Bette Dam, an enterprising German journalist sent the following article on the National Salvation Front meeting in Brussels. It took place on May 13. The NSF is the primary Syrian opposition organization outside of Syria. It was formed a year ago. She writes:

Hi Joshua, Although there might be a lot of news coming from Beirut right now, I send you one interesting (small) detail about the developments in the NSF of Khaddam. Last week they met in Brussels, and I was there too. The meeting was off the record and behind closed doors. Before and after the two meetings I met with members and talked with them about their plans.

All the best, Bette

US Asks the NSF to elect a new leader to obtain credibility
BY Bette Dam
May 19, 2007, Brussels

The American delegation of the National Salvation Front (NSF) proposed that the organization carry out elections of its own in order to choose a new leader. The suggestion caused considerable controversy at the NDF's internal meeting in Brussels (May 13, 2007). According to sources who attended the meeting, Hussam al-Dairi – the representative of the NSF in the US and member of the General Secretariat of the NSF–  explained that US-officials want the NSF to organize elections to try to obtain credibility. Al – Dairi joined the meeting via the telephone.

Abdul Halim Khaddam, the current leader, is too controversial, according to US policy makers, Dairi explained. He served for many years as Syria's vice-president under both Hafiz al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad. He also remains a Ba’athist. Because of Khaddam's background, the US administration is reluctant to work with the NSF, believes it lacks credibility. Around 50 NSF members gathered in a luxurious hotel in Brussels last week in order to plan for their organization's meeting in Berlin on the 4th and 5th of June, which will mark the one-year anniversary of the formation of the NSF.

The US suggestion that the NSF elect a new leader came as a big surprise to the members of the new party. The NSF was the brain-child of Abdel Halim Khaddam, who left Syria with his family in 2005 shortly after being relieved of the office of vice president. Khaddam combined forces with Ali Sadraddin Bayanouni, the exiled leader of the Muslim Brotherhood – Syria's oldest Islamic Party – in order to create a united opposition front that could combine Islamist and secular parties. Only last month, the NSF opened an office in Washington. Most members did not expect a proposal like this, said a number of participants in the meeting.

It seems that Khaddam had not contemplated giving up his position as chairman of the Front. He continues to see himself as the best chairman possible for the NSF. At the same time, Khaddam complained about the lack of international support for the NSF during the meeting, sources said.

He wants more interest from the both the US and the EU because the NSF is Syria's only credible opposition group, members explained. The increasing US and European dialogue with the current “Syrian mafia-regime’ is disappointing, Khaddam added.  

The Kurdish members of the NSF approved of the of idea of elections if it would win increased international credibility for the opposition.

A number of independents and communists who belong to the Front rejected the notion of replacing Khaddam. “On the contrary," one communist insisted, "we need three of four Khaddams to make a fist against the dictator in Syria.”  The participants in the leadership gathering spoke about ‘much more important topics’, added the communist, such as getting more media-attention for the NSF. “For me," he concluded, "the lack of media-attention is the problem, not Khaddam.”

The NSF will try to open a bank account in preparation for raising the one or two million dollars needed to start a satellite channel. “That will be a great revolution for the Syrians in Syria, because then we can reach them," explained one member.

Another way of getting attention is a demonstration by the NSF planned for next week. Although Khaddam did not speak about the demonstration himself, some members talked up the demonstration in the hope that the Syrian opposition will turn out in force on May 27 in front of the Syrian embassy in Brussels. The 27th is the date that the presidential referendum will be held in Syria.

Addendum: Tony, the leader of the NSF's Australian branch, added this perspective in the comment section. Tony asks why I didn't call up leaders of the NSF to get a fuller view of the Brussel's procedings before posting Bette Dam's article. The answer is because I received Bette Dam's interesting article at 2:00a.m. in the morning and posted it. I had to get up at 6:00 for work. Unfortunately I cannot be a full-time reporter. I do hope, at some point to carry out proper interviews with leaders of the NSF in the future. Here are Tony's remarks which give a fuller picture.

tony said:

 

Dear Josh
As a NSF member and its representative to Australasia and I work very closely with Mr Khaddam and the executives I would like to set the record straight about some of the issue in Bette Dam article
1- At that meeting the issue of Mr. Khaddam leadership has never been raised in any shape or form . It was a mere suggestion that after a year we should start applying a democratic methods for our offices as the NSF has rapidly expanded in the last 12 months . this has been agreed to and in our GM in SEPTEMBER all offices will be up for proper election that is includes all members in the executives (which includes Mr. Khaddm and Bayanoni of course)
2- The issue of a “president” type position in the NSF has been resolved in the principles that govern NSF and it is “ NSF is a coalition of all willing participants
Who agree on the three main points
A- change of the regime in Syria
B- free and democratic election
C- a new constitution for Syria the guarantee freedom to its citizens
so the notion of a dominant figure head never been the intended upon the creation
of this body
3- it is always required is in any political movement in exile to gather as much as
possible support and understanding from the international community (and that includes USA) so the insinuation that NSF is an American stooge sounds very funny especially when the administration has not given us till now no more than a token gestures (so far) and as the article writer correctly reported about the fund raising activities we embarking upon for the establishment of the satellite TV station(not a very good news for the regime is it?)
and as always I am happy to supply you with the contact details for MR. Al Dairi
to have his intake on this
and as always I am quite happy to accommodate and request for any meeting with the leader ship (why report this second hand)
and lastly I will have to ask to have this response publish in your site to have the fairness of the right to response adhered to
cheers

The WSJ article (copied below) claims that the Hariri tribunal is still in doubt. Neither China nor Russia have given assurances that they will not veto the resolution for a tribunal under Chapter VII. They claim they are still studying the draft resolution.

Addendum: Before posting the WSJ article here is a piece posted by Col. Pat Lange on his site on the subject of Fatah al-Islam. (Sorry for the previous attribution confusion to some readers.)

Col. Pat Lange, who was head of Military Intelligence for the Middle East for a number of years, argues that Fatah al-Islam is probably not linked to Syria, but a home grown Lebanese phenomena. This was the gist of Anthony Shadid's reporting for the Washington Post of a month ago. Lebanese authorities insist that the group takes orders from Damascus. The origins of the the fighting, which began with a botched bank robbery, do not sound planned by either side. Here is the WSJ article: 

there are the 200,000 odd permanent Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.  They are not Lebanese citizens.  They have no political vote, are overwhelmingly Sunni, are excluded from good jobs, and therefore good housing.  They are excluded from many Lebanese schools.  They and those who came before them have been living in those camps on a kind of "dole" from the UN for a long time, many of them for 50 years.  They have no prospects, zero.  People who have no prospects are dangerous.

So, they are susceptible to the takfiri jihadi message and influence drifting on the winds of the internets and in the minds of returned fighters from Iraq.  Not surprisingly some of them have accepted the call, the call to drive foreign, kaffir influence out of the Lebanon, the call to vent their rage against a political system that offers them nothing.

The "players" in the Siniora/Hariri coalition do not have clean hands in the matter of the creation and encouragement of Sunni zealotry in Lebanon.  Lebanese political leaders have "played" to the Sunni Lebanese of the north for many years, seeking their support in the maze of Lebanese politics.  Did they think that the Sunni Palestinians in the camps would not hear the same message?

So, now we have fighting between the Lebanese Army and Palestinian zealots.  What a surprise!  If it spreads to camps in the south of Lebanon, the Lebanese Army will be hard pressed.  Their commander said so yesterday, urging restraint.

The 24/7 news networks were hard at work today trying to make Syria responsible for the Sunni zealots in the camps.  The statement was being made today that these groups were connected to AQ.  No evidence was offered, but the assertion was repeatedly made based on the "possibility" that had supposedly been voiced by some nameless person in the Lebanese government.  Various Lebanese were asked that question – "Is this Al-Qa'ida?"  Nobody could be found who was willing to say that there was an organizational link to Al-Qa'ida, but the question was asked over and over again.  This question was paired with another – "Is Syria controlling and "behind" this group?"  Nobody could be found who would say that either, but the question was asked over and over again.

Now, think about it, folks  Al-Qa'ida is a virulently anti-Shia Sunni group.   Everyone "knows" how much Syria supports Hizbullah, a virulently anti-Sunni Shia group.  So, which is it? Which side does the syrian government support?  Does the Syrian government support both at the same time?  If you believe that, then you really are a sucker for propaganda.

It would be interesting to know who sets the agenda for the content of 24/7 news.  Very interesting.  pl

Lebanon Unrest Puts Hariri Tribunal In Peril (thanks to Ehsani)
2007-05-21 19:47 (From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
By Jay Solomon 

WASHINGTON: As violence in Lebanon escalated, the Bush administration braced for a possible showdown with Russia and China over the establishment of a United Nations court to try suspects in the 2005 killing of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri.

U.S. and Lebanese officials anticipate a vote at the U.N. Security Council in the coming days on a draft resolution that would unilaterally establish a Hariri court, after pro-Syria critics inside the Lebanese Parliament opposed such a move.

U.S. diplomats said there are increasing fears that Moscow and Beijing may seek to veto the plan, citing recent violence, with deadly clashes between Lebanese army troops and a Sunni militia in Tripoli and bomb explosions in Beirut.

A senior U.S. official working on the Hariri case said within the Security Council there isn't "any agreement to move forward" on the court and that Bush administration officials are debating whether to push for the resolution without a clear indication on how China and Russia will vote. "It's all up to whether the U.S. has the backbone to dare them to veto" the resolution, the official said.

The U.S., France and the United Kingdom see the Hariri court as central to stabilizing Lebanon and ridding the country of Syrian influence. Initial U.N. investigative reports released in 2005 implicated senior Syrian intelligence officials in Mr. Hariri's death, a charge Damascus has denied repeatedly.

The U.N. also is investigating allegations of Damascus's ties to more than a dozen attacks on anti-Syrian activists in the past two years. Senior members of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's government yesterday charged Syria with inciting the latest violence in an effort to derail the establishment of the tribunal. "This is the new Syrian counterattack to try and destabilize Lebanon," said Walid Jumblatt, a Druze leader in the government's parliamentary bloc, in a telephone interview from Beirut. "They're trying to tell us that if we move ahead with the tribunal, this will be the answer.

Syria denies the charge and says it has no ties to the militant group battling Lebanese troops. Many Lebanese officials fear the current political crisis could push Lebanon back into the type of sectarian conflict that gripped the country during its 1975-90 civil war. Lebanon has developed into the latest proxy battle between pro-Western factions in the Middle East and Iran and Syria. Both Tehran and Damascus have backed the Lebanese political party and militia, Hezbollah, in its bid to topple the current Lebanese government.

Russian and Chinese diplomats at the U.N. have said in recent days that their governments are still studying the draft resolution on the Hariri court. Moscow sent a parliamentary delegation to Lebanon last week to confer with government and opposition figures on the status of the international tribunal. "We'll come to a conclusion this week," said a spokeswoman at the Russian mission to the U.N. Russia has been among Damascus's closest allies, tracing back to the Cold War. China is seen as adverse to the U.N.'s unilateral establishment of a tribunal on the principle of protecting national sovereignty.

The clashes in the past two days have pitted Lebanese army troops in the northern city of Tripoli against a Sunni militia called Fatah Islam. Senior Lebanese security officials say the militia's leadership was based in Damascus until late last year and many of its members entered Lebanon after fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Leaders of Fatah Islam say they share the same world view as al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and fight to contain the spread of American and Israeli hegemony.

About 300 Fatah Islam militants are based inside the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in Tripoli, they said.The current fighting was sparked by a bank robbery allegedly conducted by Fatah Islam members that grew into an all-out battle between Lebanese army troops and the militia.

Lebanese tanks and armored personnel carriers shelled Nahr el-Bared yesterday in a bid to flesh out the Fatah Islam members from the camp's population, which is estimated at 40,000 people. At least 50 combatants have been killed in the fighting, and Palestinian leaders said they feared that members of the camp's refugee population have been killed. They pressed Mr. Siniora's government for restraint.

The Bush administration has publicly voiced support for the Lebanese military's response. A State Department spokesman said Beirut's military was working in a "legitimate manner" against "provocations by violent extremists." Lebanese leaders have sought support from the Palestinian Liberation Organization to flush out civilians from Nahr el-Bared so that Lebanese troops can crush Fatah Islam. "If not, there will be a civil war," Mr. Jumblatt said. Yesterday, a second bomb in as many days exploded in downtown Beirut. This one struck the upscale Sunni neighborhood of Verdun.

Lebanese officials again pointed their fingers at Damascus. Syria's foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, denied that his government had any role in supporting Fatah Islam or overseeing the bombings and stressed that Damascus had sought to arrest its leadership. "Our forces have been after them, even through Interpol," Mr. Moallem said in a lecture at Damascus University, according to Reuters. "We reject this organization." Mr. Moallem described the Hariri tribunal as "one of the tools of the U.S. to undermine Syria and the region. This is why we said we will not deal with it."

The Hariri tribunal has been at the heart of a Lebanese political crisis that has stretched on for six months. The country's largely Shiite opposition, led by Hezbollah, pulled its support for Mr. Siniora's government in November, in part because of its opposition to the terms of the Hariri probe. Beirut's parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri, subsequently, has refused to convene a legislative session to ratify the U.N.'s international tribunal, because of the lack of Shiite ministers in the Lebanese government.

Mr. Siniora wrote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon this month to request the Security Council move forward with the international tribunal without Beirut's parliamentary approval. That has required the U.S., France and Britain to try and pass a resolution through the Security Council that would empower the U.N. to act without Lebanon's legislative support. The U.S. completed a draft form of the resolution Thursday, according to U.S. officials.

Published by ALEX 

By Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service

Washington gave Israel the green light to accept Syrian President Bashar Assad's call for peace talks, in a change of position accompanied by several preconditions.

The Bush administration has given Israel permission to discuss the future of the Golan Heights, security arrangements and Israeli-Syrian peace accords if it agrees to talks with Syria.

However, Washington has stipulated that Israel must not agree to any negotiations, even indirectly, on the United States' position, or on the future of Lebanon.

Furthermore, Israel must not make promises to Syria regarding U.S. policy. According to the new position, Washington will deal directly with Syria on these matters.

Lebanon would also not be discussed in negotiations between Syria and Israel.

Syria's role in terrorism, the presence of terrorist organizations in Damascus and its involvement in smuggling weapons to Hezbollah and the Palestinian territories are currently issues which the U.S. is not discussing with Syria.

Iran and its military connection with Syria is also not a topic that is open to discussion at present.

The American position changed due Syria's participation in the Arab League summit in Riyadh.

During the meeting of Iraq's neighbors, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mualem adopted a moderate position. Rice then held a private meeting with Mualem.

Rice intends to invite Syria as well as Palestinian representatives and Israel to an international summit on the Arab-Israeli conflict, according to a plan being drafted by the U.S. State Department.

If this occurs, the American position regarding possible talks between Israel and Syria will no longer be relevant.

Lebanese Troops Fight Islamists; Dozens Are Slain.By HASSAN M. FATTAH and NADA BAKRITRIPOLI, New York TimesMay 21, 2007.TRIPOLI, Lebanon, May 20 — Fierce clashes erupted between Lebanese Army soldiers and Islamic militants in the vicinity of a Palestinian refugee camp here on Sunday, leaving 22 Lebanese soldiers and 17 militants dead and dozens injured in one of the most significant challenges to the army since the end of Lebanon’s bloody civil war..The confrontation with the Islamist group, Fatah al-Islam, raised fears of a wider battle to rout militants in the rest of Lebanon’s 12 refugee camps, where radical Islam has been gaining in recent years. That, in turn, raised the possibility of a deadly conclusion to the crisis, placing strains on the embattled government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora..While anxious not to seem weak in the face of the militant challenge, military experts say, the government and the military also want to avoid any scenes that might draw comparisons to the Israeli attacks on Palestinian camps in the West Bank and Gaza..Many of the complex crosscurrents of Lebanon’s politics were on display in the crisis. The army, under an agreement with the Palestinian leadership and Arab countries, was not allowed to enter the camp. Lebanese citizens, who hold the Palestinians responsible for sparking the civil war in 1975, cheered the army on the streets of Tripoli and outside the camp..Syria, which Lebanon accuses of backing Fatah al-Islam, closed several border crossings in the area. And the fighting broke out just as the Security Council had taken up a resolution to try suspects tied to the February 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syria has been accused in previous investigations of ordering the killing, but vigorously denies any connection..Tensions rose further late Sunday night when a car bomb exploded in a nearly empty parking lot in a Christian section of eastern Beirut, killing one person, wounding 12 others and sparking fears of an orchestrated terrorist campaign. Last month, Lebanese authorities charged four members of Fatah al-Islam with bombing two commuter buses carrying Lebanese Christians in another Christian district..Fatah al-Islam has been a growing concern for security authorities in Lebanon and much of the region. Intelligence officials say it counts between 150 and 200 fighters in its ranks and subscribes to the fundamentalist precepts of Al Qaeda..The group’s leader, Shakir al-Abssi, is a fugitive Palestinian and former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia who was killed last year in Iraq. Both men were sentenced to death in absentia for the 2002 murder of an American diplomat, Lawrence Foley, in Jordan..In the six months since he arrived from Syria, Mr. Abssi has established a base of operations at the Nahr al Bared Palestinian refugee camp on the northern outskirts of this city, and the scene of the fighting on Sunday.What began as a raid on several homes in Tripoli in pursuit of suspected bank robbers connected to Fatah al-Islam quickly escalated into an open confrontation with the group at their stronghold in the camp..Three soldiers and four militants were killed in the early morning confrontation, said a Lebanese security official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Hours later, they said, militants tied to the group attacked an army patrol in the Koura region south of Tripoli, killing four more soldiers. The gunmen also attacked soldiers who were passing by unaware of the fighting, said Lebanon’s information minister, Ghazi Aridi..The fighting raged throughout the afternoon at the camp, home to about 40,000 refugees, as army reinforcements rushed to the scene and tanks began shelling targets in the camp. Militants who had taken positions around the outskirts of the camp fired back, keeping the army at bay..Four children and three women were injured in the shelling, said one medical official, who requested anonymity because his organization forbids members from speaking to the news media. But residents inside the camp, reached by telephone, said at least two civilians had been killed and more than 45 had been injured in the shelling..There was no independent verification of the residents’ claims.By nightfall, the army had regained control of several outposts surrounding the camp, but the siege of the camp continued. Soldiers manned checkpoints in the area and filled the streets late Sunday night and armored personnel carriers rumbled through the city..Many residents of Tripoli welcomed the army into town, and onlookers clapped whenever tanks fired shells into the camp, bringing to the surface longstanding tensions between Lebanese and Palestinians..“This should have happened from the start,” said one man, who stood in a crowd of onlookers as the tanks fired into the camp. The crowd shouted, “God is great, and God protect the army,” with each shell fired..“We wish the government would destroy the whole camp and the rest of the camps,” said another in the crowd, Ahmad al-Marooq. “Nothing good comes out of the Palestinians..”But military experts said a direct assault on the camps would be a grave mistake. “We cannot afford to have that here,” said Elias Hanna, a retired army general, who warned against a direct assault. “This is not a question of the army’s capabilities or its professionalism. You simply can’t send the army into the camps to arrest 200 people without paying a heavy price in civilian casualties..”Residents of the camp said that water and electricity had been cut off, and that an effort to convince the militants to hold their fire to allow the Red Cross to evacuate injured civilians collapsed because the Lebanese Army said it could not guarantee the medics’ security..Lebanon’s 400,000 Palestinians remain among the most downtrodden refugees in the Arab world, enjoying few rights and facing strict restrictions on the kind of work they can do. Most are limited to menial, low-paying jobs and face significant prejudices..Some refugee camps, in turn, have become fertile ground for growing militancy, especially focused against Israel..In recent years the ranks of religious militants bent on a broader jihad have swelled, as some have traveled to Iraq to join the insurgency there and, more recently, have returned to establish movements of their own within the camps..“The army will not be able to defeat them,” said Ahmad Skaff, 20, who lives near the camp, and who said he watched the militants gather outside the camp early Sunday, carrying rocket propelled grenades and other heavy weaponry, ready for a fight. “They are fearless; they will slaughter the army..”The bomb in Beirut exploded just before midnight on Sunday in a parking lot behind a towering shopping mall called ABC and next to a multilevel garage. There was no clear target, though it may have been aimed at moviegoers who sometimes leave the mall around midnight. But the lot was relatively empty at the time of the bombing..The explosion shattered the windows of apartment buildings and stores for blocks around. Fire trucks and police vehicles inched their way through the crowded, narrow streets toward the site. Lebanese soldiers in berets and green camouflage fatigues pushed back hundreds of people trying to shove their way into the area, many snapping photos with their cell phones..“We thought the building had collapsed because it was so strong,” said Hamid Saliba, 39, as he and his wife gingerly stepped through the debris of her mother’s apartment, just a few hundred feet from the blast site. A painting of Jesus Christ hung askew on a wall.

A Syrian friend who lives in Damascus wrote the following note to me about Ash`ari Islam, which  he explains is the mainstream interpretation in Syria. He describes how the establishment shaikhs deal with both Sufism and takfiri Salafism. He asked to remain anonymous.

This is part 3 in our on-going series of posts on the question of Salafism and Sufism among Syrian Muslims. The last part is here.

Ash`ari Islam Predominates in Syria: Its tensions with Sufism and Salafism

Dear Josh,

Thank you for your question about Sufism. It so happens that I have had enough time to read some of the major works of Ibn Arabi; however, I am afraid I can be of little help on the question of Sufis today.

The teachings of the great Sufis (Al-Hallaj, Ibn Arabi, Al-Roumi etc) are full of tolerance and acceptance of others' beliefs. However, many who consider themselves students these great Sufis do not really understand their teachings. It is difficult to understand Ibn Arabi's works without a proper knowledge of the great Greek philosophers, the great "Mu'utazilah" thinkers, Gnosticism, and Christian theology. Therefore, it is doubtful whether an ordinary religious student or a simple Sufi follower really understands the theory of Ibn Arabi about the "Unity of Existence", "Wihdat Al-woujoud.” 

Sufism received support during Ottoman rule due to two factors:

·        It enjoins tolerance, which is very important in ruling an immense empire with a wide variety of ethnicities and religions;

·        It discourages political activism, much as Christianity does, by distinguishing between the mundane and divine worlds.

The accommodation of Sufism and Sunnite-Asha'arite belief has been reached at the expense of Sufism. It has not been easy to change orthodox public attitudes toward Sufis. During much of the 20th century, Sufism was looked at as an infidel practice by orthodox imams and Sunni scholastics. In order to give Sufism a “new look” and gain widespread acceptance of Sufis as “true believers who express their faith in a peculiar manner,” mainstream Sunni scholars have watered down Sufi texts almost beyond recognition. Great Sufi works have been re-interpreted to make them acceptable by the broad Sunni-Asha'ari public. A very bland interpretation of Sufism prevails among the majority of ordinary Sunnis and Sufis today. Sunni scholars not infrequently lecture on Ibn al-Arabi, while disregarding the obvious and apparent meaning of Ibn al-Arabi’s message – which would be real blasphemy. Ironically, Sufis themselves used interpretation as a powerful tool to produce alternative readings of the holy Koran. The popular interpretation of Sufism, which reduces it to a set of shallow practices, in contrast to the "savant" version, represents the historical revenge of Asha'arism. 

Asha'arism represents the prevailing doctrine among Sunni Syrians. Both Sufism and Salafism represent threats to Asha'arism. Sufism represents an "external" threat because it contradicts Asha’ari beliefs on a doctrine level. Nevertheless, Sufism shares a quietist approach to political power with Asha’ari Islam. Both assert the necessity of supporting, or at least coexisting with, existing political authorities so long as they are broadly Islamic and not foreign or non-Muslim.

Salafism represents an "internal" threat to Asha'arism. It shares the same orthodox doctrine as Asha’arism but is much more radical.  Salafis opposed the Ottoman state in the past as they do the Syrian state today, because both states encouraged a loser definition of Islam and supported compromise between Asha’arism and Sufism. Salafis also refuse any compromise with Sufism on the doctrinal level. They have become overtly political in full contradiction to traditional Asha'ari practice.

Refusing the practice of "takfir" is one of the most important principles of Asha'arism. Historically, takfir was embraced only during the rule of Caliphate Al-Ma'moun, influenced by the "Mu'utazilah." This period in Islamic history is vociferously condemned by Asha'aris. It is referred to as the "Mihanh” or calamity. The sentence of life-in-prison that was imposed on Ibn Taymiyya was due to the fact that his teachings were tainted with the dangerous doctrine of takfir. Naturally, Asha'arism opposes this practice as long as it is thought of as an "Inquisition" – or a way to impose the death penalty on those expressing a variant of Islam. It should be added that Asha'aris have not always been reluctant to issue "takfir fatwas" themselves, when requested to do so by rulers eager to go to war against political foes.  

I have drawn a fairly stark distinction between Salafism and Asha’ari Islam, which is the version of Islam that predominates in Syria today. This is a bit simplistic. There is a battle being waged in contemporary Syria over the meaning of Salafism. Takfiri-Salafists constantly try to radicalize Salafism, whereas, Asha’aris try to pacify it and denounce violent political activism. Many Syrians call themselves Salafis in an effort to define themselves as more puritanical or orthodox than the average Syrian even though they reject takfir in principle. Salafis who reject takfir are tolerated by the Asha'ari authorities. We might call them “tamed” Salafis in much the same way that most Sufis have been tamed. The Asha’ari imams are constantly seeking a middle ground, pulling Sufis away from radical ecumenicism and departure from orthodox practice and pulling Salafis away from jihadist doctrine. For many Syrians, Salafism is no longer the fire breathing Islam of Ibn Taymiyya or that of the Saudi Wahhabis.

The end of the Ottoman role and division of the Middle East into modern states under the British and French Mandates had a profound impact on relations between Asha'arism, Sufism, and Salafism. Inspired by western thought, new calls to modernity found it easy to criticize Sufism. Modernists blamed Sufism for the backwardness of Muslim societies. However, much of this criticism, coming, as it did, from critics "outside" of Islamic circles and thinking, designated both Asha'arism and Salafism as potential threats to Islam as well. The rules of the game were changing due to foreign influences.  

In this light, it is easy to understand Hassan al-Banna’s definition of the Muslim Brotherhood. He sought to combine the “Sufi truth” and “Salafi massage,” as he stated it. This was his way of building a political party with an Islamic ideology that could combine the existing tendency among Salafists to become political, while at the same time putting an end to the destructive war that had been waged by Salafists on the Sufis. He had to find a way to end the internecine struggles that kept Muslims from uniting against the “real enemy,” the materialism and secularism represented by the West. Hassan al-Banna did not adopt "takfir," as a strategy, as many of today’s more radical Salafists have. He did, however, approve of resorting to violence for political purposes.

Let us now move to your original question: should the US administration support NSF in its struggle against the Syrian regime? Personally, I think that there is no final answer this question. Moreover, I am quite sure that the question about the relation between Salafism and Sufism in Syria cannot provide a suitable background for finding an answer to the original question. It all depends on whether the US administration can adopt a clearer strategy as regards the issue of democratization. Such a strategy should express US support for peaceful democratic change in Syria.

This strategy should be reflected in policies that express US willingness to deal with all concerned parties including the Syrian regime. For example, US officials, when talking to Syrian authorities, should insist also on the issue of human rights, freedom, and democracy building. It is important that the US always take a clear stand that democratic change remains the responsibility of the Syrian people no matter what tensions exist between the US and the Syrian regimes. There should be no more talk of the "liberation" of the Syrian people. Any conflict with the Syrian regime should be portrayed as an opportunity for Syrian people to claim more democratic rights, but never as an endeavor to enforce democratic change.

Syria Strains Under Exodus of Iraqi Refugees Through Last Open Border, By Marc Perelman, Forward | Fri. May 04, 2007

Al Tanf, Iraqi-Syrian Border – On a recent mild spring morning, Tawfiq Mohamed was nervously pacing back and forth in front of a drab office building that bears a large picture of Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad.

The former Iraqi police clerk was waiting for his two sisters, who had embarked that morning on the seven-hour journey from Baghdad to join him and the 1.2 million Iraqis now living in Syria.

Mohamed, a middle-aged man with a slight beard, was eager to explain the reason for his family’s ordeal: Shiite militias.

“I was driving home through a Shiite neighborhood, and they shot at me. Two days later, they shot at my house,” said Mohamed, who worked for 23 years taking fingerprints at a police station in Baghdad. “They did it because I am a Sunni.”

This dusty checkpoint is the last open border crossing for Iraqis fleeing the mayhem consuming their country. While neighboring countries have restricted access or even shut their borders, Syria continues to allow tens of thousands of fleeing Iraqis to enter its territory each month.

But as the number of Iraqi refugees continues to climb, the Syrian government, already struggling to contain soaring prices and rising crime, is growing concerned that the sectarian tensions bringing most refugees will cross the border with them.

Those economic and political pressures have forced the Assad regime to begin an about-face:….

One well-connected Damascus-based analyst, who asked not to be identified, put it more bluntly: “Syria will stop letting Iraqis in because of inflation and crime but also because of the political price” of feeding resentment among Syrians over socioeconomic issues that could create political trouble for the regime.

Issam el Zaim, a leading Syrian economist and former industry minister, said that while the official inflation rate was 10% in 2006, it actually was probably twice as much. In addition, the regime has been scrambling to monitor the criminal activities and, especially, the political ties, of the Iraqi refugees.

Statistics are hard to come by, but Syrian and international observers believe that the majority are Sunnis, because of the geographical proximity of Iraq’s Sunni provinces and because Syria has welcomed former Baathist cadres from Saddam Hussein’s regime. Still, Damascus has also seen an influx of Shi’ites, as well as Christians.

No serious sectarian incidents have been reported in Syria, a fact that observers say is partly attributable to Syria’s security services and also to the fact that Sunni and Shi’ite Iraqis in Syria tend to live in separate neighborhoods. …. (continue)

Iraq's Christian minority flees violence, by By RAVI NESSMAN, AP, Sun May 6 

"An Open Letter to President Bashar al-Asad," by Patrick Seale, by Patrick Seale, May 17, 2007

Dear Mr. President,

Friends of Syria — and I count myself among them — have been puzzled and saddened by the lengthy jail sentences passed on Syrian political prisoners, human rights activists, and prisoners of conscience. These harsh punishments have attracted worldwide attention and done your country’s reputation great harm.

With the greatest respect, I urge you to review these cases and to grant an early amnesty to the prisoners…..

Patrick Seale speaks for many.

Richard Sale on Chalabi: (This is from Colonel W. Patrick Lang's site) Read the several posts on Chalabi from ex-CIA and others. Extraordinary.

According to more than half a dozen CIA operatives, including former clandestine DO officials, "Agency people became aware that Chalabi had probably been a long-time agent for Iran," in the words of one. These sources, including Whitley Bruner, say that Chalabi was long ago working for Iran in Lebanon, even before the agency recruited him in 1991 and stuck him in as head of the INC. Bruner said of Chalabi: "He never gave the agency any intel on Iran, never submitted to being debriefed.' adding, "He was Iran’s guy."…

In any case, Chalabi got caught fabricating information and the CIA cut him off. He merely went to the Pentagon and the checks kept coming because his fabricated intelligence on Iraq's WMD was so essential to selling the war, this from a man who had already failed four CIA polygraphs so that the agency had issued a "burn" notice on him by the late 1990s.

In 2004, Chalabi betrayed to Iran the fact the NSA was listening to mail belonging to Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).  Milt Bearden called me in real distress the day the Iranian channel went off the air.

But Chalabi's real goal was to get rid of the Baathists in Iraq, and get rid of the army. In spite of promises we had made to senior Iraqi military, some of whom facilitated our entry into Iraq in 2003, Bremer, Wolfowitz and Chalabi broke all those promises and the Iraqis joined the insurgency.

The Security Council and the Hariri Tirbunal. (Thanks to Nur-in-Cubicle)

"It's the mildest solution: the Security Council will not appropriate the tribunal as was the case for Rwanda or ex-Yugoslavia. The Security Council will be satisfied with simply unfreezing the situation." This is how an anonymous Western diplomat explained the draft resolution aiming at ensuring the creation of the tribunal to judge the assassins of Rafik Hariri; Chapter VII may or may not be cited. Russia has said it will not veto the resolution but will abstain. (Via L'Orient-Le Jour)

"U.N.`s Lebanon tribunal draft," By William M. Reilly May 19, 2007 

'Many countries,' he said, had hoped the Lebanese could work it out themselves to support such a tribunal.

'Unfortunately there is a deadlock that the Lebanese were not able to settle the issues,' La Sabliere told reporters. 'Members of the Security Council are aware we have to face our responsibilities.'

Said Paris` envoy, 'What we are looking for is to help Lebanon and I would say the draft will unlock what is locked. It is a resolution which will establish a tribunal. It`s a very simple resolution.'

La Sabliere said, 'There is a real commitment from the beginning by the Security Council. The Security Council has to face its responsibility and I am confident it will do it.'

He expressed hope it could be adopted before the end of the month.

An informal count shows at least 11 yes votes and no vetoes.

Russia, a longtime ally of Syria, has not threatened a veto and, because there previously was an agreement in the Security Council for a tribunal 'of an international character,' Moscow can be expected not to vote it down.

The draft measure carries the weight of the U.N. Charter`s Chapter VII, authorizing the use of force, making it mandatory and giving it the weight of international law.

It calls for the court to be established in a 'timely manner' and sit in a location to be determined in consultations between the United Nations and the government of Lebanon. The draft says if Lebanon cannot afford the tribunal, the U.N. secretary-general may accept contributions for its operation.

By EHSANI2

On Sunday May 27^th, Syria’s young leader will win a new 7-year term as President of his country. The words “will win” are seldom used ahead of Presidential elections. But Syria, like most countries of the Arab World, does not resemble western nations. Presidential elections in the Middle East do not contain even a slight element of surprise. The results are known in advance. The procedures leading to the actual elections have become part of each country’s folklore.

One cannot discuss modern Syrian politics without fully appreciating the events that took place between 1976 and the early 1980’s, when the Muslim Brotherhood uprising against the Assad rule was in full swing.  While this is not the main topic of this post, one cannot escape the fact that the scars of those unfortunate events have left their marks to the present day. The Assad family will never forget how close they came to losing power to that militant insurgency. Only through brutal force was this insurgency crushed. While on face value, the Brotherhood is long gone; the leadership in Damascus has continued to believe that there remains a strong undercurrent of religious fundamentalism inside Syria waiting to be exploited again. Having succeeded at staying in power for so long, the current leadership has convinced itself that in order to maintain the status quo, only force and a clinically efficient security system can guarantee continuity. This leadership has come to view any signs of dissent with paranoia. Allowing any type of dissent has been seen as a slippery slope that must not be traveled on. 

How has Mr. Assad done in his first term, and are the Syrian people better off today than they were in 2000?

Usually, newly elected Presidents can blame their predecessors on what is mostly wrong in their country. In the case of Syria, it is a little tricky to criticize your predecessor when he also happens to be your father who ruled the country for the 30 years prior to your coming to power. However, this challenge was addressed using a clever strategy:

The late Hafez Assad was to be positioned in the minds of the country’s citizens as a leader who was preoccupied with strategic international matters. He did not have the time to concern himself with domestic and economic issues. A group of never fully identified so-called “old guard” was to be assigned the responsibility and the blame for the country’s economic and domestic shortfalls over the past 30 years. For the record, those who knew the late leader are quick to note that he exercised full control over all matters. Delegating responsibilities was not his forte. It was repeatedly rumored that even the order to assign new university professors had to be signed by him personally. This meant that some of those documents sat on his desk for months waiting for his signature. Nonetheless, the above carefully crafted strategy has worked very well for the new President. The ever-tricky job of criticizing the past and pointing to improvements since 2000 was certainly made easier this way.

Supporters of the young President are rightfully quick to point to a list of “improvements” since he came to power. If one were to use the period of 1980-2000 as a measuring stick, then it is hard to argue with the country’ “relative” success over the past seven years. But is this the correct metric? Is it enough to claim that the country is doing better today than in the past?

Syria’s economic challenges:

As readers of this forum know, I have been consistently critical of the country’s economic policies. While it is hard to argue that the pace of reforms has picked up recently, it is important to stress that these reforms have been woefully inadequate. It is not enough to introduce new private banks and promise a wave of new investments in tourism followed with the promise to launch a new securities exchange. Many hard decisions have to be made before this country’s economic challenges can be addressed. Thus far, what has been done has not been adequate. 

One of Syria’s main challenges is its chronic unemployment.  Its vast public sector employs close to two million workers. Outside of telecommunication, almost all these industries experience red ink consistently. While having large state-owned enterprises may help subsidize the income of these employees, it results in the misalocation of resources and low productivity rates. In addition, it is a huge drain on the government’s books as the country’s finance minister reminded us recently.

Syria has a disproportionately young population. As a result, it has a rapidly growing labor force. According to the IMF, this labor force is currently growing at close to 4.0%.  Why is this important? Each country has what economists call a “potential economic growth rate”. The way to calculate potential growth rate is to add the growth of the labor force to the change of the country’s productivity.  In the case of the U.S., potential GDP growth is 3% as a 1% labor force is added to 2% productivity growth. The only way a country can create enough jobs for its labor force is to grow at or higher than potential.

In the case of Syria, a 4% labor force growth and an assumed 1% productivity rate means that its potential growth is at least 5%.  However, growing at potential will not succeed at lowering the current pool of the unemployed. It will merely stop it from rising further. For the economy to absorb an increasing number of the unemployed, a growth rate in the order of 7-8% is needed.

How important is it for the economy to grow by 8% versus the current 3%?

The past 43 years of Baath party rule has been associated with economic stagnation, red tape, socialism and endemic corruption. The cumulative impact of this has stifled economic growth and led to stagnant standard of living. When you grow below potential for as long as 43 years, the cumulative effects can be devastating on income and wealth.

Were a country like Syria to continue to grow at 3% instead of 8% for the next 43 years, the implications would be as follows:

From a base real GDP of $ 23 billion, 3% growth means that GDP will grow to $82 billion by 2050. An 8% economic growth rate, by contrast, would result in a 2050 GDP of $629 billion (thanks to the magic power of compounding). Assuming that Syria’s population grows at 3% over the same period, it is estimated that by 2050 there will be 71 million Syrians to share the GDP number above. The scenario of a 3% economic growth will leave the country with a per capita (per person) GDP of $ 1,150 per year.  8% growth would leave each person with $ 8,829. Assuming a family size of 5, the average Syrian family would either have an average monthly income of $479 or $3,679.

Using the above hypothetical example, one can start to appreciate the impact that economic mismanagement of a country can have if sustained for long periods.

A word on corruption:

One of Bashar’s biggest failures on the domestic front is his inability or unwillingness to reduce corruption and nepotism. Members of the President’s inner circle continue to dominate and monopolize every facet of the Syrian economy with impunity. This President has done nothing to stop this trend. Surely, the family’s financial security is not at risk any longer. Mr. Assad must demonstrate that he will stem this cancer from growing any further. 

Bashar’s political record:

It is extremely hard to review Mr. Assad’s political decisions over the past seven years without eliciting passionate responses. Any discussion of this subject matter is seldom free of controversy. With that in mind, here are my own controversial thoughts:

Only months after Bashar’s rise to power, George W. Bush was elected to office in January 20, 2001. The timing for Bashar could not have been any worse. The Neoconservatives were soon throwing their weight around an extremely sympathetic White House. Eight months into the new US presidency, September 11^th struck. The U.S. was shocked like never before. All previous protocols, arrangements, agreements, alliances, conventions were swept off the table. The U.S. changed. The neoconservatives in the administration had their chance to translate their long held dreams into action. The U.S. President was more than happy to follow them. Afghanistan was the first easy target. Iraq needed more time but not much. During 2002, it became clear that the White House was intent on the invasion of Iraq.

During this same period, Mr. Assad had to contemplate his move. The decision was made to resist the American invasion to his East fearing that Syria would itself become the next American target. Simultaneously, Syria's relations with Iraq kicked into high gear. The Americans were not amused. The Syrian leader was paid a number of visits to convince him to change course. Colin Powell led this effort in his infamous trip to Damascus. The Syrian President did not fall into line. It has been suggested that the list of demands by Powell and others was too long and hard for Mr. Assad to meet. The young President may have given the American official some assurances that he would consider meeting at least some of Powell's demands. In the end, he did not come through. Instead, his strategy seemed to revolve around waiting out the initial euphoria following the American invasion and then capitalizing the inevitable failure of US strategy.

While events in Iraq unfolded according to Bashar’s calculations, those in Lebanon did not. The White House was intent on punishing the young Syrian leader for his Iraq strategy.  It decided that he should pay the price in Lebanon. Rafik Hariri pounced on the opportunities created by the change in America's power in the region. Using his personal relationship with Chirac and the Americans, he became the leading architect of resolution 1559, which was adopted at the Security Council in 2004. By then Damascus had seen enough. The order to eliminate Hariri was put into action. It was risky and audacious, but it was also necessary. If the Americans were already unhappy with Damascus, they were shocked once Bashar set out to scuttle their Lebanon strategy. The US Ambassador to Syria was called back to Washington in less than 24 hours. The U.N. resolution to try the killers of Hariri was put into full swing.

In the opinion of this writer, Mr. Assad could have followed a different strategy when he learnt of the American plan to invade Iraq. Did he need to be so vocally and publicly opposed to it? Today, we hear him offer his help to calm the chaos in Iraq. Could he have done this earlier? I am constantly reminded that there was no guarantee that America was going to accept Bashar’s help in the wake of the its invasion of Iraq should he have offered it then. One still wonders what would have happened had he tried harder. Something tells me that were Hafez to be alive during the past 7 years, he would have turned the American invasion of Iraq to his advantage and ended up establishing himself as the undisputed leader of the region stretching from Lebanon and the Mediterranean to the Euphrates river.

(AP) — France, Britain and the United States proposed late Thursday that the United Nations unilaterally establish an international tribunal to prosecute suspects in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

The draft U.N. Security Council resolution calls for the creation of a tribunal outside Lebanon with a majority of international judges and an international prosecutor under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals with threats to international peace and can be militarily enforced.

The issue of an international tribunal has since fueled a deep political conflict between Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's Western-backed government and the Syrian-backed, Hezbollah-led opposition. The conflict has taken on an increasingly sectarian tone and erupted into street battles, killing 11 people in recent months.

The resolution obtained by The Associated Press would put in force an agreement on establishing the tribunal that has been signed by the United Nations and the Lebanese government. It was circulated following Saniora's formal request for Security Council action, which cited the refusal of opposition-aligned Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to convene a session to ratify the U.N.-approved statutes to create the tribunal.

France, Britain and the United States discussed the draft resolution at a closed-door meeting with the two other veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China.

"The resolution aims at helping the Lebanese to find a way out of the current dead end," France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.

Since the resolution would put in force an already existing agreement between the U.N. and Saniora's government – rather than imposing a new U.N. tribunal – diplomats said the co-sponsors were hopeful it would not face strong opposition from Moscow, Beijing or other council members.

A U.N. investigation into the assassination is still under way, led by Belgian prosecutor Serge Brammertz. His predecessor, Germany's Detlev Mehlis, said the killing's complexity suggested the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services played a role in Hariri's assassination. Four Lebanese generals, top pro-Syrian security chiefs, have been under arrest since last year, accused of involvement in Hariri's murder.

Earlier this week, Lebanon's pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, urged the Security Council to stay out of the country's political infighting and not impose the tribunal.

But the draft refers to Saniora's request that the special tribunal be put into effect "as a matter of urgency" and says of the Hariri killing "that this terrorist act and its implications constitute a threat to international peace and security."

Posted by ALEX

Nir Rosen discussing the Iraqi Refugee crisis at length in the New York Times:

 "At a meeting in mid-April in Geneva, held by António Guterres, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, the numbers presented confirmed what had long been suspected: the collapse of Iraq had created a refugee crisis, and that crisis was threatening to precipitate the collapse of the region. The numbers dwarfed anything that the Middle East had seen since the dislocations brought on by the establishment of Israel in 1948. In Syria, there were estimated to be 1.2 million Iraqi refugees. There were another 750,000 in Jordan, 100,000 in Egypt, 54,000 in Iran, 40,000 in Lebanon and 10,000 in Turkey. The overall estimate for the number of Iraqis who had fled Iraq was put at two million by Guterres. The number of displaced Iraqis still inside Iraq’s borders was given as 1.9 million. This would mean about 15 percent of Iraqis have left their homes…

Many of Iraq’s neighbors initially welcomed the refugees. These countries were motivated by self-interest as well as by generosity. Certain political refugees, like Baathist officials, who were among the first to leave Iraq, had a political use in negotiations with the American-led occupation and the Iraqi government that succeeded it. And the well-to-do early refugees — those who could meet Jordan’s requirement of $100,000 in the bank to qualify for a residency permit, for example — brought much-needed capital. But the numbers and the welcome became unsustainable: Jordan and Egypt have made it very difficult for Iraqis to enter, and even Syria, with a long history of welcoming refugees, has passed regulations, like restrictions on the purchase of property and on access to free health care, that are intended to ensure that Iraqi refugees are only temporary residents. Iraq’s neighbors take the position that Iraqi refugees are not in fact refugees at all, because refugee status enables refugees to make claims on the host country."

George Ajjan, a Republican of Syrian origin, attacks the Bush Administration's Syria/Lebanon policy in his letter to Liz Cheney, published by antiwar.com, in response to a Washington Post oped from last month:

"I'd rather reflect on your advice, starting with the comprehensive list of actions you suggest should be taken against Syria, or How to try to beat Syria into submission, but fail miserably, in 7 easy steps.  One of these is for the US to "implement all remaining elements of the Syria Accountability Act and launch an aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition." I could insert a standard libertarian argument here to explain why the unilateral sanctions proposed by the Syria Accountability Act don't work, but I won't waste your time.

…I also found your mention of the American Revolution quite bizarre in the context of Lebanese political assassinations…It is also a shame that you did not continue this curious analogy and bring more personalities into the mix, such as Michel Aoun, so adored by American "conservatives" like Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle, and Chuck Schumer – all Board Advisors for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies – that he was a invited to Washington in 2003 to deliver a lecture to that organization…Sadly, Aoun's tenure as the neoconservatives' "Maronite of the Month" has since expired, and now he is aligned with Hezbollah in a political opposition to the "Lebanese democrats" hailed in your article. I suppose that makes him Benedict Arnold in your 1776 analogy. Then there's Samir Geagea. I'm not sure which American revolutionary he would correspond to, but it would probably be someone from the colony of Georgia.
Furthermore, Liz, I question in general the historical validity of this analogy. In 1776, the United States of America, which had existed as a possession of a European power, asserted its independence and was born. Lebanon also did that, but it was not in 2005, it was in 1943, when Lebanon declared itself a Republic independent from France, for whom it was an intra-war mandate. Thus, to a true Lebanese patriot, your analogy would be exclusionary, revisionist, and downright insulting. What about the many "Lebanese democrats" who gave their lives not only in Lebanon's struggle for national independence over 60 years ago, but in its vicious 15 year civil war?

…Your constituency consists of one very well placed person. Thus, these foreign agents, who care nothing for America and are only interested in grinding their own axes, view you as the cheapest date in Washington. They are your "allies." And by "allies," I mean the people who throw flowers upon you today but will stab you in the back as soon as you are no longer useful to their shortsighted, vengeance-driven worldview.  Thus, your proposals basically sound like a bad remix of an even worse one-hit wonder from the early eighties. Remember, Liz: politics in Lebanon are a lot like that country's infamous "Dog River" – the scum rises to the top. You may wish to take a swim there, but don't drag the rest of America with you."

Stephen Zunes says "U.S. Blocks Israel-Syria Talks", from Foreign Policy in Focus:

"Even as American officials reluctantly agreed last month to include Syrian representatives in multiparty talks on Iraqi security issues, the Bush administration continues to block Israel from resuming negotiations with Syria over its security concerns. In 2003, President Bashar al-Assad offered to resume peace talks with Israel where they had left off three years earlier, but Israel, backed by the Bush administration, refused. Assad eventually agreed to reenter peace negotiations without preconditions, but even these overtures were rejected.

Beginning in 2005, with the knowledge of their governments, private Israeli and Syrian negotiators began crafting a draft treaty to end the decades-long conflict between the two countries. The Bush administration, however, downplayed the talks’ significance. Following last summer’s war in Lebanon, several prominent members of the Israeli cabinet – including Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Internal Security Minister Avid Dichter – called on their government to resume negotiations with Syria. Although Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni appointed a senior aide to prepare for possible talks, such initiatives did not get any support from Washington. According to the Jewish Daily Forward, it appeared that “Israel would be prepared to open a channel with Syria but does not want to upset the Bush administration.”

Indeed, when Israeli officials asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about pursuing exploratory talks with Syria, her answer, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was, “don’t even think about it.” Similarly, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reports that Israeli government officials “understood from President Bush that the United States would not take kindly to reopening a dialogue between Israel and Syria."

From Reuters:  Lebanon president warns U.N. over Hariri court
BEIRUT (Reuters) – Lebanese President Emile Lahoud warned the United Nations on Tuesday against setting up a tribunal for suspects in the 2005 killing of former premier Rafik al-Hariri.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Lahoud said there could be renewed instability in Lebanon if the U.N. Security Council moved to set up the court as requested by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Siniora wrote to Ban on Monday urging the United Nations to form the tribunal unilaterally because he said efforts to secure full Lebanese approval had hit a dead end.

Lahoud said any move by the Security Council to set up the tribunal unilaterally “would imply a full bypass of the constitutional mechanisms in Lebanon.”

That “would not only threaten Lebanon’s stability … but would as well hamper the court’s judicial capacities to hold an impartial trial,” wrote Lahoud, quoting from a letter he sent to Ban in February.

Siniora was “falsifying facts to drag the Security Council … into siding with one Lebanese party against the other,” he added.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has refused to convene parliament to approve the court plans because he, like Lahoud, considers Siniora’s government unconstitutional.

Both Berri and Lahoud are allies of Syria. Lebanese leaders who back Siniora’s government accuse them of acting on Syrian orders to derail the court. They accuse Damascus of the Hariri killing, which was followed by attacks on other anti-Syrian figures. Syria denies involvement.

The opposition, which also includes pro-Syria Hezbollah, have said they accept the idea of the court but fear it will be used as a political tool and want to discuss its mandate.

The United States, which backs Siniora, said last week it would push for the court’s creation.

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs David Welch arrived in Beirut on Tuesday and is expected to discuss the tribunal with Lebanese leaders.

L'Orient le Jour:  A Resolution on the Tribunal is not imminent

De son côté, M. Karel de Gucht, ministre belge des Affaires étrangères, qui accompagne à New York le roi Albert II et la reine de Belgique, a indiqué à L’Orient-Le Jour, à l’issue de sa rencontre avec Ban Ki-moon et Zalmay Khalilzad, représentant permanent des États-Unis auprès de l’ONU, avoir « très brièvement parlé de l’éventualité d’une résolution portant notamment sur le tribunal Hariri ».
« En ce qui concerne, le recours au chapitre VII de la Charte de l’ONU, nous verrons dans les semaines à venir comment approcher cette question et comment y apporter la meilleure solution », a-t-il ajouté.
Par ailleurs, un diplomate de l’ONU a indiqué à L’Orient-Le Jour qu’« il est prématuré de parler d’une réunion du Conseil de sécurité sur la question du tribunal ». Selon lui, « la lettre de Siniora devra être étudiée par les différentes capitales ». « Nous sommes en consultations constantes avec certains membres du Conseil de sécurité et avec les autorités libanaises pour la mise en place d’une option possible dans le cadre d’une résolution sur la question du tribunal. Notre approche doit être prudente et bien étudiée avant de nous adresser à la Russie, la Chine, l’Afrique du Sud, l’Indonésie et le Qatar », a encore indiqué ce diplomate. « Rien n’est encore imminent, a-t-il poursuivi. Nous avons encore quelques jours avant de décider. Mais en tout cas, pas cette semaine. »

The Daily Star covers Assistant Secretary of State David Welch in Lebanon, including a meeting with Maronite Patriarch Sfeir.

"BEIRUT: The US State Department's top official in the Middle East said Tuesday his government remained committed in its support for Premier Fouad Siniora's government and to what he described as Lebanon's advance toward "full democracy." "The United States' commitment to Lebanon remains firm, enduring and non-negotiable," Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch said following a meeting with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir at Bkirki.

Welch reiterated his government's support for timely presidential elections and for one government in Lebanon. He said that for members of Parliament to meet and elect a president without pressure would be a "significant step."

"There is only one government and there should only be one government," Welch said. Leaders from both of the country's main political camps have warned in recent weeks that a failure by Parliament to elect a new president as planned in September could give rise to a double government.

Welch arrived at Rafik Hariri International Airport Tuesday afternoon and was whisked away amid tight security to the US Embassy in Awkar, where he met with pro-government MPs.

Welch's visit came a day after Siniora sent a letter to the UN seeking help with the establishment of the international court to try suspects in the killing of former Premier Rafik Hariri.

Welch said he was confident the tribunal would "see the light of day," pointing to an earlier agreement on the issue between the current Cabinet and the UN.

Welch also met with parliamentary majority leader MP Saad Hariri in Qoreitem on Tuesday, and was also scheduled to meet with Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and Democratic Gathering leader MP Walid Jumblatt.

The Central News Agency (CNA) reported Tuesday that members of the parliamentary majority, in discussions with Welch, had stressed the need to expedite the Hariri tribunal.

Welch was scheduled to meet Wednesday with Speaker Nabih Berri, Siniora and former President Amin Gemayel.

Welch told reporters at Bkirki that his government "will continue to support and stand with the Lebanese people as they complete their historic transformation to full democracy."

"I shared with his eminence the belief of the US that the Lebanese have a unique opportunity at this time to take their future in their hands by electing a new president – on time, in accordance with the Constitution and free of outside interference," he said.

Welch also conveyed birthday greetings to Sfeir "from US President George W. Bush, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the American people."

According to the CNA report, Berri conveyed a desire to visit Bkirki through the head of the Phalange Party, Karim Pakradouni, who met Sfeir Monday.

Sfeir reportedly welcomed the visit, saying that "the doors of Bkirki are open to him and to all the Lebanese."

Sfeir hoped the meeting with Berri would be "preceded by adequate preparation and agreement over the desired results of the meeting" within the framework of a joint memorandum of understanding that covers the matter of presidential polls.

Parallel to American diplomatic activity in Lebanon, Iran's ambassador to the country, Mohammed Rida Shibani, met with Hariri for an hour and a half on Tuesday afternoon. Shibani declined to comment after the meeting."

SANA:  Al-Moallem meets European ministers in Brussels

Brussels, (SANA)- Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem discussed on Monday with British Foreign Minister Mrs. Margaret Beckett bilateral relations and the latest developments in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon .

The two sides stressed the importance of Iraq's territorial integrity and independence and realizing security and stability in the country, calling for encouraging the national reconciliation efforts and taking the required steps in this regard.

On the Arab-Israeli conflict and Arab peace initiative, they underlined the necessity of implementing UN relevant resolutions and to exerting efforts to achieve the just and comprehensive peace in the region.

Regarding the situation in Lebanon, talks concentrated on the need to intensify efforts to urge the Lebanese sides to concordance in order to overcome the current situation in Lebanon.

Foreign Minister al-Moallem also met his Spanish counterpart Miguel Angel Moratinos and discussed with him latest developments in the region and steps taken in this regard to find a way out of the existing situation.

Both sides discussed bilateral relations and aspects of cooperation between Syria and Spain.