman Returns Home from Saudi, Urges Unified Arab Efforts
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman returned home Sunday, concluding two days of official talks in Saudi Arabia that dealt with various issues, including regional developments and bilateral relations. The presidency's media office said Suleiman and Saudi King Abdullah stressed the depth of Saudi-Lebanese ties and called for coordination of stances after Lebanon's representation of Arab countries at the U.N. Security Council. Suleiman and Abdullah "stressed the depth of ties that bring Lebanon and Saudi Arabia together and the importance of achieving unity and Arab consolidation," said a statement issued by the presidency's media office following a summit between the two leaders in Riyadh on Saturday night. The two men also "stressed consolidation of bilateral agreements … and coordination in stances since Lebanon has become the representative of Arabs at the Security Council with its non-permanent member status for the years 2010-2011," the statement said. At the start of the meeting, Suleiman thanked Abdullah for Saudi Arabia's stances towards Lebanon and its donations for the country. The two leaders emphasized the significance of consolidation of ties and encouragement of investments. Before heading home, Suleiman toured King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Jeddah where he urged students to connect with fellow Lebanese scholars. Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 18:32

Sami Gemayel Declined to Confine Dialogue Talks Only to Defense Strategy
Naharnet/MP Sami Gemayel on Sunday declined to confine national talks only to the defense strategy. "We will discuss the issue of Hizbullah arms and the south Lebanon front at the dialogue table," Gemayel told MTV TV. "But we reject that this debate is confined only to the defense strategy issue," he stressed. Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 20:26

Young Lebanese, other Arabs Want Democracy, Jobs
Naharnet/Young Arabs surveyed in nine Middle Eastern countries said they want greater democracy, affordable housing and more job prospects, according to results released on Sunday.
Between 85 and 99 percent of the 2,000 Arabs said that "living in a democratic country" was their first priority, in a survey conducted by the Dubai-based ASDA'A Burson-Marsteller public relations firm. The firm questioned 18 to 24 year-olds in the six Arab countries of the Gulf as well as in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon last October, said Karen Hughes, the firm's vice chair and a former U.S. under secretary. "More than two-thirds of respondents were very concerned about the rising cost of living, while the shortage of affordable housing was their second biggest worry, followed by unemployment," she told a news conference. "Increased public participation was seen as either 'very important' or 'somewhat important' by the vast majority of young people across all the countries surveyed. The tally varied from 85 percent in Oman to 99 percent in Kuwait, the PR firm said. Hughes said 28 percent of the total surveyed placed the United States at the top of a list of friendly countries. But in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar, which host US military bases, it came top with 61, 67 and 43 percent, respectively.(AFP)
Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 19:35

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Maureen Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07dowd.html
With two little words, Barack Hussein Obama thrilled the Muslim world.
“Salaam aleikum,” he said, offering the traditional Arabic greeting “Peace be upon you” at the start of his Cairo speech last year.
The address of the first American president with Muslim roots was a bravura attempt to leech out the poison between the Islamic and Western worlds, and revive the moribund Middle East peace talks. But now, many disillusioned Muslims are echoing the all-talk, no-action refrain first popularized by the woman who became secretary of state.
“He said all the right words in his speech,” said Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister. “But the implementation took traditional roads.”
Privately, other highly placed princes in the family oil business groused louder. “Things are worse now than before,” asserted one, “because our hopes were so high after Cairo.”
Actually, the president didn’t say all the right words in his speech. He created an obstacle for himself by demanding that Israel stop expanding settlements when it was not going to do so — even though it should — and when that wasn’t the most important condition to Arabs.
Now Obama seems ineffectual, as Israel pushes ahead on 600 more new homes in East Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want their capital, despite the White House protest in November about 900 other houses that Israel plans to put up there.
I asked Prince Saud if he thinks America has less influence over Israel than it used to.
“You’re asking me about something that has tickled our imagination,” he replied. “If the settlements are illegitimate, the least you would expect is that the aid the United States gives to Israel would cut that part that is going to build settlements. Israel is getting away without implementing the Geneva Convention as an occupying authority. Now if it were somewhere else, in Burma or somewhere like that, hell would be raised.”
It’s probably a sign of progress that Prince Saud calls it “a border dispute.” Unless it’s just his understated way. He also refers to “the 9/11 incident” and alludes to the Holocaust obliquely as “World War II.”
Despite repeated attacks by Arab states and Arab and Iranian-backed militant groups, and a call for Israel’s destruction by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prince Saud suggested that Israel might be overreacting about security because of “World War II” and that this prevented a peace deal.
“There are no troops arrayed on the border of Israel waiting for the moment to say, ‘Attack Israel,’ ” the prince said. “Nobody is going to fight them and threaten their peace. But they didn’t accept that. So it makes one wonder, what does Israel want?”
If anyone deserves to be paranoid, of course, it’s Israel. But Israel can’t be paranoid because paranoia is the mistaken perception that people are out to get you.
Asked about the possibility that Israel could attack Iran with its new drones, Prince Saud said dryly: “Talk about changing lifestyle. I think this would change lifestyles at once, forcibly.”
Hillary Clinton was in the region recently, warning that Iran was “moving toward a military dictatorship” and could trigger a nuclear arms race.
“God help us if we see countries with atomic weapons in the Middle East,” said Prince Saud. “The way to resolve this is through the United Nations.” Good luck.
Clinton’s request that Syria begin to move away from the relationship with Iran and stop supporting Hezbollah was rebuffed 10 days ago when Ahmadinejad and the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad held a news conference underscoring their ties.
Ahmadinejad advised America to stop interfering, pack up and leave the region.
The blustery Iranian president has threatened to bar airlines that use the term “Arabian Gulf” instead of “Persian Gulf” from Iranian airspace. He stamped “Persian Gulf” on the Islamic Solidarity Games’ logo and medals, spurring the Arab states to call off the Muslim Olympics.
Prince Saud had been frank enough to confess to Hillary that camels were ugly, so I wondered if he’d say the same about Ahmadinejad’s crazy rants.
“It achieves no objective,” he agreed, “and just creates tensions.”
He said America would have to focus on social and economic problems in Afghanistan, since the war cannot be won only militarily — “unless you want to bring down the Himalayas.”
He opened the door to the possibility that the kingdom might help the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, persuade Taliban militants to switch sides.
I wondered how he felt about Senator Russ Feingold’s contention that America needs to treat Al Qaeda as an international network rather than striving for a country-by-country eradication.
He demurred, saying, “There is nothing wrong with keeping the terrorists on the run.”

Hezbollah: Not Responsible for Palestinian Arms in Lebanon
07/03/2010
By Sawsan al-Abtah
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=20134
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat-The issue of Palestinian arms in Lebanon, both inside and outside of the Palestinian refugee camps is an issue that has returned to the fore following a statement from the Secretary-General of the Fatah al-Intifada group Colonel Abu Moussa. Abu Moussa announced that Fatah al-Intifada is ready to relocate its military bases that are currently inside the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon to other locations outside of these camps to be determined by the Lebanese army. Abu Moussa also said that there was "a possibility of incorporating Palestinian arms in the frame of Lebanon's defensive strategy." This would mean that Palestinian arms would be akin to the resistance arms, in the same manner as the Hezbollah weaponry that is used against Israel. The Fatah al-Intifada Secretary-General also asked yesterday "why should our arms not be part of the defense strategy to protect Lebanon?" adding that Fatah al-Intifada "is part of the resistance in Lebanon."
These statements come just days before the scheduled "National Dialogue on Defense Strategy" arranged by Lebanese President Michel Suleiman which is set to discuss Hezbollah and its arms, amongst other issues.
Asharq Al-Awsat spoke to former Hezbollah MP Hassan Hoballah and asked him if the movement was thinking about accepting Palestinian arms as a partner in the resistance against Israeli. Hoballah told Asharq Al-Awsat "we do not have to accept or reject the Fatah al-Intifada proposal of transferring its bases or participating in the resistance, for this is an agreement that takes place between the Lebanese state and the Palestinians, and we do not hold the position of the state. It is not the job of Hezbollah to organize the armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon."
Hoballah added "there is an agreement reached by the Lebanese previously under which Palestinian arms are decided under the principle of dialogue, which is something that we encourage and support. And now the dialogue must continue…in order to find a suitable formula for everybody."
Hoballah clarified the meaning of the term "defense strategy" which is set to be discussed at the Lebanese National Dialogue meeting on Monday, saying "the defense strategy means answering one question and that is; how can the Lebanese defend their country from danger? The ministerial statement today considers the people the resistance and the army, as being one in defending Lebanon. We will join together as a Lebanese force to discuss the defense strategy in order to reach a [defense] formula."
As for Hezbollah's view on the Palestinian arms, Hoballah told Asharq Al-Awsat "the Palestinian resistance is the result of Israeli aggression, and there are [Palestinian] refugees in Lebanon, we support their return [to Palestine] and support Lebanese defense against re-settlement. We reject rewarding the Israeli enemy for their aggression by helping them to resettle those who were thrown out of their land."
Hoballah added "there are armed factions in Lebanon, and we will not perform any free service to the enemy [to allow them] to say to the Palestinians: give up your weapons and relax. Hezbollah believes that all of these issues will be resolved at the dialogue table in the interests of the Palestinians and the Lebanese."
It seemed yesterday as if a rift was emerging between the Palestinian factions [in Lebanon] on the issue of Palestinian arms being transferred outside of the refugee camps, and Abu Ramez Mustafa, an official in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command [PFLP–GC] in Lebanon said that "the PFLP-GC is not involved in what Colonel Abu Moussa said with regards to his readiness to transfer Palestinian weapons outside of the Palestinian refugee camps to locations specified by the Lebanese army."
He added that "the weapons are subject to discussion at the dialogue which will discuss all issues relating to the Palestinian file…from security, political, and social issues to the rights of the Palestinian refugees, and we will commit ourselves to whatever is agreed upon with our Lebanese brothers in line with the interests of the two peoples, the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples."
However an official in the northern Lebanon PFLP-GC leadership, Abu Adnan Hamouda, denied that there was any disagreement between Fatah al-Intifada and the PFLP-GC and he told Asharq Al-Awsat that "all of the factions raise the subject of the Palestinian presence in Lebanon and the humanitarian, security, and political issues [concerned with this] in a comprehensive dialogue, and we are ready to implement what is agreed upon at the dialogue." He said that Abu Moussa's words were taken out of context in order to suggest the presence of a dispute between the Palestinian factions.
Prior to his departure from Lebanon to Kuwait, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hairiri told the Kuwaiti News Agency [KUNA] that "the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are our brothers" however he added "those who want to break the law will be held responsible" recalling the decision taken by Lebanon to address the Fatah al-Islam group who broke the law in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon.
Hariri also revealed his intention to call on the Palestinian leadership that are operating military bases outside of the refugee camps and inform them clearly and explicitly that "Lebanon is responsible for the security of the Palestinian [in Lebanon]." He added "We, as Lebanese, also have a responsibility, to secure the refugees a decent life."
 

Obama's 'engagement' with Syria met with laughter
Rick Moran
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/obamas_engagement_with_syria_m.html
President Obama has made it quite clear both during the campaign and now that he is in office that there is no country we should refrain from trying to engage on issues of mutual interest.
A very high minded goal, that. Unfortunately, just as Obama's liberal base swoons over how good such a policy makes them feel, our enemies take what we have unilaterally given them and then laugh in our face.
Former state department official Elliot Abrams writing in the Weekly Standard:
Assad's conduct is surprising only if you view him as a seeker after peace, waiting merely for the hand of friendship from Washington to reorient his regime toward the West. That appears to have been the Obama approach. But Assad's reaction is entirely predictable if you view him as a vicious dictator dependent on Iran's regime for political, financial, and military support. Similarly, the notion that American "engagement" is the road to a Syrian-Israeli peace deal over the Golan Heights is sensible if you believe he needs only a bit of American encouragement to ditch his alliance with Iran and turn West. But the terrorist trilateral just held in Damascus should be all the proof anyone needs that George Mitchell may as well stay home: A Golan deal is not in the cards. No Israeli prime minister is foolish enough to hand the Golan to a Syria whose main allies are Israel's two most dangerous enemies: Hezbollah and Iran.
What has the engagement of Syria actually produced, besides mockery in Damascus? Depression in Beirut, where Sunnis, Christians, and Druze only a few years ago defied Syria, but now see an American policy that appears willing to abandon them. Incredulity in Baghdad, where our willingness to engage Syria while it helps jihadists blow people up in Iraq must seem incomprehensible. Resistance in Jerusalem, which only three years ago blew up a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor Assad was building along the Euphrates and must see our continuing blindness to Syria's actual conduct as stubborn-and dangerous.
Last week in Damascus, what Abrams refers to as "an Axis of Evil party" was convened that included Baby Assad, Ahmadinejad, Hezb'allah, Hamas, and various Palestinian groups where US policy was mocked and a pledge given to make the Middle East "free of Zionists."
And the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon is but a distant memory thanks to this wrong headed policy of engagement with Syria as new Prime Minister Said Hariri - whose father was brutally murdered almost certainly on orders from Assad himself - paid a humiliating visit to the Syrian dictator last month, all but inviting Syria back into Lebanon. Lebanese secular leaders have been forced to embrace Hezb'allah and their "resistance" to Israel, despite the fact that the terrorist group will almost certainly seek to start another war with the Israelis sometime soon.
It may make Obama and his liberal base admire themselves for their forbearance and magnanimity in giving Syria so much while getting nothing in return but mocking laughter. But it alarms and depresses our friends in the region that America may be willing to sell them out for little or nothing.

Obama Talks, Syria Mocks
The wages of appeasement.
BY Elliott Abrams
http://weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-talks-syria-mocks
March 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 25
The Obama administration has from the start seen Syria as a leading case for engagement. Barack Obama said so during his presidential campaign (announcing he would meet Bashar al Assad without preconditions) and repeated this policy view again last summer:
We’ve started to see some diplomatic contacts between the United States and Syria. There are aspects of Syrian behavior that trouble us, and we think that there is a way that Syria can be much more constructive on a whole host of these issues. But, as you know, I’m a believer in engagement and my hope is that we can continue to see progress on that front.
The engagement with Syria continues apace. Here are the key elements.
* High level envoys have been sent to Damascus: Under Secretary of State William Burns visited Syria in mid-February, the highest ranking U.S. official to set foot there in more than five years, and Middle East envoy George Mitchell has visited three times. High-ranking Central Command officers have been sent to Damascus to discuss cooperation against terrorism.
* President Obama has now nominated an ambassador to Damascus, the first since Margaret Scobey was withdrawn in 2005 after the murder of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri in Lebanon (which was widely blamed on the Assad regime).
* The president has also removed the American block to Syria’s attempt to join the World Trade Organization.
* The United States has eased some export licenses for Syria, mostly in the area of aircraft.
* Syria’s deputy foreign minister was invited to Washington in October, the first such visit in several years.
So there is certainly “progress on that front,” to use the president’s words. But when does “engagement” become “appeasement”? The case of U.S. policy toward Syria suggests that, here at least, the two approaches may not be far apart.
“Engagement” constitutes “appeasement” if it fails to change Syrian conduct, and the failure to change is overlooked while the “engagement” continues and accelerates. This would not just be fooling ourselves but condoning, rewarding, and thereby inducing even more bad conduct by the Assad regime.
Which is precisely what has happened during this year of American engagement.
* Syrian support for terrorism continues. Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, the DFLP, and the PFLP continue to be housed and protected in Damascus. Last August Iraq actually withdrew its ambassador from Damascus in protest over Syrian involvement in deadly explosions in Baghdad. Our commanding general in Iraq, Raymond Odierno, stated as recently as November that Syria continues to facilitate the movement of jihadists and explosives into Iraq.
* Syria continues serving as the route for Iran’s rearmament of Hezbollah, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions prohibiting such trafficking in weapons into Lebanon. And Syria’s activities in Lebanon remain aimed at diminishing that nation’s sovereignty, even though Syrian troops were forced to leave Lebanon in 2005.
* Internal repression in Syria remains as vicious as ever. Human Rights Watch reported that “Syria’s poor human rights situation deteriorated further in 2009.”
In fact, however the Obama administration views its overtures to Syria, the best evidence that these steps now constitute appeasement is found in Syria’s response. On February 25, Assad hosted an Axis of Evil party, meeting with Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Washington Post reported that “the presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East ‘without Zionists,’ combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region’s defining alliances.” More striking was the headline the Post put on the story: “Iran, Syria Mock U.S. Policy.”
Assad’s conduct is surprising only if you view him as a seeker after peace, waiting merely for the hand of friendship from Washington to reorient his regime toward the West. That appears to have been the Obama approach. But Assad’s reaction is entirely predictable if you view him as a vicious dictator dependent on Iran’s regime for political, financial, and military support. Similarly, the notion that American “engagement” is the road to a Syrian-Israeli peace deal over the Golan Heights is sensible if you believe he needs only a bit of American encouragement to ditch his alliance with Iran and turn West. But the terrorist trilateral just held in Damascus should be all the proof anyone needs that George Mitchell may as well stay home: A Golan deal is not in the cards. No Israeli prime minister is foolish enough to hand the Golan to a Syria whose main allies are Israel’s two most dangerous enemies: Hezbollah and Iran.
What has the engagement of Syria actually produced, besides mockery in Damascus? Depression in Beirut, where Sunnis, Christians, and Druze only a few years ago defied Syria, but now see an American policy that appears willing to abandon them. Incredulity in Baghdad, where our willingness to engage Syria while it helps jihadists blow people up in Iraq must seem incomprehensible. Resistance in Jerusalem, which only three years ago blew up a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor Assad was building along the Euphrates and must see our continuing blindness to Syria’s actual conduct as stubborn—and dangerous.
What is to be done? First, the United States should acknowledge that engagement has failed and end it. No more high-level visits, no ambassador, no WTO. If the Obama administration insists on crawling forward, the Senate should not confirm the nominee for ambassador, and Congress should by legislation prevent any further weakening of our economic sanctions against Syria. Second, the United States should loudly and frequently condemn continuing Syrian human rights violations; there are fish in this barrel and we should start shooting them. Third, we should raise in the United Nations Syria’s continuing violations of Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701 (barring violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty and arms supplies to Hezbollah).
None of these steps will change Syrian policy; that will only happen if and when the regime in Iran, Assad’s mainstay, falls. But they will restore to U.S. policy the element of self-respect and respect for facts that is now missing. In Damascus in January, George Mitchell said, “I look forward to building on the positive relationship we have formed to make tangible progress on our effort toward peace and on the bilateral relationship between the United States and Syria.” At the very least, let us have no more such statements, whose willful ignorance of Syria’s actual conduct—and the victims of that conduct—is embarrassing to American honor and damaging to American interests and allies.
**Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations.
 

Suleiman and Abdullah for Unification of Arab Efforts
Naharnet/Saudi King Abdullah and President Michel Suleiman stressed the depth of Saudi-Lebanese ties and called for coordination of stances after Lebanon's representation of Arab countries at the U.N. Security Council. Suleiman and Abdullah "stressed the depth of ties that bring Lebanon and Saudi Arabia together and the importance of achieving unity and Arab consolidation," the presidency's media office said following a summit between the two leaders in Riyadh on Saturday night. The two men also "stressed consolidation of bilateral agreements … and coordination in stances since Lebanon has become the representative of Arabs at the Security Council with its non-permanent member status for the years 2010-2011," the statement said. At the start of the meeting, Suleiman thanked Abdullah for Saudi Arabia's stances towards Lebanon and its donations for the country. The two leaders stressed importance of consolidation of ties and encouragement of investments. On Sunday, Suleiman toured the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Jeddah. Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 09:50

Hariri Meets Kuwaiti Officials, Says All Lebanese Should Put Efforts to Cross to Statehood
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri has admitted that crossing to statehood was a difficult task but urged all Lebanese to put their efforts "into achieving such a dream."
Crossing to statehood means crossing to the state of law, security and stability, Hariri told the Lebanese community in Kuwait. Establishing the state also includes providing services to all Lebanese regions and having a well-equipped army that keeps security and protects citizen's properties and rights, according to the premier. "We all dream of having such a state but we know that not a single person can achieve this alone. Let's put all energies and efforts to make this single dream come true," Hariri told the Lebanese community in Kuwait during a dinner banquet on Saturday. Turning to inter-Arab reconciliation, Hariri said that as a result of Israeli threats, there would have been an Arab collapse if there were no Arab reconciliations.
Hariri met with Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah and his Kuwaiti counterpart Sheikh Nasser Mohammed al-Ahmed al-Sabah on Sunday. He also held talks with Kuwaiti National Assembly Speaker Jassem al-Kharafi. In remarks to the Kuwaiti media, Hariri said the report published by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon gave hope his father's killers will be identified. "The report gives us hope," Hariri told reporters. "The report is an indication to the credibility of the tribunal. "The report shows the tribunal needs more time to reach the truth, and the Lebanese government and people should wait," he added. Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 10:21

Berri Criticizes Government for Delaying Municipal Draft Law Discussions and Immediately Sending it to Parliament
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri referred the municipal elections draft law to parliamentary committees immediately after cabinet sent it to parliament's general secretariat. The committees involved are: defense, interior and municipalities, administration and justice, and finance and budget. Asked by An Nahar about the reason behind the immediate referral, Berri said the cabinet delayed discussions on the draft law but sent it to parliament as a pressing issue. "Parliament will deal with it in neither ways," the speaker told the newspaper. Meanwhile, parliamentary sources said that the general atmosphere on the eve of the draft law's discussion "is supportive of all (clauses) related to women and ready for all confusions on the issue of proportionality.""In the next three or four days of discussions within committees, the real stances of parliamentary blocs would appear," the sources told An Nahar. Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 09:32

Lebanese Women Wed to Foreigners Fight for Rights
Naharnet/Samira Soueidan thought she had won a major battle last year when a judge ruled she could pass on her Lebanese citizenship to her children, a first for women wed to foreigners in the country. Her victory was short-lived, however, as the decision was quickly appealed, highlighting the struggle facing thousands of Lebanese women married to foreigners but prevented by law from passing on their nationality to their spouse or children. "When my attorney called to say that the judge had ruled in my favor after a nine-year legal fight, I was shaking," recalled the frail 48-year-old widow, who was married to an Egyptian and has four children. "Our laws are unfair and completely disregard women," said Soueidan, sitting in her modest living room in a working class neighborhood of Beirut and drawing nervously on a cigarette. Under legislation adopted in 1925, 18 years before Lebanon's independence from France, only Lebanese men can get citizenship for their spouses and offspring. The measure often leads to surreal situations in which children born and raised in Lebanon to a foreign father face costly legal and social difficulties and in many instances end up rejected by the only country they know.
"Every year I have to get residency permits for my children, I have to come up with the fee and I have to undergo the same questioning" by the Lebanese authorities, lamented Soueidan, who began working as a cleaning lady after her husband died in 1994. "One year, I couldn't come up with the fee and the authorities threatened to deport the kids to Egypt, where they had never set foot," she added. "I ended up going to a loan shark to borrow the money." But efforts by rights groups and women's organizations to change the law have gained momentum in the past year, with draft legislation currently pending in parliament. Similar campaigns in three other Arab countries -- Algeria, Egypt and Morocco -- have been successful in recent years.
Those opposed to an amendment in Lebanon are mainly from the minority Christian camp who argue that granting women the right to pass on their citizenship would upset the country's delicate demographic balance. Lebanon's Muslims account for about 64 percent of the population against the Christian community's 35 percent. There are also fears that changing the law would hand citizenship to many Palestinian refugees who are married to Lebanese women. Judge John Qazzi, who ruled in Soueidan's favor, said the debate on the issue was politically motivated and illustrated Lebanon's paternalistic approach to women's issues.
"This battle is not about citizenship, it's about women's rights," he said. "Politicians in Lebanon look at women as immature citizens." Hripsimeh Arkanian, 59, who is married to a Palestinian and has two children, entirely agrees. "I stopped voting a long time ago," she told AFP at her home in a suburb on the outskirts of Beirut. "If my vote counts, then why isn't it heard?
"And if my vote is equal to a man's vote, then this should also apply in the case of citizenship." Sociologist Fahmiyeh Sharaffedin, who published a study on the citizenship issue in 2008, said she was baffled by the discrimination women face in Lebanon given both sexes are officially equal under the constitution. "Other countries impose restrictions on citizenship but they apply to both men and women," she said. "I don't understand why concern over the country's confessional balance only applies to women and not men.
"Why can a Lebanese man marry, have children and boost the size of one community, be it Christian or Muslim?" she asked. "Why doesn't this apply to women?
"We are fighting for equality and we won't accept anything less."(AFP) Beirut, 07 Mar 10, 10:30

What Does Assad Want?
By Jonathan Spyer *
March 7, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/03/what-does-assad
In Damascus last week, the full array of leaders of the so-called 'resistance bloc' came together in a series of meetings. Presidents Ahmedinejad of Iran and Assad of Syria were there, alongside a beaming Khaled Meshal of Hamas and Hizballah General-Secretary Hassan Nasrallah. There were some lesser lights too to make up the numbers - including the PFLP-GC's Ahmed Jibril, a fossil from the old alphabet soup of secular Palestinian groups.
The mood - replicated a few days later in Teheran - was one of jubilant defiance.
The reasons underlying Syria's membership of the 'resistance bloc' remain fiercely debated in western policy discussion. It has long been the view of a powerful element in Washington - strongly echoed by many in the Israeli defense establishment - that Syria constitutes the 'weakest link' in the Iranian-led bloc.
Adherents to this view see the Syrian regime as concerned solely with power and its retention. Given, they say, that Syria's ties to the Iran-led bloc are pragmatic rather than ideological, the policy trick to be performed is finding the right incentive to make Damascus re-calculate the costs and benefits of its position.
Once the appropriate incentive tips the balance, it is assumed, the regime in Damascus will coolly absent itself from the company of frothing ideologues on display in Damascus and Teheran last week, and will take up its position on the rival table - or at least at a point equidistant between them.
The specific incentive required to perform this trick varies depending on who you ask. In Israel, it is generally assumed that the recovery of the Golan Heights is the great prize. In this view, Syrian backing for Hizballah and for Palestinian terror groups is intended to keep up the pressure on Israel, in order to force it to concede the Golan.
In Washington, one may hear a number of other incentives discussed - the removal of the Syria Accountability Act, US aid and investment, and so on.
The logic of all these positions depends on the basic characterization of the Assad regime as ultimately motivated purely by Machiavellian power interests. This characterization remains received wisdom in Israeli and US policy circles to a far greater extent than the evidence for it warrants.
Western wooing of Syria has undeniably produced remarkably little in terms of changing the regime's behavior. In recent weeks, the Obama Administration increased the volume of its formerly cautious overtures to Damascus. Under Secretary of State William Burns visited Damascus. Burns attempted to raise the issue of Syrian support for insurgents in Iraq, and for Hizballah and Palestinian terror groups. Assad, according to reports, denied all knowledge of such support.
The recently announced US decision to return an ambassador to Damascus was followed by the resistance jamboree in Damascus - in which Assad openly mocked US hopes for a Syrian 'distancing' from Iran.
It has now been announced that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is considering a visit to Damascus. In the meantime, Syria is gaily crashing through the red lines on its military support for Hizballah. Sophisticated anti-aircraft equipment, such as the Russian-made Igla system is rumored to be following the advanced surface to surface missiles and anti-tank systems supplied to the Shia Islamist group.
Which brings us back to the core question of Syrian motivation. Clearly, the Syrians have a habit of swallowing incentives and giving nothing in return. But if the alignment with Iran is purely pragmatic, then why does it prove so difficult to offer Syria the right carrot to lure it away from Teheran?
There are two possible answers. The first and most obvious one is that Syria calculates, probably correctly, that since there will be no real price imposed on it for not changing its behavior, it can afford to maintain its current level of relations with Iran, while happily accepting any gestures from the west or Israel designed to induce it to change them.
But this explanation fails to account for the brazenness and fervor of Syria's current stance of defiance.
The statements of individuals close to the Syrian regime in recent months suggest that there is more to the current Syrian stance than simply playing all sides off against the middle. Rather, the Syrians believe that a profound re-structuring of the balance of power is under way in the Middle East - to the benefit of the Iran-led bloc.
This re-structuring is being made possible because of the supposed long-term weakening of the US in the region. This enables the aggressive, Islamist regime in Teheran to fill the vacuum. It also renders feasible policy options - such as direct confrontation with Israel - which in the 1990s seemed to have vanished forever.
The characterization of the young Syrian president and his regime as ultimately cool-headed and pragmatist is incorrect. The Damascus regime always held to a fiercely anti-Israeli and anti-American view of the region. In the 1990s, realities appeared to require a practical sidelining of this view. But the 1990s were over a while ago.
Regimes like that of the Assads (and even semi-farcical figures like old Jibril and his PFLP-GC) are not anomalies in the alliance based on Iranian ambition and regional Islamist fervor. Rather, they are natural partners, sharing a base-level understanding of the region, common enemies, and a common, brutal approach to asserting their interests. It is for this core reason that attempts to prise Bashar Assad away from his natural habitat will continue to prove fruitless.
*Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

Hezbollah's Penance--Hizballah works to rebuild its Tarnished Image
By David Schenker
In 2006, Hizballah's popularity peaked in the Arab world as a result of its military performance against Israel. That summer, the Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization fought Israel to a standstill in south Lebanon. Since then, however, the organization's popularity has plummeted in the region, largely due to a series of miscues in Lebanon and abroad.
I wrote a lenghty article in the Weekly Standard online describing the drop in Hizballah's regional popularity since 2006, and the steps the organization has taken to get its mojo back. Bottom line: when the "Islamic Resistance in Lebanon" (as it calls itself) is not actively "resisting" Israel, the Shiite militia appears to hold little appeal in the Arab world. The article can be found here, and below.

Hezbollah's Penance: The Shiite Militia Works to Rebuild its Tarnished Image
BY David Schenker
March 5, 2010 4:00 PM
Last week in Damascus, just days after the highest ranking visit from a U.S. official in years, Syrian President Bashar Assad hosted a state dinner for his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmedinajad. Welcoming Ahmedinajad so close on the heels of the U.S. diplomatic good will gesture was a pointed Syrian slight to the Obama administration, but the icing on the cake was Assad’s other guest of honor at the feast: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

For Damascus and Tehran—the last two U.S.-designated state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East—Hezbollah has long constituted a strategic asset and a point of pride. More recently, the organization successfully worked to broaden its appeal throughout the region. And indeed, after the Shiite terrorist organization fought Israel to a standstill in 2006, Hezbollah’s stature in the Arab world skyrocketed. Not only was Nasrallah the most compelling Arabic orator, Hezbollah became the most positive personification of Shiites in the largely Sunni Muslim region.
That was 2006. Today, while Hezbollah remains a formidable “resistance” force, in the past two years, a number of setbacks have tarnished the organization’s carefully cultivated image in Lebanon and the broader Arab world. Hezbollah’s military prowess may not be in doubt, but now for the first time, Lebanese and other Middle Easterners are starting to question the organization’s once unscrupulous morality. Nearly three decades after its establishment, the resistance has institutionalized and bureaucratized, and Hezbollah is starting to resemble other, corrupt Lebanese organizations.
The problems of the Party of God, Hezbollah's English translation, started in May 2008, when the militia violated its cardinal rule and turned its weapons—allegedly intended for use against Israel—on Lebanese citizens, when the organization invaded Beirut. Continuing this trend, three months later the militia opened fire (accidentally, Hezbollah says) on a Lebanese army helicopter, killing the co-pilot. Then, in November 2008, a 49-member Hezbollah cell was arrested in Egypt, accused of plotting attacks against Israeli tourists and Suez Canal shipping. (Nasrallah responded to the arrests by publicly calling on Egyptians to topple their government).
Setbacks continued into 2009. First came a damaging report in the May edition of Der Spiegel, implicating the militia in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. (These allegations were recently confirmed by Le Monde). A month later, the heavily favored militia lost the Lebanese elections to its pro-West rivals.
Adding insult to injury, less than a week after its defeat at the polls, the organization was dealt yet another blow, when mass demonstrations erupted in Iran protesting the fraudulent elections. The rallies challenged Iran’s clerical leadership and its controversial doctrine of velayat-e faqih (Islamic government), threatening the seat of power of Hezbollah’s spiritual leader and financial patron Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
As if this weren’t enough, in September 2009 one of the militia’s chief local financiers, Salah Ezzedin, went bankrupt in a Ponzi scheme, ala Bernard Madoff. Ezzedin, who had promised rates of return up to 80 percent, ended up swindling 10,000 Lebanese Shiites out of an estimated $300 million.
Among the setbacks of the past two years, the Ezzedin scandal was perhaps the most damaging to Hezbollah because the militia’s leadership was so close to the disgraced financier, a relationship that led many investors to trust him with their money. (Indeed, Ezzedin named his publishing house after Nasrallah’s son, Hadi, who was killed by Israel in 1997). The Ezzedin affair implicated Hezbollah in the same kind of corruption it routinely accused the pro-West Sunni Government in Beirut of perpetrating.
Recognizing the implications for the organization’s reputation, Hezbollah went into damage-control mode. Nasrallah repeatedly denied any connection to the affair, claiming that the party itself lost $4 million. According to the Arabic news service Elaph, he also instructed Hezbollah clerics to issue a “fatwa-like” directive forbidding the mention of the militia in connection to the scandal, lest it provide fodder for Israeli and American propaganda machines to further “besmirch the organization’s name.”
But the damage was already done. In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s long suffering detractors were giddy with schadenfreude; meanwhile, many of the organization’s supporters expressed profound disappointment.
One article in the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese daily Al-Akbar, written by the paper’s editor Ibrahim al Amin shortly after the scandal broke, provides a good picture of the sentiment of Hezbollah’s base. Al Amin accused the organization of going soft after decades of hardship and of starting to live the good life corrupted by “greed.” This cultured lifestyle, he wrote, was “in opposition to the principle of sacrifice” that once was the hallmark of the resistance. Ending with a flourish, al Amin cited the famed Israeli Ministry of Defense advisor on Lebanon, Uri Lubrani, who long ago said that Israel would only defeat Hezbollah “when it became infected with the virus of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Lebanon, in other words, when it alters its appearance and becomes bourgeoisie.”
It’s less clear how this scandal and other Hezbollah missteps are impacting the organization’s standing throughout the Arab world. While much of the regional polling is unreliable, it does reveal some trends. Pew polls taken in 2007 and 2009 indicate consistently high levels of Shiite confidence in Nasrallah, reaching 97 percent in 2009. During this same two year period, however, Sunni Muslim confidence in Seyyid Hasan dropped from an already low 9 percent to 2 percent. (The same 2009 poll showed a decline from 2007 in favorable views of the organization among Egyptians, Jordanians, and Palestinians). Other polls of Arabs also suggest a decline in support. According to polls conducted by Zogby International, in 2008 Nasrallah was the top vote-getter (at 27 percent) when Arabs were asked about their most admired foreign leader. In 2009—even prior to the Ezzedin affair—he only received 11 percent.
Although difficult to prove, both based on the public opinion polling and anecdotal evidence, it appears that the last two years have undercut some of Hezbollah’s hard-won currency in the region. Of course, public opinion is fickle, and there is little doubt that the militia’s popularity would increase if another round of fighting erupted between the organization and Israel. During the summer war of 2006, for example, over a 33-day period, Hezbollah’s al-Manar satellite station viewership soared from 38 in the rankings into the top ten.
Still, recent actions by Hezbollah suggest that the organization is concerned with its image in Lebanon and the Arab world. In November, two months after the scandal broke, for example, Nasrallah changed the topic and published a new Hezbollah “manifesto,” updating the 1985 charter. Like the previous document, the 2009 manifesto spelled out its enmity toward Israel and the United States. At the same time, though, the new charter sought to appeal to a broader Sunni audience by downplaying the organization’s historic allegiance to the clerical leadership in Tehran. Likewise, rather than urging Lebanese Christians to convert—“We call upon you to embrace Islam” read the 1985 manifesto—in 2009, Hezbollah adopted more conciliatory language toward its fellow countrymen.
Likewise, in December, to counter the growing impression of Hezbollah corruption, Nasrallah gave a speech promoting (of all things) adherence to Lebanese laws, including respecting traffic signals, paying for—and not stealing—Government water and electricity, abiding by building laws and civil codes, ending smuggling that undercuts Lebanese businesses, and emphasizing the importance of civil servants showing up for their jobs and actually performing their duties.
This past February, the resistance really put the spin machine into full gear. First, in a speech during “Martyred Leaders Week,” Nasrallah—in an obvious bid to regain his standing with the Arab street—pledged that during the next war with Israel, Hezbollah would go toe-to-toe with Israel, threatening to “bomb Ben Gurion airport,” if the Jewish state targeted Beirut International.
Then, following the martyrs speech, Hezbollah’s website published a bizarre interview with Lebanese “economists” claiming that by establishing a credible deterrent threat, the Shiite militia had actually “improved [the] economic situation in Lebanon,” particularly the performance of the Beirut Stock Exchange. Not coincidentally, at about the same time, Al-Akbar publicized a poll by the pro-Hezbollah Beirut Center for Research and Information, indicating that 84 percent of Lebanese “trust the resistances’ capabilities facing any Israeli attack.”
The final piece of the puzzle in Hezbollah’s effort to rehabilitate its image at home and abroad is compensation for the victims of the Ezzedin Ponzi scheme. Because Hezbollah was so close to the financier, swindled Shiites—most of whom are supporters of the resistance—are petitioning the organization for financial restitution. And it’s not only the Lebanese. According to reports in the Arab press, several leading figures in Syria’s Assad regime, including Assad’s brother Maher and Vice President Farouk Shara’a also lost their investments, and are looking to Hezbollah—which captured Ezzedin on the lam with suitcases of cash in hand—to recoup some 17 million euros.
Not surprisingly, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on February 28 that some time ago Nasrallah had contacted Supreme Leader Khamenei, requesting $300 million in funding to stave off a “crisis of confidence” among his constituents. Khamenei approved the appeal, and according to Al-Siyasa, the funds were transferred to Nasrallah by Ahmedinajad when they met in Damascus last week.
With money in hand, Hezballah will be able to placate its supporters. By threatening Israel, the militia may even be able to again generate some buzz in the Arab world. What the last two years have demonstrated, however, is that if the “resistance” isn’t resisting (i.e., actively fighting) Israel, the Arab world has little use for the militia, particularly if it is attacking Sunnis at home and subverting Arab regimes abroad.
During the dinner in Damascus for Ahmedinajad and Nasrallah last week, Assad pledged his regime’s continued backing for Hezbollah. “To support the resistance is a moral, patriotic and legal duty,” he said. Four years after the last war with Israel and a following a string of Hezbollah miscues, although the Shiite militia dominates Lebanese politics, Assad’s sentiments today appear to be shared by a minority of Middle Easterners. While the organization is making great efforts to reverse the tide, absent another war with Israel, the decline of Arab support for Hezbollah is a regional trend that’s likely to continue.
**David Schenker is Aufzien Fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
 

Senators to Obama: Don't send ambassador to Syria
In letter to Clinton, six Republican senators say Syria wants to be part of legitimate international community 'without significantly changing its policies'
Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 03.06.10, 18:55 / Israel News
WASHINGTON – Republican senators demanded that the Obama administration cancel the appointment of a new US ambassador to Syria.
In a letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the weekend, six senators asked for an answer before the nomination of career diplomat Robert Ford is sent to the floor for the consideration of the Senate.
IDF: Syria offers Hezbollah greater support than ever / Amnon Meranda
Syria is transferring weapons to Hezbollah that it did not dare to hand over before, Senior IDF intelligence official tells Knesset committee Tuesday; PM Netanyahu: Iran creating false impression, we're not seeking confrontation with Syria
If confirmed by the Senate, Ford would represent the United States' interests as it moves toward restored diplomatic relations with a nation that borders both Iraq and Israel. The democrats control the Senate, so the appointment is likely to pass.
The United States withdrew its ambassador from Damascus in 2005 after Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, was assassinated in Beirut. Lebanese critics contended that Syria was involved in the killing, an accusation that Syria denied.
The Obama administration is not pleased with Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, but hopes improved relations would curb the infiltration of terrorists into Iraq from Syria. The US hopes the move would help stabilize Iraq and allow for the withdrawal of American troops next year.
Senators Jon Kyl (AZ), Pat Roberts (KS), Christopher Bond (MO), Tom Coburn (OK), John Barrasso (WY) and Mike Johanns (NE) said in the letter, "Engagement of hostile regimes in pursuit of US interests in not necessarily bad policy, if it is part of a realistic strategy with measurable goals. But engagement for engagement's sake is not productive. However well-justified the engagement is, the US pays a price for lending even a modicum of international legitimacy to a regime like Syria's."
The letter, which also mentions Syria's poor human rights record, states "We believe the Syrian government would like to be fully part of the legitimate international community without significantly changing these or other security policies."
The senators further wrote Clinton that the appointment of an ambassador to Damascus "must be aimed at achieving tangible Syrian concessions in response," adding, "Does the recent trilateral meeting among Syrian President Assad, the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad less than two weeks after you announced the nomination of Ambassador Ford give you reason to doubt the wisdom of this step at this time?"
The Obama Administration has been urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resume peace talks with Syria as part of the efforts to sever Damascus' ties with Iran and encourage it to stop supporting Hezbollah and the Palestinian terror groups.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak is in favor of negotiating with Syria.
**Reuters and AP contributed to the report

Parable of the Lost Son
The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) is perhaps better named the parable of the lost son, since it is designed to go with the parables of the lost sheep (verses 3-7) and lost coin (verses 8-10). Some have even called it the parable of the prodigal father, because of the father's extravagance. Even today, after centuries of teaching about God's grace, the father's willingness to forgive his runaway son is shockingly generous.
This is Jesus' longest parable: 22 verses. Let's go through the parable, noting its story, its organization and its lessons.
Historical background and observations
1. Return of the lost son — verses 11-24
A. Departure of the younger son — verses 11-16
There was a man — A standard introduction to a parable. Who had two sons — The first parable in this chapter had one of 100 getting lost, the second parable one in 10, this one has one out of two becoming lost. The sequence emphasizes the magnitude of the lost son. To lose half your sons would be a tragedy, and regaining half would likewise be a greater cause for rejoicing. The younger son — There's no mention of a wife, so he would probably have been 18-20. His youth isn't emphasized, but younger sons may be more likely to be foolish and older sons more likely to look down on a brother. Figuratively, the older son could represent the Pharisees and the younger one the newly religious Jews Jesus was teaching (verse 1). In the early church, the older son may have been seen as corresponding to the Jews and the younger son to Gentiles.
"Give me my share of the estate" — Inheritances were normally given only when the father died. The son's demand (not a request) for an early distribution was unusual and frowned upon. Traditionally, firstborn sons were given twice as much as other sons, but we don't know if this was always done in Jesus' day. If so, the younger son would have received one third of the estate. The amount isn't stressed. Nor are we told how the property was divided. Such details are ignored because they aren't part of the point.
Divided his property — Early distribution of the estate normally meant that the father continued to receive the benefits of the estate as long as he lived. (Hence the father could kill the fatted calf without asking the older son who owned it.) The younger son didn't just receive surplus property; it was part of the father's source of income. (The word for property is bios, meaning "the resources which one has as a means of living" (J. Louw and E. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, volume 1, page 560, 57.18.) If a son sold land, the new owner could not use it until the father died. Again, such details are glossed over because they are not part of the point. Between them — The older son also received his share.
Not long after that — His departure was probably not surprising. His desire for his inheritance indicated he wanted to strike out on his own rather than continue being part of the family. He was insulting the family as well as injuring it. A distant country — A Gentile country. Many Jews lived in Gentile areas. Squandered his wealth in wild living — Not only did he waste the money, he sinned in the process. However, his sins aren't specified. Luke doesn't emphasize the sinning as much as he does losing the money. This is consistent with Luke's interest in possessions and poverty. Perhaps the prodigal son was trying to make friends by spending money on them.
Spent everything...began to be in need — His poverty is emphasized, not any deficiency in character. Luke is emphasizing his lostness, not his guilt.
To feed pigs — He had an unclean occupation, abandoning religious scruples, but still the emphasis seems to be on his poverty (hunger, verse 16) rather than sin.
He longed to fill his stomach with the pods — As if he wasn't allowed to eat the carob-tree pods! A servant would have received some pay. Jesus is painting a hypothetical, not an actual story, to emphasize the son's desperate plight. No one gave him anything — He received no alms (one of Luke's interests). His former friends did not help him.
B. The son decides to return — verses 17-20
When he came to his senses — This pivotal verse changes the direction of the story. "When" (rather than "it so happened that") seems to imply that his sanity was inevitable. "Repentance" is not used. My father's hired men — He contrasts himself, a hired servant of a Gentile, to his father's servants, who had plenty to eat. Food to spare...starving to death — Though the setting of the story is sin and repentance (verses 1-2), the story emphasizes financial destitution rather than moral corruption. "Starving" is another exaggeration. If he had been near starvation, he would not have had the strength to be able to travel back home.
Set out and go — Literally, "rising up, I will go." Commentators say this was a translation of an Aramaic idiom for go immediately. But "arise" may also hint at a rising in state of life.
Sinned against heaven — "Heaven" is a euphemism for God — used perhaps because the father represents God in the story. Specific sins aren't mentioned except in the accusations of the older brother (verse 30). And against you — He acknowledged his affront to the family — wasting the family's wealth.
No longer worthy to be called your son — This could be in a legal and a moral sense: He had no rights for further inheritance, and his behavior had not been up to family standards. Make me like one of your hired men — He was willing to earn his keep by serving the family (which would have meant serving his older brother, too). "Hired men" is misthioi, contract laborers, probably farmhands, not the douloi, household bondservants, mentioned in verse 22.
C. Reception by the father — verses 20-24
While he was still a long way off, his father saw him — Some commentators say this implies that the father was continually watching for the return of his son. This is conjectural; the text says nothing about watching, nor does it add a word like "when" to imply inevitability. It says: "The son being yet far off, his father saw him." Certainly, the father was extremely willing to seek reconciliation — seeing the son far away shows that (as do later verses), without any need to add the idea of watching.
Compassion...ran — These words emphasize the father's enthusiasm. In ancient societies, it was considered undignified for an older man to pull up his robes to run. His actions, representative of God's feelings for repentant sinners, show enthusiastic acceptance, love and joy. Kiss — Perhaps a sign of forgiveness (cf. 2 Samuel 14:33). The son didn't finish his speech, perhaps because he was cut short by his father.
Best robe...ring — Both robe and ring may allude to Joseph's promotion to authority (Genesis 41:42). Robes were given to honored guests; the ring was a signet ring, indicating authority. Sandals — Servants did not wear sandals; only family members did.
Fattened calf — Meat was eaten primarily on festivals, and calves would be fattened for such feasts, so perhaps the celebration here hints at a religious reconciliation. The celebration corresponds to the "rejoice" of the parables of the lost sheep and coin.
This son of mine was dead — In what way was he dead? Here are two possibilities: 1) The father heard about the famine, hadn't heard from his son in a long time, and thought he had died. 2) Perhaps he counted him metaphorically dead because he had become as a Gentile. Some Jews conducted funerals for children who married Gentiles. But the father doesn't seem to be the type to disown his son.
2. Conflict with the older son
A. The older son comes home — verses 25-27
So far, this parable has been parallel to the first two parables; the lost has been found and there is rejoicing. Now the older son is introduced for an additional lesson in the parable. In some ways this is two parables in one, both parts ending with the statement about dead and alive, lost and found. Both sons are lost — one who left home (like the sheep that was lost in v. 4) and one who was lost even while at home (like the coin in v. 8). Both the "sinners" and the Pharisees were separated from God — the first ones are visibly lost, the others still live at home — but both are welcomed when they turn to God.
The older son's arrival on the scene is odd; normally a servant would have been sent to get him at the start. But in the parable it is as if the older son found out about the party by accident. Some commentators say this implies the son was out of touch with his father, estranged in attitude or too addicted to work. This seems to read too many details into the story.
The older son is contrasted to the younger: The younger starts the story by leaving home, the older starts by returning. The younger then decides to go home, the older refuses to enter. The younger wants to be his father's servant, the older son resents being a servant. The younger son admits guilt; the older one insists on his own innocence.
The servant (pais, a child or servant) describes the younger son as "safe and sound," or in health; this is less dramatic than the father's comment about dead and alive. The servant is matter-of-fact; the father is elated.
B. Complaint of the older son — verses 28-30
The older son became angry — in contrast to his father's compassion — and he did not want to go in despite knowing his father's will. His father went out — in contrast to the older son's unwillingness to come in. The father went out, just as he had done for the younger son. Pleaded with him — The father eagerly desired for the older son to share his joy. Normally a son would simply do what his father said to do; here the older son is disobedient. The older son had inherited his father's estate, but not his attitude of mercy.
Look! — The older son starts abruptly, hinting of disrespect, frustration and impatience. I've been slaving for you — The verb is douleun , related to doulos, servant. His relationship to his father was based on work, not love. Never disobeyed — until now.
You never gave me even a young goat — Yet a goat is of lesser value than a calf. But the father would have given a goat if the son had asked (verse 31). The son felt unappreciated and unrewarded; his complaint suggests that he had a long-smoldering resentment. He complained about the extra given to the younger — similar to the workers in the vineyard who complained about a days' wage being given to those who worked only one hour.
This son of yours — The older brother doesn't say "my brother"; it is as if he no longer claims him. Squandered — Literally, "devoured," an ironic word for a hungry man. Your property — This continues the emphasis on physical possessions. The younger son had wasted part of the family estate, failing in his duty to provide for his father. With prostitutes — Did the older son really know how his brother had spent the money? Perhaps the waste had begun before the son left home, or perhaps some reports had come back from the far country. Both are possible, but the story says nothing about it. This suggests that the older son was making an unsubstantiated accusation.
C. Response of the father — verses 31-32
My son — The usual word for "son" in this parable is huios; here it is teknon, "child," a term of affection. Everything I have is yours — The older son will get the entire inheritance. Some commentators speculate about the legal status of the property rights and whether the younger son could have inherited something, but the parable says nothing about it. Inheritance details are not the point; acceptance or reconciliation is. Older sons inherited twice as much as other sons because they had a responsibility to the family. The older son would have had a duty to take care of a brother who fell on hard times. But the older son was not willing to accept this responsibility; he simply wanted the property.
We had to celebrate — The word edei is used, meaning "it was necessary." Rejoicing about the return of a lost person isn't just an option; it is a necessity. This brother of yours — Not "my son," but "your brother." The father reminded the older son of his family responsibility. The implication is that it is necessary for him to rejoice.
What this parable teaches us about God
The context helps us understand the lessons of the parable. Verses 1-2 tell us that sinners and tax collectors were being taught by Jesus. Pharisees then criticized Jesus — not for teaching them, but for eating with them, which was a sign of social acceptance. The Pharisees tried hard to be righteous, and they were disturbed that Jesus accepted people who hadn't been trying hard. Perhaps they were worried that Jesus was making it too easy on people, and his acceptance might encourage others to be lazy.
Jesus then gave the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, both illustrating the point that God rejoices about each sinner who repents. "There will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent" (verse 7). There's no such thing as a person who has no need for repentance, but the Pharisees weren't yet aware of that. There would be rejoicing for them, too, if they would accept it.
The parable of the lost son continues the theme of rejoicing and adds to it. The first half of the parable illustrates rejoicing over a sinner who returned; the second half more directly addresses the situation Jesus faced: criticism about his willingness to be with sinners. Jesus, by telling the parable the way he did, chides those who do not rejoice about the sinners' interest in being taught (figuratively, returning to God).
In the first two parables, the lost were found by searching. But the younger son was found by waiting. The spiritually lost were already coming to Jesus; he didn't need to seek them out. They had been spiritually dead and were now showing interest — they wanted to be taught by Jesus. Jesus received them and ate with them. His reception would have encouraged them to keep the laws they already knew and to continue to listen to him for more instruction in God's way.
But the parable is not just about Jesus in the first century; it is a timeless message about God the Father. He rejoices over (cf. the celebration) and honors (cf. the robe, ring and sandals) every sinner who repents. He doesn't wait for a full and formal apology; he perceives the attitude and comes toward us. This theme of joyful acceptance, similar to that of the first two parables of this chapter, dominates the first part of this parable. This is the lesson illustrated by the father: He is always ready to welcome a returning child.
The parable shows that sinners can confess and return to God. Since God is gracious, sinners can return to him with confidence that he will warmly welcome them. But in the parable, financial destitution is more prominent than moral fault. Unlike the first two parables, the word repent is not used; only superficial reasons are given for the son's return. As Jesus spoke to the Pharisees, encouraging sinners to return was not the main issue; the main issue was what to do about sinners who were already willing to return.
Most importantly, the parable shows that God's people should rejoice at a) the willingness of sinners to turn to God and b) the willingness of God to receive them. This is the lesson of the second half of the parable, illustrated by the father's correction of his older son. This theme most directly addresses the setting of the parable, the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus' reception of sinners. The parables of the lost sheep and lost coin and the first half of the parable of the lost son are preparatory to this main point.
These themes are timeless. God rejoices over each person who repents, and so should we. We need not kill a calf for repentant persons (Jesus didn't; the parable illustrates the attitude of rejoicing, not the specific actions we should take). We need to accept repentant sinners to social fellowship (cf. eating with them, verse 2) and religious instruction (cf. allowing them to listen, verse 1). This particular parable does not say we should seek outcasts (that is shown better by the parables of lost sheep and lost coin), but that we should be happy when they come to us to be taught.
In effect, Jesus' story shows that it is ungodly to refuse to rejoice about repentance. The Pharisees, by insisting on a too-strict standard of righteousness, were being unrighteous. They, too, needed to repent.
Epilogue
The parable ends without revealing what the older son did. Would the hard-hearted son change his mind and rejoice about his brother's return? For the situation in Jesus' day, either response was still possible — it was up to the Pharisees. Would they rejoice with Jesus? History shows that some did and some did not.
Similarly, the parable does not reveal what the younger son did. Did he abuse his second chance? That also reflects the situation Jesus was in. Would the tax collectors and sinners continue in their repentance? It was not yet known. Nevertheless, it is appropriate — no, necessary — to rejoice at their first change of heart, rather than waiting for some probationary period.
Michael Morrison, 1992

Viedeo: The Lost Son/Arabic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHN5_coKsc