The CIA and Syrian intelligence are upping the ante in Lebanon. These two stories from the Daily Telegraph are revealing.

CIA gets the go-ahead to take on Hizbollah
By Toby Harnden, US Editor
Last Updated: 1:47am GMT 10/01/2007

Addendum: (Evening 10/05/2007) Here is a bit of helpful background that casts doubt on the sources used by Con Coughlin, the author of the following article. I thank Peter H. for bringing it to my attention in the comment section. "The Press Complaints Commission have launched their third investigation of Daily Telegraph political editor, Con Coughlin, in as many months, after a number of high level complaints about his latest ariticle on Iran. The investigation is looking at an article by Mr Coughlin on 24 January relying on an unnamed “European defence official” alleging that North Korea is helping Iran prepare a nuclear weapons test and follows the recent publication of a report detailing a catalogue of innaccurate and misleading stories about Iran by. The report, put together by Campaign Iran and published last month, revealed that Mr Coughlin, the man who ‘broke the story’ of Iraq’s 45 minute WMD capacity, is behind sixteen articles containing unsubstantiated allegations against Iran over the past twelve months. The PCC will examine whether the stories, all based on unnamed or untraceable sources, are in breach of Clause 1 of their Code of Practice, requiring accuracy." The rest can be read here.

Siniora government's battle for survival
By Con Coughlin, 10/01/2007

Here is an AP followup on the refugee visa situation in Syria: Iraqi refugees protest Syria's alleged visa restrictions

"The Iraqis in Syria are the victims of deportation," one banner read. Another said "Going back for one month means death." He will is refusing to go back to Iraq.

"My son was kidnapped and I paid US$20,000 in ransom to secure his release," Saeed said. "My brother-in-law was killed three months ago and my house was totally destroyed. I have nothing there. … I don't want to return."

Ali Ibrahim, another Iraqi refugee, urged the Syrian government to allow Iraqi refugees to stay in Syria until "calm returns to Iraq."

Syria is denying there has been a major visa change. It insists it continues to welcome Iraqis. The substantial demand is that in order to move from a temporary visa to a renewable residence permit, Iraqis must show proof of residency and an apartment contract. 

This photo of the demonstration was kindly provided to SC by John Wreford, a professional photographer working in Damascus. He can be reached at Tel: 00963 94 361 947. His wonderful site, with many beautiful photos of Syria and other Middle East countries is www.johnwreford.com

Here is another photo of Sryian girls from his site:

Here is a bedouin girl

Also don't miss the new report from Conflicts Forum. "After Condoleezza Rice recently called Hamas a "resistance movement" (January 18), the reaction from reporters was… No reaction!"

ABC News' Diane Sawer is back in Damascus where she interviewed President Bashar Al-Assad.

You can watch the video of the interview online on ABC here. A second video segment contains Diane's personal questions, such as "what's on Bashar's iPod", if you are interested to know.

And a third report titled Damascus: cultural crossroads

ABC News' Diane Sawyer Talks Exclusively to President Bashar al-Assad About Iraq and Mideast Peace

Feb. 5, 2007 — – Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a 41-year-old doctor, is the son of the legendary Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, who negotiated with five American presidents.

Many in diplomatic circles believe that this quiet man may be the best hope for the United States to broker peace with insurgents in the Middle East.

In a significant moment, Assad told ABC News' Diane Sawyer that he was ready to talk to the United States, but that it must be in public — and that because the situation was so dire, the time to talk was now.

So far, the administration has refused to engage in talks with Syria.

Below is the transcript of Sawyer's exclusive interview with Assad.

Watch "Good Morning America" Tuesday for more of Diane Sawyer's report from Syria.

Sawyer: Your excellency, thank you so much for letting us come.

Assad: You're most welcome Miss Sawyer here.

Sawyer: There are a chorus of voices in the United States saying that talking to Syria is the way to end the war in Iraq. Can you stop the violence in Iraq?

Assad: First of all, the problem in Iraq is political, and talking to Syria as a concept means talking to all the other parties inside Iraq and outside Iraq. We're not the only player. We're not the single player, but we are the main player in this issue, and our role is going to be through supporting the dialogue between the different parties inside Iraq with the support from the other parties like the Americans and the other neighboring countries and any other country in the world. So that's how we can stop the violence.

Sawyer: Are you waiting to hear from the Americans? Why not begin it now?

Assad: We are hearing, but we don't expect that much. We don't expect that they're going to. After nearly four years of occupation they haven't learned their lesson, they haven't stopped the dialogue. I think it's too late for them to move toward that.

Sawyer: Too late?

Assad: That does not mean we cannot turn the tide, but it's too late because Iraq is heading toward the chaos for civil war. So maybe this is the last chance that we have now to start helping Iraq.

'What's the Benefit of Democracy When You're Dead?'

Sawyer: The Americans, of course, would say that they are not the occupying force, that they are in fact a force trying to regain security so that American forces can go home.

Assad: Militarily, yes. But politically, no, because they are responsible for the political situation and they haven't embarked any policy inside Iraq here. They only talk about sending more troops or less troops. They only talk about troops and power, not about political process.

Sawyer: Because Americans would say they voted, they now have the beginning of democracy there.

Assad: What's the benefit of democracy if you're dead? Now after the war, more than 700,000 Iraqis were killed. So is it democracy for killing or for having better standard of life? For starvation? For insecurity? For all this? So democracy is a tool to have a better life.

Sawyer: What would happen? Then talks take place.

Assad: Yeah.

Sawyer: You, Iran, the neighboring countries?

Assad: Yeah.

Sawyer: So the influence of the neighboring countries can create a cease-fire?

Assad: Yes, this is something mainly that they don't understand. It doesn't matter how strong economically or what army you have, it's a matter of credibility. We have credibility. We have good relations with the other factions. They should trust you to be able to play a role.

We have this good relations with all the parties, including the parties participating in this government and the other who oppose this political process. So that's how we can help. As Syria. Maybe other countries as well.

Sawyer: You are reported to have said, when American congressmen came here before the war in Iraq, "You will ultimately lose." … That you said, "You will win the war but you will sink in a swamp."

Assad: Exactly. That's what I said — many times to many Americans and to the British officials: There is no doubt you are going to win the war, but after the war, you are going to be sinking in the mud, and nobody can help you. You are going to help us people to extract us from the quagmire, but it's going to be very difficult. And events proved that what we said in Syria was right.

Sawyer: On the current course, what do you think will going to happen next in Iraq?

Assad: Next? Whether it's a budding civil war or a full-blown civil war, it doesn't matter what the definition. It's like domino effect, it's going to affect the whole Middle East in general, and this means it's going to affect the rest of the world.

Sawyer: One of the things that Americans have been told is that Syria wants to fuel the fire and then put the fire out at the same time. And we are told that one of the reasons that there are violent insurgents in Iraq is that they're able to come through 376-mile border and that you give permission for terrorists to come down through the border into Iraq.

Assad: First of all, they have to stop looking for scapegoats and whipping boys, this administration. And there's a logical answer: We cannot stoke the fire and then extinguish it. If you stoke it, it will burn you. So if we have this chaos in Iraq, it will spill over to Syria and to other countries, so saying this, like saying that the Syrian government is working against the Syrian interest, this is impossible.

We have a guard, a special border guard, since 1975, and we supported this guard recently to make more control. But this is not enough. You need Iraqi or American partner on the other side.

Sawyer: But in America they believe that you are all powerful, and you say the word and the border will stop.

Assad: Powerful is different from being omnipotent — power that you can control everything completely. You cannot control your border with Mexico, can you? You're the greatest power in the world, you cannot control it with Mexico, so how do you want Syria to control its border with Iraq?

'Administration. … Not Interested in Peace at All'

Sawyer: Did you watch the execution of Saddam Hussein?

Assad: Yeah. … I watched it. And, uh, you want to know my opinion? Actually, I can not give you personal opinion, because now I'm speaking formally and I have to be of the opinion of the government. We didn't take any stand against it, but he's a war prisoner. How could the Americans hand him over to another authority, which is not independent? So how could the trial be or called or described as fair and independent? This is a legal point of view.

Sawyer: Some have written in America that rulers in this part of the world look at Saddam Hussein and say, "That could be me, I'm next."

Assad: Because there's no rules, and there's no law and there's no independence, anybody could be next — not only by the execution, but by killing in general. When you talk about next, every day in Iraq you have dead people, you have explosions, you have killing. So it's going on anyway, so anybody could think that he's next whether by execution or whether it's by assassination or by suicide bombers.

Sawyer: After Sept. 11, Syria was very helpful to the United States, we are told, in supplying intelligence about terrorism in the world. Do you know now where Osama bin Laden is? Is he alive?

Assad: We don't know. If you don't know, how could we know? You have all this intelligence so we're.

Sawyer: Are you ready to resume terrorism information to the United States?

Assad: We used to think that it's like the Internet, it doesn't have borders. It hits anywhere. So what hits in the West or the East, someday will hit in the Middle East. So we have to, and we are willing to cooperate with the rest of the world regarding terrorism.

Sawyer: When I was here before and I interviewed your father and I asked him about then-President [George H.W.] Bush. And he said to me, "President Bush is a man who feels he wishes to achieve peace and is seriously attempting to bring that wish to life."

Sawyer: Describe the current President Bush to me in your view.

Assad: I'd rather give objective view. … I've never met him personally to describe him, but what I know about this issue that this administration, in general, are not interested in peace at all. This administration is not willing to achieve peace. They don't have the will, and they don't have the vision. This is, in brief, what I know about this administration not about the president in particular.

Sawyer: Who do you admire the most in the world?

Assad: That's a very difficult question. The prophets, all the prophets. The three prophets — Moses, Jesus and, of course, Muhammad.

Sawyer: And is there anyone operating on the world stage today that you admire? Any leader, any diplomat?

Assad: Maybe Bush, the father, because of his will to achieve the peace in the region. Of course, President Clinton, he has the same will, and he is admired in our region and respected.

Sawyer: And, Mrs. Clinton?

Assad: I've never met her. I don't know a lot about her.

Sawyer: So you're not endorsing her for president?

Assad: We'll see if she becomes president. … We'll see what her polices are.

Syria has turned a major corner on its Iraq policy. Almost two years ago I wrote that the Iraq war and the flood of Iraqi refugees it would produce would spell the end of Syria's pan-Arab laws. The vast number of refugees coming out of Iraq, I conjectured, would force Syria to rescind its open policy of allowing fellow Arab nationals to enter the country without visas. The Baathist philosophy of pan-Arab nationalism has long been under-girded by the refusal to treat Arab visitors to Syria as foreigners on a par with visitors from non-Arab countries. On January 20, Damascus imposed a visa requirement on Iraqis entering the country and those already resident in Syria.

The new visas are good for 15 days, much like visas for non-Arab visitors. Iraqis were previously granted renewable three-month residency permits but Syria now issues two-week permits that can be renewed just once, upon presentation of documents including a rental contract. Otherwise, Iraqis must return home for a month before they can apply again. This change does not extend to non-Iraqi Arab visitors, but it is a first step. Following the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon, Syria also imposed a visa regime of sorts on visitors to and from Lebanon, who must now pay a fee for crossing the border. Arabism, the central tent poll of the Baathist regime, is now being dismantled as Syria ends the free passage of Arab visitors across its borders.

Official Syrian sources on Sunday said the measures introduced by the Syrian government on the Iraqi newcomers were taken for security and economic purposes, adding that the Iraqis' residency in Syria was still under discussion. Stressing that Syria was "exerting all-out efforts to help the Iraqi people in their ordeal," the officials explained that Syria was overburdened by the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The cause of this reversal are many. First and foremost, The flood of Iraqi refugees, which is approaching one million, has overburdened the constrained Syrian economy and provoked an anti-Iraqi backlash among the Syrian population. Housing prices in greater Damascus have risen by 300% over the last three years, in part, due to refugee pressure. Food prices have also risen dramatically. Syrians complain about overcrowding at some schools in the Damascus area, which have reportedly admitted up to 28,000 Iraqi children. In areas where Iraqis have settled, residents say some classes have swollen from 30 pupils to 50. Most Syrians blame the rampant inflation in the economy of the Iraqis. Another worry is the dramatic rise in crime rates, which is blamed on Iraqis. Riots in Jaramana and other areas that have have become centers of refugee settlement are only one indication of the social pressures and economic hardship placed on the average Syrian by the influx of Iraqis.

The United States for the last three years has been demanding that Syria impose a visa regime on Arab visitors to the country in order to allow for back-ground checks and heightened security. Washington has asked Syria to build a counterpart to America's Home Land Security regime in order to stanch the flow of Muslim Jihadists headed for Iraq through Syria.  Iraq and Washington have also demanded that Syria expel Iraqi Baathists residing in Syria, who they accuse of directing the Sunni resistance based in Anbar province. In some ways, Syria's crackdown of Iraqis is a perverse response to this pressure. Although it is not uniquely directed against Baathist Iraqis, it will allow Syria to claim that it does not protect them and has taken positive measures to restrict the open access of Iraqis to Syria.

Another reason for the refugee policy reversal is Syrian peevishness at being continually isolated by the US and Saudi Arabia. It is tired of being blamed for the lamentable level of violence in Iraq. Syria does not believe it is responsible for the steady deterioration of Iraq, rather, it sees itself as the victim of others misguided policies. Syrians believe they have been more generous than any other Iraqi neighbor in taking in Iraqi refugees and bearing the burden of Washington's failed policies. There is merit to Syrians' sense of frustration at being punished for their help. Refugees International president Kenneth H. Bacon wrote in a recent op-ed:

Syria is the last country in the Middle East to leave its borders open to Iraqi refugees. The United Nations estimates that 1.8 million Iraqis have sought refuge in the region, and Syria and Jordan host the largest concentration. It can't maintain its open-door policy without international support. Refugees already strain social services. Yet, the international response to the Iraqi refugee crisis has been dismal. Despite numbers that rival the displacement in Darfur, there has been scant media attention and even less political concern. The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is doing little.

Unfortunately, the price of this spitting match between Syria, on the one hand, and the US and its allies, on the other, will be paid by the vulnerable refugees who do not deserve more suffering.

Leaders of the Iraqi government are furious at the new Syrian laws, even though they mimic the visa laws Jordan put in place following the hotel bombings in Amman in 2005. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have barred Iraqis altogether.

On Friday, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told the US- financed al-Hurra television that "thousands of Iraqis are being put in a difficult situation" in western neighbour Syria.

According to al-Dabbagh, Iraqis going to Syria to avoid the violence in their homeland are being given only 15-day entrance visas and some have to leave the country for at least 30 days before being allowed in again.

The UNHCR reported that the number of Iraqis registered with the organization was at more than 46,000 and increasing daily.

Official Syrian sources on Sunday said the measures introduced by the Syrian government on the Iraqi newcomers were taken for security and economic purposes, adding that the Iraqis' residency in Syria was still under discussion.

Stressing that Syria was "exerting all-out efforts to help the Iraqi people in their ordeal," the officials explained that Syria was overburdened by the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Dabbagh called the situation disastrous for Iraqis in Syria, and added: "There is anger among Iraqis over the Syrian attitude and there is anger from Iraq." He called Syria's attitude harmful and hostile. He also alleged that half the militants who launch bomb attacks in Iraq come from Syria.

Assad Abboud in Baghdad reports: After Saturday's massive truck bomb in a Baghdad market, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh declared that half of the violence gripping the country was the work of outsiders infiltrating from Syria.

"I confirm that 50 percent of murders and bombings are by Arab extremists coming from Syria," Dabbagh said.

"They come from Syria, we have evidence to prove it. We have already proved it to our brothers in Syria.

"We want to tell all Arabs now that those who call themselves mujahedeen come from Syria, and murder our oppressed population."

Syria reacted angrily to Dabbagh's comments describing them as "contrary to reality and aimed at harming relations between Iraq and Syria that Damascus wants to strengthen and develop."

Syria recalled that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani made a six-day visit just last month, the first by an Iraqi head of state in three decades, during which a series of agreements were signed.

"The deals that were struck have laid the basis for the development of relations," an official source said in Damascus. "The comments made by Ali al-Dabbagh are unjustifiable."

Whether or not Dabbagh's accusations are justifiable or not, it is clear that Syria has made a major reassessment of its Iraq policy. On the occasion of President Talabani's visit to Syria, during which Syria official changed its policy toward militias in Iraq, declaring that the violence there was largely the work of terrorists, Syria changed its course on Iraq.

It would seem that Damascus now believes that Iraq is headed for a meltdown. This is why it has begun to restrict refugees. They will only keep on coming, and the real exodus may looming in the future months. It would explain why Talabani was greeted so warmly in Damascus two weeks ago. Syria has decided that it must try to shore up the present Iraqi government whether the US remains hostile to Syria or not. In some respects, this change of course suggests that Syrian and US differences over Iraq have narrowed. This may be true in the narrow sense. Syria can see that there is no future course but to hope that the American surge can help the Iraqi government to survive. After all, with Washington committed to this course and refusing to bring either Iran or Syria into regional discussions on Iraq, there is very little choice. To undermine the present Iraqi government will only ensure that more Iraqi refugees come streaming into Syria.

All the same, Syria will not cut off its links to the Sunni leadership of the opposition in Iraq. Syria will continue to cover all bets on Iraq's future. It does not believe it can afford to alienate any group so long as the future of the country is in such doubt. If the US government is pessimistic about the outcome of its present policy, as demonstrated in the recent intelligence estimate on Iraq, the Syrian government is doubly pessimistic. This explains why President Bashar al-Assad met in Damascus last week with the head of the influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, Sheik Harith al-Dhari. Iraq's Interior Ministry issued an arrest warrant against him in November, alleging al-Dhari instigated sectarian violence. Asad's meeting with Dhari infuriated the Iraqi government, especially as it came on the heels of Asad's meeting with Talabani, to whom he promised cooperation on security issues. We do not now the subject of their meeting. It may well be that Asad encouraged Dhari to work with the Iraqi government and to calm violence, but the fact that Asad was willing to meet with Dhari at all has become a source of irritation for the Iraqi government.

The  meeting points out that even if Damascus is in the midst of a major policy change toward relations with Iraq, it will not put all its eggs in the Maliki basket.

This point was underlined by Ambassador Imad Mustapha in Washington during a recent interview with Helena Cobban, who has written it up at her site: Just World News

[Imad Mustapha] talked a little about his government's relations with many of the different parties and groups inside today's Iraq.  He started by recalling how many of the politicians who emerged in the immediate post-Saddam era had had long ties with Syria, having spent a good portion of their previous years of exile in Damascus.  "Seventeen of the 25 members of the Interim Governing Council established by Paul Bremer once carried Syrian diplomatic passports!"  After the US invasion of Iraq, many of those Iraqi politicians had turned their back on Damascus to some degree– "But now, even those who disdained us for a while are coming back into a relationship with us."

Moustapha noted that Moqtada al-Sadr had a very good visit to Syria in early 2005, "and later, he became a kingmaker in the political system in Baghdad."  He stressed that in his view, Sadr was very far from being any kind of an Iranian puppet.

He concluded by laying out his proposal for an all-party reconciliation process inside Iraq, to be parallelled by a regional process involving all Iraq's neighbors and the United States.  "This wouldn't solve all the problems," he conceded.  "But it would certainly change the regional dynamics."

Syria will continue to seek improved ties with as many parties as possible in Iraq. It is genuinely fearful of the consequences of a meltdown and the failure of Washington's mission to bolster the present government. It does not like America's presence in Iraq, but for the time being neither does it want the US to fail in keeping the government afloat. As Foreign Minister Muellem declared a few weeks ago, Syria does not want American troops to withdraw precipitously, although, it does want to be included in talks. 

Syria's recent policy shift toward Iraq underlines how futile and self-destructive Washington's policy of excluding Syria has become. US prospects of stabilizing the situation in Iraq are not good, but without cooperating from Syria, they are surely worse than they have to be. Syria shares many of Washington's objectives in Iraq – not all, to be sure, but enough to make cooperation the only wise policy.

—

addendum:

UNHCR offices in Damascus have been mobbed by Iraqis since the new visa requirement was imposed. The UNHCR registered very few of the Iraqis in Syria prior to the visa requirement because it could offer them no protection or value. Now that they will be forced to return to Iraq every 15 days, they need official refugee status to go elsewhere. Some journalists are beginning to speculate that America will have to welcome many more Iraqis as refugees. Carolyn Lochhead writes this:

When the South Vietnamese government collapsed, the United States initially accepted 130,000 Vietnamese, including 65,000 fearing their lives because of their collaboration with Americans. Many conferences later, 1.4 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians had been admitted, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights Watch and author of an extensive report on the situation. "As it turns out, many of the people who are fleeing Iraq are fleeing because of their associations with the United States."  

Newland said Syria and Jordan consider the refugees tourists or illegal immigrants, "which sort of implies that the problem will go away or that they would be perfectly within their rights to kick people out." The fear now is that both may close their borders. Jordan began restricting entry after Iraqis bombed three hotels in Amman in 2005. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have barred Iraqis.

"There's just no way a small country like Jordan can, unaided, absorb hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees," Newland said.

Despite terrorism concerns, some predict the United States eventually will admit several hundred thousand Iraqi refugees, as it has after most military conflicts.

UNHCR was only able to resettle 1,500 Iraqis in the past three years.

Read this story about Iraqis in Syria:

Iraqi refugees feel hounded by Syria crackdown
New two week permits of stay hurt Iraq’s 600,000 refugees in Syria, add further burden on exile community.
By Roueida Mabardi – Damascus – 2007-02-03

Hussein, like hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis, fled to neighbouring Syria from the violence blighting daily life at home. But now that Damascus has tightened residency rules, he faces an uncertain future. "If I go back I'm dead," Hussein said…..

Here is an add I found on the web as I looked for photos of Iraqi refugees to include in the post. If this doesn't bring a tear to the eye, nothing will. The only surprise was that there were not more. The Iraqi refugees are being ignored by the West that continues to deny that there is a serious refugee problem that will endure long into the future. One must be thankful to the international organizations like the UNHCR, Refugees International, the IOM, and others that are struggling to bring attention and relief to the plight of Iraqi refugees. Unfortunately their warnings find a deaf ear in the major donor countries, whose governments are following Washington in the insistence that all will come right in Iraq in a year or two, even though their intelligence agencies are telling them otherwise.

Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah's leader, responds to claims that Shiites are converting Sunnis to Shia Islam in his speech the day before Ashura, broadcast by al-Manar. Here is an extract from the translation provided by Mideastwire.com, January 31, 2007. (He claims it is cheaper for Shiites to make babies than convert Sunnis.)

Extracts of Nasrallah Speech:

"For example, it is said that Iran or the Shi'i Islamic movements throughout the Arab and Islamic world have a plan to turn Sunnis into Shi'is. It is also said that there are plans, studies centres, programmes, and huge sums of money geared towards this end. When you say this to any Sunni leader, Sunni scholar, Sunni movement, or young Sunni man, they will mobilize themselves against it. This is their natural right. This issue is now presented strongly and some news media are working on it. Some Arab leaders and senior men of religion spoke about this issue. Depicting this as a basic and major issue on which others are working will lead the nation to sedition whose end will not be known.

"Let us both Shi'is and Sunnis first make sure of this, cooperate, and investigate this together to know if there is really such a thing and if it exists. Let us find out if it really exists or if it is fabricated, drafted, written, organized, and presented by someone as top secret information to some leaders, men of religion, or quarters. Let us scrutinize things and make sure of this first to know if it exists or not.

"Within this context, something similar took place in Lebanon. This is why we sometimes talk about some political leaders. I know by name some Lebanese political leaders, who went to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and other countries and told the leaders of these countries that Hezbollah, supported b y Iran, spends huge sums of money to turn Sunnis in Lebanon into Shi'is. We are talking about Lebanon. If we want to talk about Mauritania, neither I nor you will know what to say. Let us talk about the country in which we are living and the accusation levelled at us. Some of these leaders believed what they were told. Lebanon is an open country in which there are no secrets. Even when a security problem occurs, things will immediately be known. Take for example Thursday's incidents. New video tapes and new information continue to be daily received about what happened on that day. Nothing remains secret; everything becomes known.

"Hezbollah has been in Lebanon since 1982. We are now in 2007. The Lebanese – Muslims, Christians, Shi'is, Sunnis, and Druze – are living together. Tell me where this huge Hezbollah-financed and led campaign to convert Sunnis into Shi'is in Lebanon is. Although tonight is a night of grief and consolation, allow me to lighten the atmosphere a bit for you because the worst of calamities forces laughter as the popular saying goes. I said this to those who came to see me about this issue. I told them if Hezbollah wants to convert some Sunni youths in Lebanon into Shi'is, what will it do? You say it will spend huge sums of money rather than use ideology, conviction, evidence, and so forth although we do not use even these for this purpose. This is not our cause. It is well known since 1982 that this has not been our cause. It is not our policy to turn Sunnis into Shi'is or prevent the Shi'is from becoming Sunnis. Some Shi'is in Lebanon converted to Shiism but none raised clamour o ver the issue. They talk about funds spent. What will the purpose of turning 50, 100, or 200 young Sunnis into Shi'is be? Is it increasing the number of Shi'is by 200? First of all, this will cost us huge sums of money. Second, it will cause us a problem whose end will not be known. I told them this does not require us to do much. We in Hezbollah can issue a circular saying we this year want you to produce more. The number of Shi'is will then increase by 50,000 people in only one year. We will thus do it for free. Well, you continue to produce without needing such a recommendation, praise be to God.

"What they say is silly and is aimed at incitement. True, a very small number of Sunni youths in Lebanon might have been influenced by the general atmosphere and converted to Shiism. Likewise, and for the same reasons, some Shi'is might have turned into Sunnis. Let us count their number in Lebanon and see if there is a phenomenon to convert to Shiism or Sunnism. There is nothing of the sort. We are living together in the country. We are living in mixed neighbourhoods and areas and this cannot be concealed. Brothers and sisters – and I am speaking not only to you but to all those who hear me through the news media – this is meant to tell people: Where is your fervour for your religion; the Shi'is are spreading Shiism and are trying to turn Sunnis into Shi'is.

"I know that whole Shi'i families in Khuzestan in the Islamic Republic of Iran became Sunnis and even Wahhabis. Has anyone raised clamour over this issue and said there is an ideological invasion in Khuzestan? Nobody said anything. Limited things can eventually take place because the world is open to all. There are satellite channels, books, and the Internet. None can any longer prevent anyone else from hearing the opinion or knowing the doctrine and culture of others. People are eventually influenced by one another. But it is not true that someone has a plan and is boldly trying to implement it. Frankly speaking, the aim of saying such things is fomenting sedition.

"Therefore, I will not conceal the fact that two or three months ago I personally asked his excellency the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon to send to Lebanon a special investigation committee from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to investigate the truth about what is said. I renew this call. This is why you hear me these days speak much about an investigation com mi ttee. The reason is to know the truth. Why should we take positions, raise clamour, take sides, or form camps on the basis of illusions and false threats that do not exist? Why should we do so and at the same time ignore or neglect the true threats posed to us in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and the whole region? Why should we ignore the real threats and create imaginary threats and thus wage battles accordingly? This is very dangerous.

"With regard to the same file, I heard that some Arab leaders, some Arab news media, and some men of religion gave astronomical figures. In life there are things that can be believed and others that cannot be believed. Some key figures in Lebanon – and they know themselves – said in private meetings that 7 million Sunnis in Syria converted to Shiism. What sort of talk is this? Yes, and they build on this assumption, which leads to other consequences. They say a battle should be waged against converting people to Shiism, but none has plans to spread Shiism. Tonight is a night of truth and defence of the oppressed.

"I testify that the Islamic Republic of Iran and His Eminence Al-Sayyid Khemene'i, its leader and our leader and imam, may God protect him and prolong his life, has absolutely no such plans. If you go to Iran and find a man of religion, a cultural centre, or an Internet site working on this issue, you will find that all others have such a thing. But his eminence the leader, as well as the Islamic Republic and the Islamic revolution in Iran, have absolutely nothing to do with this. Such accusations are not fair. I say this because I know and we here have had a very close friendship with the brothers in Iran since 1982 and since the time of Imam Khomeyni, may God bless his soul, up to the time of His Eminence the leader, may God prolong his life. We know that this is not true and that this is not their policy, plan, or idea. But if there are cases of conversion from Sunnism to Shiism in this or that country, we will have to find out the truth and know who converted them before we draw conclusions and say this is done by a big and strong country called Iran or by movements like Hezbollah.

"Moreover, I discussed this issue with some leaders and told them that some said some converted because of Hezbollah's victory in Lebanon. What is my fault here? What is Hezbollah's fault if its victory made some people convert to Shiism? In the past and as a result of the performance of jihadist Sunni movements, Shi'is became Sunnis. Do we have to be defeated in order not to be held responsible?

The Syrians, Liel says, are serious about a full “reorientation.”  No Hamas, no Iran, no Hezbollah. The Americans vetoed any formalization of the track showing no interest in engaging the Syrians. The Israelis were too scared even to ask the US.

Simon McGregor-Wood, ABC’s bureau chief in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Israel, sent along these very interesting notes of Dr. Alon Liel's presentation to the FPA forum held at the King David Hotel today at 11am. 

Alon Liel was Director General or Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000-2001 and carried out unofficial peace negotiations with a Syrian counterpart over the last several years. He answered questions about the Syrian-Israeli peace talk initiative. To read the Haaretz reporting on these "unofficial" peace negotiations click here.

An interesting briefing from Dr Alon Liel the former Israeli diplomat who was involved in the track 2 negotiations with the Syrians, that resulted in the non paper peace agreement recently reported by Haaretz.

Senior Israeli officials knew about the process as it happened. They were briefed at every turn.

The Swiss government sponsored the process. (Despite the negative fallout of the Geneva Initiative|) Most talks happened in the Bellevue Hotel in Berne. The Swiss are now very friendly with Damascus. They have established the trust of the regime and are frequent visitors.

Swiss diplomats checked every move in the process with senior regime officials in Damascus (unnamed). The Syrians were feeding into the negotiations with government approved ideas and suggestions.

The Israeli government did not.

The Americans vetoed any formalization of the track showing no interest in engaging the Syrians.

Olmert’s rejection is just a parroting of the US position.

The Syrians wanted to go up a notch with a Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister, with an American official present in the room. The Israelis, according to Liel, were too scared even to ask the US. This happened 10 or 11 days into last summer’s war in Lebanon.

The Syrians, Liel says are serious about a full “reorientation.” The deal on offer is far more than an Israeli-Syrian deal over the Golan Heights. The deal would encompass a full engagement of Syria with the international community. No Hamas, no Iran, no Hezbollah. The Syrians are fully aware they won’t get the Golan if they remain within the Iranian axis.

They are willing to wait for the land until their change of heart is proven to be genuine and lasting. This is where the 5 or 15 year withdrawal timetable came from.They are completely inflexible on the question of sovereignty and the 4th June 1967 borders. They want all the land and swaps are a non starter.

They are prepared to be very flexible on other issues, namely Israeli access to the land, for tourism and work, and the security guarantees and demilitarization.

Liel believes peace with Syria is much easier than with the Palestinians now, and for at least the next ten years.The Palestinian internal crisis is so fundamental, it will take ages to resolve.

The Road Map is a joke and a cover up for a peace process. There is no point in talking to Abu Mazen. Palestinian society is completely splintered and a deal with Abbas would never stick. There is no partner for serious negotiations at the moment.

Both Senator Nelson and James Baker recommended opening negotiations with Syria. Nelson accused the White House of pursuing a failed, "ostrich" like policy by failing to talk to Syria. Read the following two stories:

I have been away from my blog for 10 days and much has happened. I will try to cover the main events briefly.

1. President Bush's state of the Union speech largely gave Syria a pass. He mentioned Syria only once as a troublemaker. The focus was Iran. The number of covert plans being prepared to squeeze Iran and limit its regional reach has been expanded according to the Washington Post. 

Friday, the Washington Post reported Bush's authorization of a new, more intensive policy that allows for more stringent measures against Iran.  This includes, primarily, the authority to capture or kill Iranian agents active in Iraq, a story Bush and other US officials did not deny. However, the new policy extends far beyond Iraq.

The Post reported that the new plan is part of a wider US strategy aimed at destroying Iranian influence from Afghanistan to Lebanon, as well as to hinder Iran's nuclear program. In this context, the plan addresses known terrorist entities within the sphere of Iran's influence, such as Hizbullah.

According the Post, during the Lebanon war, senior US officials concluded on the importance of exposing the connection between Iran's nuclear plan and its extensive assistance in arming, training and funding terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Hizbullah and insurgent militias in Iraq.

As part of the new plan, US intelligence has now begun covert operations against Hizbullah.  It is also focused on weakening Tehran's funding chain to Hizbullah and to various Palestinian terror organizations.

Iran politicians are trying to step back from the brink and take some of the heat out of their inflamed relations with the US. This is being done by giving Ahmadinejad his comeuppance. The New York Time's Sunday Magazine has an excellent story on this. (posted on a free site.)  It would be a mistake to read the power struggle among Iran's politicians as a indication that it is changing its policy significantly. Iran has announced an ambitious plan on to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq, just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs. 

Evidence that the Iranian government is supplying weapons or fighters to militias in Iraq is weak argues Gareth Porter in his article: US lacks 'explosive' evidence against Iran. In fact, US military brass have said as much. Porter writes: "For 18 months, the administration of US President George W Bush has periodically raised the charge that Iran is supplying anti-coalition forces in Iraq with arms. Previously, high administration officials have always admitted that they had no real evidence to support these claims. The LA Times has this article: Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link.

The NYTimes reports that the United States has said that evidence gleaned in a Baghdad raid, made on an Iraqi Shiite leader’s residential compound, proves the Iranians were involved in planning attacks, even though US officials gave little evidence. Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Mr. Qumi ridiculed the evidence that the American military has said it collected.

Next week, American military officials are expected to make their most comprehensive case — based on materials seized in recent raids — that Iran's elite Quds force is behind many of the most lethal attacks. The New York Times is now also suggesting that the evidence will be less than compelling. David Sanger writes that "the administration does not have definitive evidence that Iran is moving toward producing a nuclear bomb" either.

Jalal Talabani, Iraq's President visited Syria last week and was quite expansive about Syria's effort to patch up relations between the two countries, although Iraqi officials want Syria to turn over leading Baathists, which they have yet to do. Bashar al-Asad clearly believes that the present Iraqi government is going to survive in some form and that Syria's best interests lie in moving ahead with good relations. For the time being Washington is winning the game of chicken the it has played with Syria over Iraq. Syria hoped it could use the Iraq card to break Washington's isolation policy. Washington used the card right back, insisting that if Syria encouraged the Iraqi resistance, Damascus would inevitably pay the higher price because lawlessness, fundamentalism and sectarianism would wash into Syria. Syrian officials are undoubtedly telling themselves that by improving relations with the American backed Iraqi government, Syria will ultimately make it easier for Malaki and the Shiite government to turn against America.

Here is the good press Talabani gave Syria. 

Talabani gestures during an interview in Damascus

"There is no justification for a stern (U.S.) stance on Syria," said Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Sunday. "I personally will seek to give a true picture about Syria's intentions and policy to the U.S. administration and I will seek to encourage our American friends to have a dialogue with Syria," he told Al Arabiya television.

He will push for dialogue between the United States and neighbouring Syria, which he said was helping Baghdad clamp down on terrorism. Talabani, who paid a landmark visit to Syria earlier this month, said "Syria wants … stability in Iraq and is backing us in fighting terrorism."

"It would be more appropriate for the United States to have a dialogue with Syria," Talabani said when asked what would be his advice to U.S. President George W. Bush, who had rejected direct talks with Syria and Iran, ignoring a recommendation by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Syria's U.S. ties went frosty when President Bashar al-Assad voiced opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003. Iraqi and U.S. officials have often accused Syria of not doing enough to stop the flow of militants crossing its Iraqi borders to fight U.S.-led troops. Damascus repeatedly said it was doing all it can to control the long desert border. U.S. relations with Syria plummeted further in 2005 after the killing of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, a Syrian ally turned foe. Many Lebanese politicians accused Syria of killing Hariri, a charge Damascus denies vehemently.

Talabani said during his visit to Syria that Iraq would ask Syria to hand over senior Saddam Hussein aides suspected of stealing millions of dollars and helping the anti-U.S. insurgency. Asked if Iraq has asked Syria to hand over Iraqi opposition figures, he said: "We will not ask for handing over political opponents and Syria would not be willing to hand them over."

"All we want from Syria in this regard is not to allow the presence of leaderships of Iraqi organisations that work with weapons against the legitimate Iraqi government. We ask it to advise the leaderships of these groups to … join national reconciliation and the peaceful democratic process in Iraq."

Syria, for the first time calls militia violence in Iraq "terrorism."

Syria vows to stabilise Iraq, condemns rebel attacks: 20 Jan 2007, DAMASCUS, Jan 20 (Reuters) –

Syria on Saturday condemned insurgent attacks on the U.S.-backed Iraqi army and security forces, calling it terrorism, in a fresh shift in the position of the Damascus government towards its neighbour.

In a communique issued at the end of a visit by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to Damascus, Syria vowed to help stop civil strife in Iraq despite opposing the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power in 2003 but ushered in sectarian conflict.

Secretary Rice has become an Arab nationalist! Here she is quoted in the NYTimes admonishing the Arabs to become more nationalist: “There’s still a tendency to see these things in Sunni-Shia terms,” Ms. Rice said. “But the Middle East is going to have to overcome that.” She added that neighboring Sunni-led Arab states should understand that Iraq’s Shiite-led government primarily saw itself as Arab and that the only way it would ally itself with Iran, which is Shiite but not Arab, would be “if people deny the Shia-led Iraq a place in the Arab world.”

Meanwhile America's best ally, Israel, is warning against Arab nationalism. Amotz Asa-El argues in "Middle Israel: The problem with Syria" that Israel must see things in Sunni-Shiite terms. He does not want a peace deal with Syria so long as it is ruled by a "heretical Shiite sect, the Alawites." Taking a noble stand for democracy, Asa-El explains that the silent majority in Israel must not make deals with religious minority rulers in Syria because it would be doing an injustice to orthodox Muslim sentiment. He reminds us that "To the Sunnis who dominate the Arab world, and constitute 75 percent of Syria's population, the Alawites are heretics." Hence Israelis should not trust or deal with the "secular" regime, because it is a mirage which will soon crumble. One can only presume, he advocates waiting until fundamentalists take power in Syria before handing back the Golan. Israel made the same argument in the case of the Palestinians – no deal with the PLO because they are not representative – but when Hamas was duly elected and Haniyyah took over from the secular Arafat, Israel reversed its position. It couldn't deal with fundamentalists and preferred the PLO. Delicious irony, perhaps, if it weren't so – the old bait and switch. What is more, Syria under an Alawite president has been infinitely more stable and capable of fulfilling its commitments than it was under previous Sunni presidents. This is a red haring.

Ibrahim Suleiman, the US based Syrian who carried out unofficial peace negotiations with Israeli counterparts for two years, explained In an interview with the Ynet Internet site that Israel was offered "a confidence-building measure" that had been prepared by himself, European and Syrian officials. "This was a critical thing, a confidence-building measure … The Israelis would have loved it. They would have celebrated it. Olmert's deputy said yes, then a week later he sent an email that said: 'No, we've changed our minds.'"

He said that it was something of which Israelis never dreamed and would have cost them nothing.

Suleiman said that a week after the meeting with Turbowicz, the European mediator received an email saying that Olmert was not interested in the initiative. "For some reason beyond my understanding, the Americans don't want peace between Syria and Israel," he continued. "Syria is trying and I'm trying, but damn it, there's a limit to how much we can give."

Rime Allaf of Chatham House explains that Suleiman's negotiated deal with his Israeli counterpart was too generous and gave away more than her father offered in 1990. Many of the comments suggest many Syrians agree with her.

'Dialogue with Syria now' Former Shin Bet Chief Yaakov Peri says peace negotiations with Damascus would neutralize threat of rocket attacks from the north, stop Syrian funding to Hizbullah and stop Syria's support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad Full Story . . .

Turkish economic officials said on Thursday Turkey is giving priority to boosting commercial relations with Syria more than those with any other neighboring country.

Iraq continues to witness escalating violence. 250 Insurgents Killed in Iraq yesterday, but the numbers are probably higher. 

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad is one of the best reporters in Iraq. His recent stories for the Guardian: 'If they pay we kill them anyway' – the kidnapper's story, January 27, about his meeting with the commander of a Shia death squad. And 'The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans' are both chilling and explain how broken the government has become.

Robert Malley of ICG argues forcefully that the Iraqi government is broken and beyond repair in testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee, presented as part of a series of hearings that led the committee to reject the Bush strategy as it now stands.

Prof. Raymond Hinnebusch, the directory of the new Center for Syrian Studies at the University of St. Andrews, UK.

THE CENTRE FOR SYRIAN STUDIES, University of St. Andrews, invites submission of papers on reform and security issues in contemporary Syria. We are especially keen on submissions by young scholars nearing or having recently completed a Ph.D on Syria. The papers are meant to be given at a series of on-going conferences or workshops held over the next few years in St. Andrews, London or Damascus and for publication, either in a projected book length series on Syria in Transition, or in other formats, such as working papers. Those whose papers are selected will be invited to present them, with travel expenses paid; additionally a $250 (£125) honorarium will be paid when papers are delivered and another $250 (£125) if they are accepted for publication. For information on the website and how to apply click here, or e-mail Adham Saouli, at [email protected]

Here are some initial responses to the leaked story of second track Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations

PM: No government officials involved in secret Syria talks
By Haaretz Staff: Last update – 17:01 16/01/2007

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that no government officials were involved in secret contacts with Syria, responding to a Haaretz report that understandings on a peace agreement between Jerusalem and Damascus were formulated in a series of secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006.

"No one in the government was involved in this matter," Olmert told reporters in northern Israel. "It was a private initiative on the part of an individual who spoke with himself. From what I read, his interlocutor was an eccentric from the U.S., someone not serious or dignified."

The Syrian Foreign Ministry also rejected the report.

"No negotiations took place, the Haaretz report is completely false," a Syrian Foreign Ministry official said in Damascus

Official Israeli response to the report was more tentative.

"This is the first we have heard of the talks, we have never sanctioned anybody to speak to the Syrians and the prime minister first learned of these conversations through the newspaper report this morning," said Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin.

An unnamed senior cabinet minister was quoted Tuesday as saying that there were no contacts between the two nations, and that the story was "a bluff."

"We don't know about this, and if this had happened, we would have known about it," Israel Radio quoted the minister as saying. "This is not serious. It's possible that there were contacts on the level of academics, it's possible that there were reports to officials on a low level. But it did not reach higher than that."

The minister dismissed the report as a "bluff," the radio said.

Former foreign minister Silvan Shalom said that he first learned of the talks by reading Tuesday's paper. He said the last contact Israel had with a Syrian representative was in 2003.

Dr. Alon Liel, a former director general at the Foreign Ministry, who took part in all the meetings, was quoted as saying that he had not acted the representative of anyone. Liel further declined to state whom he had informed of the meetings.

The radio quoted unnamed senior Israeli officials as stating that Israel is not holding contacts with Syria.

The officials referred to the sensitivity of the issue, in view of the opposition of Washington, Israel's main ally, to negotiations with the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"Syria is trying to topple the Siniora government in Lebanon, a government which the United States is trying to aid," the radio quoted one official as saying. "Syria streams terror elements to Iraq, where they operate against the United States military, Syria fosters [Damascus-based Hamas leader] Khaled Meshal, it transfers arms to Hezbollah, hosts headquarters of terror organizations, supports Hamas, and, in general, undermines any attempt to reach a [peace] agreement

A figure described as a very senior official in the office of then-prime minister Ariel Sharon was quoted as saying that "there was no reports to Sharon, there were no reports to his office, there was no connection between Sharon and Alon Liel, this never happened."

"This is absolute nonsense."
[END]

Akiva Eldar's comments on Olmert's denial: The denial / Assassination of a peace initiative

Uzi Benziman: Israel's refusal to give up the Golan will lead to war.  

Bushra Kanafani, the spokesperson for the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also insists the Haartz articles about peace negotiations are fabricated: “News about reaching ‘secret understanding’ for peace with Israel are fabricated”

A follow up article by Akiva Eldar in Haaretz claims that VP Cheney was kept in the loop about the second track negotiations

U.S. officials: Cheney was kept abreast of Israel-Syria talks

Senior American government officials received regular reports of the secret meetings that took place in Europe between a former Israeli official and a Syrian representative, Haaretz has learned.

Senior officials in Washington told Haaretz that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was kept in the picture about these indirect talks between Syria and Israel.

Ibrahim (Ayeb) Suleiman, the Syrian representative, also said this at his meetings with former Foreign Ministry director general Alon Liel, adding that Cheney had made no move to stop him from participating in the talks. Suleiman is a Washington resident.

A document that Dr. Nimrod Novik, a former political advisor to Vice Premier Shimon Peres, disseminated last October to members of the Council for Peace and Security also said that Washington knew about the talks. “While the administration is taking care not to broadcast a U-turn in its approach as long as the president has not given it an explicit green light, the signs of a change in direction are multiplying,” Novik wrote.

“During the fighting in Lebanon, former senior [U.S.] officials were authorized to speak with Damascus, within a narrow mandate, while Pentagon and State Department officials support a change in the policy toward Hamas and quote the president in this context.”

Geoffrey Aronson, of the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, who helped arrange the secret meetings, also participated last year in meetings organized by Alastair Crooke, the European Union’s former security envoy to the territories, with key Hamas and Hezbollah members.

These meetings, which took place in Beirut, were also attended by two former senior Central Intelligence Agency officials. Haaretz reported at the time that Cheney also know about the existence of these meetings, and received regular reports from the American participants.

Novik wrote that “during secret talks via a third party a few years ago, the Syrians already demonstrated much more flexibility than they did at Shepherdstown on matters such as the pace of the withdrawal, implementation of normalization and creative solutions (’a peace park’) for the area north of [Lake] Kinneret. Then, too, it was Israel that refused direct, official talks.”

The Shepherdstown talks were formal Israeli-Syrian negotiations started by Ehud Barak’s government.

Meretz-Yahad Chairman Yossi Beilin said in media interviews Tuesday that the European mediator in the secret talks was Nicholas Lang, head of the Middle East desk at the Swiss Foreign Ministry.

Lang also played a key role in organizing the Israeli-Palestinian meetings at which Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo drafted the Geneva Initiative, their proposal for a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Liel, who was the driving force behind the secret meetings with Suleiman, is one of the people closest to Beilin.

Raviv Drucker, of Channel 10 television, reported last night that Lang met not long ago with Shalom Turjeman, Ehud Olmert’s political adviser, and presented him with the draft. According to Drucker, Turjeman told Lang that Israel has no interest in the understandings. Drucker also said that Lang visited Damascus several times during the talks, met with Syrian FM Farouk Shara, and reported that he believed the Syrian leadership genuinely wanted a deal.

Camille-Alexandre Otrakji, Director of The Syrian Think Tank, wrote me:

Amazing story. Akiva Eldar had a very productive week in Madrid!

But I am not surprised to hear that the Syrians had to settle for this type of channel. Given the hard line official positions of Israel under Mr. Sharon (and Mr. Netanyahu before), Syria had no option but to seek indirect channels through influential Jewish businessmen. Other examples, Jack Avital, close friend of prime minister Sharon and leader of Syrian Jews in New York. Imad Moustapha convinced him that Syria is serious about peace … but it did not seem to change Mr. Sharon's public positions.

In the 90's, Mr. Netanyahu's refusal to publicly negotiate with Syria also forced the Syrians to seek another Jewish millionaire’s help (I can’t remember the name, but I think he was friend of the British prime minister)

But I have some reservations on the parts where Syria supposedly committed (verbally or in writing) to this back channel to 1) get rid of Mashaal and Hamas, and 2) to cut ties with Iran in favor of sunni direction (as the story says) .. I think this is a distorted version of what the Syrians offered. They are much more careful than that. Remember how the Syrians refuse to even speak to Israeli journalists … they don’t commit to anything in advance.

Helping Hizballah turn into a political party is more realistic.

As for Israeli right-wing governments .. I don’t understand their motivation to go through these exercises. At the end they don’t seem to go for it … I think they just want to keep this option (Peace with Syria) an available open option in case they need to go for it. But Israel is still not decided … Is Syria worth the “painful concessions”?Egypt (the largest Arab country) was a much easier decision for Mr. Begin at the time … Egypt was worth the price for peace. Syria’s value is a more complex variable that they don’t know how to evaluate… Syria, through these secret meetings hopes to help Israel in estimating Syria’s considerable significance to Israel.

Imad Moustapha, Syria's Ambassador to the US, said Syria had repeatedly called for diplomatic talks with Israel.
"We want peaceful relations with Israel, but also not in a sell-out way," he said. "We want dignified relations with the United States, but also not in a sell-out way."

As for Lebanon, the ambassador said he was concerned by news of continued domestic turbulence in Beirut.
"The situation is very tense in Lebanon – they need a national coalition."

Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said this week that peace anytime soon between Israel and Syria was unrealistic. In an interview with Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba, he said "the American government will not allow the [Israelis] to negotiate with Syria."

Reinoud Leenders just published this short and excellent article, "Israeli-Syrian Negotiations – An observer’s view of lessons and prospects"

Farid Ghadry – Reform Party of Syria
Alleged Deal with Israel is a Mirage

Washington DC, January 16, 2007/Reform Syria Blog – Farid Ghadry/ — Haaretz reported today that a deal has been struck between Syria and Israel. The article details secret talks that have been conducted since 2004 with the tacit approval of Ariel Sharon.

The planting of this news item today, even though the supposed negotiations were halted in July 2006, was intended to coincide with the new US Iraq policy determined to stop Syrian and Iranian interference in Iraq. This leak is simply an attempt by Israelis who support Assad to impose themselves on the Olmert government the way the Iraq Study Group tried to impose itself on the Bush administration.

This latest attempt is one of desperation on the part of Assad. He is looking through his crystal ball and what he sees makes him worry. The Syrian economy cannot be sustained for long at this rate of decreased oil revenues and increased isolation. Even Iran will not be able to foot the bill because it has to maintain a certain military readiness that is exhausting its treasury.

The US policy of isolating Assad is working like a charm as witnessed by Assad's desperate moves. He will have no choice but to quit his violent policies and open Syria for real reforms. Keep the pressure up. 

An Alawite businessman who has worked assiduously with Jewish counterparts to get peace talks started wrote this very negative reaction to the peace proposal. His reaction was typical among many Syrians and helps explain why Foreign Ministry officials denied it:

Even though I am a polite person, and do not use such words, my politest response to the Israeli who proposed the draft agreement below is:  go fuck yourself.

Syria will not accept any condition on how it uses its rightful land, such as enforcing a park or any other stupid and insulting ideas like these.  This foxy idea by the Israelis is intended to deprive Syrians from inhabiting the land so close to the border, and therefore depriving them from using resources like water in the region, all that while Israelis can build new settlements right at the border.

The same thing applies to all the other stupid ideas like having a monitoring point controlled by the US in the  Mt. Jabal El-Sheikh.

This is not negotiations, this is trying to make fools of the Syrians, and Israel must learn the true meaning of land for peace before anything positive can take place.  I am truly more pessimistic right now.

My advice to the Israelis is to make sure that whatever they put in a proposal for peace should apply on both sides.  So if they want to have a monitoring point commanded by the US in the Golan, they must allow an Iranian commanded monitoring point inside Israel.  If they want the Syrians to have a freeking park in our land, they MUST have the same on their side of the border.   If they want a demilitarized zone in the Golan, they must have one on their side of the border, etc.

Until then, there shall be no peace and no improvement of the situation.  Let us see how long it will take, and how many lives and bloods will be wasted.

Here are three stories from one of Haaretz's best reporters about peace negotiations between Israelis and Syrians that took place between Sept. 2004 and July 2006. (Thanks Alex and Tony Karon for bringing them to my attention.) They suggest that President Bashar al-Asad has been eager for peace talks for some time. Skeptics will point to the fact that they come after the 2003 Iraq war to argue that Asad only wanted the talks to get out of isolation. But there is a deal on the table. It is a good one. If Asad was inclined to make it out of fear of isolation and possible US military action, so what? Washington is being a spoiler. It should be pushing Israel to make the talks official rather than dissuading Tel Aviv from talking to Syria.

Secret understandings reached between representatives of Israel, Syria

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent: Last update – 04:05 16/01/2007

In a series of secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006, Syrians and Israelis formulated understandings for a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. The main points of the understandings are as follows: An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed. An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed. An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed.

As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years. At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval. Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret. The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor. According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran. The document is described as a "non-paper," a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing – its nature is political. It was prepared in August 2005 and has been updated during a number of meetings in Europe. The meetings were carried out with the knowledge of senior officials in the government of former prime minister Ariel Sharon. The last meeting took place during last summer's war in Lebanon. Government officials received updates on the meetings via the European mediator and also through Dr. Alon Liel, a former director general at the Foreign Ministry, who took part in all the meetings. The European mediator and the Syrian representative in the discussions held eight separate meetings with senior Syrian officials, including Vice President Farouk Shara, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and a Syrian intelligence officer with the rank of "general." The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request. The Syrian representative in the talks, Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman, an American citizen, had visited Jerusalem and delivered a message to senior officials at the Foreign Ministry regarding the Syrian wish for an agreement with Israel. The Syrians also asked for help in improving their relations with the United States, and particularly in lifting the American embargo on Syria. For his part, the European mediator stressed that the Syrian leadership is concerned that the loss of petroleum revenues will lead to an economic crash in the country and could consequently undermine the stability of the Assad regime. According to Geoffrey Aronson, an American from the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, who was involved in the talks, an agreement under American auspices would call for Syria to ensure that Hezbollah would limit itself to being solely a political party. He also told Haaretz that Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief, based in Damascus, would have to leave the Syrian capital. Syria would also exercise its influence for a solution to the conflict in Iraq, through an agreement between Shi'a leader Muqtada Sadr and the Sunni leadership, and in addition, it would contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the refugee problem. Aronson said the idea of a park on the Golan Heights allows for the Syrian demand that Israel pull back to the June 4 border, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the park eliminates Israeli concerns that Syrians will have access to the water sources of Lake Kinneret. "This was a serious and honest effort to find creative solutions to practical problems that prevented an agreement from being reached during Barak's [tenure as prime minister] and to create an atmosphere of building confidence between the two sides," he said. It also emerged that one of the Syrian messages to Israel had to do with the ties between Damascus and Tehran. In the message, the Alawi regime – the Assad family being members of the Alawi minority – asserts that it considers itself to be an integral part of the Sunni world and that it objects to the Shi'a theocratic regime, and is particularly opposed to Iran's policy in Iraq. A senior Syrian official stressed that a peace agreement with Israel will enable Syria to distance itself from Iran. Liel refused to divulge details about the meetings but confirmed that they had taken place. He added that meetings on an unofficial level have been a fairly common phenomenon during the past decade. "We insisted on making the existence of meetings known to the relevant parties," Liel said. "Nonetheless, there was no official Israeli connection to the content of the talks and to the ideas that were raised during the meetings." Prior to these meetings, Liel was involved in an effort to further secret talks between Syria and Israel with the aid of Turkish mediation – following a request for assistance President Assad had made to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That attempt failed following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level – and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level," similar to the framework of the talks that had preceded the Oslo accords. As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years. At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval. Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret. The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor. According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran. The document is described as a "non-paper," a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing – its nature is political. It was prepared in August 2005 and has been updated during a number of meetings in Europe. The meetings were carried out with the knowledge of senior officials in the government of former prime minister Ariel Sharon. The last meeting took place during last summer's war in Lebanon. Government officials received updates on the meetings via the European mediator and also through Dr. Alon Liel, a former director general at the Foreign Ministry, who took part in all the meetings. The European mediator and the Syrian representative in the discussions held eight separate meetings with senior Syrian officials, including Vice President Farouk Shara, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and a Syrian intelligence officer with the rank of "general." The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request. The Syrian representative in the talks, Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman, an American citizen, had visited Jerusalem and delivered a message to senior officials at the Foreign Ministry regarding the Syrian wish for an agreement with Israel. The Syrians also asked for help in improving their relations with the United States, and particularly in lifting the American embargo on Syria. For his part, the European mediator stressed that the Syrian leadership is concerned that the loss of petroleum revenues will lead to an economic crash in the country and could consequently undermine the stability of the Assad regime. According to Geoffrey Aronson, an American from the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, who was involved in the talks, an agreement under American auspices would call for Syria to ensure that Hezbollah would limit itself to being solely a political party. He also told Haaretz that Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief, based in Damascus, would have to leave the Syrian capital. Syria would also exercise its influence for a solution to the conflict in Iraq, through an agreement between Shi'a leader Muqtada Sadr and the Sunni leadership, and in addition, it would contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the refugee problem. Aronson said the idea of a park on the Golan Heights allows for the Syrian demand that Israel pull back to the June 4 border, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the park eliminates Israeli concerns that Syrians will have access to the water sources of Lake Kinneret. "This was a serious and honest effort to find creative solutions to practical problems that prevented an agreement from being reached during Barak's [tenure as prime minister] and to create an atmosphere of building confidence between the two sides," he said. It also emerged that one of the Syrian messages to Israel had to do with the ties between Damascus and Tehran. In the message, the Alawi regime – the Assad family being members of the Alawi minority – asserts that it considers itself to be an integral part of the Sunni world and that it objects to the Shi'a theocratic regime, and is particularly opposed to Iran's policy in Iraq. A senior Syrian official stressed that a peace agreement with Israel will enable Syria to distance itself from Iran. Liel refused to divulge details about the meetings but confirmed that they had taken place. He added that meetings on an unofficial level have been a fairly common phenomenon during the past decade. "We insisted on making the existence of meetings known to the relevant parties," Liel said. "Nonetheless, there was no official Israeli connection to the content of the talks and to the ideas that were raised during the meetings." Prior to these meetings, Liel was involved in an effort to further secret talks between Syria and Israel with the aid of Turkish mediation – following a request for assistance President Assad had made to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That attempt failed following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level – and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level," similar to the framework of the talks that had preceded the Oslo accords.   As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years. At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval. Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret. The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor. According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran. The document is described as a "non-paper," a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing – its nature is political. It was prepared in August 2005 and has been updated during a number of meetings in Europe. The meetings were carried out with the knowledge of senior officials in the government of former prime minister Ariel Sharon. The last meeting took place during last summer's war in Lebanon. Government officials received updates on the meetings via the European mediator and also through Dr. Alon Liel, a former director general at the Foreign Ministry, who took part in all the meetings. The European mediator and the Syrian representative in the discussions held eight separate meetings with senior Syrian officials, including Vice President Farouk Shara, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and a Syrian intelligence officer with the rank of "general." The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request. The Syrian representative in the talks, Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman, an American citizen, had visited Jerusalem and delivered a message to senior officials at the Foreign Ministry regarding the Syrian wish for an agreement with Israel. The Syrians also asked for help in improving their relations with the United States, and particularly in lifting the American embargo on Syria. For his part, the European mediator stressed that the Syrian leadership is concerned that the loss of petroleum revenues will lead to an economic crash in the country and could consequently undermine the stability of the Assad regime. According to Geoffrey Aronson, an American from the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, who was involved in the talks, an agreement under American auspices would call for Syria to ensure that Hezbollah would limit itself to being solely a political party. He also told Haaretz that Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief, based in Damascus, would have to leave the Syrian capital. Syria would also exercise its influence for a solution to the conflict in Iraq, through an agreement between Shi'a leader Muqtada Sadr and the Sunni leadership, and in addition, it would contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the refugee problem. Aronson said the idea of a park on the Golan Heights allows for the Syrian demand that Israel pull back to the June 4 border, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the park eliminates Israeli concerns that Syrians will have access to the water sources of Lake Kinneret. "This was a serious and honest effort to find creative solutions to practical problems that prevented an agreement from being reached during Barak's [tenure as prime minister] and to create an atmosphere of building confidence between the two sides," he said. It also emerged that one of the Syrian messages to Israel had to do with the ties between Damascus and Tehran. In the message, the Alawi regime – the Assad family being members of the Alawi minority – asserts that it considers itself to be an integral part of the Sunni world and that it objects to the Shi'a theocratic regime, and is particularly opposed to Iran's policy in Iraq. A senior Syrian official stressed that a peace agreement with Israel will enable Syria to distance itself from Iran. Liel refused to divulge details about the meetings but confirmed that they had taken place. He added that meetings on an unofficial level have been a fairly common phenomenon during the past decade. "We insisted on making the existence of meetings known to the relevant parties," Liel said. "Nonetheless, there was no official Israeli connection to the content of the talks and to the ideas that were raised during the meetings." Prior to these meetings, Liel was involved in an effort to further secret talks between Syria and Israel with the aid of Turkish mediation – following a request for assistance President Assad had made to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That attempt failed following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level – and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level," similar to the framework of the talks that had preceded the Oslo accords. As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years. At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval. Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret. The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor. According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran. The document is described as a "non-paper," a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing – its nature is political. It was prepared in August 2005 and has been updated during a number of meetings in Europe. The meetings were carried out with the knowledge of senior officials in the government of former prime minister Ariel Sharon. The last meeting took place during last summer's war in Lebanon. Government officials received updates on the meetings via the European mediator and also through Dr. Alon Liel, a former director general at the Foreign Ministry, who took part in all the meetings. The European mediator and the Syrian representative in the discussions held eight separate meetings with senior Syrian officials, including Vice President Farouk Shara, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and a Syrian intelligence officer with the rank of "general." The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request. The Syrian representative in the talks, Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman, an American citizen, had visited Jerusalem and delivered a message to senior officials at the Foreign Ministry regarding the Syrian wish for an agreement with Israel. The Syrians also asked for help in improving their relations with the United States, and particularly in lifting the American embargo on Syria. For his part, the European mediator stressed that the Syrian leadership is concerned that the loss of petroleum revenues will lead to an economic crash in the country and could consequently undermine the stability of the Assad regime. According to Geoffrey Aronson, an American from the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, who was involved in the talks, an agreement under American auspices would call for Syria to ensure that Hezbollah would limit itself to being solely a political party. He also told Haaretz that Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief, based in Damascus, would have to leave the Syrian capital. Syria would also exercise its influence for a solution to the conflict in Iraq, through an agreement between Shi'a leader Muqtada Sadr and the Sunni leadership, and in addition, it would contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the refugee problem. Aronson said the idea of a park on the Golan Heights allows for the Syrian demand that Israel pull back to the June 4 border, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the park eliminates Israeli concerns that Syrians will have access to the water sources of Lake Kinneret. "This was a serious and honest effort to find creative solutions to practical problems that prevented an agreement from being reached during Barak's [tenure as prime minister] and to create an atmosphere of building confidence between the two sides," he said. It also emerged that one of the Syrian messages to Israel had to do with the ties between Damascus and Tehran. In the message, the Alawi regime – the Assad family being members of the Alawi minority – asserts that it considers itself to be an integral part of the Sunni world and that it objects to the Shi'a theocratic regime, and is particularly opposed to Iran's policy in Iraq. A senior Syrian official stressed that a peace agreement with Israel will enable Syria to distance itself from Iran. Liel refused to divulge details about the meetings but confirmed that they had taken place. He added that meetings on an unofficial level have been a fairly common phenomenon during the past decade. "We insisted on making the existence of meetings known to the relevant parties," Liel said. "Nonetheless, there was no official Israeli connection to the content of the talks and to the ideas that were raised during the meetings." Prior to these meetings, Liel was involved in an effort to further secret talks between Syria and Israel with the aid of Turkish mediation – following a request for assistance President Assad had made to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That attempt failed following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level – and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level," similar to the framework of the talks that had preceded the Oslo accords. [END]

BACKGROUND: From Turkey, via Europe, to Damascus, By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

It began exactly three years ago. In January 2004, Syrian President Bashar Assad came to Turkey for an important visit, some say a historic one. By complete coincidence, Dr. Alon Liel, a former Foreign Ministry director general and former Israeli ambassador to Ankara, was in Istanbul and staying at the same hotel as the Syrian delegation. His friends in the Turkish Foreign Ministry hinted to Liel that Israel had a respectable spot in the conversations between Assad and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

A few days after Liel’s return to Israel, he was invited to a meeting with the Turkish ambassador to Israel, Feridun Sinirlioglu. The Turkish ambassador told Liel that Assad had asked Erdogan to use Turkey’s good relations with Israel to remove the rust from the negotiation channel with Syria. Liel was asked to put out discreet feelers in the bureau of then prime minister Ariel Sharon to find out if there were an Israeli partner for covert talks with Syria, to be mediated by Turkey.

Liel brought Geoffrey Aronson from the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace into the picture. Aronson, who is Jewish, had wandered among the capitals of the Middle East, including Damascus, Beirut and Amman, and suggested bringing in Ibrahim (Ayeb) Suleiman, a Syrian-Alawite businessman who had been living in a suburb of Washington, D.C. for many years. Suleiman’s family is from the same village as the Assad family, and senior American officials had used his good mediation skills many times to make contact with Damascus. Suleiman had also been involved in opening the gates of Syria to the Jews remaining there who wanted to move to Israel.

Suleiman left for Damascus. He arrived at the home of the Turkish ambassador to Syria in a vehicle from the president’s bureau to report that the Syrians were prepared to begin negotiations with Israel immediately: formal negotiations, certainly not “academic talks.” The Prime Minister’s Bureau in Jerusalem didn’t care whether Liel and his friends sat down with the Syrians to hear what they had to say − but no negotiations. The Israeli reason (or excuse): The Americans are not prepared to hear about contact with Syria.

Covert meetings in a European capital

At the end of the summer of 2004, Sinirlioglu told Liel, with great regret, that the Turkish channel had reached a dead end. But the trio of Liel, Aronson and Suleiman didn’t give up. In September, they met in a European capital that agreed to provide cover and funding for a covert Israeli-Syrian channel via a senior official in that country’s foreign ministry. Since autumn 2004, seven more meetings have been held. (Haaretz was provided the details about the conversations, on condition that the identities of the mediator and two other Israelis who participated in some of the meetings not be published.)

Following each meeting, as soon as he returned to Israel, Liel gave a full report to a senior official Foreign Ministry official. Sharon’s bureau also received a full situation report. Suleiman joined Liel on one of his visits to the Foreign Ministry and personally described Syria’s position to the officials in attendance. The European mediator also shared his impressions with the professional staff in Jerusalem.

To allow the European mediator to form his own impressions regarding the Syrians’ attitude toward the covert channel, Suleiman invited him to join him on his trips to Damascus. Each time they landed there, an official car awaited them near their plane. They were taken to the office of Syrian Vice President Farouk Shara, and occasionally met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and a senior official in Syrian intelligence.

The European mediator had the impression that the Syrian leadership was treating the matter very seriously and was not wasting his time or the taxpayer’s money on “futile academic talks.” He recalled that the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians began with talks among academics, with the assistance of a European country.

“I was convinced that the Syrians want a peace agreement with you,” the European mediator reported directly to official Israeli sources even before the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005 and the investigation that began afterward. His impression was that the Syrian motive for the murder went far deeper than fear of revenge from the United States or France, which points to Assad as the one responsible for Hariri’s death.

“Farouk Shara told me radical Islam constitutes a threat to Syria and that peace is the only way to halt it,” the mediator said. He said the Syrians told him that in a few years, they would lose their oil sources and need significant amounts of foreign currency to purchase energy from external sources. The Alawite regime realizes, the European mediator said, that in order to survive, it has to bring foreign currency into Syria, and that no sane businessman would invest his fortune in a country that is not at peace with its neighbors.

While in Damascus, the European mediator heard about Syria’s readiness to include its ties with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas in its agenda for peace negotiations with Israel. He even reported identical comments he heard from the the Syrian Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser, Riad Daoudi, at the ‘Madrid+15 Conference’ on Friday.

Daoudi’s refusal to befriend the Israeli delegation at the Madrid conference is in line with the Syrians’ approach in the European channel regarding proposals for Syrian gestures toward Israel, such as the digging up the bones of Israeli spy Eli Cohen, information on missing Israeli soldiers or a visit to the grave of Rabbi Haim Vital.

“Israel has held onto our land for 40 years now and rejects are request to open negotiations, and after all that, they expect confidence-building steps from us,” the Syrians argue.

Wartime meetings

The discussions dealt with all the matters that occupied the official negotiation teams: borders, water, security and normalization. Suleiman, representing the Syrian position, made it clear from the first moment that it would be a shame to waste time on futile attempts to move Syria from its position regarding the June 4, 1967, borders. Feelers regarding the possibility of territorial exchange were dismissed out of hand.

Nonetheless, the Syrians showed surprising flexibility regarding everything connected to a timetable for evacuating Israeli communities in the Golan Heights, water use and primarily the concept of building a “peace park” in the buffer zone that would be open to Israeli visitors.

The final document was formulated in August 2005, and has since been changed slightly. The final meeting took place a year later, in the midst of the second Lebanon war, on a day in which eight Israelis were killed by Hezbollah-fired Katyusha rockets in the Galilee. Suleiman announced that the Syrians had done all they could with the covert channel and were suggesting a meeting between a Syrian representative at the rank of deputy minister and an Israeli official at the rank of director general. They asked that C. David Welch, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, also participate in the meeting.

That was the end of the story

And the Full document:

EXCLUSIVE: The full text of the draft document, By Akiva Eldar

Nonpaper
Draft 4
August 29, 2004

Preamble

The objective of this effort is to establish normal, peaceful relations between the governments and peoples of Israel and Syria, and to sign a treaty of peace attesting to this achievement. The treaty will resolve the four “pillars” at the core of negotiations: security, water, normalization, and borders. There is be no agreement on any single one of these issues unless and until all of these issues are resolved.

I. Sovereignty
1. Syrian sovereignty, based upon the June 4, 1967 line in the Golan Heights, is acknowledged by Israel. The mutually agreed upon border will be determined by both parties (and guaranteed by the U.S. and the UN)

II. Framework Agreement, Implementation, and the End to the State of Belligerency
A “Framework Agreement” will address the issues of security (including early warning), water, normalization, and borders. Negotiations to reach such an agreement should proceed as expeditiously.

1. The state of belligerency between the parties will cease upon signature of a framework agreement between the parties, and will include the cessation of hostile actions by each party against the other.

2. Application of Syrian sovereignty in the Golan Heights, the establishment of normal, bilateral diplomatic relations, and the implementation of relevant provisions related to water and security will commence as soon as possible after the conclusion of a Framework Agreement but no later than the signing of a treaty of peace.

3. Implementation of the Israeli withdrawal to the mutually agreed border will occur during a period (the exact time frame to be mutually agreed) from signature of the Framework Agreement.

III. Peace Treaty
1. Satisfactory implementation of provisions and obligations established in the Framework Agreement will result in the signing of a peace treaty between the parties.

IV. Security
1. Demilitarized zones will be established in the areas of the Golan Heights that Israeli forces will vacate.

2. No military forces, armaments, weapons systems, or military infrastructure will be introduced into the demilitarized zones. Only a limited civil police presence will be deployed in the areas.

3. Both parties agree not to fly over demilitarized zones without a special arrangement.

4. The establishment of an early warning system includes a ground station on Mt. Hermon/Jabal as-Sheikh operated by the United States.

5. A monitoring and inspection and verification mechanism will be established to monitor and supervise the security agreements.

6. Direct liaison between the parties will be established in order to: Create a direct, real time communication capability on security issues in order to minimize friction along the international border; Help to prevent errors and misunderstandings between the parties.

7. Zones of reduced military forces will be established in Israel west of the international border with Syria and in Syria east of the Golan Heights. The respective depth of these zones (as measured in kilometers) between Israel and Syria will be according to a ratio of 1:4.

8. The Parties will cooperate in fighting local and international terrorism of all kinds.

9. The Parties will work together for a stable and safe Middle East, including the solution of regional problems related to the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iran.

V. Water
1. Israel will control the use and disposition of the water in the Upper Jordan River and Lake Tiberias.

2. Syria will not interrupt or obstruct natural flow of water in either quality or quantity in the Upper Jordan River, its tributaries, and Lake Tiberias.

3. Syrian use of the waters of the upper Jordan River, its tributaries, and Lake Tiberias for residential and fishing purposes is recognized and guaranteed.

VI. Park

1. In order to safeguard the water resources of the Jordan River basin, Syrian territory east of the mutually agreed border will be designated as a Park open to all and administered by Syria. The Park is to be established in the Golan Heights upon completion of the Israeli withdrawal and application of Syrian sovereignty in accordance with the treaty of peace. The park will extend from the agreed upon border eastward to a line to be determined by mutual agreement.

2. Park characteristics:
* Park is open for tourism.
* Park will be policed by Syrian park service personnel.
* The park will be free of permanent residents except for conservation and law enforcement personnel.
* No visa will be required for entry into park [from Israeli territory].
* Syrians will issue onsite official entry permit for a nominal fee.
* Visitors wishing to enter other Syrian territory east of the Park must have a proper visa and transit Syrian controls on park’s eastern perimeter.
* Entry to park is valid for one day during daylight hours.

End

"The Pieces are in Place for Escalation," by Sam Gardiner [Originally published by "Left Coaster"]

The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.

The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on Tuesday. It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.

Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has just been deployed to Korea.

This has to be called escalation. We have to remind ourselves, just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran. Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we’ve read the United States has special operations troops operating inside Iran.

Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, two weeks ago we found out the United States is supporting arms for Abbas. Just as Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon we’re now learning the White House has approved a finding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside Lebanon. Just as Iran is supporting Syria, we’ve learned recently that the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.

We learned this week the President authorized an attack on the Iranian liaison office in Irbil.

The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran. Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise. Equally as clear, the Iranians will read what the Administration is doing not what it is saying.

It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.

First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.

The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.

I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.

I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran. Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.

As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.

The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.

Sam Gardiner is a Retired Air Force Col and described as "an expert in military strategy and an expert on strategic games." [1] At one time Gardiner taught at the National War College. [2] Gardiner estimated that that some 50 media stories backing the push for war in Iraq media orignated from what was to be called the Office of Strategic Influence. FAIR noted that Rumsfeld stated that while the Office of Strategic Influence was killed in name, it's activities were going to be carried out.

Bush's plans for Baghdad have run into Iraqi quicksand.

The NYTimes asks: "will the Maliki government agree to operations aimed at Shiite extremists, or resist them and push for the focus to be laid on Sunni extremists attacking Shiite areas?" The answer it found is this:

American officers say that only time will tell, but that they will be surprised if Mr. Maliki and his top aides change colors, despite the assurances the Iraqi leader is said to have offered President Bush. As described by American commanders, the pattern in the eight months since Mr. Maliki took office has been for the Shiite leaders who dominate the new government to press the Americans to concentrate on Sunni extremists.

The argument is that Shiite death squads, which have accounted for an almost equal number of deaths, are engaged in retaliatory attacks, and that those will cease when the Sunni groups are rooted out.

“We are being played like a pawn," an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan said.  … "American officers say it is far from clear that the Maliki government will permit American troops to operate freely in the enclave."