Dr. Landis,

The problem with Mr. Makhlouf’s Syriatel and Duty Free Businesses is not the lost sales of Sim Cards or Perfumes of course. It is the potential problem of securing supplies. Spare parts and new equipment for Syriatel will become harder to source. Similarly, finding a consistent supplier of merchendise for his Duty Free shops may get trickier going forward.

“One major American company is currently providing service to Syriatel. Network Solutions is the registrar for syriatel.com, which, as of this posting, was still functioning. Given the increased penalties for violating U.S. sanctions laws, it won’t be surprising if that sight disappears shortly.”

— http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/360

That’s a pretty dumb move on Syriatel’s part. All my domains are in Germany. http://www.joker.com

Offended,

You can demonize me all you want. You won’t be the first on SC. I was portrayed as a Zionist, a sympathizer of the Muslim Brotherhood. March 14th supporter, unpatriotic, Saudi lover…

It appears to me that your irritation with redundancy is selective since you don’t get as irritated when others endlessly repeat the same arguments over and over again let alone the half-truths echoed endlessly by others. I am going to be nice and will not bother to count them

As for the Minister of Culture, It’s only your prejudice that led you to think that I added the link to expose its anti-Semitic nature, while in reality I added it to show how outrageous his remarks are with regard to jailing writers and intellectuals.

Akbar, thanks for the kind remark. But let me make one thing clear, for me Israel is the enemy simply because it’s occupying my land. This does not mean that I advocate the hideous anti-Semitism currently in practice by most. What I would like to see is the Golan back as well as one state in Palestine accommodating for all.

If I may just add one point to the Lebanon round-up:

One of the most important members of the new cabinet, about whom much more will certainly be written over the next several days is Ziad Baroud.

He is a young lawyer who is one of Lebanon’s foremost experts on electoral law and reform. He was a key member of the Boutros Commission to produce a new electoral law, and he was the only member of the commission to voice an objection (about districting in Mount Lebanon) to the general recommendations of the board. (You can read the entire draft law here, including Ziad’s objection which falls at the end.)

Three things are notable about his choice for the sovereign Interior Ministry:

a) He is liked and respected by all sides. The Aounists are very happy with this choice, as are the March 14 folks.

b) He was one of the three ministers appointed by President Suleiman, which reflects positively on the new president and further confirms his neutral status vis-a-vis the two sides.

c) Given that Minister Baroud will be the official responsible for overseeing the parliamentary elections in 2009, his appointment reflects a genuine committment by both Suleiman and Saniora to put in place a sophisticated electoral law that goes beyond mere re-districting and gerrymandering.

The one area of potential concern is his inexperience dealing with matters of internal security. One hopes that he will have good advisers, in this regard.

Here’s the lineup. Can you spot the guy who did it?! 😉

Majhool,
I am not trying to demonize you, nothing personal here. You can be Jabba The Hutt for all I care. And I didn’t even bother to watch your memri link.

And since silence is agreement, I am glad you agree with me on the prostitution remark.

silence is agreement indeed.

Qifa Nabki,
why do you think the opposition allowed Elias Murr to be defense minister? My guess is that they simply realized that they were getting a good deal in general and needed to be flexible somewhere, but maybe there is more reason? Even with my explanation, it seems like a particularly odd appointment consider how Hizbullah feels about defense matters.

Also, what is your view on the ability of the opposition to become the majority in the next government, considering your excitement about the new interior minister and his potential for making a fair electoral law. I have not been on the ground in Lebanon in a while, but from all I hear, the opposition number in the clear majority already (and their activists are far more active than the M14 ones, as seen in size of their rallies).

Additionally, in this respect, is there any prospect of a split between Hizbullah and Aoun? Hizbullah has obviously been very generous to Aoun, and he has been a pretty good attack dog for them, but they are not natural allies and there has always been an uneasy relationship between them. Is their relationship as solid as it seems on paper?

Lastly, do you think this government will be able to put a nail in the coffin of the consistent claims that Syria is dominating Lebanese politics? Clearly there will always be those who blame Syria for any squeak in the floor, but do you think that Lebanon is now in a position to put an end to that era (you implied it with your reference to the meeting between Syrian and Lebanese presidents)? At least, will the hysterical voices be marginalized in this new environment?

Ok, sorry, really lastly. I constantly hear voices of those like Assad Abu Khalil talking about his fear of Hizbullah joining forces with Future down the road. I am under the impression that this is fairly likely in general. But Hizbullah was pretty brutalized by Future as of late, and Hizbullah is not the type of organization to ignore a lesson learned. Do you see the relationship between these two parties staying frosty, or do you anticipate that they will warm (to more than a casual relationship, maybe, to a similar position as the Hizbullah/Aoun deal)?

Akbar, thanks for the kind remark. But let me make one thing clear, for me Israel is the enemy simply because it’s occupying my land. This does not mean that I advocate the hideous anti-Semitism currently in practice by most. What I would like to see is the Golan back as well as one state in Palestine accommodating for all.

Majhool,

No problem, I call them as I see them.

I know we’re the enemy because we occupy your land. Just fill us in on which part of “your land” we are occupying. Once you do that, I’ll definately bring it up at our next Protocols of the Elders of Zion meeting. Perhaps I’ll be able to work something with the Elders in order to get your land back. Should I tell them you’d be willing to sign a peace treaty to get your land back?

Then, the other thing I’m concerned about is whether or not you’ll have a cousin or two asking for their land back too. It adds up you know.

The Arab media continues to glorify terror. This time, al-Jazeera:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1805wmv&ak=null

heheh, that was realy funy and I mean it.

Golan is what concerns me. I know we lost it in war but we should always try to get it back hopefully by peace..I belive this is fair right?

Majhool,

Yes, I agree with you – hopefully by peace.

Joe,

Great questions.

I will try to respond by this evening… promised myself I would not go near SC today in the hopes of getting some work done, but cheated a bit this morning(!)

Plus, who knows, with Lebanon, the answers may be different by this evening.

Dear Joe M.

These are some excellent questions that you are asking. I can give you my tentative perspective on the issues, but I’m just an observer, with no real insider info.

why do you think the opposition allowed Elias Murr to be defense minister?

To be honest, I think that the objection to Murr was Aoun’s strategy to get a sovereign ministry. The argument he was making went like this: a) The Doha Agreement stipulated that Suleiman would choose two sovereign ministries, and the majority and opposition would each choose one. b) Elias al-Murr is hardly a neutral appointment as Defense Minister, so he must be counted as one for the majority; c) as such, it is only fair to award another sovereign ministry to the opposition as compensation.

Some people speculated that Aoun was making a play for the Finance Ministry because he knew that Saniora would never give it up, in the hopes that he would land the Defense Ministry. In the end, Aoun did not get either of his two demands: no sovereign ministry, and Murr was appointed anyway. The concession that he DID get was a pittance (the deputy PM spot for Issam Abu Jamra).

I honestly think that Aoun asked for too much, and he was starting to endanger his own ties with his allies, as witnessed by the reports that came out in pro-opposition papers like al-Safir and al-Akhbar. So he backed off and got a kind of face-saving solution with Abu Jamra.

Also, what is your view on the ability of the opposition to become the majority in the next government, considering your excitement about the new interior minister and his potential for making a fair electoral law.

It’s impossible to say. We just don’t know what the effects of the electoral law are going to be, and we don’t know what increased voter turnout would achieve (given that it was very low in 2005). The swing factor, as I said, is the Christian vote. It is hard to know what Aoun’s support is like these days, after Murr’s defection from Aoun, and the missteps that M14 made vis-a-vis the Armenians. Who knows? This is what is so exciting, in my opinion.

But I can tell you my gut feeling. I think the current opposition will win, and possibly win big, in the next election. The March 14 coalition is on its way out. It has lost its “glue”, now that Syria is out, the Tribunal is looking anemic, and its allies in the U.S. and Europe are either weaker or changing tack.

In my opinion, this owuld actually be a very good thing for Lebanon, because it would force the counter-culture to become the dominant culture, with all of the political accommodations that that involves.

Additionally, in this respect, is there any prospect of a split between Hizbullah and Aoun? … they are not natural allies and there has always been an uneasy relationship between them.

I can’t see them splitting. There is some anxiety among the Aounist cadres about such a “divorce”, esp if HA and the FM/PSP can reconcile, but it’s just paranoia, in my opinion. I hope the relationship persists and grows stronger, actually, as the FPM does a very good job in checking HA’s rhetoric and possibly even its strategy, while HA has taught the FPM’s Maronite base that the Shi`a don’t have tails. It’s a fascinating sociological experiment. Someone needs to write a dissertation about it.

Lastly, do you think this government will be able to put a nail in the coffin of the consistent claims that Syria is dominating Lebanese politics?

This depends, I think, on Syria’s involvement in Lebanon. I know that sounds like a circular argument, however there is no doubt that Syria will continue to play a role in Lebanese politics. If it’s a heavy-handed role, there will continue to be some criticism.

I constantly hear voices of those like Assad Abu Khalil talking about his fear of Hizbullah joining forces with Future down the road. I am under the impression that this is fairly likely in general.

What As`ad deplores is the return to the old tacit agreement, whereby Hizbullah was responsible for the resistance against Israel and the Future Movement was responsible for economic development, and neither side could interfere in ther other’s business.

I think As`ad and many others are right in criticizing this arrangement. Many of the FM’s neo-liberal policies simply haven’t worked in Lebanon, or at least they have been applied in specific sectors to the detriment of other sectors. It is important that Hizbullah play a role in advocating for economic reform that benefits their constitutents as well, instead of merely providing services to their people in the government’s absence. Such a situation is very unhealthy and creates a lot social dissonance.

Similarly, I would say that it has become clear that the resistance cannot remain untouchable, as it was under the old arrangement. There needs to be clearer understanding on the future of the weapons, the interface between HA and the Lebanese Army, etc. Aoun has said — and I am inclined to agree with him — that the way to address these issues is through the framework of his Memorandum of Understanding. But the problem is that the MoU is too vague, and it lacks teeth.

I hope I’ve addressed the issues… Now back to work!