Hezbollah began withdrawing gunmen from Beirut on Saturday and handed control of the streets to the Lebanese army, after seizing much of the city in gun battles with supporters of the U.S.-backed government.

The government backed down on its earlier demands in exchange for Hizbullah’s withdrawal. Siniora has promised that the government will not fire the Shiite director of the airport and will not dismantle Hizbullah’s secure communications network so that it would become vulnerable to Israeli depredations. In essence, the government has retracted the demands that provoked Hizbullah into taking Sunni Beirut.

The spin has begun. Robert Worth in his article for the NY Times reports that “some political analysts here say they believe that the government may have won a moral victory by abstaining from large-scale violence in response to Hezbollah’s aggression. Some government leaders were already accusing the Shiite group of betraying its promise to use its weapons only against Israel.”

The pro-government analysts, of course, are putting the best face on the governments missteps by calling it a moral victory. Jumblatt may be taking some satisfaction in the government’s predicament. He provoked the crisis with his accusations that Hizbullah was behind the string of assassinations in Beirut over the last three years and therefore had to dismantle its secure communications network, which, he conjectured, had been used to plan the various killings.

By pulling back from the city it so easily conquered and by turning over its strategic centers to the Lebanese army, Hizbullah has been gracious in victory.

It has not pressed its superior hand, putting paid to the irresponsible claim that Hizbullah wants to impose an Iranian-style, Islamic mullocracy on Lebanon’s Christians and Sunnis. On the contrary, it can be argued, Hizbullah is trying to broker the type of power-sharing government that the US would only be too eager to see emerge in divided Baghdad.

It is surprising to hear that Hizbullah is not demanding more in exchange for its withdrawal. It accepted to return to the “status quo ante” on rather easy terms. The next few days will clarify whether it is not demanding more.

In the past the opposition insisted on a third of the seats in cabinet; it also hoped to push through favorable reforms to the voting law.

Hizbullah has demonstrated that it can move swiftly and decisively. It has also demonstrated that it can game out its actions and is prepared for its end-game, something that others in the region seldom seem to do. Playing out the various scenarios before launching into action is a virtue that the US and its allies, with all their resources, are capable of doing well. I have participated in several war games in Washington; they are a frequent and valuable tool on the Potomac. But if Washington didn’t try to dissuade the Siniora government from challenging Hizbullah’s communications system and then advised Hariri to make the several demands he did for retracting the order – the most important of which was the immediate appointment of Suleiman as President — Washington was clearly not heeding the advice of its best people. This is a recurring characteristic of the Bush administration.

Hizbullah has done what it said it would do – not more, nor less. The constant grinding among the religious communities is making Lebanon more sectarian with each new conflict. Fewer Sunnis than ever will be able side with Shiites and vice-versa. The Shiites will become ever more convinced that they cannot give up their arms without first getting constitutional guarantees that they will get their fare share of representation. As things stand today, the Shiites allocated 21% of parliamentary seats even though they may represent close to 40% of Lebanon’s population. This is a lingering institutional imbalance left over from Lebanon’s colonial legacy, when Shiites were discounted politically as poor sheepherders and dirt farmers. The notion that Lebanon can achieve stability before these sectarian imbalances are rectified is not a sound one.

The following links are interesting:

Lebanon does not want another war. Does it?
Despite everything that has happened in the past few days, the people have no appetite for yet more civil conflict
By Robert Fisk in Beirut
Sunday, 11 May 2008

I went to cover a demonstration in West Beirut yesterday morning – yes, please note the capital W on “West” – and then I get a text from a Lebanese woman on my mobile phone, asking if she will have to wear a veil when she returns to Lebanon. How do I reply? That the restaurants are still open? That you can still drink wine with your dinner?

 

That is the problem. For the war in West Beirut is not about religion. It is about the political legitimacy of the Lebanese government and its “pro-American” support (the latter an essential adjective to any US news agency report), which Iran understandably challenges.

Powerless US falls back on ‘remote-control’ diplomacy for Lebanon

Unable to pressure Syria or Iran into halting Hezbollah’s offensive in Lebanon against US-backed leader Fuad Siniora, the United States has opted for “remote-control” diplomacy using its allies.

The Washington Post reported that the United States was pleased with the intervention of Russia and Turkey, which warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that they would hold him responsible for Hezbollah’s actions.

Since Israel’s war against Hezbollah that ravaged Lebanon in 2006 — a war that the secretary of state had supported — Rice has not set foot back on Lebanese soil where her unpopularity undermined the Siniora government.

Publicly, the United States settled for repeating its “unswerving support” for Siniora.

Hizballah humiliates March 14, Lebanon enters new phase by Antoun Issa

Reports also emerged that Hizballah and Amal fighters surrounded the Clemenceau home of PSP Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, as well as his security centres in the Chouf mountains. Nasrallah openly and sternly singled out Jumblatt in his press conference during the week, accusing him of playing lord to the Siniora government and attempting to spark a Sunni-Shi’ite conflict. Jumblatt conceded that Hizballah’s military might is unrivalled in Lebanon, and warned the Shi’ite group that it can’t impose its will on the rest of the country.

But will Hizballah impose its will?

The war is over. Hizbullah has taken control of West Beirut in one day of fighting, during which Hariri's amateur and untested militia proved no match for the highly trained and war hardened Hizbullah fighters.

The outcome of this showdown was completely predictable. Anyone who expected the Lebanese Army to take on Hizbullah on behalf of the Sunni leaders of Beirut was dreaming.

It appears that the military, realizing the lopsided distribution of power, has sided with Hizbullah. Hizbullah has been turning over the strategic centers to Lebanese military elements as soon as it captures them. The military hs assumed control of the al-Mustaqbal offices.

Only yesterday, I argued that Washington had to be coordinating with Jumblatt and March 14th forces. I could not believe that Jumblatt's and the government’s efforts to dismantle Hizbullah's secure communications network was anything but a calculated effort to force a confrontation.

Qifa Nabki said I was wrong. He proposed that Jumblatt had gone of half-cocked and was dragging Hariri and Siniora into a confrontation that no one was prepared for, least of all Washington and the West. I could not believe that the pro-Western alliance would be so foolish and disorganized. When Ambassador Feltman was in Beirut, this would not have happened. He was in constant motion, conferring with the March 14 forces and brow beating Hizbullah and Aoun. One may have objected to his constant interference and hectoring, but there was little room for the lack of coordination between the US and March 14 leaders.

Now I am inclined to believe that March 14 was dragged along by rash leadership. It is hard to believe Washington would be so foolish. There will be those who believe this is part of a larger US and Israeli plan to sucker Hizbullah into overreaching only to provide justification for a second Israeli attack. Neither the governments in Washington or Jerusalem are in any clear-minded state to be thinking with such Machiavellian calculation.

I just received this note from Ehsani:

Dear Dr. Landis,

I just got off the phone with my business partner, who was staying at the Phoenicia Hotel in Beirut. Below is a summary of what he told me:

After heavy gunfire in the early hours of the morning, the hotel management advised its residents to vacate the hotel as it could not guarantee their safety. The rumor was that the HA forces might occupy the Saraya, the main government building, next door. The hotel itself was the recent spot for March 14th gatherings. Thus the hotel management was worried that HA could be planning to take over the Phoenicia itself.

At 6:15 am, my friend was evacuated with his family. Close friends guaranteed his safe passage to an apartment he owns in the Eastern (Christian) section of the city. As he left the Phoenicia, he described the scene outside as a "war zone".

The HA forces seemed to have total control of the situation on the ground. He described them to be "incredibly sophisticated" and organized as they moved through the streets.

Things could not be more different on the Eastern side of the city, where normalcy prevails. Reaching his apartment made him comfortable enough to feel like "there is nothing going on".

Normalcy is also returning to the Western or Muslim side of the city occupied by Hizbullah. The reason for this is that HA has been completely successful in overwhelming opposition forces. The other side was not even close to matching them. They were overrun with such ease that HA can see no resistance in sight.

What was March 14th thinking? What is the U.S. going to do? The French Foreign Minister states that his country will not sit idly by and watch the events unfold. But what is France going to do? Send its forces into Lebanon? Are the Americans prepared to do the same?

What is likely to happen is that the White house and Condi will condemn the latest events and claim that HA is a terrorist organization that took over the democratically elected government by force. Great, like that is really going to scare HA and convince them to retreat.

Particularly noteworthy has been the behavior of the Lebanese army. HA takes over a building and seems to turn it over to an army unit that follows behind the Shiite party. This is very odd indeed. The army seems to resemble a U.N. force that watches over buildings and streets after they have been overrun by a sovereign military force.

What the future holds, no one can say. This round overwhelmingly and devastatingly belongs to HA and its supporters. Jumblat and Hariri Junior were crushed.

Thanks to http://mideastwire.com we have this translation:

On May 8, the leader of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah spoke at a press conference and said, in part: "…Certainly, the topic of this news conference, the first since the end of July war, is the important and serious developments which have taken place on the Lebanese arena in the past days. First of all, after the authority team's decision in that dark night, a completely new stage started in Lebanon. To us, that session is like 14 February 2005; that is, the earthquake which made Lebanon enter a completely new stage with the martyrdom of Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri. We are entering a completely new stage. Lebanon after that gloomy session is different from Lebanon that used to exist before that session. The authority team should know that it has made Lebanon face a totally new situation, given the seriousness, backgrounds, and dimensions of these decisions."

"…In the July war, our most important point of strength was the command and control, thanks to the fact that communication between the leadership and the various commanders and field fighters was secured. The enemy has admitted to this….When we have a look at the Winograd report today, we find that the most important recommendation in the report was the need to eliminate Hezbollah's command and control system in which telecommunications play a decisive role."

"…I would like to remind that when the ominous four-way alliance was forged, this network was in place. They did not consider it then an infringement on sovereignty, law, and public funds. When we entered the government together and a policy statement was issued about the resistance and its weapons – and this is part of its weapons – this wire telecommunications network was not considered an infringement on sovereignty, law, and public funds. Now and since the four-way alliance has become a mere dream, this angered some members of the authority team. I say to them that this alliance a mere dream and that they will not see it neither in this life nor in the hereafter.

"…The officers said that the atmosphere was good and that things were fine. They, however, said that they had a request – the Lebanese will be amazed when they hear this. They said: If you want us to agree with you and forget about the issue of the wire telecommunications network, then can you remove the sit-in in central Beirut? They sought a bargain. Remove the sit-in in central Beirut and we will forget about the wire network of the resistance.

"Mr Walid Junblatt, head of the government. After all this experience, I realized that we should not say that this is Fu'ad Sanyurah's government. Fu'ad Sanyurah is a poor man, who is an employee of Walid Junblatt. When Walid Junblatt wants to sack an officer, the employees sack the officer. Naturally, he is an employee of Condoleezza Rice."

"… The purpose of this decision is to get rid of the most important element that protects the resistance's leadership, cadres, and infrastructure. It also seeks to expose the resistance as a prelude to assassinations and killing, and the destruction of its infrastructure.

"…we believe that a war has started and it is our duty to defend our arms, resistance, and the legitimacy of this resistance… The issue is that The Beirut Airport is meant to be turned into a base for the FBI, CIA, and the Israeli Mossad… [what is intended is to replace Shuqayr, the airport security director] with a CIA and FBI employee. This is the whole airport story.

"…[The solution is] annulling the illegitimate decisions of the illegitimate government of Walid Junblatt, and accepting the invitation by Nabih Birri, speaker of the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies, to the national dialogue table."

"….[Answer press questions Nasrallah says, in part:] In the areas where hand grenades were hurled on us or we were fired at, we fired back. This should be very clear. We have not gone to occupy, as some people call for, or to control. If we want to occupy, the story would have been over long time ago. We do not want to attack or launch an aggression on anyone, but we do not allow anyone to launch an aggression on us.

"…[As for UNIFIL] These forces are present in the south, and we deal with them positively. We cooperate with them and they cooperate with us, even in face of any dangers these forces may encounter.

"…[We hope] the brothers in the Saudi Kingdom would not repeat the mistake they made at the beginning of the July war, which they were then forced to correct. They should not be a party in an internal issue and should act in a way that shows that they are concerned about the country and its security and stability.

"…We do not want to carry out a coup, and we do not target groups, sects, or political forces."

"… I said that there are guarantees. We constitute a guarantee. Our allies constitute a guarantee – Hezbollah and Amal Movement, which are directly targeted these days… The dream of Walid Junblatt is to have a Shi'i-Sunni sedition. I hope that they will not help him to realize this dream. We will not help realize this dream.

"…First of all, I learned that the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon called up the Iranian ambassador… [the former said] that Saudi Arabia and Iran want to cooperate so that the situation in Lebanon would not exacerbate. I told him that this is no problem. The solution to the issue is very easy, which is what I have just said. They made a decision. Let them freeze the decision and things will go back the way they were. No need for anyone to fear from anything. We have no ill intention, and we did not harbour an ill will. The Saudi ambassador answered back quickly saying this is unlikely and it is very difficult for them to backtrack on this decision. However, we will see what we will do. As far as I am concerned, this is what happened and this is the scope of the matter

"….First of all, there is no civil war. There should be no exaggeration in depicting the current situation… media outlets yesterday exaggerated when reporting about some problems that took place here and there. The war that I talked about is the one that the others wanted and imposed. We do not want a war with anyone.

"… I express thanks and appreciation to every one who respects me in the Arab and Islamic world… I am not asking anyone to champion me. I have not made a call for help, I am not asking anyone to champion me, and I have not asked for intervention to defend us.

"…If you insist on war, then our reactions will be unpredictable… Are we going to take responsibility for the consequences? Yes, we are ready to take the responsibility for the consequences. We are responsible people. We know what we are doing, and we know where we are standing. We are aware of the size of the conspiracy, scheme, and challenge. We know what we have, and we are ready to take responsibility for all consequences…"

Will the latest US and March 14 provocation break Hizbullah or Lebanon? March 14 is targeting Hizbullah's communications system while Washington escalates pressure on Syria.

Here are some headlines:

(Time: Butters) Is This the Start of the Next Lebanese Civil War?

Nick Blanford "Cell Phone Civil War"

BBC: The leader of Hezbollah has said the Lebanese government's decision to close down its private telecommunications network was a "declaration of war".

(Bloomberg: Derhally) Hezbollah and opposition supporters took to the streets a day after the Lebanese government said it was launching a judicial probe into a telecommunication network which the Shiite movement had set up across the country with the alleged help of Iran. "It's completely illegal — it covers the whole country in fiber optics,'' Hamadeh said. “They have created an Iran telecom all over the country. We discovered they were making ducts and trenches and told them to remove it from sensitive areas where people don't agree to be spied on. They answered that if you touch this we will consider it an act of aggression and threatened four ministers and the prime minister.''

(AP) The clashes followed a defiant speech by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who said his Iranian-backed militant organization would respond with force to any attacks. "Those who try to arrest us, we will arrest them," he said. "Those who shoot at us, we will shoot at them. The hand raised against us, we will cut it off." It was the second day of fighting that has turned some city neighborhoods into battlegrounds and spilled over to other parts of the country.

Here are video posts of the Nasrallah speech: here or here. (Thanks HP) 

[Comment by Landis] It became clear to to the Eliott Abrams crowd in Washington that the Bush administration's Lebanon policy was failing some months ago. This began to became clear when the Lebanese opposition stood firm on blocking the appointment of a president by the March 14th coalition. It became indisputable when the US and March 14th could not pressure the opposition to accept the Michel Suleiman presidential compromise. The opposition felt confident enough to demand a blocking third in any future cabinet and a say in forming governments. Ambassador Feltmen warned of this weakness at Brookings when he returned from his ambassadorship in Lebanon.

David Schenker, a fellow with WINEP, summed up this assessment in his Sept. 2007 assessment of the situation: losing traction against Syria, shortly after the Israeli bombing of Syria's alleged nuclear reactor.

As information begins to emerge about the extent of North Korean-Syrian ties, Washington will have another opportunity to focus the international community on the continuing dangers posed by the Asad regime. The UN’s Hariri tribunal will add to the pressure on the regime, but that alone will not suffice. To stem Syria’s reacceptance into the international community, Washington needs to convince its European and Arab — particularly Gulf — allies to freeze their engagement with Damascus. It should also exclude Syria from the Arab-Israeli peace conference scheduled to take place this November.

With Israeli-Syrian tensions rising and the pro-Western Lebanese government on a precipice, renewed political and economic pressure on Damascus is vital. In the absence of effective measures, the Asad regime will continue to undermine Washington’s hopes for the region.

Renewed political and economic pressure on Damascus was forthcoming with added sanctions against a number of Syrians linked to President Asad, the position of US war ships off the coast of Lebanon, the congressional hearing on the North Korean – Syria Connection, the pressuring of international firms not to do business in Syria, and Israeli war exercises along the Lebanon and Syria boarders. When Syria leaked that Israel was sounding it out on the terms of Golan deal, Secretary Rice was quick to dash any hopes a deal, declaring that this was not the time to engage Syria. Yesterday, President Bush renewed economic sanctions on Syria.

Two days ago Ambassador Imad Moustapha flew off to Damascus after meeting with Jeffery Feltman

Laura Rosen, at MoJo has this to say about it from "a Washington hand:"

… The Feltman-Mustapha discussion had nothing to do with a potential deal and everything to do with the US government communicating to the Syrian one the elements it has about the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor. […] Any opening to or quid pro quo with Syria for the current administration will be conditioned on tangible positive steps on Lebanon. I suspect that the next administration, even a Democratic one, will have essentially the same policy, but with arguably a lower priority.

The substance of the US position toward talks is simple: you want to do it, do it. But we are not sitting at the table unless we have something tangible on Lebanon. We are not risking our multilateral policy, consensus with Europeans and Arabs, credibility, alliances, geopolitical interests to test the improbable proposition that talking to Syria will lure it from Iran, which is Israel’s primary goal….

Read the End Game in Beirut? by Col. Lang. He ties Cheney's latest Middle East visit to this escalation.

"The decisions (of the government) are tantamount to a declaration of war and the start of a war … on behalf of the United States and Israel," a defiant Nasrallah said at a rare press conference via video link.

On Tuesday, the government launched a probe into a communications network Hezbollah has set up in Lebanon and reassigned the head of airport security over his alleged links to Hezbollah."  AFP

Dr. Shuaibeh, sent out this email from Damascus, claiming that the Siniora government had dispatched detailed plans of Hizbullah's communications network to the UN, from where it was immediately handed to the Israelis. He claims that Israeli military assessments agree that in order to defeat Hizbullah in a second round, Israel needs to knock out Hizbullah's secret communications network, which it failed to damage in 2006.

?? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????  ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????

???? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ???????????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????

????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????

 ???? ???????? ????????? ???????????? ?????

???? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????. ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????.

 ??????? ??????????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ???????.

?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????????? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ???????????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? 1701 ? 1559 ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???????.

Conclusion: Is this a show down? Probably not. It is an escalation. By taking on Hizbullah at the Beirut airport, Washington and Siniora undoubtedly beleived they were attacking it at its weakest point. The airport is a national institution. But Hizbullah has considerable resources at its disposal and will chose provocations of its own. Nasrallah has declared dismantling its assets at the airport as a "red Line

Israel's Golan talks with Syria, may have been designed to pry Syria away from Hizbullah while Washington tries to weaken the Lebanese opposition. My hunch is that Syria will not fall for this. It is keenly aware that if it allows Washington to successfully divide and rule, Damascus will be next.  Without a strong Hizbullah, Syria will lose the Golan Heights. The only reason Israel is willing to discuss giving back the Golan with Syria is in order to get Syria to cut weapon supplies to Hizbullah and to pry it away from Iran. Hizbullah will take a ding on this one, but Lebanon will be no closer to having a president or finding political compromise. Only dialogue and dealing can do that. By looking for a take down move, Washington will deepen Lebanon's agony

By Qifa Nabki

This morning, while various neighborhoods in Lebanon were shut down by labor strikes that quickly and predictably morphed into violent clashes between pro- and anti-government forces, I spoke to a relative of mine living in Beirut. Loyal to the opposition, my relative (let’s call him Talal) sounded doleful for the first time in a year and a half. Gone from his voice was the tone of righteous defiance and indignation that so often characterized our political discussions. In its place was glum resignation and a dispirited antipathy towards the selfishness and cynicism of Lebanon’s political elite.

“We have a government that is completely corrupt; I have no confidence in their integrity,” Talal said. “On the other hand, I am beginning to have doubts about the opposition’s allegiances.”

“Compromise between the two sides is impossible, because the government and the opposition are speaking two different languages.”

Indeed, if there is anything that unites most Lebanese on both sides of the political divide, it is precisely this sentiment that their leaders have failed – spectacularly and even willfully – to establish a common ground for communication and compromise. What’s more, they seem to be oblivious to the widespread embitterment and frustration among their constituents. Or, more likely, they are mindful of it yet interested solely in exploiting it for political gain.

If the opposition was to blame in earlier months for a shameless strategy of mixed signals, delay tactics, and ever-shifting goal posts, which negated the solutions proposed by the Arab League and other international mediators, March 14th has now become guilty of a similarly cynical set of maneuvers. Sensing a soft underbelly in the ranks of the Change & Reform Bloc after the defection of Michel al-Murr, March 14th has sought to press their advantage by attempting to drive a wedge between Hizbullah and its Christian supporters.

Did the strategy succeed? On the one hand, the rioters consisted largely of Amal and Hizbullah supporters, with no significant showing by FPM members. A survey of the Aounist blogs shows a significant degree of ambivalence toward and even criticism of the escalation of violence. On the other hand, March 14 has put itself in a game of chicken with Hizbullah which announced that the airport road will remain blocked until the government reverses its decision to dismantle the Shiite militia's communication network and to remove Wafiq Chouqeir, head of airport security. If the March 14 forces are hoping that such an ultimatum will spur resentment of Hizbullah’s "state with in a state" among its FPM supporters, we may be in for a long and nasty ride.

While both sides have paid lip service to the concept of "national dialogue", neither March 14 nor March 8 have committed themselves publicly to addressing the major problems that lie at the basis of Lebanon's current (and perennial) woes, among them: (a) the adoption of a fair electoral law; (b) the future of Hizbullah's weapons; (c) the strengthening of state institutions; (d) the establishment of democratic reforms designed to increase politicians' accountability to their constituents, and to begin the process of dismantling sectarianism. As long as these issues are swept under the rug, Lebanon will continue to falter. 

It seems that each of the two alliances has settled on a strategy of shaking Lebanon as hard as possible in the hope that the other side comes unstuck. Is it any wonder that more and more Lebanese are wishing the fate of the proverbial watermelons (Bateekh yekassir ba3do) on their inept and selfish leaders?

Here is a round-up of stories on the latest events:

Clashes erupt in Lebanon as Hezbollah stages labor strike

By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer Wed May 7, 3:47 PM ET

BEIRUT, Lebanon – Lebanon's long-simmering political crisis erupted into gunfire and explosions Wednesday when a labor strike devolved into clashes between rival Hezbollah and government supporters.

Demonstrators supported by militant Hezbollah protested the U.S.-backed government's economic policies and paralyzed much of Beirut with roadblocks of burning tires. The strike turned violent when both sides began throwing stones at each other, and gunfire and explosions rang out in some areas for brief periods.

The cause of the explosions was not immediately known. There were a few injuries reported, mostly from the stone throwing.

The clashes threatened to degenerate into an all-out sectarian conflict. Shiite Hezbollah seized the offices of a major Sunni group and the fighting spread to several mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods.

Most Sunnis back Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's government, while Shiites generally support the opposition led by Hezbollah, which the U.S. has labeled a terrorist organization.

The Sunnis' spiritual leader denounced the militant Shiite faction and appealed to the Islamic world to intervene.

"Sunni Muslims in Lebanon have had enough," Grand Mufti Mohammed Rashid Kabbani said in a televised address from his office, demanding an "end to these violations."

In unusually harsh words, he called Hezbollah an "armed gangs of outlaws" and called on the group's leaders to withdraw from Beirut's Sunni neighborhoods.

Shiite opposition supporters remained on the streets after sunset and many of the blocked roads remained closed, indicating the protest will likely continue at least until Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah speaks at a planned news conference on Thursday.

The standoff between the two sides has lasted 17 months. It's left Lebanon without a head of state since November when opposition-allied President Emile Lahoud's term ended with the government and the opposition deadlocked on electing a successor.

Tensions reached a new high Tuesday, when the Cabinet said it would remove Beirut airport's security chief over alleged ties to Hezbollah. The militant group and leaders of the 1.2-million-strong Shiite community, believed to be Lebanon's largest sect, rejected the decision, and the airport security chief continued on the job.

Wednesday's strike was called by labor unions after they rejected a government pay raise offer as insufficient. It was largely confined to Shiite areas that back the opposition.

Striking workers caused the delay or cancellation of dozens of arriving and departing flights at Beirut's airport. Flights resumed later, but the roads to the airport remained closed, trapping scores of arriving passengers in the terminal.

Hezbollah supporters seized two local offices of Sunni parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri's group, security officials said.

Earlier in the day, an Associated Press photographer saw gunmen from Hezbollah and the allied Shiite Amal group controlled by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri shooting toward one of the buildings housing Hariri's Future Movement office. Police also were seen firing toward a building.

A cameraman for Hezbollah's al-Manar television was beaten by a soldier, the station reported. Other news reports said he was hit by stones raining down on protesters. A soldier also was hit in the mouth by a stone.

Two other news photographers were hurt by stones, according to witnesses and television reports.

Earlier in the same area, a stun grenade thrown into a crowd lightly injured three protesters and two soldiers, the state-run National News Agency said. It was not immediately clear who threw the grenade.

Opposition Vows No Retreat After Day of Clashes (Daily Star)

BEIRUT: A General Labor Confederation (GLC) strike turned political and violent on Wednesday when supporters of the opposition took to the streets and blocked the main road leading to Beirut's international airport in protest at the government's recent decision to sack the facility's security chief, General Wafiq Shoucair, and counter Hizbullah's private phone network. 

A well-informed opposition source told The Daily Star on Thursday that the opposition would not stop its protest action unless the Western-backed government reversed its decisions.

"Our movement will not stop and will change to become civil disobedience until our demands are met," the source added. "After rejecting Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri's call for dialogue, the government made a number of provocative decisions. Our movement is the result of these decisions."

After an Amal Movement meeting that was headed by Berri later on Wednesday, the party held the Lebanese government responsible for the current escalation.

Hizbullah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, is due to hold a new conference on Thursday to react to the government's recent decisions.

Robert Fisk: Lebanon descends into chaos as rival leaders order general strike

Thursday, 8 May 2008

????? ?? ?? ???????

????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????

? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????. ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????.
???????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????????? ????????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????.
?????? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ????????. ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? 14 ????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? «?????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????». ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??????

Heading toward a Lebanese Divorce

By Michael Young

The Daily Star

Thursday May 8, 2008 

Once we accept that this week's alleged labor unrest was only the latest phase in Hizbullah's war against the Lebanese state, will we understand what actually took place yesterday. And once we realize that cutting the airport road was a calculated effort by Hizbullah to reverse the Siniora government's transfer of the airport security chief, Wafiq Shouqair, will we understand what may take place in the coming days.

Since last January, when Hizbullah and Amal used the pretense of social dissatisfaction to obstruct roads in and around Beirut, the opposition has, quite openly, shown itself to be limited to Hizbullah. Michel Aoun, once a useful fig leaf to lend cross-communal diversity to the opposition, has since become an afterthought with hardly any pull in Christian streets.

Long ago we learned that Hizbullah could not, in any real sense, allow the emergence of a Lebanese state free from Syrian control. Soon after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the party tried to suffocate the 2005 "independence intifada" in the egg, realizing that Hizbullah had no future as an autonomous armed group in a state that would seek to reimpose its writ after decades of subservience to Damascus. That effort failed on March 14, 2005 – mostly useful as an event in showing that a majority of people would not be intimidated by Hizbullah's rally of March 8.

Hizbullah's anxieties were understandable. As the party saw things, without a Lebanese state embracing the idea of open-ended conflict against Israel, and Hizbullah's sovereign, vanguard role in that conflict (and what state truly independent of Syria would ever want to choose so reckless a path?), Hizbullah would not be able to justify retaining its weapons. But without its weapons, Hizbullah could not exist. Post-Syria Lebanon has posed existential problems for the party, problems that began when Israel withdrew from most of South Lebanon in 2000. The irony of this situation – that Hizbullah was always most comfortable when both Syria and Israel were present in Lebanon – the latter to fight against, the former to safeguard that fight – says a lot about the party's future options. 

 
Angry Arab publishes this first-hand account of the demonstrations, on his blog:

A Western reporter in Lebanon sent me this (he does not want his name mentioned) (he is relatively new to Lebanon and it shows at a point or two–like Amal militia has a long history in thuggishness and yet it used to complain about PLO thuggishness): "spent the entire day running around all the flashpoints in beirut, wherever there were mobs, shootings, explosions, i got harassed by various militias from both sides, but i was really shocked at the behavior of amal. i've spent a lot of time with mustaqbal militiamen, who of course are thuggish and racist and their militias are getting better organized, and thats all frightening, but they seem very weak and almost cowardly when compared with the amal thugs i saw today, who were very provocative. it had nothing to do with the labor union strike for them, it was just a show of force to specifically intimidate sunnis. even in iraq i havent seen this kind of anti sunni sectarianism, its couched in anti baathi or anti wahabi language. obviously i've seen anti shiite sectarianism all over the place among sunnis in the region they had switch blades, clubs, and they even had small molotov cocktail bottles in their pockets in case they needed them. they threw stones at the army without provocation, and the army was basically letting them do whatever they wanted, and proved how weak it was, the army guys were begging the amal and hizballah guys to behave basically. it was clear today how pathetically weak the lebanese army and police are. in most cases they just stood by and watched as protesters did whatever they wanted, in other cases, depending on their affiliation, they actually physically helped both sunni and shiite militias. when the amal guys threw stones at the soldiers, all some of the soldiers did was throw them back when the call to prayer started from the sunni mosque across the street in tariq al jadida, the amal guys started shouting various religious shiite slogans, insulting sunnis etc. it was quite obvious that the hizballah men present were controlling them when they looked like they were about to cross to the sunni side. it was as if hizballah has these amal pitbulls who are just foaming at the mouth eager to attack and kill, and hizballah is letting them bark and bite a little, to show the other side that its holding the leash and can let go at any time and the amal pitbulls would destroy anything in their way, which it was very clear they wanted to do this country is so fucked, the sunni militias now run checkpoints and demand IDs and act just like shiite militias" 

Al-Hayat Reports on Syrian Economy
Ibrahim Humaydi in Damascus
BBC MidEast: 2008-05-06
Text of report by London-based newspaper Al-Hayat website on 6 May

Itri reveals strict measures to prevent smuggling fuel oil to Lebanon; Itri: Syria's home front is strong and will not be affected by US pressure

Syrian Prime Minister engineer Muhammad Naji Itri, in reply to a question by Al-Hayat, said that Damascus is considering taking 'a series of strict measures' to prevent the smuggling of fuel oil to Lebanon, because Syria has obtained 'documents' showing that the Lebanese government had issued instructions preventing interception of the entry of foodstuff and fuel oil' from Syria. He noted that the Lebanese decision raised the value of smuggled fuel oil to Lebanon in the past year to approximately $1.2 billion.

Itri met the day before yesterday with a number of reporters in the presence of the ministers of economy, finance, and interior to explain the details of 'the host of measures' that the Syrian government has taken to control prices. He stressed that 'the loaf of bread' is a red line, that its price will not be raised, and that there is no intention to change the price of petrol.

In reply to a question on whether there is a connection between the Syrian government's decision to raise the price of fuel oil from 7 to 25 Syrian pounds and the US economic sanctions, Itri said: "The Syrian domestic front is strong and solid, and the Syrian people understand all circumstances. Pressure by foreign parties is aimed at weakening Syria and its economy, but we will not give them a chance. Syria's economy is strong and solid."

It is to be recalled that the Syrian government early this week raised the price of fuel oil as well as the price of a butane gas cylinder from 145 to 250 pounds in tandem with 11 steps that it has taken to improve the living conditions of Syrian citizens. These include raising the salaries of employees and workers in public sector and retirees, totalling approximately 2.1 million out of Syria's 5.3 millions workers, by 25 per cent. Syrian officials said that the measures taken by the government to offset the rise in fuel oil would
cost the treasury approximately $2 billion, which is equal to the sum to be saved by the decision to 'redistribute subsidies to deserving citizens.'

One of the reasons that prompted the Syrian government to take this step was the increase in the quantities of smuggled fuel oil to neighbouring countries. Itri said: Smuggling has been an additional problem. The fraternal Lebanese government met part of its needs through Syria, as approximately 1.5 billion litres of [of fuel oil] was annually smuggled to Lebanon, representing 15 per cent of our local consumption. In other words, we were subsidizing the Lebanese economy by approximately $1.2 billion."

Itri added: "I saw a document released by the current [Lebanese] prime minister, the de facto government, revealing that Maj Gen Ashraf Rifi issued instructions to government departments preventing interception of the entry of foodstuff from Syria, particularly fuel oil." He added: "Some 15 per cent of our people's funds go illegally to the Lebanese government."

The price of fuel oil in Syria is still lower than it is in neighbouring countries. In reply to another question by Al-Hayat, Itri said: "Our concern now is to stop smuggling. We are considering amending the law on smuggling to make punishment of smugglers similar to that of drug traffickers," which reaches to life sentence, and to take further measures at the border, as "our friends on the other side of the border encourage' smuggling. He added: "It is the Syrian people as well as those living with us," in reference to the 1.5 million Iraqi nationals costing the Syrian government $1 billion, "who deserve subsidies, not neighbouring countries."

Syria's annual need of fuel oil totals 10 billion litres, while its two refineries produce 45 per cent of its need. The Syrian government purchases the rest of its needs at $1,100 per tonne, which means that the government's subsidy to fuel oil dropped from 86 to 50 per cent. In addition, the government has started giving out fuel oil cards at the rate of 1,000 litres per family at 9 pound per litre to 3.8 million families. Syria's oil production has recently dropped from 600,000 to 360,000 barrel per day. Itri said: "The trade balance of oil has been losing, and we pay for imports of oil by-products from the budget."

The Syrian government this year faced drought conditions, and as a result it decided to raise the prices of strategic crops (wheat, beet, cotton) by 40 per cent. The Syrian government yesterday set up a fund for subsiding agricultural produce. Itri expressed his hope that the grain produce will total 2 million tonne this season.

Meanwhile, local sources said that people in northeast Syria protested against the rise in the price of fuel oil and foodstuff. Originally published by Al-Hayat website, London, in Arabic 6 May 08.

 US Sanctions against Syria sometimes backfire.

In the case of Gulfsands, the US executives of the oil firm were forced to resign and the company moved its headquarters from Houston to London in a bid to retain its business with Syria. Rather than dump Syria, the company dumped America and cut its exposure to Americans. Here is the story:

Gulfsands sacrifices top executives to continue development of Syrian oil find 
05 May 2008
The Syria Report

Photo: The cost of many basic foods, like at this market in Amman, has doubled. Some in the middle class are tilting toward poverty.

The Middle East is being hit with high rates of inflation caused by sky rocketing prices for primary commodities and basic food stuffs, high unemployment, and the dismantling of age old subsidies. Many Arab countries have been pulling the plug on food and energy subsidies for decades.

Syrians are facing a double whammy – radical hikes in food and petrol prices combined with slashes in state subsidies.

In Lebanon, prices have risen by 43 percent over the past 21 months while the official unemployment rate stands at 10 percent, although independent estimates put it at 20 percent.

In Egypt, "food prices rose by up to 50 percent, a hard blow to the poor, who spend a higher proportion of their incomes on foodstuffs." writes Reuters. Consumer prices rose 14.4 percent in the year to March, the highest inflation rate in more than three years. Mubarak responded on Wednesday by proposing a 30 percent increase in basic public-sector salaries, which start at about 300 pounds ($56) a month. He told his government to find the extra revenue to cover the extra cost. Police are stationed heavily about the city to prevent the sort of protests that rocked the city in April.

In Jordan, security forces recently arrested three activists for distributing leaflets calling for a general strike to protest food prices and government policies that fail to help the poor, activists said on Sunday. Jordan's government has enforced steep fuel price rises and the cost of everything from bread to apartments has soared, hitting many people hard. Activists say the authorities have in recent weeks refused permission to allow any public protests against the price hikes. 

Robert Worth of the NYTimes recently wrote and interesting analysis of the regional tensions stemming from run away inflation.

Even as it enriches Arab rulers, the recent oil-price boom is helping to fuel an extraordinary rise in the cost of food and other basic goods that is squeezing this region’s middle class and setting off strikes, demonstrations and occasional riots from Morocco to the Persian Gulf.

Many in Jordan are feeling the squeeze of higher prices. At a mall in Amman, the empty aisles reflect people’s inability to spend.

Here in Jordan, the cost of maintaining fuel subsidies amid the surge in prices forced the government to remove almost all the subsidies this month, sending the price of some fuels up 76 percent overnight. In a devastating domino effect, the cost of basic foods like eggs, potatoes and cucumbers doubled or more.

In Saudi Arabia, where inflation had been virtually zero for a decade, it recently reached an official level of 6.5 percent, though unofficial estimates put it much higher. Public protests and boycotts have followed, and 19 prominent clerics posted an unusual statement on the Internet in December warning of a crisis that would cause “theft, cheating, armed robbery and resentment between rich and poor.”

The inflation has many causes, from rising global demand for commodities to the monetary constraints of currencies pegged to the weakening American dollar. But one cause is the skyrocketing price of oil itself, which has quadrupled since 2002. It is helping push many ordinary people toward poverty even as it stimulates a new surge of economic growth in the gulf.

The Middle East’s heavy reliance on food imports has made it especially vulnerable to the global rise in commodity prices over the past year, said George T. Abed, the former governor of the Palestine Monetary Authority and a director at the Institute of International Finance, an organization based in Washington.

Corruption, inefficiency and monopolistic economies worsen the impact, as government officials or business owners artificially inflate prices or take a cut of such increases.

“For many basic products, we don’t have free market prices, we have monopoly prices,” said Samer Tawil, a former minister of national economy in Jordan. “Oil, cement, rice, meat, sugar: these are all imported almost exclusively by one importer each here. Corruption is one thing when it’s about building a road, but when it affects my food, that’s different.”

In the oil-producing gulf countries, governments that are flush with oil money can soften the blow by spending more. The United Arab Emirates increased the salaries of public sector employees by 70 percent this month; Oman raised them 43 percent. Saudi Arabia also raised wages and increased subsidies on some foods. Bahrain set up a $100 million fund to be distributed this year to people most affected by rising prices. But all this government spending has the unfortunate side effect of worsening inflation, economists say. Countries with less oil to sell do not have the same options.

In Syria, where oil production is drying up, prices have also risen sharply. Although it has begun to liberalize its rigid socialist economy, the government has repeatedly put off plans to eliminate the subsidies that keep prices artificially low for its citizens, fearing domestic reprisals.

Even so, the inflation of the past few months has taken a toll on all but the rich.

Thou al-Fakar Hammad, an employee in the contracts office of the Syrian state oil company, has a law degree and earns just less than 15,000 Syrian pounds, or $293, a month, twice the average national wage. His salary was once more than adequate, and until recently he sent half of it to his parents.

But rising prices have changed all that, he said. Now he has taken a second job teaching Arabic on weekends to help support his wife and young child. Unable to buy a car, he takes public buses from his two-room apartment just outside Damascus to work. He can afford the better quality diapers for his son to wear only at night and resorts to cheaper ones during the day. He cannot send anything to his parents.

“I have to live day to day,” he said. “I can’t budget for everything because, should my child get sick, I’d spend a lot of what I earn on medication for him.”

At the same time, a new class of entrepreneurs, most of them with links to the government, has built gaudy mansions and helped transform Damascus, the Syrian capital, with glamorous new restaurants and cafes. That has helped fuel a perception of corruption and unfairness, analysts say. On Wednesday the state-owned newspaper Al Thawra published a poll that found that 450 of 452 Syrians believed that their state institutions were riddled with corruption.

“Many people believe that most of the government’s economic policies are adopted to suit the interests of the newly emerging Syrian aristocracy, while disregarding the interests of the poor and lower middle class,” said Marwan al-Kabalan, a political science professor at Damascus University.

The same attitudes are visible in Jordan. Even before the subsidies on fuel were removed this month, inflation had badly eroded the average family’s earning power over the past five years, said Mr. Tawil, the former economic minister. Although the official inflation rate for 2007 was 5.4 percent, government studies have shown that middle-income families are spending far more on food and consuming less, he added. Last year a survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit found that Amman was the most expensive Arab capital in cost of living.

Mr. Abdul Raheem, the clothing store employee in Amman, said, “No one can be in the government now and be clean.”

Meanwhile, his own life has been transformed, Mr. Abdul Raheem said. He ticked off a list of prices: potatoes have jumped to about 76 cents a pound from 32 cents. A carton of 30 eggs went to nearly $4.25 from just above $2; cucumbers rose to 58 cents a pound from about 22. All this in a matter of weeks.

“These were always the basics,” he said. “Now they’re luxuries.”

Syria: Public sector salaries up by 25 percent
Posted: 04-05-2008 , 07:48 GMT

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday issued a decree, stipulating a raise of 25 percent to the monthly salaries and wages for the civil and military workers of the state ministries, administrations, public establishments, companies of the public sector, municipalities, popular work, the permanently confiscated companies and private schools and similar public sector bodies. According to SANA, the Syrian leader also ordered a raise of 25 percent to the pensions of the retired civilians and military veterans.

The news agency quoted Syria's Finance Minister Mohammed al-Hussein as saying that more than two million people will be affected by the increases which will be effective from May. Syria's state employees earn an average monthly salary equivalent to US$175.

According to AFP, Assad's decision to raise salaries came as sources in Syria reported the price of heating oil had climbed by 340 percent per litre on Saturday. Over the past week the price of foodstuff including vegetables, meat, milk, cereals and cooking oil has grown by 30-60 percent, prompting the government to stop the import of certain cereals including lentils and bulgar wheat

The Syrian government more than tripled the price of gas oil on Saturday, kicking off a program to remove big subsidies on the fuel.
Khalid Oweis, Reuters

Pump owners said a liter of gas oil went up to the equivalent of 54 U.S. cents from 15 cents. The state imports large volumes of the fuel at around $1 liter.

An official in the ruling Baath party told Reuters last month that preparations were under way for the gradual removal of gas oil subsidies, which cost the treasury $9 billion a year.

Gas oil is used in Syria on a large scale for industry, transport and heating.

The gas oil price increase came as the government announced a 25 percent hike in public sector salaries to help the population absorb rising living costs and the impact of subsidy cuts.

The increase, which will take effect this month, covers 2 million public workers and retirees, the state news agency said. Syria has a population of 18 million.

The government has taken limited steps to liberalize the economy and lower subsidies in recent years to counter U.S.-led efforts to isolate Syria and the impact of falling production of crude oil, the main source of hard currency.

Petrol prices went up sharply in the last two years to 87 U.S. cents a liter.

Syria's top cellphone firm posts 29 pct profit rise
Sun May 4, 2008 by Khaled Yacoub Oweis

DAMASCUS, May 4 (Reuters) – Net profit at Syria's largest mobile phone operator Syriatel rose 29 percent in 2007 to 6.67 billion Syrian pounds ($150.2 million) compared to the year earlier, according to annual results published on Sunday.

An increase in customers and an expansion of services were behind the improvement, said Syriatel, which is negotiating to be taken over by Turkish counterpart Turkcell TCELL.IS(TKC.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

Revenue rose 24 percent over the same period to 39.4 billion pounds ($856.5 million) and subscribers rose 33 percent to 3.34 million, comprising 55 percent of the Syrian market.

Network Capacity rose by 1.4 million lines to 4.7 million and infrastructure for an advanced 3G broadband Internet service was set up but the lack of government approval has delayed full launch of the service, the company said.

"The service will increase our customers and solve the Internet bottleneck problems of Syria," Syriatel said in an advert in local newspapers.

Syriatel is at least 69 percent owned by Rami Makhlouf, who is the target of U.S. sanctions imposed on him in February as part of a U.S.-led campaign to isolate the Baath Party-led government in Damascus.

Gulf shareholders own a minority share of Syriatel, which has a 10 percent stake in a Yemeni mobile operator with 120,000 subscribers.

Makhlouf, the cousin of President Bashar al-Assad and Syriatel's chairman, is negotiating to sell most of his share to Turkcell for an estimated price of around $1 billion.

Diplomats and financiers told Reuters this week that he United States was putting pressure on Turkcell to abandon the takover.

The U.S.Treasury Department has warned American investors in Turkcell, which is listed in Istanbul and New York, about the company's plan to buy Syriatel, they said.

Turkcell denied on Thursday there was U.S. pressure on the company to scrap the deal and said that the talks with Syriatel were continuing. Turkcell had expected the negotiations to conclude in March.

The Treasury Department has designated Makhlouf "a regime insider whom improperly benefits from and aids the public corruption of Syrian regime officials." The move was made under an expansion of the sanctions announced in an executive order by President George W. Bush on Feb. 13.

The order freezes any assets Makhlouf holds under U.S. jurisdiction and forbids American citizens or entities from doing business with him. Makhlouf, 39, has denied the U.S. charges. He said he did not have assets in the United States and his businesses were legitimate.

The propane cylinder is up to 250 Syrian pounds from 145.

Rice Says Mideast Peace Deal Achievable but Henry Siegman, writing in the Nation, exclaims:

It is hard to believe that after the long string of failed peace initiatives, stretching back at least to the Madrid conference of 1991, diplomats are recycling these failures without seemingly having a clue as to why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is even more hopeless today than before these peace exercises first got under way. The scandal of the international community's impotence in resolving one of history's longest bloodlettings is that it knows what the problem is but does not have the courage to speak the truth, much less deal with it. …

There is no prospect for a viable, sovereign Palestinian state, primarily because Israel's various governments, from 1967 until today, have never had the intention of allowing such a state to come into being. It would be one thing if Israeli governments had insisted on delaying a Palestinian state until certain security concerns had been dealt with. But no government serious about a two-state solution to the conflict would have pursued, without letup, the theft and fragmentation of Palestinian lands, which even a child understands makes Palestinian statehood impossible. …

No one seems particularly optimistic about Olmert's recent announcement that Israel is back in the peace negotiating business. The distrust between Syria and Israel will be very hard to overcome. Most people believe that Syrian-Israeli dialogue is more a sign of cunning maneuver than a real turn away from Bush administration strategy, which has been about forcing Syria to change regime behavior. 

What are the Prospects for Syrian-Israeli Peace?
by Patrick Seale: 2 May 2008
 
The only faintly hopeful aspect of the current frost between Syria and Israel is that Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems determined to bring the two countries to the negotiating table. Turkey has emerged over the past year as the principal, indeed the only serious, broker between these bitter enemies.
 
Erdogan has recently been in Damascus for talks with President Bashar al-Asad and is planning to send an emissary to Israel to brief Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the outcome of his discussions. His Foreign Minister Ali Babacan has confirmed that messages between Syria and Israel have been exchanged through Turkey over the past year, and that this traffic ‘has intensified in the past few months.’ Turkey’s immediate aim would seem to be to get low-level talks started as a prelude to bringing the leaders of Syria and Israel together.
 
The U.S., in contrast, has openly opposed Israeli contacts with Syria, and has sought instead to sanction and isolate Damascus, accusing it of interfering in both Lebanon and Iraq against American interests.
 
In spite of this negative American attitude, Syrian officials continue to believe that only the United States can bring talks with Israel to a successful conclusion. This may be because they are aware that only the U.S. can give Israel the reassurance, and possibly even the guarantees, it may need to agree to a Golan withdrawal.
 
Since Damascus has no confidence in the Bush administration — responsible, in its view, for the greatest disasters in the region – it awaits the outcome of November’s U.S. presidential elections in the hope that the next American president will take Middle East peace-making seriously, and broker a deal.
 
President Bashar al-Asad’s position remains the well-known position of his father, the late President Hafiz al-Asad, namely that Israel must endorse the ‘land-for-peace’ formula for talks to have a chance of success.  In other words, Israel must commit itself to full withdrawal from the Golan to the 4 June 1967 border.
 
In 1993, and again in 1994, the former Israeli premier Yitzhak Rabin pledged to the Americans that he would carry out a full withdrawal from the Golan in the context of a peace agreement with Syria. When Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish fanatic in November 1995, Shimon Peres, on taking over as prime minister, repeated the pledge. But Benjamin Netanyahu, premier from 1996 to 1999, and then Ehud Barak, in 1999-2000, both refused to do so.
 
Syria now wants Olmert to demonstrate the same will for peace as Rabin. The Syrian view is that once Israel promises to return the territory, all other contentious issues can be put ‘on the table,’ including whatever legitimate security concerns Israel may have.
 
Against this background, something of a stir was caused last week when the Syrian media announced that Erdogan had  phoned Asad to say that Olmert had told him that he was prepared to return the Golan to Syria. Was this, Damascus speculated, the long-awaited breakthrough?
 
Israeli spokesmen would not, however, confirm the report beyond saying that Israel was ‘well aware of the price it would have to pay at the end of the talks’ – an ambiguous formula which fell short of what the Syrians would have liked to hear.
 
Meanwhile, Olmert’s apparent readiness to return the Golan aroused a storm of protest in Israel. Likud chairman Netanyahu denounced Olmert’s ‘suicidal concession’, while David Tal, head of the Knesset’s House Committee, said that he hoped to pass a bill requiring any Golan withdrawal to be submitted to a national referendum.
 
This was not good news since the latest Israeli poll, published in the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, showed that only 32 per cent of the Israeli public approved a full withdrawal from the Golan. It was clear that Israeli public opinion would have to be won over for a deal with Syria to become possible.
 
In public pronouncements, both President Asad and Prime Minister Olmert have said that they want peace. Asad told former U.S.President Jimmy Carter, on the latter’s recent visit to the Middle East, that 85 per cent of the issues between Israel and Syria had been resolved in the 1990s, and that he was anxious to conclude peace as soon as possible. Syria wants peace in order to recover the Golan, lost to Israel in the 1967 war, and in order to modernize and reform its society.
 
In reality, Asad and Olmert are profoundly skeptical of each other’s sincerity. The Syrians see Olmert as a weak leader, without vision or moral authority, who is unable or unwilling to make peace. They do not believe he is the man to persuade Israeli opinion of the benefits of peace.
 
They suspect that he is pretending to move on the Syrian track in order to frighten Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas into making concessions, for fear of being left alone to face Israel. Israel has traditionally sought to play one Arab track against another. Israel, in turn, sees Syria as its most implacable enemy, the only one of its neighbours to pose a military threat, particularly in view of Syria’s alliance with Iran and with Lebanon’s Hizballah.
 
Israel makes no secret of its prime motive for seeking peace with Syria. It is to sever Syria’s relations with both Iran and Hizballah, in order to bring down the Tehran-Damascus-South Lebanon axis, which Israel and the U.S. see as the main obstacle to their regional hegemony.
 
But asking Syria to sever links with Iran is as unrealistic as asking Israel to sever links with the United States. Syria and Iran have been strategic partners for nearly three decades, since the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. For Syria – and indeed for several Arab countries, especially in the Gulf — Iran will always be an important regional power whose weight and influence cannot be ignored. Syrian officials concede, however, that in a context of peace their dependence on Iran would inevitably lessen.
 
As for Hizballah, the Syrian view is that, once Israel returns the Shab‘a Farms to Lebanon, once it releases long-term Lebanese prisoners, and once the Shi‘a community secures its proper place in Lebanon’s political system, then Hizballah will cease to be an armed resistance movement and will become a peaceful political party.
 
There remains the delicate question of the relationship between the Syrian and Palestinian tracks. Syria cannot consider concluding a separate peace with Israel unless the Palestinians, too, are on their way to obtaining their national rights. The two tracks need not advance in unison, but they are certainly complementary. The Syrians hope to play a role in unifying Palestinian ranks and in helping to bring about a Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation.
 
These ambitions must, for the time being, remain in the realm of wishful thinking. Seen from Damascus, Israel remains a dangerously aggressive and unpredictable neighbour. Its unprovoked air strike against a military facility in eastern Syria last September, not to mention its continued slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza – which must be judged state terrorism at its very worst – do not send a message to Syrian and Arab opinion that the Jewish state is yet ready for peaceful integration into the region.
[end ]

Things Are Moving, But The Us Is Absent
By Rami Khouri
In The Daily Star (Lebanon), Opinion    
April 30, 2008

One of the important developments in Middle Eastern diplomacy that becomes more obvious with every passing month is the continued marginalization of the United States….

The more the US is marginalized diplomatically as a would-be mediator because of its shortsighted tendency to nearly blindly support Israel's positions, buttress Arab autocrats, and oppose the large, populist Islamo-nationalist movements, the more the other mediators from the Middle East make progress in resolving or reducing the intensity of conflicts.

Two cases in particular are noteworthy: the indirect Hamas-Israel negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza (mediated by Egypt), and the indirect Israeli-Syrian contacts to achieve a full peace treaty (mediated by Turkey). Both are enormously important developments. If consummated, they would represent solid, even historic, steps toward a resolution of the century-old Arab-Israeli conflict. The chances of success are slim, but they are not zero, and that in itself is noteworthy.

I find it striking that the four most significant or dynamic mediators on major regional problems in the past year have been four regional players: Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa. President George W. Bush's effort to prod Israeli-Palestinian peace-making, on the other hand, seems hapless and lacking in credibility, because it is aimed more at pleasing Israel than at meeting the minimal demands and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians….

The US seems often to want to stoke the fires of ideological tension and military conflict by supporting, arming, financing and training one side in domestic political contests such as those in Lebanon and Palestine. The US (and Europe in some cases) is also severely hampered by its decision to boycott or heavily downgrade contacts with key players like Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran. The combination of boycotting legitimate actors while actively promoting local confrontations with them is a recipe for what we are witnessing in the Middle East these days: a growing number of political conflicts within countries, and strong linkages between warring actors across the region.

Episodic local tensions have now been transformed into a major and chronic cycle of region-wide political battles, pitting US- and Israeli-backed "moderates" against a wide array of Islamists, "extremists" and "militants" in the Arab world and Iran.

The most important diplomatic process these days is the Syrian-Israeli one. Israelis and Syrians alike have made it clear that something serious is taking place behind the scenes. … A Syrian-Israeli peace agreement would impact heavily on every major issue in the vicinity, because Syria has strategic and tactical relations with every nearby major player and country: Iran, Lebanon, Hizbullah, Iraq, Palestine and Hamas. … Syria for its part will also want direct or indirect influence over Lebanon, and a downgrading of the international tribunal that will prosecute those to be indicted for the Hariri and other murders in Lebanon since February 2005. Lebanon and the international community are reluctant to offer these to Syria, but probably do not totally rule out a reasonable, face-saving compromise. Many Lebanese will be rightly worried that they are about to be sold out.

Syrian-Israeli peace would totally change the political equation in the region, and probably lead to historic changes in Lebanon, Hizbullah's standing, Iran's regional role, the Iraqi situation, and political conditions in Palestine. It is telling of the damage that the US has done to its own role and impact in the Middle East that the potentially most important diplomatic development in the past generation seems to be taking place without any significant American role.
[end]

Faking It
Rime Allaf – May 2008
Bitter Lemons International

Facts have rarely gotten in the Bush administration's way when demonizing a political opponent, even when that opponent has actually tried to accommodate multiple American demands. Accused of enemy complicity in most places where the US or its allies are involved, Syria has nevertheless regularly offered concrete help in the "war on terror….

Turkcell has many Finish investors and, according to Ehsani, many US mutual funds own a substantial amount of its shares.

Turkcell Denies Pressure against Syrian deal

ISTANBUL (Reuters) – Turkey's leading mobile operator, Turkcell TCELL.IS(TKC.N: Quote, Profile, Research), denied on Thursday there was U.S. pressure on the company to abandon a takeover of a Syrian operator, saying that the talks were continuing.

"The U.S. has put no written or spoken pressure on Turkcell or made such a statement … There is no warning on investment (in Syria)," said one Turkcell official, who declined to be named.

Diplomats and Arab financiers on Wednesday told Reuters the U.S. Treasury Department was warning American investors in Turkcell, which is listed on the Istanbul and New York bourse

Shaping Lebanon’s Future
by Bilal Y. Saab, senior research assistant, foreign policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Brookings Institution

In many ways, the current U.S. stance is a policy of denial, denying Lebanon to Syria but with little hope of promoting a resolution to Lebanon’s internal crisis. The danger of such a policy is that it hands the political initiative to Syria and its allies in Lebanon who can win by waging a gradual war of attrition. Instead, Washington should craft its policy to support the Lebanese state, not to promote partisanship and political parties.

Washington should continue to provide technical and military assistance to Lebanon in its pursuit of democracy consolidation and military modernization, such as by building up the Lebanese Armed Forces. Always stressing transparency and local ownership, U.S. efforts should focus more on inclusive programs such as strengthening the capacity of the Lebanese state as a whole in developing and supporting institutions that are responsive and accountable to all Lebanese citizens. …

Providing the Shi’ah with an alternative to Hizballah will require implementing some of the reforms called for in the 1989 Ta’if agreement. These reforms will impose political costs on some parts of the governing coalition. Changes would include: the decentralization of administration and municipalities, the creation of a bicameral legislature with the lower house holding the legislative initiative and an upper house to represent communal interests, a new electoral law (to more fairly represent the popular vote and end the gerrymandered constituency system), and a stronger, independent judiciary. The abolition of political sectarianism, while essential to the future of liberal democratic politics in Lebanon, is not a realistic goal in the near term (a gradual process is a more stable and desirable path).

The Syrian obstacle

The continued negative interference of Syria in Lebanese domestic politics makes resolving the domestic crisis even more daunting. Syria has not left Lebanon quietly. Instead, Syria has obstructed the introduction of any serious reforms in Lebanon and has for years systematically eliminated its political enemies in Lebanon and cruelly silenced Lebanese voices calling for change and freedom from Syrian rule. Lebanon’s democracy and its foreign policy orientation directly affect Syrian national security. Damascus has been very clear that it will resort to any measure to regain its lost influence over Lebanon. The Syrian regime will also seek to impede any attempt by the UN tribunal to find the killers of Rafiq Hariri, whose murder the Syrian regime is strongly suspected of committing….

 US Policy

Lebanon is at the heart of the Bush administration’s Middle East democracy promotion strategy. But for the United States, Lebanon is also the perfect battlefield for settling scores with its adversaries, namely Iran and Syria. As such, Lebanon is where U.S. idealism and realpolitik meet and often conflict. The result is a shattered country torn between two divergent trends of U.S. foreign policy.

Washington treated Damascus’ suspected role in killing Hariri, a U.S. ally and very close friend of Saudi Arabia, as a threat to its interests in the region. The U.S. administration therefore set out to punish Syria. The United States pushed to isolate Syria regionally and internationally, most notably by sponsoring three United Nations Security Council Resolutions (1559, 1701, and 1757) calling on Syria to stop meddling in Lebanese internal affairs. Washington also took bilateral action with presidential executive orders against Syrian government officials.

From denial to support

While U.S. diplomatic initiative, especially at the United Nations, has played an important role in supporting the Lebanese government, U.S. policy has now reached its limits. U.S. policy is having little effect.

Like most of the regional and international players, the United States supports the “March 14” coalition against Syria through diplomatic and economic means while seeking to prevent any military confrontation with Syria. In many ways, the current U.S. stance is a policy of denial, denying Lebanon to Syria but with little hope of promoting a resolution to Lebanon’s internal crisis. The danger of such a policy is that it hands the political initiative to Syria and its allies in Lebanon who can win by waging a gradual war of attrition……

Access the full article>>

Photo: Taliban sympathizers in the Pakistani border village of Rahim Kor at the execution on Sunday of a man accused of kidnapping. Pakistan’s government has little influence or formal presence in the tribal regions near Afghanistan, to the United States’ dismay.

WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials are expressing increasing alarm that a deal being negotiated between the new Pakistani government and militant tribes in the country’s unruly border area will lead to further unraveling of security in the region.

Cross-border attacks into Afghanistan by militants based in Pakistan doubled in March from the same period a year ago and have not diminished in April, a Western military official said, while Pakistani counterinsurgency operations in the tribal areas have dropped sharply during the talks.

American counterterrorism officials express concern that the new coalition government in Islamabad may withdraw some of the 120,000 Pakistani troops in the border area or curtail flights by the Central Intelligence Agency’s armed Predator aircraft in the region.

Indeed, Washington and Islamabad seem to be on dueling timetables, with the Bush administration trying to cripple Al Qaeda’s safe havens before leaving office, and the new Pakistani government seeking to establish credibility with its public by distancing itself from the American-backed policies of President Pervez Musharraf.

American officials say that Washington’s options now are even more limited, in part because Mr. Musharraf is no longer calling the shots, and that the situation in the tribal areas is unlikely to significantly improve before President Bush leaves office. American economic and development aid aimed to help wean the region off the militants’ influence is just now seeping into the tribal areas, while a tribal paramilitary force still needs years of training and equipping to be an effective counterinsurgency unit.

The problems confronting the administration reflect what critics say is a failure over the past several years to pay sufficient attention to the growing numbers of Qaeda and Taliban fighters drawn to safe havens in the tribal area. Even under Mr. Musharraf, the administration’s main ally in Pakistan, the United States failed to develop a governmentwide plan to combat the militancy in the turbulent borderlands, these critics say.

The leaders of Pakistan’s new government, Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, have vowed to honor their campaign pledges to break with Mr. Musharraf’s emphasis on using military force in the tribal areas, a practice critics say has been heavy-handed and has undercut the government’s goals.

Pakistan Regime, Military At Odds
(Seattle Times)….Saeed Shah and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy News Service

Pakistan's newly elected government is clashing with the country's powerful military over peace deals that the military has secretly initiated with Islamic militants allied with al-Qaida along the country's border with Afghanistan.

New Traffic Regulations in Syria (thanks Naji)
_____________________________
On May 01, 2008, the Syrian government will begin enforcement of new traffic regulations which were announced in January, 2008. Many of these regulations are designed to increase road safety for both vehicles and pedestrians, and call for fines and a “point system” for violations. The following is a partial summary. The full text in Arabic can be found here.

Traffic Fines
_____________
Fines ranging from 500 to 10,000 Syrian lira (SYP) will be imposed for infractions such as:
• Children riding in the front seat or in the driver’s lap
• Tossing rubbish from vehicles while driving
• Playing loud music while driving through neighborhoods at night
• Failing to use directional signals when turning
• Reckless speed and changing of lanes
• Transporting items exceeding the body of the vehicle in a dangerous manner
• Using cellular phones (mobile phones) while driving
• Having a license plate with illegible numbers
• Allowing unlicensed drivers to drive the vehicle
• Passing other vehicles on corners, uphill slopes, tunnel, bridges and crossroads
• Driving without a valid insurance contract
• Not using safety belts in the front seat
• Not keeping a first aid (medical) kit in the vehicle
• Not keeping a fire extinguisher in the vehicle
• Driving with an expired license
Pedestrians may be fined 200 SYP for “jay-walking” — crossing the street not in the designated location or against the light.

Point System
_____________
In addition to fines, a “point system” has been developed to track repeat offenders. Each infraction carries a certain number of points, based on the severity of the infraction and the judgment of the official issuing the citation. The maximum number of points is sixteen (16). When someone reaches 16 points, the following rules apply:
• First instance of 16 points: suspension of driving license for three months
• Second instance of 16 points: suspension of driving license for six months and requirement to take a driving course
• Third instance of 16 points: suspension of driving license for nine months and requirement to take a driving course
• Fourth instance of 16 points: cancellation of driving privileges, requirement to take a driving course and a new examination will be required to get a new driving license. Also, a new license cannot be obtained in less than one year.

Additional Penalties
____________________
The following additional penalties have also been enacted:
• The “black box” speed governors are mandatory for public transport, small and large trucks.
• If someone is killed because a driver is violating the new traffic laws, that driver will be imprisoned for between three months and one year; will be fined between 50,000 and 100,000 Syrian lira; and will be banned from driving for two years.
• If a driver leaves the scene of an accident, speeds more than 40 km per hour over the designated speed limit, or drives without vehicle plates visible, that driver will be imprisoned for between one and three months; will be fined 25,000 Syrian lira; will have the vehicle seized by authorities; and will be given 16 points (see “Point System” above).
• If a driver leaves a vehicle parked on railway lines, allows materials to fall from a vehicle on public roads, or fails to have appropriate documents for Special Vehicles, that driver will be imprisoned for between ten days and seven months; will be fined 15,000 Syrian lira; will have the vehicle seized by authorities; and will be given eight points (see “Point System” above).

'It is very hard to be the wife of a brave man'

Raghida Issa, wife of human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni, imprisoned for his human rights work in Syria, will receive the Front Line Award on his behalf from President McAleese today. She hopes that the award will put pressure on the regime to free him.

Raghida Issa has come to Dublin to accept an award on behalf of her jailed husband, a Syrian human rights lawyer, writes Lara MarloweRECENT VISITORS to the home of the jailed Syrian human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni told his wife Raghida Issa that she had been invited to Dublin to receive the "Front Line Award for Human Rights Defenders" on his behalf."The phones are tapped," Issa explained in Front Line's office in Blackrock, Co Dublin. "So they had to tell me in person. The only people I told were our children and Anwar's lawyers. I was afraid if the government knew, they'd stop me travelling. I sent my passport to Dublin via DHL [courier service], and Front Line got the visa."

President Mary McAleese will present Issa with the award in Dublin's City Hall this morning. "I don't know if it will help," Issa says. "But we need pressure from outside, just to remind them there are people in prison." ……..

Issa is "afraid of what will happen when I go back. They may interrogate me: 'Why did you go? Who did you meet?'. . . When they kidnapped Anwar, I lost my job". Issa was fired without notice after 27 years as an engineer in the transport ministry. Now she helps nuns working with Iraqi refugees.Does she ever wish her husband had just kept quiet? "All the time," Issa admits. "I would still love him as much. Anwar thought only of helping political prisoners, to the point of neglecting his family. When he gets something in his mind, he is like his five brothers (two of whom have served 15-year prison sentences). He has to do it – for Syria."

Though a frail, humble man, Bunni has the aura of a future Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Ghandi. When I ask what she loves most about him, Issa at last breaks into a smile. "His enthusiasm," she says. "He never gives up. He is brave." Then she sighs.

Israeli rabbi visits Syria
Published: 05/01/2008

An Israeli rabbi visited the Jewish community of Syria.

Yisrael Meir Gabbai, a fervently Orthodox rabbi who holds Israeli and French passports, traveled to
Syria on the latter last month.

Gabbai told the religious newspaper Hamodia that he was welcomed by the local Jewish community and walked around Damascus freely, despite his distinctive garb.

The rabbi came away with a fairly positive impression of a state that Israel considers an arch-foe, though
there has been recent talk of reviving peace talks between Jerusalem and Damascus.

"It's not Iran, which wants to destroy Israel," Gabbai told Hamodia. "All they want is the Golan."

According to the report, leaders of the small Syrian Jewish community told Gabbai that they are well treated by President Bashar Assad. But Assad critics have noted that minorities in Syria, a police state, are unlikely to voice open criticism of the regime.

Iraqi refugees in Syria: A report of the ICMC-USCCB mission to assess the protection needs of Iraqi refugees in Syria

Executive Summary

This protection assessment mission to Syria is a joint effort of the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Migration and Refugee Services (USCCB-MRS). The mission was funded by the United States Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (BPRM). The main objective of the mission was to provide an in-depth evaluation and analysis of the protection needs of vulnerable Iraqi individuals and families residing in Syria, to assess the existing system of response to these needs, and to make recommendations of the best approaches to address their protection needs.

Brief summary of the present situation of Iraqi refugees in Syria:

– In February 2008 this mission found the Iraqi population in Syria to be living a fragile, isolated existence with limited services and depleting resources.

– Most of the Iraqi refugees in Syria have experienced extremely distressing events in the last few years and appear to be struggling to manage the effects of these events.

– To this date UNHCR in Syria has registered 161,613 Iraqi Refugees.

– Estimates of the total number of Iraqi refugees in Syria are disputed and vary from 300,000 – 1.5 million with the vast majority residing in Greater Damascus.

– Regardless of numbers, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that there are not enough funds and services to address the assistance needs of Iraqi refugees in Syria.

– The Syrian Government has good relationships with United Nations agencies and societies of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. International non-Government organizations are presently not operational in Syria.

– Recognizing the need for a joint effort in response to the Iraqi refugee situation, the Syrian government has currently given approval to 14 international non- Government organizations to work with the Iraqi refugees. They are in the process of being registered so as to become operational.

– Due to the lengthy process of registration of international non-Government organizations UNHCR has very few implementing partners and those that it has are stretched in capacity.4 In many instances UNHCR is implementing its own programs.

– The Iraqi refugee population that has registered with UNHCR has access to basic services such as essential non-food items, health clinics and food. Iraqi children can attend Syrian schools.

– The unregistered Iraqis have limited access to the same basic services, mostly through local Church organizations.

– There are insufficient resettlement places for those Iraqi who cannot return to Iraq.

– Iraqis arriving in Syria are now required to have a visa issued from the Syrian Embassy in Baghdad. Many, who arrived earlier, are now residing in Syria with lapsed visas and some are fearful of deportation. …. (Continue)

Syria and the prospect of an Iraqi
By Marwan Kabalan, Special to Gulf News
Published: May 02, 2008, 00:30

…. True or not, the fabricated nuclear crisis with Syria, many expect, would have far-reaching consequences. The aim is to put Syria in an awkward position. Many believe that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be soon submitting an inspection request to the Syrian authorities. If Syria complies, that would give the US and Israel an access to its military secrets. If it refuses, the case will go to the Security Council and we will be then facing another Iraqi scenario.