The Cheney team is pulling out all the stops in a last ditch effort to get the Security Council to establishing an international tribunal to try the Hariri murder. At stake is the policy of isolating Syria. Support for the Bush administration's policy of isolation has taken a number of hits lately from both European and US statesmen, who have visited Damascus and believe that Syria must be part of the solution in the region. They believe that enlisting Syria's support is necessary to reverse the regional slide toward chaos.

Liz Cheney in the Washington Post writes: "The Truth About Syria," which begins:

Anyone familiar with the past two years of Lebanese politics would never claim, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in Damascus last week, that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Talking to the Syrians emboldens and rewards them at the expense of America and our allies in the Middle East. It hasn't and won't change their behavior. They are an outlaw regime and should be isolated. Members of Congress and State Department officials should stop visiting Damascus. Arab leaders should stop receiving Bashar al-Assad. The U.N. Security Council should adopt a Chapter VII resolution mandating the establishment of an international tribunal for the Hariri murder.

The Security Council should also hold Syria accountable for its ongoing violations of existing resolutions. The U.S. government should implement all remaining elements of the Syria Accountability Act and launch an aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition. European governments should demonstrate that they value justice over profit and impose financial and travel sanctions on Syria's leaders.

The comment section on Cheney's op-ed is instructive. Read it here

Lebanon's destiny is indeed being determined today. 

While the majority and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora are taking the Security Council route to establish the Hariri tribunal under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, Hizbullah's secretary general merely reiterated Syria's line on the Lebanese deadlock. He reaffirmed that the party's conflict with its adversaries is an existential one and, rashly, made Shiites the first line of defense in protecting Hariri's killers.

The UN is where all major matters Lebanese are likely to be decided in the coming months. The Chapter 7 tribunal bazaar has been opened. Ultimately, the outcome will in all probability be decided at the level of heads of state, not foreign ministers.

All of this comes down to the UN Security Council and whether it will vote to establish a special court.

Here is what I wrote about the likelihood of that happening in a comment on my last post.

On the tribunal, everyone is saying, “Yes, it must happen,” but few are willing to take responsibility for it. The head of the UN made it clear during his most recent visit to Lebanon that establishing the legal framework for the tribunal was Lebanon’s duty. He demanded that Lebanon come to a consensus on the tribunal and pass the appropriate laws in the Lebanese parliament. Saudi Arabia said the same thing. Russia said it would not vote against the tribunal in the UN, but asked for time and said it was complicated. This is also a way of saying “yes” and meaning “no.”

There is “public” agreement that the tribunal ought be established, but no agreement on how it should be established. Lebanon's March 14 coalition have asked that the UN vote a special Security Council law, taking the matter out of Lebanese hands. The UN, however, has asked that the Lebanese pass it through their parliament, which will not happen because Nabih Berri, the Speaker of the Parliament, has refused to call a meeting of the parliament to discuss it. Not even March 14 members think they can force it through parliament any longer.

There is a pattern here. Everyone is saying “yes,” but meaning “no.”

There is little international will to tie Syria up in a complicated international court process that most believe will ultimately be inconclusive. The UN investigation into the Hariri murder led by Brammertz has provided little beyond circumstantial evidence that Syria was involved. (On this see my earlier posts here and here.)

Because of the Bush administration success in bringing “chaos” to the Middle East and failure in bringing peace, most international statesmen are coming to the conclusion that Syria will have to be enlisted as a key player in helping to advance stability in the future.

There is no desire in the international community to preclude the possibility of doing business with Syria – the real consequence of establish an international tribunal.

A hundred legal and economic restrictions have already been imposed on dealings with Syria. They will be difficult enough to undo. Why add the master lock – the international tribunal – which Cheney hopes to leave as his legacy to the Democrats?

This is why so many heads of state are coming to the conclusion that establishing the international tribunal is unwise; it is why the Pelosi visit was explosive; and it is why the Cheney-Abrams team has launched the attack against her. What hope remains to them of getting consensus for a Security Council resolution took a big hit with her visit. Not only do most of the Europeans and Middle Eastern heads of state believe that Lebanon would crumble under the pressure imposed by an international tribunal, but so do the Democrats and many Republicans. They have little faith that the Bush-Cheney plan for the Middle East will bring success.

—

In conclusion, here are two recent articles that make the argument that Syria is gaining new converts in its claim to regional importance and future stability: one is by Mark Perelman of the "Forward," who just returned from Damascus, the other is by IPIN, a security think-tank.

Detente is the talk of the Town in Damascus
Syria Claims Mediation Role in West’s Standoffs With Hamas and Iran
Marc Perelman | Fri. Apr 13, 2007

Damascus — While Republicans and Democrats in Washington trade blows over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria last week, officials and pundits in this ancient capital describe the political feuding as a distraction from a more important truth. From their viewpoint, Pelosi’s visit was not a freelance bid for American-Syrian thaw but rather the latest step in a larger Syrian-Western rapprochement that has been under way for months….

PNIR: ''Intelligence Brief: Syria's Regional Position Strengthens'' April 9, 2007

During the past few weeks, new events demonstrated how Syria's position in the Middle East has strengthened since last year. Although the Bush administration has aimed to isolate Syria, there are new signals pointing in the opposite direction, such as the March bilateral talks in Iraq between the United States and Syria. Moreover, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent trip to Damascus has been an important success for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since it creates the image of Syria as an element of stability in the region.

In light of these changes, Syria appears to be modifying its foreign policy to demonstrate how it could play an important role in guaranteeing the stability of the Middle East. Syria is hoping that outside powers will recognize its vital interests — Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Iraq — and if they do so then Damascus will assist in stabilizing Iraq. If, however, its interests are not recognized, then Syria will resume brewing instability in the region.

Lebanon is a key point of disagreement within the Arab world. Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser degree Egypt, is backing Lebanon's Fuad Siniora-led government against Syria, the latter of which supports the groups that are attempting to cause the current government in Beirut to collapse. Currently, Syria's moves in Lebanon are dictated by international contingencies, such as the upcoming elections in France. Assad wants to stall for time in order to delay a Lebanese vote on the establishment of a Hariri tribunal until after the departure of French President Jacques Chirac, one of Assad's main political enemies. Syria hopes that the next French president will take a softer line with Damascus. Therefore, for now Syria wants to keep the question of the tribunal in limbo…..

Syria, Elliot Abrams, and the Contras All Over Again
by Jim Lobe  

US backing 'covert war' against Hizbullah in Lebanon?
Militant Islamic group says Cheney plan meant to undermine Iran's regional influence.
By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com

As reports indicate the militant Islamic groups Hizbullah and Hamas are rearming themselves in case of a conflict with Israel, a high-level Hizbullah official has accused the US of waging a "covert war" in Lebanon against the organization.

The Guardian reports that Hizbullah's deputy secretary general, Sheikh Naim Qasim, said in an interview that US Vice President Dick Cheney "has given orders for a covert war against Hizbullah… there is now an American program that is using Lebanon to further its goals in the region."

The accusation follows reports in the US and British media that the CIA has been authorised to take covert action against the militant Shia group, which receives substantial military backing from Iran, as part of wider strategy by the Bush administration to prevent the spread of Iranian influence in the region.

According to the reports, US intelligence agencies are authorised to provide "non-lethal" funding to anti-Hizbullah groups in Lebanon and to activists who support the western-backed government of Fouad Siniora.

But Hizbullah accused the Lebanese government of arming groups across the country. "This happens with the knowledge of the prime minister and is facilitated by the security forces under his command," said Sheikh Qasim. The Bush administration recently set aside $60m (£30m) to fund the interior ministry's internal security force, which has almost doubled in size to 24,000 troops. Sheikh Qasim said there was a growing anti-Hizbullah bias in the security services. "The internal security forces have not succeeded in playing a balanced role … The sectarian issue is very delicate when it comes to the security services."

Sheikh Qusim's accusation comes after contradictory charges of a pro-Hizbullah bias by Lebanese security forces were made last week. There have been growing concerns that Syria – which has long supplied Hizbullah with weapons and financing – has stepped up illegal arms transfers across its border with Lebanon. The Associated Press reports that Walid Jumblatt, the anti-Syrian leader of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party, told Al Jazeera television that members of the Lebanese security forces were helping Hizbullah smuggle arms into the country, undermining the Lebanese government.

"There is a state within a state," Jumblatt said of Lebanon in the interview. "There is a Hizbullah army alongside the Lebanese army.

There is Hizbullah intelligence alongside Lebanese (army) intelligence and there are Lebanese territories that the army is prohibited from entering." …

Jumblatt, a one-time ally of Hizbullah, turned against the group last year and has been among the most ardent callers for disarming it.

The AP writes that in a speech Sunday, however, Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah announced it would not give up its weapons until the Lebanese army becomes capable of resisting Israeli attacks.

The Hezbollah leader apparently was responding to repeated calls by the country's anti-Syrian parliamentary majority for his group to disarm in line with a UN resolution that ended last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war.

"The only solution is that there must be a strong state and a strong army capable of confronting any Israeli aggression on Lebanon," he said.

Sheikh Nasrallah also announced that talks had deadlocked between Hizbullah's pro-Syria allies and Lebanon's pro-government majority, and called for a referendum or early parliamentary elections to resolve the stalemate.

Lebanese Web portal Naharnet.com writes that Samir Geagea, leader of the pro-government Lebanese Forces party, slammed Nasrallah's stance and accused him of "not allowing the rise of the [Lebanese] state" and of trying to drag Lebanon into a war meant to create a global Islamic nation.

"You want to liberate the whole of Palestine and throw the Jews in the sea. You want to push the Americans out of all Muslim lands. You want to liberate the Balkan province … We are not affiliated with this scheme," Geagea told Nasrallah.

"You have no right to take the Lebanese people hostage to carry out your strategy. The Lebanese state exists, the Lebanese entity exists and you will not be able to drag the Lebanese people into war," he added.

"No one can impose on us what we don't want. No one can impose on us strategies or ideologies," Geagea announced.

Nonetheless, Hizbullah is readying for the possibility of battle. The Christian Science Monitor reported last week that the heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington have spurred preparations by Iran and its allies, Syria and Hizbullah, in case of a US strike against Iran or new military action by Israel.

"US threats against Iran are no longer regarded by the Iranians and Syrians as just saber-rattling, and it's only natural that they prepare themselves," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle East Center in Beirut.

Hizbullah officials and fighters say that the party has launched an intensified training program with new recruits pushed through month-long courses in camps scattered along the flanks of the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon. Veteran fighters receive refresher courses and can volunteer for 45-day programs to join special-forces units.

"There is a high level of recruitment. The rearmament is happening because there will be a war with Syria. The Israelis cannot accept the insult of the July war," says Mohammed, a Hizbullah activist in Beirut, referring to last summer's conflict.

The Monitor adds that Hamas, which received aid from Iran after winning control of the Palestianian Authority and being isolated by the West, is also reequipping itself, according to Israeli officials.

Israel claims that dozens of Hamas militants have traveled to Iran for training and that Iranian-supplied weapons are being smuggled via tunnels from Egypt into Gaza. "Hamas is doing all its best to arm itself. The attempt to stop it is like putting a door in the middle of the desert," [Zvi Shtauber, director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University in Israel] says, commenting on an Egyptian promise this week to stave the flow of weapons. "You can just go around it."

The report that Hamas is rearming was echoed Tuesday in a statement by Israeli internal security service Shin Bet, The New York Times reports. The Shin Bet statement cited a wave of arrests of Hamas militants in the West Bank town of Qalqilya, along with an aborted suicide bombing launched from the town, as evidence that Hamas is gearing up for a new terrorist campaign against Israel. The Times writes that Hamas refused to comment on Shin Bet's statement yesterday. Haaretz reports that Palestinian Authority police officials denied Shin Bet's claims, however.

Peter Harling, the International Crisis Group director in Damascus, has just circulated his new report on restarting Israeli-Syrian Negotiations. (copied below)

Also see

Mona Yacoubian's report, "Syria's Relations with Iraq," for USIP, April 2007.

Main Points:

Syria's alleged "blind eye" to the funneling of insurgents and arms across its border into Iraq is a key issue dividing the two countries. Nonetheless, even if Syria were to offer full cooperation and completely stanch the flow of fighters and weapons, the overall impact on Iraq's security situation would be relatively marginal since the underlying dynamic propelling Iraq's violence is largely internal.

In particular, Syria has exploited its longstanding ties to key Iraqi government figures, many of whom sought refuge in Syria during Saddam's regime. For example, Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lived in Syria for 20 years, while Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, spent several years in Syria and even held a Syrian passport until 2004. By some estimates, 17 of the 25 top leaders of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)—at one time a key Iraqi opposition group and now a major player in the governing coalition—lived in Syria. Syria's ties to key elements in Iraq's Sunni community are also well-established.

With the costs of Iraq's chaos—massive refugee flows and heightened sectarianism—outweighing its short-term benefits, Syria will do what it can to help restore a measure of stability in Iraq. In the short-term, Damascus may improve security and intelligence cooperation with Baghdad. It will also seek additional international aid and support for its growing Iraqi refugee population. In the longer term, should Iraq manage to emerge intact from its crisis, Syria would clearly favor the establishment of an authoritarian government in Baghdad. Specifically, Damascus would seek an Iraqi strongman who could keep violence in check, prevent the establishment of a breakaway Iraqi Kurdistan, and stifle a genuine political opening.

Sami Moubayed's, "Missed opportunities." for historical context:

The fact that Olmert has not [accepted King Abdullah's peace plan] is the biggest missed opportunity since turning down the peace offer of the late Egyptian leader in 1952-1953.

Henry Siegman, "What the Arabs propose, and what they do not," in the IHT

There are no grounds for Israel's rejection of the Arab initiative. If … Olmert forgoes this opportunity to normalize Israel's relations with the entire Arab world, the only explanation will be that he believes a deadlock in the peace process serves Israel's interests better than a peace agreement.

President Asad gives an interview to "Mother Jones'," Reese Erlick, dated April 5, 2007, but done earlier. He talks about the thrust of Syrian government meetings with various Iraqi groups. (thanks Paul Solomon)

Here is the ICG summary from Peter Harling in Damascus:

It is a great pleasure to inform you of the release of our latest report, Restarting Israeli-Syrian Negotiations (click the link to download), which examines prospects for renewing peace negotiations between Syria and Israel against a backdrop of regional developments, including the July 2006 Lebanon war and the re-launch of the Arab peace initiative at the 28 March Riyadh summit. The report seeks not to present the guidelines of a peace deal, as we have done on several occasions in the past. Rather, it aims to tackle the obstacles preventing renewed negotiations.I would also like to draw your attention to a related opinion piece published in today’s edition of the Syrian daily al-Watan, copied below.

Very best regards, Peter

?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????????????: ???? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????  

      ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?2% ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??????.  

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

        ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? (?????????? ????????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ? ?????? ????? ????) ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???: ??? ????????? ?? ????. ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????.  

      ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ? ????? ????? ???????? ??????????? ????????.?? ??????? ????????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? "????" ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????! ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ???. ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????.  

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

       ? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? (??? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?????) ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? "????? ?????" ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? "??????? ???? ?????" ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???????. ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????????????. ??? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ????????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????????. 

       ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? "???? ?????????" ?? ???? ??? ?????. ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ? ????? ????? ????????: ???? ?????? ??? ???? 1967 ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ? ?????? 

       ?? ??? ????????? ??? ????? ? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? "?????? ???? ?????????". ? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ????? ? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? (???? ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ??????: http://www.crisisgroup.org/). ? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ? ??? ? ??? ????? ??? "??????" ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??????…??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? + 15 – ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? 1991 – ? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????????? ? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ???.??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ? ?????.????, ????? : 09-04-07

Restarting Israeli-Syrian Negotiations
Middle East Report: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
Jerusalem/Damascus/Washington/Brussels, 10 April 2007:

Israel should seize the opportunity to renew peace negotiations with Syria while there is a real chance of success, or risk further destabilising the Middle East.

Restarting Israeli-Syrian Negotiations,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines prospects for renewing diplomacy between Syria and Israel against the backdrop of regional developments, including the July 2006 Lebanon war and the re-launch of the Arab peace initiative at the 28 March Arab League summit. Although not the region’s costliest, the Israeli-Syrian conflict has prevented broader normalisation of Israel’s relations with the Arab world and has helped maintain regional tension which could degenerate into another armed conflict.

The report examines Israel’s reasons for holding on to the Golan – such as suspicion of Syria’s intentions, the strength of the settler population, the territory’s role as a security-buffer and the appeal it holds for the Israeli people. "But the benefits of peace far outweigh those of continued occupation", says Nicolas Pelham, Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst in Israel. "Recent regional developments have made an Israeli-Syrian agreement more urgent, more important and more attainable".

Within weeks of the Lebanon war, Damascus signalled it would resume talks without any precondition and indicated that its regional posture and relationships would change following a peace deal. Israel, however, has conditioned any dialogue on a broad change in Syria’s policy: cutting ties to Hamas, halting assistance to Hizbollah and fundamentally altering its relationship with Iran. What Israel demands could potentially be achieved, but only as part of a final deal, not as a precondition for it.

"Rejecting Syria’s overtures is a mistake which is fast on its way to becoming a missed opportunity", warns Peter Harling, Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst in Damascus. "The mood in Damascus is turning decidedly sceptical, and the regime is reverting to its more cautious habits. Mirroring Israeli doubts on Syria’s seriousness, officials here are deeply disillusioned with Israel, questioning its ability and readiness to negotiate in earnest".

If there is scant justification for Israel to put off peace talks, there is even less for the U.S. to oppose them. Quartet members should press for renewed Syrian-Israeli negotiations. While the U.S. and Israel may prefer to give precedence to the Palestinian over the Syrian track, lack of movement on the latter will inevitably hamper the former.

"Israel-Syria peace negotiations would profoundly alter regional atmospherics. A peace deal would fundamentally transform them", says Robert Malley, Crisis Group’s Middle East Program Director. "This opportunity may not last forever. It should not be wasted".

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Abruptly interrupted in 2000, Israeli-Syrian negotiations seem only a distant possibility but a renewal is urgent and would have a real chance of success. The obstacles appear daunting, including a weak Israeli government and a U.S. administration intent on isolating Syria. However, Syria’s President Bashar repeatedly has stated his desire to resume talks, and in recent conversations with Crisis Group in Damascus, senior officials have clarified these could take place without any precondition – thereby removing what had been a principal hindrance. Peace negotiations between Israel and Syria would profoundly alter the regional atmosphere; a peace deal between them would fundamentally transform it. This opportunity may not last long and should not be wasted.

The conflict between Israel and Syria is no longer the costliest – the border has been Israel’s quietest since 1974 – but it is harmful all the same. It has taken the shape of bloody proxy wars, involving Lebanese territory and both Lebanese and Palestinian groups, and the opportunity costs have also been substantial. It has prevented broader normalisation of Israel’s relations with the Arab world and helped maintain regional tension which could degenerate – directly or, once again, through Lebanon – into another armed conflict.

In Israel, a government discredited by its performance in the Lebanon war and tarred by myriad scandals will think long and hard before taking on the powerful settler lobby backed by a public that has grown accustomed to controlling the Golan Heights, sees little incentive to part with it and whose suspicion of the Syrian regime – which has provided rockets to Hizbollah – has grown with the Lebanon war. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the 1990s, withdrawal from the relatively quiet Golan today likely would trigger stronger public opposition than would withdrawal from a violent and burdensome West Bank.

U.S. hostility to any dialogue with Damascus – with the recent, limited exception of the regional conference on Iraq – is a further significant obstacle. Although Washington denies it, there is every indication it has signalled to Jerusalem its opposition to resumed negotiations with Damascus which, in its view, Syria would use to break out of isolation, cover up greater intrusion in Lebanese affairs and shift focus away from the investigation into former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri’s assassination. As U.S. officials see it, Damascus might like to recover the Golan but desperately wants to recover Lebanon; since that is not something Washington is prepared to concede, there is little to be gained by discussions. Given their highly strained relations with Syria, even leading Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan are said to have privately counselled the U.S. against any move that would relieve pressure on Damascus.

As a result of these domestic and foreign factors, and due to scepticism regarding Syria’s intentions, Israel has conditioned any dialogue on broad, prior change in Syria’s policies: cutting ties to Hamas, halting any assistance to Hizbollah and fundamentally altering its relationship with Iran.

This is a mistake which is fast on its way to becoming a missed opportunity. In March 2007, Crisis Group engaged in a series of high-level discussions in Israel and Syria in order to assess the two parties’ positions and the prospects for renewed talks. While official resistance to negotiations was clear in Israel, it waned rapidly among both senior military and intelligence figures and members of the political establishment who recognised the value of testing Syria’s overtures and the risks entailed in ignoring them. In Syria, appetite for peace talks may have diminished – a function of repeated Israeli rebuffs and of unwillingness to appear to be begging – but persists nonetheless. Most importantly, officials in Damascus provided their clearest indication to date both that they would resume negotiations without any precondition and that the country’s regional posture and relationships with Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran inevitably would change following a peace deal. In other words, what Israel demands could potentially be achieved, but only as part of a final deal, not as preconditions for it.

Even assuming Syria is more interested in the process than the outcome – itself a debatable proposition – the mere fact of Syrians negotiating with Israelis would produce ripple effects in a region where popular opinion is moving away from acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. The onset of a peace process also would affect the behaviour of militant movements close to Syria; Hamas and Hizbollah are not mere tools of Syrian policy but they are adept at reading the regional map and would likely adapt their policies in response to signs of a changing Syrian-Israeli relationship. The same holds for Iran: Syria would be unlikely to break ties with its closest ally for two decades but Tehran would have to adjust its behaviour as it faced the prospect of a peace agreement.

Resuming talks with Syria is all the more imperative given ongoing efforts to revive the Arab (Beirut) peace initiative in the wake of the 28 March 2007 Arab League summit. While both the U.S. and Israel may prefer to give precedence to the Palestinian over the Syrian track, lack of movement on the latter inevitably will hamper the former. Damascus possesses multiple ways of undermining Israeli-Palestinian talks, whether by encouraging Hamas or Islamic Jihad to resort to violence; vocally criticising Palestinian concessions; or, in the event of a peace deal, obstructing the holding of a referendum among Palestinian refugees in Syria. Likewise, unless it makes a deal with Syria, Israel cannot achieve normalisation with the Arab world – a core objective without which its leaders will find it far more difficult to convince their public to endorse historic concessions to the Palestinians.

The outlines of a solution by now are well known. They were put forward in a 2002 Crisis Group report and recently restated in the context of an unofficial peace initiative involving two private Israeli and Syrian citizens. Under such conditions, there is little justification for Israel to put off peace talks – and even less justification for the U.S. to oppose them.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Government of Israel:

1. Respond positively to Syria’s unconditional offer to resume peace negotiations.

2. Halt efforts to augment settler presence in the Golan.

3. Facilitate family reunions for Syrian nationals living in the Golan and lift restrictions on visits to Syria by Israeli nationals.

To the Government of Syria:

4. Support Arab League efforts to explain and market its peace initiative to Western and Israeli audiences.

5. Engage in public diplomacy by:

(a) restating clearly that Syria is ready to negotiate without any precondition;

(b) giving select Syrian officials a clear mandate to disseminate both Syria’s version of past negotiations and its current position;

(c) committing to provide information on Israeli soldiers missing in action and return the remains of executed Israeli spy Eli Cohen in the early stages of resumed negotiations; and

(d) facilitating access to Syria for Israeli nationals with relatives or ancestral roots in Syria, including Israelis of Palestinian and Syrian origin.

To the Members of the Quartet (UN, U.S., EU and Russia):

6. Press for renewed Israeli-Syrian negotiations, beginning by holding parallel discussions with both sides.

Jerusalem/Damascus/Washington/Brussels, 10 April 2007

Read the full report here.

This cartoon is from Jeha's Nail:

Firas Maksad sees the crisis in Lebanon coming to a head in April-May as the government pushes for a chapter seven UN Security Council resolution mandating the Hariri tribunal prior to French President Jacque Chirac's departure from office in mid-May. Firas Maksad is an analyst with "The Eurasia Group." He wrote this on 4 April 2007. I copy only excerpts:

Saudi Arabia's marginalization of Syria came to an end at the Arab Summit with King Abdullah meeting with President Bashar al Assad twice in 48 hours. Apparently the more hawkish camp led by National Security Advisor Prince Bandar bin Sultan is losing ground to Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal, who is in favor of engaging Syria rather than confronting it in an effort to check Iran's rising influence. Yet while such development bodes well for the chances of a compromise in Beirut, leaks indicate that the discussions on Lebanon did not go beyond generalities and that the differences remain. This is particularly disconcerting given the limited timeframe available for compromise. Lebanon's governing anti-Syrian coalition is expected to push for a chapter seven UN Security Council resolution mandating the Hariri tribunal prior to French President Jacque Chirac's departure from office in mid-May.

Further contributing to the sense of pessimism is information that Syria recently turned down a deal on the tribunal floated by Egypt. The deal reportedly involved limiting the responsibility for Hariri's assassination to former Head of Syrian General Intelligence Bahjat Suleiman in return for Syrian cooperation on Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Iraq. If true, this would indicate rising confidence in Damascus and a decision to play for time until Chirac's and then Bush's departure from office. Such a policy would not be unfounded …. Damascus will therefore probably prefer to maintain the defiant tone, preventing the tribunal's passage through the Lebanese parliament, painting its passage by the UN Security Council as an illegitimate foreign plot and eventually rejecting its finding.

The tribunal's possible establishment through the Security Council however will mark a new phase in the Lebanese crisis and could debilitate all branches of government….. The Saudi-Syrian dialogue on Lebanon needs to achieve a substantial breakthrough prior to the end of April; otherwise a new set of negative dynamics will likely come into play.

Asharq Al-Awsat published the results of a Lebanese opinion poll showing that although Aoun has lost support, he iremains the most popular Christian leader. Only half of Lebanon's Sunnis approve of the policies of the March 14 governing coalition. The writer suggests that Lebanon is too unstable to absorb the international tribunal and that the only thing that can save Lebanon is a Taif II and Madrid II. (Thanks Alex)

?????: ???? ?? «????? ? 2» ?«???? ? 2»

?????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????: «??? ???? ?? ???» ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????. ?? ?? ??????? ?? «?????» ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??????????? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??????????.

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

??????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????. ?? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? «????» ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? «???????»!

???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? «??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?2 ????? ?2».

?«??? ???» ?? ????? ???? ???? «???????» ????????? ???? ?? ??? ?????. ???? ??????? ????? «??????? ?????????»? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ????: ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????.

????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???????: «???? ??????? ????????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????».

??? ??????? ???? ?????????? ????? ????: ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? 50% ???? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? (????? ????? ??????)? ????????? ???? ?? ???».

???? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? 80% ??? 90% ?? ????? «??? ????» ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? «???» ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? «??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????» ??? ???? ????.

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

???? ????????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? 42% ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? «??? ????» ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?15% ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ?????????? (????? ?? ?????? ????) ?23% ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?11% ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?5% ?? ????? ???? ??? ????.

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

???? ??? ???? «??? ????» ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? «???? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ?????»? «?? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? «??? ????» ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? 2000 ??? ???????? ??????????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? «??? ????» ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ???????»..

????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????: «????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ????»..

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

????? ?? ??? ????????? ??????????: «???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? 200 ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????». ????? ??? ??? ??? ???????: ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? «??? ????» ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????: «???? ?? ????? ? ????????»!»!

?? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? «??? ????»? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????. ????? ??????? ????: «???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????.

?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???»..

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

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

????? ????: «??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??«????? ??????»? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????????». «?? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????».

??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? «??? ????» ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????. ?? ???? «??? ????» ????? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????????? ??? ???????. ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????. ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ????: «??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? «??? ????» ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????. ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? «??? ????»? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ????».

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

??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? «???????»? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????. ????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? «????? ??????». ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????: ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ????????????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????.

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

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

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

A Path to Common Ground By: James A. Baker III | The Washington Post
I wholeheartedly agree with a point Lee Hamilton made in his March 25 op-ed, " A Partnership on Iraq," regarding the need for a unity of effort in Iraq. He is correct that the United States will probably falter unless President Bush and Congress reach a bipartisan consensus in the coming months.

Israel’s Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale
By: David S. Cloud and Helene Cooper
The New York Times

A major arms-sale package that the Bush administration is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to deter Iran has been delayed because of objections from Israel, which says that the advanced weaponry would erode its military advantage over its regional rivals, according to senior United States officials.

Pakistan's Talibanization
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large 

Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 classic, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," was a vivid portrayal of a split personality. Paired, the two names have come to signify bipolar behavior. As president of Pakistan, to rule a Muslim country of 160 million that is 65 percent illiterate and overwhelmingly anti-American, firmly held contradictory views are the key to survival. For President Pervez Musharraf, America is a force for good. But most Pakistanis now see the Bush administration as evil. As much as Musharraf wanted to help President George W. Bush wipe out the Taliban after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he now concludes these young Muslim fanatics are the lesser of two evils next to the drug-fueled corruption of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's inept "democratic" government. After more than five years in office, and with billions in foreign assistance, Karzai is still struggling with 40 percent unemployment. The U.S. intelligence community recently acquired a Pakistani insider's look at what makes Musharraf tick these days. As much as he wanted U.S. victory in Iraq, he has long since concluded the United States has lost the hand to Iran. To recoup America's loss before he leaves the White House in January 2009, Musharraf believes Bush will strike Iran's nuclear facilities from air and sea. And this, in turn, will unite Sunnis and Shiites in Pakistan against all things American — and provoke a gigantic upheaval throughout the Middle East. With the whole world turning against Israel and the United States, he could not afford to continue his policy of "constructive ambiguity" toward the Bush administration.

Lawrence Wright on al-Qaida
And the winner in Iraq is: the Al-Qaeda jihadists

There is a bitter irony in the fact that the Bush administration resurrected its defeated foe by carrying the war to Iraq. This is a state that bin Laden had never placed on his list of profitable regions in which to wage jihad, simply because he knew it was a Shiite-majority country. His rival and eventual protege, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, took that decision out of bin Laden's hands and forced a shift in Al-Qaeda's strategy.

The lessons I draw from this are that Al-Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 9/11; that the war in Iraq has given Al-Qaeda a tremendous propaganda victory; that the movement is both vast and nimble; that it will survive the deaths of any particular individuals; and that the prospects for long-term conflict with the US and Europe are almost certain.

Click here to listen to Michael Young of the Daily Star and Joshua Landis discuss the Pelosi visit.  Move the cursor half way through the show to the second half-hour segment to begin with the Pelosi visit and skip the Iran hostage release. Hassan Fattah of the NYTimes and others also join in.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conducts international diplomacy in Syria. Is she undermining President Bush or is it time for a breakthrough?"

Broadcast by KCRW, Southern California Public Radio and syndicated nationally. Here is the show's blurb.

Speaker Pelosi Conducts Her Own Diplomacy in Syria ( 12:23P)

Despite President Bush's objections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met today in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Afterward, Pelosi told reporters she "expressed concern" about Syria's support of Hamas and Hezbollah.  She also carried the message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Omert that he is ready for peace talks.  Describing the meeting, Syrian cabinet minister Bouthaina Shaaban said praised Pelosi for sending the right message to the Arab people and for coming to the region to "solve problems rather than to launch wars." The meeting–which Syrian officials are calling a "victory"–is being carefully watched in Lebanon. Is Pelosi's international diplomacy in Syria undermining President Bush or is it time for a breakthrough? We hear from journalists in the US and Middle East, historians and policy experts.

Guests:

• Hassan Fattah: Middle East Correspondent for the New York Times
• Michael Young: Opinion Editor for the Daily Star
• Joshua Landis: Assistant Professor of History at the University of Oklahoma
• Brian Darling: Congressional Analyst for the Heritage Foundation
• Charles Kupchan: Director of Europe Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

The Pelosi visit to Syria gives Syrians further hope that the policy of isolation imposed on it by the US and Europe for the past two years is eroding. Saudi Arabia reversed its policy of isolation at the Arab League summit last week, giving Asad a warm reception. The last high-ranking U.S. official to visit Syria was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in January 2005. The isolation, however, has begun to crumble in recent months, with visits by U.S. lawmakers and some European officials.

Initial articles on the visit stress various aspects of the meeting between Pelosi and Asad. Here are some of the main results of their talk.

• House Speaker Pelosi and her 27-member delegation, which includes members of Congress and the Iraq Study Group, met with Syrian leaders in Damascus — but unlike Merkel, she wants "dialogue" with Syria.
• Syrian officials said Damascus wants to help Washington achieve an "honorable withdrawal" from Iraq but in return the United States must press Israel to return the Golan Heights. Washington accuses Damascus of sponsoring terrorism and estimates up to 90 percent of suicide bombers in Iraq enter from Syria. Syria says it is trying to stop the flow.
• Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said Syria was ready to resume talks with Israel based on an Arab plan calling for Israeli withdrawal from all Arab land for peace, adopted at a summit last month. "They said that Mr. Olmert is ready for peace with Syria. We replied that Syria is ready for peace according to the Arab initiative," he told reporters.  Ehud Olmert's office to underline the Jewish state's preconditions for such talks. "The prime minister said Israel is interested in peace with Syria, but Syria would first have to abandon the path of terror and providing support for terrorist groups."

• Pelosi said it was important Syria used its influence with Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.

• Pelosi described the meeting with Assad as "very productive."

• Rep. Tom Lantos, the head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who was in Pelosi's delegation, said the meeting “reinforced sharply” the potential benefits of talking to Syria. “This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria and we hope to build on this visit,” he told reporters.

• Pelosi told Lebanese leaders on Monday that her country "will not bargain over Lebanon," adding that the US was "totally aware" of the situation in Lebanon.

• She was expected to have dinner with opposition members and members of Parliament at the American ambassador’s house.

• At the White House on Tuesday, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi’s visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar’s government. “Sending delegations hasn’t worked,” Mr. Bush told reporters. “It’s just simply been counterproductive.”

• “Ms. Pelosi is going to be very happy in Syria,” said Izzat Abdoulkarim, who runs an optical shop in downtown Damascus. “George Bush says we are bad, but she will see this is not true. She views the world through a different perspective than Bush. She’s more open-minded.”

• the Iraq Study Group (ISG) noted, "To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East — the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism — are inextricably linked." No one doubts that Syria is causing trouble in the region. "But we cannot wish that influence away," said ISG co-chairman Lee Hamilton. "Undoubtedly, they are part of the problem. It was the view of the study group that we must try to make them a part of the solution."

•  Seventy-five percent of Americans now support U.S. talks with Syria.

Photo sent by John Wreford www.johnwreford.com

This exchange between Idaf and Ehsani buried in the the comment section of the last article is worth a post of its own. (Ehsani is kept on retainer by Syria Comment to act as in house economist!)

Idaf asked Ehsani, "What’s your take on this article?" (I summarize only the highlights of the article)

Syrian Economy Draws More Foreign Investment
By Hassen al-Shami

In the last seven years, Syria has adopted more open economic policies by implementing reform and restructuring programs appropriate to the country’s economic, social, and social situation. Syria has not adopted ready-made reform programs suggested by the IMF and the World Bank, despite the fact that it has taken advantage of the IMF and the World Bank in the developing countries.

Perhaps what singles out the Syrian experience in reform is that it has borne fruit in a record time – seven years – while experts of similar programs in developing countries estimate the period needed should be between 10 and 15 years. On the other hand, some observers of the economic situation in Syria think that the outcome of the reforms could have been realised in an even shorter time; what caused the delay was the foreign pressure exercised on the nation as a result of its constant Arab nationalist positions.

• trade between Syria and the Gulf States over the last two years has increased by 30-40%, according to Abdullah al-Dardari, the Syrian Vice Prime Minister.
• The Government has announced that these reforms have contributed to the growth of the country’s economy by 5.2% in 2006 against 4.5% in 2005. Syria has allowed the establishment of private banks and insurance companies, and lifted the restrictions on imports, but the public sector is still predominant.

• Al-Dardari … stressed the Government’s intention to reform the Public Treasury and deal with the problem of government subsidy to goods, which constitutes a large proportion of the budget. According to him, the Government still has to deal with the problem of the public sector reform and subsidies in the two years of 2007 and 2008.

• He pointed out that the deregulation of trade in early 2005 was accompanied by the increase of non-oil exports from 213 to 327 billion Syrian Pounds. Such a rise has contributed to the decrease of the budget deficit from 78 to 24 billion Syrian Pounds in 2006, despite the decline of the oil imports value.

• The trade balance deficit went down from 211 billion Syrian Pounds in 2005 to 189 billion Syrian Pounds in 2006.

• The Syrian GNDP is estimated at US $38 billion, and according to economic experts it could attain US $50 billion…. This means that our GNDP will attain US $47 billion by 2020, which requires a 7-percent annual growth rate.”

• To conclude, we may say that the reform programs adopted by the Syrian Government have achieved a comprehensive economic boom just a few years after their implementation.

Seymour Hersh was interviewed by Ghassan Ben Jeddo on Al-Jazeera Sunday evening. Here is the rough translation from Arabic sent to me by Alex:

1)       American intelligence sources told him that Lebanese AND middle Eastern parties opposed to Syria misled the Unites States and France with false evidence (or manufactured evidence) designed to implicate Syria in the Killing.

2)       His sources at the UN tell him there is no evidence against Syria yet. That the Hariri killing was very carefully planned and executed, and that we might never find out who ordered that assassination.

3)       Prince Bandar is very ambitious … Seymour is not sure if the Prince wants to be the next King, but the prince has significant influence worldwide and is spending a lot of money to help this administration finance Anti Syria operations in Lebanon and elsewhere. Prince Bandar’s main American contact is Vice President Cheney… their meetings last long hours.

4)       Sunni “moderate” Arab states indeed asked the United States to attack (not invade) Iran.

5)       Prince Bandar is coordinating with the Americans to attack  ?????)) Syria and Iran (not sure Attack was the English word .. I heard the Arabic translation:  His purpose of the Iran visit was to isolate Syria.

6)       Some in Israel want to work with Nasrallah, instead of trying to finish him.

7)       The US is financing the Seniora government and its allies through Bandar money .. and through 9 billion dollars that was taken from Iraq. Samir Jeajea is getting some of that money.

8)       Jeajea was invited to Washington for meetings with the Bush administration, but there was too much opposition to that visit. It was canceled.

9)       There will be an American Syrian rapprochement … but only after 2009 (Hersh said it with certainty)

10)   The Bush administration is not hoping for a regime change in Syria.

Jim Lobe in his Tough Week for Bush's Middle East Strategy, quotes my analysis of the Arab League summit.

"King Abdullah has come to the conclusion that only Arab unity can restore the regional balance of power [that has been] so skewed in Iran's favor by the destruction of Saddam's Arabist regime," wrote Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at University of Oklahoma, on his blog. "To do this, Saudi Arabia must reach an accommodation with Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas; it cannot destroy them, as the U.S. recommends."

Beirut's French language newspaper, L'Orient-Le Jour, picked up the same quote in its editorial: Les tensions avec Ryad mettent Washington en difficulté au Proche-Orient (Thanks Nur)

"Selon Joshua Landis, un expert du Center of Peace Studies de l'Université de l'Oklahoma, en qualifiant d'« illégitime » la présence de troupes américaines en Irak, le roi Abdallah s'est posé comme le champion d'un nouveau panarabisme, destiné à contenir la montée de l'influence de l'Iran dans la région. Le roi est déjà parvenu à la conclusion que le plan du président George W. Bush en Irak était voué à l'échec et cherche à éloigner la Syrie de l'Iran pour ramener le régime de Damas dans le giron arabe, explique cet expert. « Le roi Abdallah a annoncé qu'il cherchait à adopter une nouvelle politique irakienne, une politique destinée à une nouvelle phase postaméricaine en Irak et une politique qui doit être coordonnée avec la Syrie », ajoute-t-il, rappelant que le souverain saoudien a eu deux entretiens avec le président syrien Bachar el-Assad en marge du sommet de Ryad."

Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, met with Bush last May to press Saudi concerns. "We have two nightmares," Saud told the president, according to Turki. "One is that Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, and the other is that America will take military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb." (This quote is from Christopher Dickey's excellent article in Newsweek: "How the Saudi king, disillusioned with Bush, is trying to save the Arabs.")

Jim Lobe also quotes retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a vocal supporter of the strategy who had previously been upbeat about the military situation.

McCaffrey just returned from a visit to both Afghanistan and Iraq, where he met with top U.S. diplomats and military and intelligence officials. He wrote that the Iraqi population "is in despair" and expressed consternation at the resilience of both the insurgents and the militias.

"Although we have arrested 120,000 insurgents (hold 27,000) and killed some huge number of enemy combatants (perhaps 20,000 plus) – the armed insurgents, militias and al Qaeda in Iraq without fail apparently regenerate both leadership cadres and foot soldiers. Their sophistication, numbers, and lethality go up – not down – as they incur these staggering battle losses," he wrote, adding that they are "in some ways more capable of independent operations" than the Iraqi army. He also warned that the U.S. military was "in a position of strategic peril" as a result of its Iraq intervention.

Anthony Shadid is excellent as ever in this article:
Driven by War to a No Man's Land in Jourdan
Lives of Palestinian Refugees From Iraq Reflect Six Decades of Dispossession

Pelosi is traveling to Damascus next week. Five other lawmakers, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, a California Democrat. One Republican, Representative David Hobson of Ohio, is also on the trip. Bush Aide Perino Says Speaker Pelosi's Planned Syria Trip Is a `Bad Idea' A White House spokeswoman denounced the visit. A number of congress members traveled to Damascus following the initial publication of the Baker Hamilton report, but the US government cut off the opening with the launching of the troop surge in Baghdad. But few officials believe it can work. Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, was quoted recently in the excellent New Yorker article by George Packer: "Betrayed: The Iraqis who trusted America the most:"

“The President believes so firmly that he is President for just this mission—and there’s something religious about it—that it will succeed, and that kind of permeates. I just take him at his word these days. I think it’s very improbable that he’ll be successful.”

With hard-minded realists like Armitage claiming fatalistically that Washington will just wait until the President's plan completely fails, Palosi's trip to Damascus is much welcomed. It is high time that both parties begin figuring out what options are available to them once Bush moves on. Talking to Syria's president is only one step in this process. As Packer makes clear in his moving article about the Iraqi translators, the consequences of America's failure in Iraq have already devastated the lives of so many. The real impact is only in mid-stream. Many more refugees will be spit out of Iraq before it is over. The US has no plans to take in those Iraqis that have helped the US, as they tried to do in Vietnam, when departing US officials cleared the way for over 100,000 Vietnamese to get visas to the US.

Warren Strobel of McClatchy News explains that the Bush administration is religiously persevering in its campaign against the Syrian government. He writes the U.S. will step up it's campaign against the Syrian government.

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration has launched a campaign to isolate and embarrass Syrian President Bashar Assad, using parliamentary elections in late April as a lever, according to State Department officials and Syrian exiles.

The campaign, which some officials fear is aimed at destabilizing Syria, has been in the works for months.

It involves escalating attacks on Syria's human rights record, which is generally regarded as abysmal, as well as White House-approved support for Syrian bloggers and election monitors inside and outside the country to highlight the nation's lack of freedom, the officials and others said.

The State Department in recent weeks has issued a series of rhetorical broadsides against Syria, using language harsher than that usually reserved for U.S. adversaries. On Friday, the administration criticized a planned visit there by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif..

"It's the new Cuba – no language is too tough," said one of the officials, who like others insisted on anonymity to discuss internal government planning.

The campaign appears to fly in the face of the recommendations last December of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which urged President Bush to engage diplomatically with Syria to stabilize Iraq and address the Arab-Israeli conflict. The White House largely ignored that recommendation, agreeing only to talk with Syria about Iraqi refugees and to attend a Baghdad conference where envoys from Iran and Syria were present.

Some officials who are aware of the campaign say they fear its real aim is to weaken or even overthrow Assad and to ensure that he can't thwart the creation of an international tribunal to investigate the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. A U.N. report has implicated Syrian and Lebanese officials in the murder.

The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush's global democracy agenda.

The plan's defenders say the effort to support democracy and speak out against repression in Syria is no different from similar U.S. efforts aimed at governments in Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

The parliamentary elections scheduled for April 22 appear certain to be rigged, according to experts on Syria and critics of Assad's authoritarian regime.

Almost three-quarters of the seats in parliament are set aside for members of the Ba'ath Party, which has ruled Syria since a 1963 coup, and its allies. New campaign spending rules appear designed to undercut the few truly independent candidates.

"Our objective is to have real elections in Syria. . . . It's important to get that kind of message across and, number two, to expose what's happening in Syria," said Najib Ghadbian, who's affiliated with the National Salvation Front, a loose coalition of mostly exiled Syrian government opponents. The group gets no U.S. funding, he said.

Joshua Landis, a University of Oklahoma assistant professor who studies Syria, agreed that the election outcome isn't in doubt, but said U.S. pressure will have little impact. "The problem is, America's such a discredited bully pulpit for this kind of thing," he said.

Indeed, U.S. efforts to isolate Syria received a setback at this week's Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi leadership, which has ostracized Assad since the Hariri assassination, appeared to welcome him back into the fold.

Ahmed Salkini, a Syrian embassy spokesman, said, "There is nothing not free" about the upcoming elections, and he called U.S. criticisms hypocritical in light of alleged U.S. rights abuses at the Guantanamo prison.

McClatchy Newspapers is withholding some details about Syrian groups and individuals involved in monitoring the April elections because their followers could face arrest in Syria.

But a classified government document that surfaced in December proposed a covert election-monitoring effort that would be funded by a State Department-run democracy promotion program known as the Middle East Partnership Initiative. MEPI has set aside $5 million for activities aimed at Syria.

U.S. officials confirmed the existence of the document, which was first reported by Time magazine.

The document identified the U.S. government-funded International Republican Institute as a potential partner in the effort. An IRI spokeswoman declined comment this week.

At least some elements of the plan appear to have gone forward.

Several Internet sites have been created to monitor and discuss the April elections, which are to be followed in May by a referendum on Assad's rule. One, largely in Arabic, is www.transparentsyria.com.

As McClatchy Newspapers first reported last year, the Bush administration also has orchestrated meetings of Syrian opposition figures under the auspices of the Aspen Institute's Berlin offices. White House officials have met with representatives of the National Salvation Front, a broad umbrella group that includes Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood and former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam.

In Washington, meanwhile, the State Department's verbal attacks on Syria have gotten harsher.

On March 8, in what several officials said was an opening volley, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack issued a statement urging Assad to allow full media coverage of the elections and permit independent monitors. "The United States is deeply concerned that the Syrian regime will again fail its people by not holding free and fair elections," he said.

On Thursday, McCormack issued another statement, expressing concern over two imprisoned human rights activists in Syria, Anwar al-Bunni and Kamal al-Labwani. Al-Labwani was arrested in November 2005 after returning from a trip that included a meeting with a top White House adviser.

UN's Ban stresses the need for dialogue among Lebanese

He again called for the establishment of an international court to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. 'We call for Lebanese national consensus about this,' he said.

Fox News reports that "U.N. Chief Warns Arms Smugglers From Syrian Could Threaten Lebanon Cease-Fire."

Seniora told reporters during the joint press conference that Lebanese forces with the help of German and Dutch UN troops were doing their best to stop arms smuggling across Lebanese borders. 'Up till now, not a single case of smuggling through the border has been put forward to us,' he said. He called on Ban to share any information about arms smuggling with the Lebanese government.

According the Levant News, the Syrian government bulldozed a number of houses in a Kurdish section of Raqqa following Nawrous celebrations. The houses it bulldozed were chosen at random because they were near the area in which the celebrations took place.

* ???? ????: ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ???????

???? ????? ????? – ?????? 30 ????/ ???? 2007

???? ????

??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? (??????? – ???? ???????? – ??????…) ?? ??? ??????? ??????? 26/3/ 2007 ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???.

???? ????????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? (?? ??????) ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???????.

Tony Karon at the Rootless Cosmopolitan assess US-Saudi relations in his "Birth Pangs of a Post-Bush Middle East."

I've marveled for some time now at the abundance of unmistakable evidence to the contrary, so much of the mainstream media in the U.S. appears to feel dutybound to parrot Condi Rice's giddy fantasies about processes underway in the Middle East, and her Administration's central role in shaping them. For months now we've been fed this pile of manure about the U.S. orchestrating a "realignment" in the region, with moderate Sunni Arab states joining with the U.S. and Israel to isolate and confront Iran, Hamas and others Washington dubs "extremists." Then, last week, as she set out on her umpteenth "Looking Busy" tour of the region, we were served up grand accounts of how Condi was choreographing a complex diplomatic dance aimed at revving the "peace process" (a word that, like "gold standard", has survived in the media's lexicon despite the institutions and practises it describes having long passed from the scene).

I wrote on this at length this week at the excellent web journal TomDispatch measuring the spin transmitted by mainstream news outlets against the real processes occurring in the region. And wondering why Washington-based correspondents seem to take Condi's fantasy narrative a lot more seriously than their counterparts in Israel and the Arab world.

But as the week wore on, it became blatantly obvious that Rice's efforts, and her perspective, are largely irrelevant to events now unfolding, and what much of the media appears reluctant to tell its readers — perhaps for fear of offending Condi and her handlers? — is that even those Arab leaders considered closest to the U.S. have taken to ignoring the advice and injunctions of the Secretary of State and the Administration she represents.

The bubble finally burst in Riyadh this week, when King Abdullah — who has already blatantly ignored failed U.S. policies of trying to isolate both, by engaging extensively with the Iranians on regional tensions in Lebanon and elsewhere, and by brokering a Palestinian unity government that put President Mahmoud Abbas into a power sharing arrangement with Hamas, against the express wishes of the Bush Administration — rhetorically slapped down the U.S. occupation of Iraq, calling it illegal, and also demanding an end to the U.S. led financial siege of the Palestinian Authority.

What's interesting about the sudden public break from Washington and assertion of political independence by the "Arab moderates" that were supposedly the vanguard of Bush Administration Middle East policy Version 7.4, is that it is a profound vote of no-confidence in U.S. policy. The Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians could simply no longer sit back and watch the U.S. wreaking havoc throughout the region, because the resulting catastrophe would sweep away their regimes, too. It was as if Abdullah had given George W. Bush five years to pursue his fantasy of remaking the region through force, and now had to call time on the Bush era before it was too late for his own regime.

The Saudis are distancing themselves from the US out of self-interest. But the gestures towards discussing Israeli-Palestinian peace right now are a symptom of the combined political weakness of all the main participants — the Arab regimes, the Israeli government, President Mahmoud Abbas and the U.S. And the Arabs are making clear that no progress is possible unless the U.S. is prepared to press Israel, which is extremely unlikely both because of Bush's own preferences, but also, frankly, because of the grip of AIPAC on mainstream thinking in both parties in Washington. Etc etc.

Read the whole thing: