Syria has no decision to develop peaceful nuclear energy
2010-03-13

DAMASCUS, Mar 13, 2010 (Xinhua via COMTEX) — The head of the Syrian Atomic Council Ibrahim Othman on Saturday told Xinhua that Syria has by far no decision to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use.

Othman made the remarks on the sidelines of Syria’s National Conference of Energy, which started on Saturday at Ummayad conference palace in Damascus. The conference aimed to develop a comprehensive plan on the development of energy sector in Syria. “Developing nuclear power in Syria is quite different from developing other energy types due to considerable technical and financial obstacles,” Othman said. Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad said last week at an international conference on civilian nuclear power held in Paris that his country believed it was important to consider alternative sources of energy, including nuclear power.

However, Othman confirmed on Saturday that the atomic council has no decision to set up any nuclear power plant, because there are lots of barriers in finance, construction and operation, and most of all, the huge cost.

Nicolas writes in the last comment section:

On the nuclear debate, Syria is NOT pursuing nuclear power. There was a recent dedicated conference in Tunisia attended by Arab nuclear power authorities. All outlined their plans for developing nuclear power generation. Only Syria clearly stated that it is NOT pursing this option; very rightly and realistically so.

Syria is focusing on developing the conventional fuel-based and renewable (wind) IPPs; which is the right move, and a move that still has a lot of way to run. The nuclear option is still far from tested in the region, and the most advanced project (the Abu Dhabi project) is still in its infancy, despite the large amount of work already carried out and the press releases, it still is not a sealed deal (let along the other announcements made by the other less wealthy countries in the region). Such projects require years of groundwork preparation on the legal, political and technical angles, let alone the financing to come in support.

I had noted in an earlier post, that there was talk in the market about Syria potentially joining the project in Jordan (2nd “more serious” approach in the region) and obtaining a share of the power outcome via a cross-country cable against Syria investing equity and providing the much needed water requirements for a nuclear project that Jordan does not have (not sure Syria does either but still…). This looks theoretically more realistic, despite the massive political uphill drive to get this through. Ideally, it would look good as part of peace incentive package with the world power’s backing.

The only other option would be for Iran to pass on the nuclear technology to Syria; if it were to happen, then that would be just folly as it would just drive the Syria into a position of confrontation with the entire world (maybe unjustified but this would be the case).

Luckily, there seems to be a good level of common sense within the circles running the power generation projects in Syria and they seem intent on focusing on realistic targets rather than fancy unrealistic schemes.

I do not see where in Mekdad’s statement he says that Syria wants to develop nuclear power.

Daniel Levy has a fine article on Biden’s visit to Israel on the new ME Channel at Foreign Policy – the picture of Biden is worth a thousand words (Above)

The Leveretts explain the significance of the Biden visit with typical precision and honesty on their site, RFI

….President Obama missed a critical opportunity in his June 2009 Cairo speech to take U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory back to what is was under the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations, when U.S. policy actually achieved meaningful progress towards a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict—namely, a clear-cut stance the such settlements were illegal, in that the settlement of Israeli civilians in occupied territory violates the Fourth Geneva Convention….

President Obama’s approach to the Middle East [enables] Israel to act without cost or consequence, no matter how damaging its actions might be to regional peace prospects and America’s own strategic interests….

Turkey needs more from Ataturk’s heirs
By David Gardner, March 11 2010

Turkey’s ruling party has once again entered into conflict with the Turkish army. This is more than the latest episode in a power struggle commenced as soon as the Justice and Development party (AKP) of Recep Tayyip Erdogan first came to power in 2002.

It is more, too, than a battle of wills between neo-Islamists and secularists; more even than a new and dangerous chapter in a recurring constitutional crisis. It is, above all, a clash between two rival establishments jostling for supremacy: the traditional metropolitan elites who see themselves as the guardians of the secular, republican heritage of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey; and the new AKP establishment that combines the conservative and religiously observant traditions of Anatolia with a huge constituency in Turkey’s modern but Muslim middle class.

One of the principal reasons for this now chronic crisis is that the first group, the Kemalists, are unelectable: after being trounced in two general elections by the AKP they appear to have no strategy except to return to power by goading the army and the judiciary into seizing back what their howlingly irrelevant parties keep losing at the ballot box.

It is a commonplace, often deployed with self-serving slyness in Europe, that Turkey is engaged in a struggle to determine its real identity. Yet, the real drama of Turkey today is more banal: it lacks an effective opposition to the AKP. It will keep bobbing from crisis to crisis until it has one.

The Council on Foreign Relation’s Steven Cook explains what the Neocons got right. The CFR is perhaps the leading think tank in the US. It is interesting to see how negative Cook’s view of Syria is. He argues that Syria is one of the main subjects on which that the Neocons were right.  He buys the line that Syria’s support for Ahmedinejad is the “real” Syria as opposed to Assad’s insistence that Syria wants peace with Israel, which he (and the neocons) view as a smokescreen to hide Syria’s true nature. Cook sums up that nature as:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regime’s is all about: violence, repression, and duplicity.

This does not augur well for Syria.

Israel and Syria ‘to renew talks’
Thomas Seibert in the National
UAE / March 10. 2010

ISTANBUL // More than a year after the breakdown of indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria organised by Turkey, Ankara says it is close to bringing the two sides together again.

Turkey’s move came as the United States was trying to get new peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians on track during a visit by Joe Biden, the vice president. Observers in Turkey said US pressure on Israel was vital for the relaunch of talks with Syria as well.

“There is renewed interest” in a continuation of indirect talks between Israel and Syria, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, said during a visit to Saudi Arabia this week, according to news reports. He added that Syria was ready for new talks under Turkish mediation and that there had been positive signals from Israel as well.

Mr Erdogan said his government would study the Israeli response. “If there is a positive result of this evaluation, I want us to restart this process.” Israel denied that it had resolved to engage in fresh indirect talks with Damascus under Turkish mediation. “No decision has been taken,” The Jerusalem Post newspaper quoted the office of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, as saying in a statement. But if Mr Erdogan’s comments reflected “Turkey’s desire to strengthen its relations with Israel and to contribute to peacemaking in the region – then Israel would clearly welcome that aspiration”, Mr Netanyahu’s office said.

Exiled from Iraq, with no hope of return
Deborah Amos is a skillful writer and a perceptive analyst.
(By Thomas W. Lippman, The Washington Post)

If I were developing a reading list for newcomers to the Middle East, it would not begin with Deborah Amos’s poignant and disturbing “Eclipse of the Sunnis.” Her book is not for beginners; it requires some knowledge of the region’s history, personalities and neuroses….

Amos, a journalistic veteran of the Middle East, is not much interested here in the palace coups, rigged elections, official corruption and failed negotiations that make up standard histories. Her thesis is that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, whatever its justification, has had a catastrophic effect on the people of the region, unleashing sectarian hostilities that had been bottled up for centuries, not just in Iraq but in Lebanon and other Arab states as well.

She did most of her interviewing in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, where she found tens of thousands of Iraqis driven from their country by the violence that followed the ouster of Saddam Hussein. These unfortunate people, she reports, are the very citizens who would have been essential to the creation of a modern, democratic Iraq: doctors, scholars, artists and government workers, Christians and Sunni Muslims, deemed unworthy by the Shiites now running the country. It is a measure of their desperation that they found Syria, of all places, to be a refuge of cultural freedom….

Amos concludes that it is no longer possible, if it ever was, to construct a tolerant, multicultural Iraq. Returning there in 2009, she found that “Iraq was effectively a different country, transformed by the sectarian civil war. The Shiites had won, the Sunnis had lost. There was no getting around that. In the current political environment there was little hope of restoring Baghdad’s historic character, a city where Iraq’s rich sectarian mix once lived side by side.” Even the non-Shiites who remain, she found, live separate lives, hunkered down behind protective walls, cut off from their former compatriots.

“Eclipse of the Sunnis” is persuasive and very well written, filled with deft turns of phrase such as her description of a Lebanese imam who sympathizes with jihadists because he is pious and “the modern world was bearing down on his soul.”

800 Iraqi Christians displaced in days
2010-03-10

MOSUL, Iraq,  March 10 (UPI) — The safety of the Christian minority community in northern Iraq is of utmost concern as the rate of displacement soars, U.N. agencies said. U.N. figures show the number of displaced Christians in Iraq rose by more than 800 people in a three-day period beginning March 1. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said it was concerned for the minority religious community. “Protection remains an ongoing concern for the Christian community as well as other vulnerable groups remaining in Mosul,” an OCHA report said. U.N. and local authorities said they were working to provide food and other humanitarian aid to the Christians who fled their homes in Mosul, the capital city of Ninawa province. The United Nations said the Kurdistan Regional Government told local universities to open enrollment to displaced Christians after it was revealed they were afraid to attend classes in their hometowns. The Kurdish and Arab authorities are at odds over security issues in the north. A spate of attacks rocked the Christian community of Iraq in 2008, displacing nearly half of the population.

As Its Arms Makers Falter, Russia Buys Abroad
The New York Times

in today’s Russia, the $40 billion military equipment industry is withering alongside civilian manufacturing.

Once-legendary Russian weapons are suffering embarrassing quality-control problems. Algeria, for example, recently returned a shipment of MIG jets because of defects.

An aircraft carrier refurbishment for India is four years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.

In perhaps the most poignant sign of trouble, Russia’s own military is now voting with its rubles: Moscow is in talks with France to buy four French amphibious assault ships. If a deal is struck, it would be Russia’s most significant acquisition of foreign weapons since World War II.

The purchase of Mistral-class ships would be “the most salient example of the deficiencies in the Russian defense industry,” said Dmitri Trenin, a military analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a policy research organization.

Next week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will convene a hearing to confirm Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria. And the hearing, though likely to confirm Ford, will be an occasion for administration critics to question the Syrian re-engagement policy.

On Ambassador Ford’s Confirmation Process in Congress by Ziad Haydar and Joe Maceron

الكونغرس يناقش الثلاثاء تعيين فورد سفيراً
فيلتمان وشابيرو يزوران دمشق قبل نهاية آذار

واشنطن ـ جو معكرون
دمشق ـ زياد حيدر
في مؤشر يعكس استمرار وتيرة اميركية في تطبيع العلاقات الدبلوماسية مع دمشق، قرر مجلس الشيوخ عقد جلسة التصديق على تعيين السفير روبرت فورد في منصبه في سوريا أوائل الأسبوع المقبل، بالتزامن مع التحضير لزيارة ثالثة يقوم بها كل من مساعد وزيرة الخارجية لشؤون الشرق الأدنى جيفري فيلتمان ومدير الشرق الاوسط في مجلس الامن القومي دان شابيرو، الى سوريا في شهر آذار الحالي.
وقال مدير الاتصالات في لجنة العلاقات الخارجية في مجلس الشيوخ فريديريك جونز لـ «السفير»، ان قرار تحديد موعد جلسة التصديق يأتي ضمن «مسار طبيعي وليس معجلا»، وهي «خطوة في اتجاه إرسال السفير الى دمشق»، مؤكدا ان رئيس اللجنة السيناتور جون كيري يتبنى موقفا واضحا «منذ وقت طويل» في هذا الشأن، وهو «يعتقد بضرورة وجود تمثيل دبلوماسي في سوريا، ويحث الادارة الاميركية على الانخراط مع دمشق».
وذكر جونز ان كيري لم يؤد دورا في تعيين فورد، مشيرا الى ان هذا القرار اتخذه كل من البيت الابيض ووزارة الخارجية، مؤكدا ان الكونغرس له استقلاليته ولجنة الشؤون الخارجية هي التي بادرت في تحديد موعد جلسة التصديق من دون التشاور مع وزارة الخارجية.
وردا على سؤال حول احتمال وجود عرقلة لهذا التصديق، قال جونز انه ستوجه خلال الجلسة أسئلة الى فورد حول سوريا والمنطقة، لكن لا تمكن معرفة الفترة الزمنية لمسار التصويت على تعيين فورد الذي عليه عبور لجنة العلاقات الخارجية وصولا الى الجلسة العامة لمجلس الشيوخ، لا سيما ان قرار تجميد التصويت على هذا التعيين من قبل اي سيناتور هو «سري» بموجب قانون مجلس الشيوخ الداخلي، وبالتالي لا يمكن احدا ان يتنبأ بهذا الامر مسبقا.
ويظهر روبرت فورد امام الكونغرس يوم الثلاثاء المقبل في جلسة يترأسها كيري، الذي يؤدي دورا رئيسيا في محاولة تحسين علاقة الادارة الاميركية مع سوريا. وعلمت «السفير» ان وكيل وزيرة الخارجية للشؤون السياسية وليام بيرنز اجرى اتصالا هاتفيا بكيري قبل التوجه الى دمشق في 17 شباط الماضي وبعد زيارته العاصمة السورية من اجل التشاور معه.
كما عقد كيري هذا الأسبوع اجتماعا مطولا مع السفير السوري لدى واشنطن عماد مصطفى، في وقت تشير مصادر في العاصمة الاميركية الى بدء التحضير على نار هادئة لزيارة فيلتمان وشابيرو الثالثة الى دمشق، التي يسعى فيها الجانب الاميركي الى بلورة وجهة الانخراط مع سوريا ومتابعة التشاور حول القضايا الإقليمية، لا سيما بعد مرور فترة زمنية تتضح فيها صورة الانتخابات العراقية، ويرسل السفير الاميركي الى سوريا، ويعاد افتتاح المدرسة الاميركية في دمشق.
وعلمت «السفير» من مصادر متعددة في دمشق، أن زيارة فيلتمان ستتم قبل نهاية آذار الحالي، وذلك في إطار «استمرار الحوار المتواصل بين دمشق وواشنطن حول قضايا العلاقات الثنائية وقضايا إقليمية». وأكدت المصادر أن فيلتمان اتفق والجانب السوري على القيام بهذه الرحلة لمتابعة «الحوار القائم»، علما بأنه من المتوقع أن يوجه فيلتمان دعوة لنائب وزير الخارجية السورية فيصل المقداد لزيارة واشنطن للمرة الثانية في إطار الجهود ذاتها.
وستكون جلسة التصديق في الكونغرس فرصة لأعضاء لجنة العلاقات الخارجية للتعبير عن جهة نظرهم حيال العلاقة مع سوريا، على ان ترفع اللجنة تقريرا يعكس رأيها الايجابي او غير الايجابي في الترشيح، والخيار الآخر هو عدم التصويت او عدم اتخاذ اي إجراء على الإطلاق. بعدها، تعقد جلسة عامة لمجلس الشيوخ من اجل الاختيار بين التصديق او الرفض او عدم اتخاذ قرار، وهنا قد تطول النقاشات من دون اي سقف زمني، لا سيما اذا كان هناك اتجاه جمهوري لعرقلة إرسال السفير الى دمشق. ويحتاج التصديق على تعيين فورد الى غالبية بسيطة، اي الى 51 صوتا من اصل 100.
وقد وجه 8 اعضاء جمهوريين في مجلس الشيوخ رسالة الى وزيرة الخارجية هيلاري كلينتون أوائل الشهر الحالي، جاء فيها ان «الانخراط مع أنظمة معادية في السعي لمصالح اميركية ليس بالضرورة سياسة سيئة، انه جزء من استراتيجية واقعية مع أهداف قابلة للقياس. لكن الانخراط لغرض الانخراط، ليس منتجا». واعتبرت الرسالة ان خطوة إرسال السفير الى دمشق بمثابة «تنازل جزئي»، وطلبت ردا من كلينتون قبل إحالة التصويت على تعيين فورد الى الجلسة العامة. ومن بين الموقعين على الرسالة عضو واحد في لجنة العلاقات الخارجية هو السيناتور جون باراسو. ويمكن للرئيس الاميركي باراك اوباما تمرير التعيين بأصوات الحزب الديموقراطي وحده اذا أراد البيت الابيض، لكن العرقلة تبقى ممكنة.
وفي السياق، قال مدير مركز دراسات الشرق الاوسط في جامعة اوكلاهوما جوشوا لانديس لـ «السفير»، ان دور كيري أساسي في العلاقات السورية الاميركية لانه حمل رسائل من الادارة الاميركية خلال زياراته دمشق، ويؤدي دورا في طمأنة السوريين وفي التأكيد ان العلاقات السورية الاميركية على جدول اعمال البيت الابيض. ويعتبر ان كيري يحاول ايضا إبعاد اوباما عن «السياسة التقليدية في وزارة الخارجية التي لا تتوق للانخراط مع سوريا». ويرى ان سوريا «كانت اكثر الدول العربية استفادة من سياسة اوباما التي انسحبت عسكريا من العراق، وقلصت سياستها في لبنان، وأخذت مسافة من اسرائيل».

Foggy Bottom’s Man In Baghdad
By Michael Rubin in the Wall Street Journal
Saturday, Mar 13, 2010

(Editor’s Note: Mr. Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, was a governance adviser in the Coalition Provisional Authority.)

…..Mr. Allawi failed to break double-digits in the December 2005 election. He was bitter. “Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not,” he later told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as insurgency raged. He failed to mention the millions of dollars funneled to him by Saddam’s former allies in Jordan and other Arab states……

….While Iraqis brave bombs and bullets to hold leaders to account and participate in democracy, a dangerous cocktail of anti-Shiite bias and dictator chic permeates Washington’s foreign-policy elite. This may make Mr. Allawi attractive in Foggy Bottom and Langley, but not to most Iraqis. Strongmen — including Saddam — drove Iraq into ruin and espoused ethnic and sectarian supremacy.

Iran’s influence is pernicious, but Iraqi Shiites are not Iranian pawns. …

History matters. In January, I met with one grand ayatollah and representatives of two others in Najaf. Each castigated Iran but said they could neither forgive nor forget 1991, when the elder Bush abandoned Iraq’s Shiite uprising to Saddam’s helicopter gunships. No Iraqi candidate is perfect, but it’s puzzling that the U.S. has thrown so much weight behind one with ties to the country’s Baathist past.

Enemies of the Internet: KSA, Egypt, Iran, Syria
2010-03-13,Next Web (US)

Middle Easterns, Rejoice! If the Axis of Evil wasn’t enough, 4 of our countries have made it to the top 12 “Enemies of the Internet”. The list, drawn up every year by Reporters Without Borders, presents the worst violators of freedom of …

Syria announces that it wants to develop nuclear power now that Israel, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Turkey and the Emirates have also begun or announced plans for nuclear plants.

Rivals Israel, Syria Want to Build Nuclear Power Plants
Tuesday , March 09, 2010

Mideast rivals Israel and Syria on Tuesday each announced ambitions to develop nuclear energy, with Israel facing the prospect that its plan could bring new attention to its secretive nuclear activities.

The countries laid out their hopes at an international conference in Paris on civilian nuclear energy — which contributes far less to global warming than burning of fossil fuels but still evokes many concerns about long-term safety issues.

Also on Tuesday, Egypt announced it would aim for four nuclear plants by 2025, with the first starting in 2019, Reuters quoted an Egyptian minister. The announcements raise the prospect that the countries’ nuclear programs could come under the microscope of international inspectors to ensure that they don’t cross the forbidden line into weapons programs. Iran, for example, has come under intense pressure to show its nuclear program is peaceful. The United States is providing financing and training for nuclear power plans in Jordan. The United Arab Emirates in December awarded a South Korean consortium a contract to build energy-producing nuclear reactors.

Iran and North Korea, whose nuclear program has also drawn international scorn, were not invited to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development conference. Israeli Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said nuclear plants built in Israel will be subject to strict safety and security controls, and even said his country would like to build them in cooperation with scientists and engineers from “our Arab neighbors.”

“Israel has always considered nuclear power to partially replace its dependence on coal,” Landau said. The program aims to help Israel secure its energy supplies and battle global warming. Israel currently uses coal and natural gas to produce electricity.

The effort by Israel, which has long been suspected to have a secret nuclear weapons program, runs the risk that its nuclear energy program will draw the eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The construction of a nuclear reactor could draw international attention to Israel’s nuclear activities. Asked if Israel would allow IAEA inspectors to supervise any new project, Landau aide Chen Ben Lulu said only that Israel would follow all the relevant rules.

Israel has not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty, which aims to limit the number of countries capable of developing nuclear weapons. Separately at the conference, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad his country is looking at “alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy” to meet its growing demands for energy.

“The peaceful application of nuclear energy should not be monopolized by the few that own this technology but should be available to all,” Mekdad said, noting Syria’s growing population. He did not elaborate on specific nuclear plans.

Between the two countries, Israel is seen as closer to actually developing nuclear energy in terms of know-how and infrastructure. The idea of generating nuclear energy has been floating around for years in Israel. In 2007, one of Landau’s predecessors said he was working on a plan to build a nuclear power plant in Israel’s southern Negev desert. Landau met several months ago with the French Energy Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, and raised the idea of French-Israeli-Jordanian cooperation in developing a nuclear power plant.

Borloo was enthusiastic about that idea, Landau said. France derives more of its electricity from nuclear power than any other country and has a highly developed civilian nuclear industry — and Paris sees export potential.

It was France that, beginning in the 1950s, helped Israel build its nuclear reactor at Dimona. Israel is believed to have used that reactor to construct a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Israel has never acknowledged being a nuclear power, following a policy it calls “nuclear ambiguity.” Israel also has a smaller nuclear reactor for research at Nahal Soreq, not far from Tel Aviv. Landau’s office says no specific plans to set up a third nuclear power plant have been drawn up so far.

Will the Exiles Return to Iraq?Sunday’s election is a test of the permanence of the division between Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites.
By Deborah Amos, Friday, March 5, 2010

Iraq’s electoral commission expects as many as 180,000 exiles to cast ballots in 23 voting centers across Syria, and Iraq’s Sunni politicians are courting the exile vote. … According to the latest U.S. government report, few of the 2 million Iraqis who fled the country from 2004 to 2008 have returned…..

An estimated 60 percent of the refugees are Sunni Arabs; approximately 15 percent are Iraqi Christians. Their departure represents a dramatic demographic alteration in Iraq, yet the sectarian nature of the exodus has been largely overlooked. This shifting population is a huge loss to Iraq, a vast problem to neighboring governments, a collective tragedy for many caught up in it, and a significant indicator of the future health, stability, and viability of Iraq and the Middle East. Most in the exile population have never sought refugee status with the United Nations. Indeed, fewer than 10 percent have applied to be considered for resettlement to the United States, Europe, or Australia, which suggests the overwhelming majority still hope to return to Iraq and are waiting for some indication that they are welcome there. So far, the signals from the election campaign have not been positive…..

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill summed up the trial ahead: “The real test of democracy is not so much the behavior of the winners; it will be the behavior of the losers.” There can be no stability without political reconciliation and the exiles’ return. They are in daily contact with their families, waiting for word that is time to come back. The rest of the region is waiting, too.

Barak approves 112 new apartments in West Bank
By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service

Israel authorized the construction of 112 new apartments in the West Bank despite a pledge to slow settlement building, the government disclosed Monday – a decision that enraged the Palestinians a day after they reluctantly agreed to resume peace talks. Word of the new construction in the Beitar Illit settlement came amid a flurry of activity by the U.S. to try to salvage peacemaking.

Biden Condemns Israeli Decision on Settlements,

…With the Interior Ministry adding insult to injury, (announcing a plan to build 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, on top of the new settlements on the West Bank) the VP came out sort of swinging.

“I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them. This announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict. The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews, Muslims and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for people around the world. Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues. As George Mitchell said in announcing the proximity talks, “we encourage the parties and all concerned to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.”

Netanyahu and Pastor Hagee’s Lovefest on Eve of Biden’s Arrival in Israel
On 03.09.10, By Max

Vice President Joe Biden was greeted in Jerusalem with the announcement that the Israeli Interior Ministry approved the construction of 1600 new homes in Occupied East Jerusalem contrary to U.S. wishes and complicating Biden’s mission to help jump start the peace process. But Biden should have known that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu intended to upset his plans by Netanyahu’s appearance with John Hagee.

The day after a series of talks between US Special Envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell and Netanyahu, and a day before Biden’s arrival, Netanyahu appeared onstage with Pastor John Hagee in Jerusalem. The occasion was Hagee’s Night To Honor Israel, an event the far-right Texas-based preacher arranged to tout his ministry’s millions in donations to Israeli organizations and to level bellicose rhetoric against Israel’s perceived enemies.

At the gathering, Hagee called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “the Hitler of the Middle East” and denounced the Goldstone Report as “character assassination by an unbiased and uninformed committee.”

Netanyahu welcomed the crowd of 1000 American evangelicals to Jerusalem, a city he described as “the undivided, eternal capitol of the Jewish people. Then, he told them, “I salute you! The Jewish people salute you!” He used the rest of his speech to call for “tough, biting sanctions” against Iran that “bite deep into its energy sector.”

The price tag for Israeli intransigence
by Paul Woodward on March 9, 2010

The day before Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel — supposedly on a mission to help kick-start peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians — the Netanyahu government made its contempt for the Obama administration clear by approving new settlement construction.

They were quick to take offense — they being the Israelis! “While we welcome Vice President Biden, a longtime friend and supporter of Israel,” Danny Danon, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, told the Washington Post, “we see it as nothing short of an insult that President Obama himself is not coming.”

Washington on the other hand had no interest in creating a fuss about settlement growth — its impotence on that particular issue has already been amply demonstrated. Pushing for a real settlement freeze is passé. The new game is proximity talks and shuttle diplomacy. After 17 years of direct talks it’s now time to talk from a distance…

Israelis and Palestinians: Agreeing to Talk — and to Fail
By Tony Karon in Time Magazine

They won’t be talking directly to each other, but at least the leaders of Israel and Palestine have a common objective in the “proximity talks” the Obama Administration is launching this week. Unfortunately, that shared goal is not to reach a final agreement on a two-state solution to their conflict — both sides know better than to expect that U.S. special envoy Senator George Mitchell’s shuttling between Jerusalem and Ramallah will be able to bridge the chasm between their demands. Instead, the mutual goal in the latest round of talks is to avoid being blamed for their failure.

The very fact that two decades after the start of the Oslo peace process, the two sides are no longer even negotiating directly but instead communicating via the Americans is a clear sign of just how grim the prospects have become for achieving peace through bilateral talks. Both sides, in fact, are showing up for the U.S.’s latest version of a peace process largely to prove a point. For the Palestinians and their Arab backers, who have given the latest round of talks just four months to produce results (a deadline not endorsed by the Obama Administration), their purpose is to demonstrate to the U.S. that no credible peace agreement can be achieved with the hawkish government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that creating a viable independent Palestinian state requires that the Americans press the Israelis to do things they’re not going to do voluntarily. Setting conditions and deadlines is a way for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to offset the domestic political damage he suffers from participating in endless rounds of fruitless negotiations. Abbas was helped by the fact that the new talks were endorsed by the Arab League last week, but the tone of its statement is telling: “Despite the lack of conviction in the seriousness of the Israeli side,” said Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, his committee agreed to back the talks “as a last attempt and to facilitate the U.S. role.”

The Israelis, for their part, need to demonstrate good faith and position themselves to blame the Palestinians, as they have done up to now, for the absence of a peace deal. And Israeli officials make no bones about the fact that they need to go through the motions in order to pursue their own priority: resuming talks, a senior Israeli official told the dailyYediot Ahronot, “would create an atmosphere in the Arab world and the international community that would allow the world to focus on the real threat — Iran.”

Netanyahu, after taking office, came around to talking of a two-state solution, which he had previously rejected, but at the same time he defined Palestinian statehood in terms too limited to be acceptable to the Palestinian leadership. Netanyahu had publicly opposed the offers made to the Palestinians by previous Israeli governments, and his government made clear last week that new talks would not begin from understandings reached with any of his predecessors but would instead start from scratch — a position vehemently rejected by the Palestinians. Of course, none of those previous offers had been accepted by the Palestinian leadership; it’s hard to see how offering less than the proposals previously rejected by Abbas, as Netanyahu appears set to do, is going to break the deadlock. But Netanyahu will argue that Israel is willing to talk directly and without conditions and to use the Palestinians’ refusal to do so as a basis to blame them for the stalemate.

Read this story about travel in Syria with great photos

Ibrahim Hamidi, al-Hayat’s bureau chief in Damascus interviewed the Turkish FM Ahmad Daout Oglu after his meeting with Mr Assad and other Syrian officials.
He says that “the groundwork has been prepared to resume indirect talks between Syria and Israel under Turkish auspicious,” and that “all US officials with whom he has met strongly support resumption of these talks”

داود أوغلو: الأرضية جاهزة لاستئناف المفاوضات السورية ـ الإسرائيلية
الثلاثاء, 09 مارس 2010

دمشق – ابراهيم حميدي

قال وزير الخارجية التركي احمد داود اوغلو ان «الارضية جاهزة» لاستئناف المفاوضات غير المباشرة بين سورية واسرائيل برعاية انقرة، لافتا الى ان جميع المسؤولين الاميركيين الذين التقاهم «يدعمون بقوة» اعادة اطلاق هذه المفاوضات. واعرب عن «التفاؤل القوي» بان «المناخ الجيد سيستمر» بين سورية ولبنان. ودعا الرئيس الفلسطيني محمود عباس ورئيس المكتب السياسي لـ»حماس» خالد مشعل الى «الوحدة ونبذ الانقسام»، اذ «يجب الا تفكرا بالاهداف السياسية، بل بمستقبل فلسطين باكملها».

وكان داود اوغلو يتحدث الى «الحياة» في ختام زيارة لدمشق اول من امس تضمنت لقاء الرئيس بشار الاسد استمر زهاء ساعتين.

وقال الوزير التركي، ردا على سؤال عن مدى دعم الادارة الاميركية استئناف المفاوضات غير المباشرة بين سورية واسرائيل التي توقفت بعد الحرب على غزة في نهاية 2008: «نحن نتشاور دائما مع (الموفد الاميركي) السناتور (جورج) ميتشل والوزيرة (هيلاري) كلينتون وزملائنا الاميركيين. كلهم يدعمون اعادة اطلاق هذه المحادثات». واضاف انه لا يستطيع «الحديث نيابة عن الاسرائيليين» الذي اعلنوا رفض الوساطة التركية، لكنه قال:»اعتقد بان الارضية اكثر جهوزية واستعدادا حاليا لاعادة اطلاق العملية»، لافتا الى استعداد سورية لاستئناف المفاوضات غير المباشرة من حيث توقفت. واكد:»انني متفائل بان المفاوضات ستستأنف. لا استطيع تحديد التوقيت، لكني متفائل جدا».

Continues

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced on Tuesday that Israel has agreed to permit Ankara to resume its former role as mediator between Israel and Syria. This contradicts recent statements from Israel that Turkey’s fiercely anti-Israel statements since Operation Cast Lead disqualify it from playing this role in the future. The prime minister was quoted by Turkey’s NTV television, telling members of the press in Saudi Arabia that talks that broke off during the former Olmert administration between Jerusalem and Damascus may resume “at any moment’. (Yeshiva World News)

Turkey’s Domestic Controversy Unfolds Amidst Increasing Ties with Iran
By Shayan Ghajar, insideIRAN.org

Events the past few weeks in Turkey indicate that a sea change is occurring in the nation’s domestic politics. Prime Minister Erdogan’s maneuvering against the traditionally untouchable military marks a new phase in Turkey’s history. This shift in Turkey’s domestic politics follows a more gradual but no less relevant shift in its foreign policy, and likely indicates even greater changes to come. Mutual trade, investment, and tourism are growing between Turkey and Iran, and the two nations are increasingly in accord on three of the regions biggest security issues, namely the Middle East peace process, Iran’s nuclear program, and Kurdish separatism.

Simultaneously, American policy has been increasingly out of step with Turkey’s vision for its future. The recent American congressional vote to declare the Armenian deportations and relocations a genocide will certainly have damaged Turkish-American relations for the foreseeable future, and will be yet another factor in Turkey seeking alternative allies in the region.

Diplomatic contact between Iran and Turkey has increased in frequency and intensity in recent months, starting with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s visit to Iran in October 2009. Concurrently with Erdogan’s visit, Iran announced that Turkey was investing $4 billion into Iran’s South Pars gas field, which holds one of the largest gas reserves in the world. Shortly after Erdogan’s visit, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that there are “no limitations to increasing ties” with Turkey.

New Republic’s Marty Peretz: The Multitudinous Disasters Of The Obama Administration. Here: On Syria And Iran
2010-03-08 22:04:10.188 GMT

A Delusional Left, a Hysterical Right, and a Sullen Center: Have American Politics Ever Been This Bad? The Oscars Made Some Good Calls This Year. So Why Am I Still Disappointed? How an Obscure Nomination Fight Turned Into a Hinge Moment for the …

I’ve written myself about the Obama administration’s more-than-flatfooted policies on Syria (here, here, and here) and Iran (here, here, and here). So I am particularly gratified when I find myself in alignment with Barry Rubin, a truly brainy scholar with a slight polemical touch. His latest analysis is below.

Syria is a galling instance of the president’s obsessions … and for several reasons. A weak country, both economically and militarily, its only possible political sway is to exacerbate the hatreds of its neighbors towards Israel.

Lebanon Defense Talks Going Nowhere: AFP

“……… “This dialogue is going nowhere,” said Rafic Khoury, chief editor of the independent daily Al-Anwar, referring to national defence strategy talks that resumed on Tuesday at the presidential palace before being adjourned until March 15. “Hezbollah, as well as Syria and Iran, clearly stated recently their strategy of resistance against Israel,” he added.

The talks, which were launched in 2006, have repeatedly been adjourned because of the successive political crises that have shaken Lebanon. The last round was held in June 2009. The stated aim is for Lebanon’s Western- and Saudi-backed majority and a coalition led by the Iranian- and Syrian-supported Shiite militant group to agree on a national defence strategy as concerns neighbouring enemy Israel…….

“Syria and Egypt are competitors when it comes to attracting foreign investments,” writes Ehsani two. “Egypt is looking for $10 billion of foreign investment a year. Jordan is too. Lebanon has seen capital come into its real estate sector. Syria has set a target of attracting $85 billion over 5 years, which will not be easy at tall.”

Firat

The Armenian Genocide: The Islamist and Kemalist Consensus
by Firat Demir
for Syria Comment, 10 March 2010

Tension between Turkey and the US is rising as the anniversary of the Armenian genocide (April 24)  approaches. The pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of Armenians who perished in the hands of the Committee of Union and Progress during the final years of the Ottoman empire will again be sidelined thanks to politics.  Every year, the US congress, attempts to recognize the “the Great Calamity” as Genocide and the Turkish government does everything in its power to prevent it. Turkish newspapers and TV stations devote hundreds of pages and hours of air time to the issue. They dust off arguments that no one believes in anymore.

An original photograph from the ancient town of Van, South East turkey showing an irregular militant group that attached Armenians and Assyrians villages in the area of Van

The Armenian genocide is probably the number two issue (in addition to the Kurdish problem) that the Erdogan government and the military agree on completely. During an interview on the Charlie Rose show on December 8, 2009, Erdogan stated that “I can say very clearly that we do not accept genocide. This is completely a lie.” On the same day, he reiterated his views in a speech at John Hopkins university, during which he argued that “my ancestors did not and would not commit genocide”. Likewise, “foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu described the 1915 Armenian killings as genocide is an insult to Turkey’s ‘honour’“. You can have a glimpse of how different views (as, for example, voiced by Taner Akcam, or late Hrant Dink) to Turkish official position are treated, here.

Using the same absolutist tone, Mr. Erdogan also previously defended the Sudanese president al-Bashir (whose arrest warrant is ordered by the International Criminal Court on genocide charges) and denied the genocide in Darfur claiming that it is not possible for Muslims to commit genocide.

Recent News Articles on this Subject

Turkey threatens ’serious consequences’ after US vote on Armenian genocide
Robert Tait in Istanbul and Ewen MacAskill in Washington, guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 March 2010 21.34 GMT

Turkey has threatened to downgrade its strategic relationship with the US amid nationalist anger over a vote in the US Congress that defined the mass killings of Armenians during the first world war as genocide.

Turkey should pause before a mirror, Stephen Kinzer, guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 March 2010 18.42 GMT

An ultra nationalist left party supporters “shout slogans during a protest outside the US embassy in Ankara, Turkey, after a US congressional committee approved a resolution branding the 1915 killing of Armenians a genocide”. The banner reads ‘We did not do genocide, We defended the motherland’.  Photograph: Burhan Ozbilici/AP

When a committee of the US Congress foolishly voted last week to brand as genocide the 1915 slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks, there was plenty of blame to go around. Ethnic lobbies, big-money politics and narrow-minded congressmen all played their part. Together they poked a gratuitous stick in the eye of a valuable friend. Once again America repeated its classic foreign policy blunder: do something that makes you feel good now, but that in the long run actually undermines American security interests.

Amid all this finger-pointing, however, it is only fair to single out one other culprit for this misguided vote: Turkey itself. After the vote, which was broadcast live on Turkish TV and followed as passionately if it were a World Cup match, thousands of Turks took to the streets in protest. They were right to be angry. As Turks try to figure out who brought this insult upon them, though, they should pause before a mirror.

US genocide resolution is an ignorant stunt
Marcel Berlins, guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 March 2010