Fred

Fred Deknatel in his article: Roadblocks to Damascus in the Nation does a wonderful job of exploring the politics around the Wall Street Journal’s recent first page article about Syria’s acquisition of a new radar defense from Iran. He quotes pundits on the left and right.

If the US is serious about wanting peace between Israel and Syria, it will have to allow Syria to improve its military. The terrible imbalance in power that exists today between Syria and Israel is an impediment to peace. So long as Israel can inflict the sort of damage on its enemies that it did in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008 without paying much of a price, either militarily or politically, it will avoid the difficult choice of peace and returning the Golan. A stronger Syria and Lebanon would be good for peace.

One of Assad’s complaints that Deknatel brings out is that the US is not even handed or a useful broker because it sides with Israel. US diplomats who have been put in charge of the peace process in the past, such as Dennis Ross and David Miller, have argued that America’s bias in Israel’s favor has been good for peace.

Touval

For academic justification they turned to the work of Saadia Touval, who taught in Johns Hopkins University’s conflict management program, was a longtime dean at Tel Aviv University, and earlier a runner for the Hagganah. He propounded a theory of negotiated conflict management that favored Israelis and suggested that the US should not try to be an impartial broker. Here is an extract from his obit:

Starting in the 1970s, his work on “biased intermediaries” had an impact on prominent U.S. negotiators such as Aaron David Miller and Dennis Ross, who borrowed his ideas. Dr. Touval drew on concrete lessons from disputes in the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans to assert that neutrality or impartiality were not as important as holding power.

Looking at the Middle East, he pointed out that Arabs viewed the United States as a reliable ally of Israel. This was not a problem, he wrote, because the Arabs knew that the Americans were in a better position to win concessions for them. It was considered a fresh concept when he first explored the topic in foreign policy journals and books such as “The Peace Brokers: Mediators in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-1979” (1982).

Ross and Miller called Mr. Touval one of the more distinguished and helpful scholars in his field because of his vivid examples. “He came up with a reasonable and compelling look at theory for practitioners,” said Miller, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “For a political scientist in a field just littered with jargon and unusable formulations and concepts, he came up with a very practical approach that was of great benefit to me.”

The unsubstantiated notion that Israel will only make peace when it is dominant power that can overcome its opponents combined goes back to Henry Kissinger. He helped push through the orders for the airlift of arms in 1973 against President Nixon’s instinct. He also stalled enforcing cease-fire orders in order to allow Israel additional time to destroy the Egyptian and Syrian armies.

But the proof that this argument has been a failure is in the US’ inability to broker peace. In 2000, when Assad flew to Geneva to sign a deal with Barak and Clinton, Barak decided to present a modified deal that he knew Assad would not take. Uri Saguy explained in his recently article on the “Missed Opportunity” with Syria that Barak wanted to cut off negotiations with his switch up on the deal. He didn’t believe that the Israeli public were ready to give up the Golan or that the political establishment would support it. The reason why they would not, one can only conclude, is because they believed that Israel could keep the Golan without paying a heavy price. Syria was too weak. Perhaps, Barak was correct. The price has not been high and the US is in part responsible for that. It failed to hold Israel’s feet to the fire politically and has helped to preserve its military hegemony.

Advert for Golan Settlement

Now, Netanyahu is promoting speedier settlement of the Golan Heights. See this excellent article, Unsettled, by Barbara Slavin in Foreign Policy. She received an email from the Jerusalem Post promising “Enhanced financial assistance for Aliyah to Israel’s North in 2010,” and up to $14,000 in cash and numerous other benefits for moving to the Golan.

Syrians have taken heart in the fact that Golan settlements have not been expanding as have West Bank settlements. They believed that this indicated that Israel might move toward peace and give it back. That is one straw of hope that can no longer be grasped.

Syrians believe that the Israeli government has neither the will nor the desire to engage Syria or to move toward peace. So long as Washington treats is relations with Syria as a subset of its relations with Israel, Israel has little to fear from Syria. Washington should engage Syria, improving relations where it can, without worrying whether Israel is please or not and without putting everything on hold every time there is news that Syria is acquiring a new radar system or improving its rocketry. By allowing US – Syria relations to expand independent of US-Isreal relations would send a message to Israel, that the US cannot put its Middle East policy on hold so long as Jerusalem refuses to make peace.

Syria is finding ways to strengthen itself despite Washington’s sanctions. Michael Jansen in his article, The rise of Syria, despite a US ban, describes this.

Of course, there are some in Washington who are genuine about engagement, such as Senator Kerry, but he is a lonely figure on the subject of engaging with Damascus and moving toward peace. Most US officials seem to have been overcome by paralysis on the Arab-Israeli issue, accepting the notion that the status-quo is livable even if it is not good for the US.

President Assad has promised to lead Syria into a major strategic realignment if Syria gets back the Golan Heights.  Hopefully, Obama will not sit on his hands as Israel ramps up settlements on the Golan.

New Round Up

WSJ [Reg]: Iran Arms Syria With Radar
2010-07-01

JERUSALEM—Iran has sent Syria a sophisticated radar system that could threaten Israel’s ability to launch a surprise attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities, say Israeli and U.S. officials, extending an alliance aimed at undermining Israel’s …

Argentina backs ‘return of Golan to Syria’, AFP

The presidents of Argentina and Syria Friday traded words of support for their respective territorial claims on Britain’s Falkland Islands, in the South Atlantic, and the Golan Heights Israel annexed in 1967. The mutual back-patting came at the close of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s first tour of Latin America aimed at furthering friendly relations with Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil and – his last stop – Argentina, in the first visit here by a Syrian leader.

US-Iran dynamic: Why US effort to leverage Syria is flagging
Nicholas Blanford in CSM, 2010-07-02

In a bid to strengthen Washington’s hand in the US-Iran dynamic, President Obama has sought to woo Syria.  But as those efforts stall, Syria is drawing closer to Iranian-backed Hezbollah…. Far from loosening its ties to Hezbollah, … “This is the first time a [US-classified] state sponsor [of terrorism] has ever been essentially busted getting [Scud] ballistic missiles close to a terrorist organization,” says Andrew Tabler…. Although Obama seems committed to engaging Syria, the administration has been frustrated by what it considers the lack of positive response from Damascus. In particular, the US seems unable to persuade Syria to drop its support for militant anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian movement Hamas, also considered a terrorist group by the US and Europe…..

Nathan Brown critiques Washington’s plan to concentrate on building up Fayyad in Palestine.  “A Little Rain On the Palestine Parade”

Qifa Nabki talks to Nick Noe about how to prevent the next Israel Lebanon war. He agrees with Noe.

Commentary: Syria Must Be Contained, Not Engaged
Michael J. Totten – 2010-07-01

Nibras Kazimi suggests in the pages of the New Republic that the Middle East’s violent Islamists might go after the Syrian government after they’re finished in Iraq and Afghanistan. “On jihadist online discussion forums,” he writes, “they have been authoring what amount to policy papers calling on the jihadist leadership to take the fight to Syria.”

It would make a certain amount of sense if they did decide Syria ought to be next. Most of the country’s leadership is from the Alawite minority sect, which branched off Twelver Shia Islam in the 10th century and became something else almost entirely. Both Sunnis and Shias have long considered them heretics. When French Mandate authorities ruled the area after World War One, many, if not most, Alawites yearned for their own sovereign homeland along the coast of the Mediterranean apart from Damascus and the largely Sunni interior…… “Islamists arguing for a jihad in Syria believe that they have hit the trifecta,” Kazimi writes. “In the Syrian regime, they have an enemy that is at once tyrannical, secular, and heretical.”….

If Assad were to work with the United States by promoting stability instead of terrorism, freelance jihadists all over the region would have every reason to bump him to the top of their to-do list. A secular non-Muslim Arab government at peace with Israel and the West and an enemy of the “resistance” movements would make an obvious next stop for roaming insurgents. That’s why Assad won’t likely ever do what Washington wants unless the region as a whole changes drastically or the United States threatens his survival more than the Islamists do. All we can really do in the meantime is try to contain him.

Maariv: Netanyahu to meet Obama, but not Clinton; ‘sources’ say she “isn’t relevant”
Didi Remez | July 1, 2010

Do they honestly think that publicizing a quote like this, on record or off, works to their advantage?
Israeli diplomatic [euphemism for Prime Minister’s Office — DR] sources said: “Clinton isn’t relevant and is out of the circle of influence. Mitchell has taken over the peace process to a great extent and Obama, in any event, is the important person in this story because he is the one who decides.”

Netanyahu to meet Obama, but not Clinton
Eli Bardenstein, Maariv, July 1 2010 [page 7; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to leave next week for Washington, where he will meet with US President Barack Obama. Rather curiously, he is not scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the course of his visit to Washington.

Contrary to his previous visit in March, this time the US administration intends to create the impression, outwardly at least, that the severe crisis in the relationship has passed and that the relations between the two countries are as strong as ever. In order to bolster that impression, the two leaders will meet the media together and will be photographed. As opposed to the previous time, Netanyahu will also be put up at Blair House, the official White House guesthouse, and not at a hotel.
That said, officials in Washington are waiting apprehensively for the answers that Netanyahu will provide in the course of the meeting, which is expected to address the transition from the proximity talks that are at an impasse to direct negotiations. Obama, apparently, will demand that Netanyahu agree to extend the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria beyond the September 26 expiration date in hope of securing PA Chairman Abu Mazen’s consent to begin direct talks with Israel. For the time being, the forum of seven is divided over this issue.

Commentary: Iran Arms Syria
2010-07-01

Obama’s efforts to engage Syria continue to produce evidence that Syria wants not to be engaged by us, but to move ever closer to the rising power in the region — Iran. This report explains: Iran has sent Syria a sophisticated radar system that …

How is this not Apartheid? – Andrew Sullivan

Toilet-trained Nick Kristof observes ethnic cleansing and collective punishment first-hand :

On one side of a barbed-wire fence here in the southern Hebron hills is the Bedouin village of Umm al-Kheir, where Palestinians live in ramshackle tents and huts. They aren’t allowed to connect to the electrical grid, and Israel won’t permit them to build homes, barns for their animals or even toilets. When the villagers build permanent structures, the Israeli authorities come and demolish them, according to villagers and Israeli human rights organizations.

On the other side of the barbed wire is the Jewish settlement of Karmel, a lovely green oasis that looks like an American suburb. It has lush gardens, kids riding bikes and air-conditioned homes. It also has a gleaming, electrified poultry barn that it runs as a business. Elad Orian, an Israeli human rights activist, nodded toward the poultry barn and noted: “Those chickens get more electricity and water than all the Palestinians around here.”

These Palestinian Arabs were subject to constant harassment and violence from the Jewish settlers nearby. Kristof adds every caveat – about security, about double-standards, etc. But I fail to see how this kind of governing system, brutally punishing people for being the wrong ethnicity and religion and using the apparatus of the state to impoverish and marginalize them, is somehow in a different moral zone than apartheid. Could a reader mount a case for a clear difference? I think even parts of Soweto were allowed to access the national grid.

And how is the US supposed to engage the moderate Muslim world to help defuse Islamism and Jihadism, if we are also partly financing this kind of brutal sectarian and ethnic discrimination against Muslims?

Iran sanctions ‘must not hit’ Russian trade
June 26, 2010

Russia’s co-operation with Europe in the Iranian nuclear standoff could be curbed if unilateral EU sanctions on Tehran hit Russian companies, a top envoy said yesterday…. Russia’s ambassador to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, slammed decisions last week by the EU and US to impose sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas sector that go beyond new UN measures backed by Moscow.

“We do not support them. We think they are totally wrong in substance and in tactics,” Chizhov told reporters in Brussels.

“The sanctions contained in (UN Security Council) Resolution 1929 are clever sanctions, the follow-on measures by the European Union are not,” he said.
“If you want to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear programme … then why the hell are you banning the supply of equipment for the oil and gas industry?” ….

POMED Wire: On Thursday (6/24), Congress passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (H.R.2194). The bill passed unanimously in the Senate with a vote of 99-0, and 408-8 in the House. The final version of the bill can be found here in a pdf version. Josh Rogin writes that Congress is confident that President Obama will sign the bill into law, but some are worried about its implementation. NIAC Policy Director Jamal Abdi expressed his disappointment with the bill, characterizing its passage as a missed opportunity to support the Iranian people, and arguing that the shortcomings of the sanctions package are overwhelming and “will ultimately impose further pain on Iranians and do more damage than good.”

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday called a CIA report that Iran had sufficient uranium to build two bombs “worrying,”
AFP

“This information has to be checked, but such information is always worrying – and all the more so because the international community does not recognize the Iranian nuclear program as transparent,” Medvedev was quoted as saying at the G8 summit.

CIA Director Leon Panetta said Sunday that Iran probably has enough low-enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons, but that it likely would take two years to build the bombs.

Panetta told ABC television’s This Week that he is doubtful that recent UN penalties will put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

He said the penalties could help to weaken Teheran’s government by creating serious economic problems. But he added, “Will it deter them from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not.”

Jumblat’s Palestinian Rights’ Proposal Came Following Meeting with Assad

A proposal by MP Walid Jumblat to give Palestinian refugees in Lebanon their civil rights was reportedly discussed during a visit by the Druze leader to Syria.
Pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat on Monday, citing sources in Jumblat’s Democratic Gathering parliamentary bloc, said the offer was discussed with Syrian President Bashar Assad during Jumblat’s first visit to Syria following a five-year hiatus.

Michael Totten: The Ghosts of Martyrs Square
2010-06-28

The Ghosts of Martyrs Square Michael Young, opinion page editor at Beirut’s Daily Star newspaper and assistant editor at Reason magazine in the U.S., is one of the finest analysts of the modern Middle East working in English. He was born in …

It said Assad, at the time, urged Jumblat to act as assistant to Change and Reform Bloc leader Gen. Michel Aoun by carrying out direct contact with him or through his ally, Hizbullah.

The Damascus Exchange
August 1-15/Application deadline extended to July 4

Two slots remaining. Mideastwire.com, in partnership with The Syria Report, is pleased to announce that it is accepting applications for the first Damascus Exchange. The two-week program August 1-15 will engage students from around the world in a multifaceted discussion of some of the key issues facing Syria and the region. Topics will include: Economic reform challenges; The evolving relationship between Syria and Turkey; Syria’s role in the Middle East peace process; Arab nationalism; Hydro-politics in the Levant; and, Doing business in Syria: Barriers, opportunities and practices.

Jerusalem Post: Arab World: An oppressed, luckless, forgotten minority
2010-07-02

On March 21, 2010, the Syrian security forces opened fire with live ammunition on a crowd of 5,000 in the northern Syrian town of al-Raqqah. The crowd had gathered to celebrate the Kurdish festival of Nowruz. Three people, including a 15-year-old …

Syrian Lawyer, 79, Sentenced to 3 years in Jail New York Times

Syria must reveal the truth about 2008 prison disappearances Amnesty International USA –

Economic Growth: Syria’s Central Bank has announced that Syria’s real GDP grew at 5.9% last year. This is much higher than the previously estimated 3.6%, we are told by the Economist Intelligence Unit. A note of caution: these figures cannot be verified by independent observers. If the numbers are correct, Syria’s growth will be the highest in over a decade and suggest that economic reform is paying off and on the right track.

New Laws Effect Reform Process: Two new laws have been enacted that, I am told, will have great significance for Syria’s reform process.

One is a real-estate law that will open up a large amount of government land for development, especially in urban centers and their outskirts.

The other is Law 18/2010 which reorganizes the Telecommunications Industry. This law is important for two reasons:

1. The Syrian Telecommunications Establishment is one of the most profitable state-owned companies.  It is the second largest contributor to the State’s treasury after the Syrian Petroleum Company. It generated revenues of SYP 73.1 billion in 2009, posting an annual increase of 18 percent. Since the middle of 2009, STE collects the equivalent of 50 percent of the total revenues of the two mobile operators, Syriatel and MTN, according to the terms of their 15-year BOT contracts. Revenues from internet services grew 27 percent to SYP 858 million.
2. The new law, I was told but cannot verify, is to be a model for limiting government participation in significant industrial sectors. It is supposed to be an indication of the increased role of the private sector in industries previously controlled entirely by the state. The government will remain a majority owner, but actual management will pass into the hands of a privately owned corporation. That is how it was described to me, but the article on the new law in “Syria Report,” written by Jihad Yazigi, contradicts this information. He suggests that the government will remain 100% owner of the sector. (If anyone can clear this up for me, I would be grateful.)

Evidently, President Assad took personal interest in these two laws and sees them as forming an important stimulus to economic growth and private investment.

News Follows on the Economy, Turkey and Fadlallah’s death

STE’s income (SYP, billion)

Source: Syrian Telecommunications Establishment and Syria Report

Syria economy: Outperforming?
Economist Intelligence Unit – 2010-07-02

The Central Bank of Syria’s latest Monetary and Banking Statistics report includes the first officially published estimate for real GDP growth for last year. The report states that the Syrian economy grew by 5.9% in 2009. This is significantly higher than the Economist Intelligence Unit’s previous estimate of 3.6%, but is broadly consistent with recent public statements by senior officials-Abdullah al-Dardari, the deputy prime minister, said in mid-June that real GDP growth last year was about 5.5%.

The Central Bank did not provide any supporting data to explain the remarkably strong growth rate last year. One factor may have been the improved cereals harvest after a particularly poor year in 2008. (The wheat harvest is expected to fall in 2010 owing to an outbreak of yellow rust infestation.) Syria’s natural gas production also increased by 6.2% year on year to 5.8bn cu metres, according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which was published in June, although BP’s figures point to a 5.5% year-on-year decline in oil production, which would have had a much more significant impact on overall GDP growth. The abolition of the ration system for diesel subsidies in early 2009 is likely to have reduced the value of fuel imports last year, which would have counteracted the impact on GDP growth of falling oil export income. Preliminary fiscal data also indicated that government expenditure was significantly higher than expected in 2009, particularly capital expenditure, which would have provided a boost to government consumption and could be a further reason for the higher than expected growth figure.

Developments in Iraq have had an important impact on Syrian growth since the US-led invasion in 2003. The arrival of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees has pushed up the rate of population growth, which reached 3.6% in 2007 at the height of the Iraqi insurgency, which has in turn boosted private consumption in Syria. As security conditions have improved (relative to 2006-07), Iraq has become an increasingly important market for Syrian goods, accounting for 30% of total exports in
2008, according to the most recent figures that are available. Assuming that Syria’s exports to Iraq grew in line with those of other leading suppliers that have published 2009 trade data (notably Turkey and the UAE), this could be another factor in the high real GDP growth figure cited by the Central Bank.

Gross domestic product and population growth (% annual change)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Real GDP 0.6 6.9 6.2 5.0 5.7 4.3 5.9
Population 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.5 3.6 2.5 2.4
Source: Central Bank of Syria.

New Law Reorganises Syria’s Telecoms Sector
Syria Report, 05 July 2010

This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation. Not exactly the same, but... it's changing the theological foundations of the religion Fadi Hakura, Turkey expert, Chatham House

A Turkish Martin Luther: Can Hadith be Revised?
By Elie Elhadj – July 3, 2010

The BBC reported on February 26, 2008 that Turkey’s Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University’s School of Theology to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith. An adviser to the project says some of the sayings can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died to serve the purposes of contemporary society (BBC, February 26, 2008).

Turkey is taking the lead in trying to usher the Muslim world into the modern age. However, the challenge is formidable. Islamists will undoubtedly accuse the reformers of heresy and apostasy; this will be especially true in the Arab world. Arabs act as guardians of Isalm by virtue of their Arabic tongue. The Quran states that they are the “best people evolved to mankind” (3:110). What is more, the Prophet, His companions, the Quran, and the Sanctuaries in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem are all Arab.

To open the door of Hadith revision is to step into a swamp, where claims of truthfulness and authenticity are hard to substantiate.

Following the death of the Prophet in 632, the caliphs were faced with conditions in the conquered lands of Roman Syria, Iraq, and Egypt and of Persia that were very different from those of the desert peninsula where the Quran and its laws emerged. Of the 6,236 Quranic verses, less than 10% deal with legislative matters, primarily marriage, divorce, and inheritance. The rest deal with theological matters.

By the end of the ninth century the ulama succeeded in enshrining the Sunna traditions as a source of law equal to the Quran; notwithstanding, that the Quran never made the Sunna a source of law. The Quran contains every thing mankind needs to know.

The basis for elevating the Sunna was the belief that it was a manifestation of God’s will, a guide on matters on which the Quran was silent. Incorporating the attributed sayings and actions of the Prophet into the Islamic Sharia made the Prophet more than the deliverer of God’s message. He became the exemplar for the Muslim to emulate faithfully. In so doing the coverage of Quranic law was expanded; thrusting the ulama into the tiniest details of Muslims’ daily lives. As an example, Ahmad Bin Hanbal (d. 855), founder of the orthodox Hanbalite School of jurisprudence, “is alleged never to have eaten watermelon because he was not in possession of any Prophetic precedent on the subject” (Coulson, A History of Islamic Law, 1999, 71).

Hundreds of thousands of often contradictory and partisan traditions in favor or against every imaginable thing affecting the individual, the family, the tribe, the city, the mosque, religious rituals, personal conduct, personal hygiene, business affairs, etc., were put into the mouth of the Prophet by thousands of sometimes dubious transmitters. Each transmitter claimed that he had been told by x, that y had told him, that z had told him, that f had told him, etc., claiming the Prophet had said this or done that.

We are told that leading scholars diligently verified the authenticity of every word of every attribution and the integrity of every attributer into every chain of attributions. Eventually, a few thousand traditions were accepted as authentic, with six collections elevated to canonical rank by Sunni Muslims.

The most revered and authoritative collection is that of Muhammad Bin Ismail Al-Bukhari (d. 870). Al-Bukhari selected out of 600,000 traditions he collected from 1,000 sheikhs in the course of 16 years of travel and labor in Persia, Iraq, Syria, Hijaz and Egypt 7,400 traditions (Hitti, History of the Arabs, 1970, 39). His book, titled Sahih Al-Bukhari, is classified according to some 100 subject matters. Al-Bukhari’s collection is considered by most Sunni scholars second only to the Quran in authenticity. A close second in importance is the collection of Muslim Bin Al-Hajjaj (d. 875) of Naysabur, Iran with 7,600 traditions. The other four collections are those of Ibn Maja (d. 886); with 4,300 traditions, Abi Dawood (d. 888); with 5,300 traditions, Al-Tirmithi (d. 892); with 4,000 traditions, and Al-Nasai (d. 915); with 5,800 traditions. Repetitiveness exists in the collections individually and among each other.

Notwithstanding the reported integrity of the collectors and the care that they must have taken to ensure the credibility of the thousands of attributers and the authenticity of the hundreds of thousands of Prophetic traditions that grew over more than 200 years, it remains impossible to know with absolute certainty whether every word and comma in every attribution by every memorizer was perfectly authentic and reliable and in the true chronological order in which the Prophet had announced and acted. What is known, however, is that during the first two-and-a-half centuries following the death of the Prophet, the generations of Hadith attributers and collectors were witnesses to momentous doctrinal, legal, and political conflicts.

Aside from the great Arab conquests, which established one of the world’s largest empires in a relatively short time, major intra-Muslim conflicts erupted during that era. There were four civil wars, seven state capital cities, and numerous violent political and religious rebellions. These events spilled rivers of blood and divided the nascent Islamic nation into many factions and sects. Under such circumstances, it is fair to say that some attributors, not to mention the collectors, had financial, political, career and other personal interest in the outcome, or they might have simply forgotten what was said or heard.

The first Muslim civil war was from 656 to 661 between Ali and Muawiyah. The second civil war (680-692) was during the reigns of Muawiyha’s four successors against another claimant of the Caliphate, Abdullah Bin Al-Zubair, who in 683 was recognized as a rival Caliph to the Umayyads in parts of Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria, until he was killed at Mecca in 692. The third civil war culminated in 750 with the destruction of the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus and the advent of the Abbasid dynasty in Baghdad. The fourth civil war (811-813) was between Al-Amin and Al-Mamoun, the two sons of the famed Caliph, Haroun Al-Rashid (786-809). Eventually, the former was killed and Al-Mamoun reigned from 813 to 833. Additionally, there was the cataclysmic event in 680 that eventually shook the foundations of Islam and caused a permanent split between Shiites and Sunnis to this very day: namely, the rebellion and the resulting killing of Imam Hussain Bin Ali at Karbala, Iraq.

The first capital of the Muslim State was Medina, the Prophet’s adopted city in 622. Medina remained the capital during the rule of the first three Caliphs (632-656). In 656, Ali, the fourth Caliph, made Kufa, Iraq his base. Muawiyah made Damascus his capital in 661. Damascus remained the capital of the Umayyad dynasty’s fourteen Caliphs until the Abbasids destroyed the Umayyads Caliphate in 750. The Abbasids moved the capital to Iraq, transitionally to Al-Hashimiyyah before Baghdad was built, starting in 762. In 836, the eighth Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mu’tasim (833-842), moved the capital to Samarra (a short distance north of Baghdad on the Tigris River). The sixteenth Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mu’tadid (892-902), moved the seat of government back to Baghdad in 892. Meanwhile, Cordova became in 756 the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate in Spain, rivaling and eventually outlasting the Abbasids in Baghdad.

To uncover the truthfulness of hundreds of thousands of Prophetic sayings and actions, which supposedly had occurred ten generations earlier, must have been a daunting task. The monumental size, the old age, and the great significance of the issues involved raise questions regarding the genuineness of some of the Traditions.

To put this challenge into perspective, the assertion that Al-Bukhari (810-870) examined 600,000 traditions means that, even if he had spent forty years of his sixty-year life exclusively on the one and only task of compiling the Sahih, working 14-hour a day without taking a vacation, a sick day, or working on anything else; be it to earn a living or compose other books, he would have had to investigate an average of more than forty traditions every single day, or one tradition every 20 minutes. But, Al-Bukhari wrote 21 books in addition to the Sahih. If we take Professor Hitti’s statement that Al-Bukhari spent 16 years of travel and labor in order to produce his Sahih, then he would have had to investigate the provenance of an average of 103 traditions every single day; or, a tradition every 8 minutes. In addition to confirming the exact text of every Hadith, Al-Bukhari had to ensure the personal integrity of the thousands of attributers over ten generations who reported the Prophet’s sayings and actions. Even if the number of the traditions involved were half as many; or one tenth, the likelihood that every tradition in Sahih Al-Bukhari is perfectly authentic requires a great act of faith to accept. Was Al-Bukhari aided by assistants? The answer is unlikely. The nature of the task was such that Al-Bukhari alone could have judged the integrity of the attributer(s).

The volume of traditions attributed to some memorizers is bewildering. “Abu-Huraira, a companion of the Prophet . . . and a most zealous propagator of His words and deeds, reputedly transmitted some 5,374 Hadiths . . . Aisha transmitted 2,210 traditions, Anas bin Malik; 2,286, and Abdullah, the son the caliph, Omar Bin Al-Khattab; 1,630” (Ibid., 394). Other transmitters with large volumes of attributed traditions include: Ibn Abbas; with 1,710, Jabir bin Abdullah; 1,540, Abu Saiid Al-Khudari; 1170, Ibn Masud; 748, the caliph Omar; 537, and the caliph Ali; 536 (Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, 1977, 26-27).

Some of these figures are in dispute. Less than fifty years earlier, one scholar, Ghundar bin Jaafar (d. 808) “alleged to have said that bin Abbas did not hear more than nine traditions from the Prophet, while Yahya bin Saiid Al-Qattan (d. 813) believed this figure to be ten” (Juynboll, 1983. Muslim tradition. Studies in chronology, provenance and authorship of early Hadith, 1983, 29). Al-Ghazali “maintained that Ibn Abbas heard no more than four traditions from Muhammad” (ibid.). Whether these disputations are true or false, whether the Prophet’s teenager wife Aisha, who when the Prophet died was 18 years of age, possibly 15 years, could have remembered accurately all 2,200 traditions is impossible to tell.

Additionally, the six canonical collectors lived under Abbasid rule during the turbulent decades of the 800s. The Abbasid Hadith transmitters, upon whom the six collectors relied, were in turn reliant on transmitters who had lived for almost one hundred years under the rule the Abbasids’ great nemesis, the Umayyads (661-750). Abbasid politics and fervent hatred of the Umayyads could have played a role in choosing or ignoring attributers, as well as altering certain attributions considered pro-Umayyad.

To add to the controversy, Shi’a Muslims disregard the Sunni Hadith collections. They have their own. Shi’a collections differ from the Sunni collections in that they emphasize the Prophet’s naming of Ali as his first successor, a claim disputed by the Sunnis. Also, while the Sunnis record the sayings and actions of the Prophet, the Twelver Shiites, the great majority of the Shiites today, record the sayings and actions of not only the Prophet but also those of the twelve Imams. Additionally, for a tradition to be credible it must be transmitted through one of the Imams. Shi’a Muslims denounce the first three caliphs, Abu Bakr (632-634), Omar (634-644), and Uthman (644-656) as usurpers of the caliphate from Ali (656-661). Shi’ites do not consider Abu Bakr, Omar, or Uthman, along with the Prophet’s companions who supported these caliphs, as reliable transmitters of traditions.

The Indian Islamic thinker Muhammad Ashraf observed that it is curious that no caliph or companion found the need to collect and write down the Hadith traditions for more than two centuries after the death of the Prophet (Guillaume, Islam, 1990, 165). Ignaz Goldziher concludes “it is not surprising that, among the hotly debated controversial issues of Islam, whether political or doctrinal, there is none in which the champions of the various views are unable to cite a number of traditions, all equipped with imposing Isnads” (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, 1890, Vol. II., 44). John Burton observes, “the ascription of mutually irreconcilable sayings to several contemporaries of the Prophet, or of wholly incompatible declarations to one and the same contemporary, together strain the belief of the modern reader in the authenticity of the reports as a whole” (Burton, An introduction to the Hadith, 1994, xi).

Leaders of Turkey’s Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad (BBC, February 26, 2008).

What Effect will Turkey’s switch from Israeli ally to Israeli opponent have on Syria and the Regional Balance of Power?

How and when Turkey’s switch from Israeli ally to Israeli opponent will effect the balance of power in the Middle East is disputed. But most analysts agree that it will have profound consequences in time. George Friedman of Stratfor argues that there is no greater likelihood of “significant military threat to Israel” today than there was before the flotilla fiasco. World condemnation is a nuance but it does not alter the basic balance of power which is very favorable to Israel. He continues:

Israel’s regional enemies are so profoundly divided among themselves and have such divergent relations with Israel that an effective coalition against Israel does not exist — and is unlikely to arise in the near future. Given this, the probability of an effective, as opposed to rhetorical, shift in the behavior of powers outside the region is unlikely. At every level, Israel’s Arab neighbors are incapable of forming even a partial coalition against Israel. Israel is not forced to calibrate its actions with an eye toward regional consequences, explaining Israel’s willingness to accept broad international condemnation.

All the same, he ends his article with a note of warning, suggesting that even within an environment as dysfunctional and riven with factionalism and enmity as the Arab World, things can change. In particular, he cautions against pushing Egypt so far that it changes course to once again make common cause with Syria and reverts to resistance. He concludes:

Where there is no balance of power, the dominant nation can act freely. The problem with this is that doing so tends to force neighbors to try to create a balance of power. Egypt and Syria were not a negligible threat to Israel in the past. It is in Israel’s interest to keep them passive. The Israelis can’t dismiss the threat that its actions could trigger political processes that cause these countries to revert to prior behavior. They still remember what underestimating Egypt and Syria cost them in 1973. It is remarkable how rapidly military capabilities can revive: Recall that the Egyptian army was shattered in 1967, but by 1973 was able to mount an offensive that frightened Israel quite a bit.

The Israelis have the upper hand in the short term. What they must calculate is whether they will retain the upper hand if they continue on their course. Division in the Arab world, including among the Palestinians, cannot disappear overnight, nor can it quickly generate a strategic military threat. But the current configuration of the Arab world is not fixed. Therefore, defusing the current crisis would seem to be a long-term strategic necessity for Israel.

Patrick Seale, by contrast, argues that the emergence of a norther alliance of Turkey, Iran and Syria shifts the balance of power in the region decisively. He does not spell out how if might translate into a military threat but does suggest that it offers the Palestinians a window of political opportunity if they “end their internal quarrels,… form a government of national unity, and seek recognition of it from the United States and the European Union. He writes that,

“Israel now faces a formidable combination of adversaries, consisting of Turkey and Iran, the two regional heavyweights, as well as Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. Rarely has Israel’s strategic environment been so unfavourable — largely as a result of its own aggressive policies. ….

Turkey has since consolidated its position as a regional power by developing a vast network of relations in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Among Arab states, its relations with Syria have become particularly close. In contrast, Turkey has decided to review all its military and economic agreements with Israel, and to reduce its relations to a minimum, according to its deputy prime minister, Bulent Arinc.

Only two short years ago, Iran and Syria stood alone against Israel. When Israel F16s bombed Syria’s alleged nuclear reactor in 2007, they dodged Syrian efforts to block their way home by veering to safety over Turkey. That airspace is now closed to Israel. More importantly, the supreme effort made by the Bush administration to legitimize this seemingly authoritarian “Shiite Axis”  by championing a counter bloc of Middle Eastern states — Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel —  has collapsed. This axis – termed “the moderate states” – presumably represented a great Sunni consensus of the Arab world, at least that was the hope – and it was on Israel’s side against Iran.

This improbable coalition justified its existence with two strategic goals: containing Iran and solving the Arab Israeli conflict. President Bush’s foreign policy team spent much energy pushing together its two most important regional allies Saudi Arabia and Israel. The foundation of this agreement was a grand bargain: Saudi Arabia would support Israel’s drive to rally the world against Iran and Israel would engaged the Palestinians and moved ahead with the Fahd Plan. This deal was particularly attractive to Washington because it promised harmony between America’s two main interests – oil and Israel, not to mention stanching the terrible damage done to the US by the Jazeera effect and on-going Palestinian suffering.

Bush’s peace plan for the Palestinians was even worse. In theory, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were to throw their weight behind Israel’s efforts to destroy Hizbullah, promote the PLO, and bringing down Hamas in return for Washington’s promise to convince Israeli authorities to accept the two state solution and King Fahd plan. The only problem was that Israel had no intention of stopping its galloping expansion of settlements, and Washington had no intention or ability to make it do so. What is more, Israel failed to crush Hizbullah and Hamas, leaving them wounded but all the more determined to make a comeback and seek revenge. Israel has calculated that Saudi Arabia and Egypt will help Israel and the US contain Iran even if there is no resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Jerusalem is convinced that it can have its cake and eat it too. Of course, Israel will have to be tough and put its chin down in the face of World griping and US criticism, but it is convinced that in the end, the danger posed by Iran to Arabs in the Gulf will prevail over Saudi concerns about Palestinian welfare.

Most Arabs were not fooled by the Bush administrations promises of peace. They understood that his objective was to extend US power in the region. They witnessed that his soaring rhetoric about Democracy and human rights was empty when it came to Iraq, which they watched descend into chaos and misery.  There was a time when Washington could simply say “trust us,” America has high goals and the power to succeed.  Those days a long gone.

Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to revise the Bush strategy. His rhetoric of extended hands, engagement and real peace was convincing for a brief moment. Many believed that Obama, unlike Bush, really meant what he said about the two-state solution and stopping settlements. Disappointment was quick.  When Obama punted on the settlement freeze, it was clear that he would be as powerless to change Israel’s behavior. Netanyahu stared him down in a New York minute, leaving no doubt about his intention to retain the West Bank and the Golan for Israel.

So where does this leave Obama? It leaves him with a watered down Bush plan, the foundation of which is a grand bargain — one based on a compromise between Israeli and US interests in the Middle East.  America will support Israel in stopping Iran if Israel supports America in ending the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the two state solution and 242. The problem with this elegant deal is that no one is taking it. Israel will only pretend to make progress on the Palestine issue and Obama will pretend to stop Iran’s progress toward nuclear capability.

The Islamic world, in the mean time, is cheering for Iran. This is for two reasons. It is because of US and Israeli injustice on the Palestine issue and because the world wants Iran’s oil and improved economic prospects in their region. Few are convinced that Iran poses a true threat. They don’t want to see a protracted conflict between the US and Iran, that will further impoverish and destabilize their region.

The US is getting mired in an unachievable policy. Iran cannot be contained for ever. Israel will not give the Palestinians a viable state. All the same, the US Senate has voted overwhelmingly to enforce very strict economic sanctions on institutions that do business with Iran. The US is trapped in its bad decisions. This will eventually damage the US -Israel relationship, but not before the US loses more influence and business in the Middle East. Middle powers, such as Turkey, will increasingly be joined by China, Russia and other emerging states, it is turn away from the US and its ill conceived policy in the region.

[End of Commentary]

Exploiting the Mideast power vacuum
The leaderships of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel would serve their shared strategic interests best by creating a new relationship, which would also include a regional approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
By Tommy Steiner, Haaretz

…..The power vacuum created by dwindling Western influence in the Middle East, far more than its realization that EU membership is not on the cards, is guiding Turkey in shaping a neo-Ottoman regional strategy. To be sure, this strategy has not emerged overnight; it was, rather, based on an incremental build-up of Turkey’s own economic power and a warming of relations with two states it previously regarded as adversaries, Iran and Syria. Turkey and Iran now share extensive commercial ties. For instance, Iran accounts for 30 percent of energy-resource imports to Turkey, while the latter is becoming a major investor in the former’s gas sector. Turkey has also sought to cultivate closer relations with Syria, marked by a high-profile joint military exercise in 2009.

Furthermore, the future of Iraq appears to have solidified this triangular relationship into a strategic partnership: With the upcoming departure of U.S. troops, Iran’s, Turkey’s and Syria’s complementary interests and aspired-to spheres of influence in Iraq are encouraging the formation of a political crescent of allies, stretching across the northern periphery of the Middle East, with Iraq’s future to be determined. Emboldened, the two more powerful partners seek to jointly enhance their projection of power across the Middle East – hence their respective involvement in allegedly supporting the Palestinian cause. However, the Iranian and Turkish pro-Palestinian campaigns are at odds with the Palestinian Authority, and are, rather, aimed at supporting Hamas, an Iranian proxy backed by Syria…..

As the U.S. is viewed in the neighborhood as incapable of containing the expanding power of the northern crescent, the two main Arab regional powers, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are forming a southern crescent to protect their vital interests – from Iraq, through the Arabian Peninsula to Gaza – and to contain a potentially nuclear-backed northern alliance. … The leaderships of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel would serve their shared strategic interests best by creating a new relationship, which would also include a regional approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. From the Israeli perspective, this strategy is not risk-free, but Israel, as the rest of the Western world, has a vested interest in preserving political stability – among and within – the countries comprising the southern periphery of the Middle East.

70% of all supplies for US troops in Iraq go through the Incirlik base in Turkey.

Suppose Turkey Transfers U.S. Technology and Tactics to Iran and Syria
Written by JINSA
Tuesday, 22 June 2010

As a member of NATO, Turkey has access to a wide array of American technology that, if compromised, could spell real danger for U.S. operations in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and threaten allies that rely on American equipment and training. Turkey’s increasingly close relations with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and, recently, Russia, should cause the United States to monitor Turkey closely with an eye toward the damage that could be done to American interests…. The big risk is that the intelligence services, conflating their very strong hatred of Israel with their support of Israel’s – and America’s – enemies, will grab equipment and information from the Turkish military and share it with those enemies…. Turkey has the third largest air force in NATO… Turkey also has four AWACS aircraft that can be used to direct air battles – their own or those of their new allies.

The Gaza Flotilla Incident: Impact on Three Key Arab Actors
By Robert Satloff, June 22, 2010, WINEP

Syria: Increasing Irrelevance
One obvious implication of Turkey’s decisions to side with Iran against Washington in the nuclear standoff and to dismantle its strategic partnership with Israel is that any role for Ankara as a mediator on the Israeli-Syrian peace track is now over, at least as long as Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) is in power. Of course, there is more talk of war than diplomacy on this front in recent days. Just last week, for example, Syrian president Bashar al-Asad told the BBC that war was likely. Whether Asad has the savvy to manage this sensitive moment is unclear.

Recent events have also fueled talk about the emergence of a full-fledged “northern alliance” that would include Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Ironically, such a development would almost certainly limit Asad’s strategic options and come at Syria’s expense. Until now, Damascus has viewed its improving relations with Ankara as a strategic alternative to its growing dependence on Iran. But it would not be to Asad’s advantage to find himself as the junior partner in an alliance between regional heavyweights Turkey and Iran. Indeed, the way regional politics are shifting, he may even find himself as a less important player than the fourth leg of the “northern alliance” table, Hassan Nasrallah’s Hizballah.

If Asad were a shrewd leader, now would be the moment for him to test the diplomatic waters with Israel; he may find the Israelis willing to pay handsomely in a peace deal that would effectively sever the link between Ankara and Tehran. But Asad has shown remarkably little strategic creativity during his years in power, other than a penchant for ceding his independent decisionmaking to lesser powers in Lebanon. Accordingly, the end result for Syria of Erdogan’s emergence as a modern-day Nasser is much the same as the emergence of the original Nasser a half-century ago — it heralds further decline in relevance for the rulers in Damascus.

Soner Cagaptay: “On the diplomatic front, the AKP has withdrawn its ambassador from Israel and is refusing to send him back, despite Israeli attempts to salvage the relationship. At best, relations will remain where they are for the foreseeable future: at rock bottom.”

BYE BYE ISRAEL, WELCOME SYRIA!
Trade flourishes as Syria befriends old foe Turkey
by Khaled Yacoub Oweis

ALEPPO, Syria (Reuters) – Turkish delicacies are unashamedly on display in Syria’s culinary capital. Aleppo merchants are switching to imports from Turkey, and buses ferry shoppers to an upscale mall across the border.

A warming of once-chilly Turkish-Syrian ties has unleashed a one-way trade boom. A trade deal activated two years ago has cut tariffs and reduced smuggling. Visa requirements were abolished.

Turkey’s popularity in Syria soared after an Israeli raid on Gaza-bound aid ships in which nine Turks were killed on May 31.

“Turkey now has a stake in the Palestinian cause, and Syria stands to gain,” a diplomat said. “It will be more difficult for Israel to launch any military action against Syria.”

The furor over the flotilla interception has also deflected attention from Israeli and U.S. pressure on Damascus over its alleged arms supplies to the Lebanese Shi’ite Hezbollah group.

Syrians have traditionally looked askance at their powerful northern neighbor, which ruled them during the Ottoman Empire, but many are now seeing secular Muslim Turkey, a NATO member with an Islamist-leaning government, in a new light.

“It’s time to shed the stigma we have had about Turkey. They’re no longer Ottoman, but a development model for the Arab East,” said Abdelqader al-Deiri, a Syrian businessman who now buys restaurant equipment from Turkey instead of Europe.

“Transport costs are lower, but Turkish goods do not compete on price alone. They make high quality,” added Deiri, who often vacations in Turkey. His eight-year-old son is learning Turkish.

“We have to admit that the Turks make better sweets than us. The pistachios and butter are better, so is the workmanship,” he said, munching on a baklava slice from Gaziantep.

Viewing Syria as a gateway to the Middle East, Turkey has moved in recent years to solve old disputes with Arab governments while becoming more critical toward Israel.

Ankara mediated indirect Syria-Israel peace talks that were broken off when Israel attacked the Gaza Strip in 2008.

“Syria is an important country as a growing market, a promising economic partner, plus it has an important place in regional issues,” Turkish ambassador Omer Onhon told Reuters. “So it’s only natural that our relations have improved.”

Israel as a Strategic Liability?
Anthony H. Cordesman, CSIS June 2, 2010

America’s ties to Israel are not based primarily on U.S. strategic interests. At the best of times, an Israeli government that pursues the path to peace provides some intelligence, some minor advances in military technology, and a potential source of stabilizing military power that could help Arab states like Jordan. Even then, however, any actual Israeli military intervention in an Arab state could prove as destabilizing as beneficial. The fact is that the real motives behind America’s commitment to Israel are moral and ethical. They are a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, to the entire history of Western anti-Semitism, and to the United States’ failure to help German and European Jews during the period before it entered World War II. They are a product of the fact that Israel is a democracy that shares virtually all of the same values as the United States.

The U.S. commitment to Israel is not one that will be abandoned. The United States has made this repeatedly clear since it first recognized Israel as a state, and it has steadily strengthened the scale of its commitments since 1967. The United States has provided Israel with massive amounts of economic aid and still provides enough military assistance to preserve Israel’s military superiority over its neighbors. The United States has made it clear that any U.S. support for Arab-Israeli peace efforts must be based on options that preserve Israel’s security, and its recent announcements that it will consider “extended regional deterrence” are code words for a U.S. commitment that could guard Israel, as well as its neighbors, against an Iranian nuclear threat.

At the same time, the depth of America’s moral commitment does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset. It does not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbors. It does not mean that the United States has the slightest interest in supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or that the United States should take a hard-line position on Jerusalem that would effectively make it a Jewish rather than a mixed city. It does not mean that the United States should be passive when Israel makes a series of major strategic blunders–such as persisting in the strategic bombing of Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, escalating its attack on Gaza long after it had achieved its key objectives, embarrassing the U.S. president by announcing the expansion of Israeli building programs in east Jerusalem at a critical moment in U.S. efforts to put Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back on track, or sending commandos to seize a Turkish ship in a horribly mismanaged effort to halt the “peace flotilla” going to Gaza.

It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews. This does not mean taking a single action that undercuts Israeli security, but it does mean realizing that Israel should show enough discretion to reflect the fact that it is a tertiary U.S. strategic interest in a complex and demanding world…..

The Return of the Ottomans
By Lee Smith, The Weekly Standard, 28 June 2010

A few months back, I was dining with a friend at an Armenian restaurant in Beirut, and at the end of the meal he gracefully sidestepped the Turkish question by ordering a “Byzantine” coffee. The waiter laughed grimly. “Aside from coffee and waterpipes,” asked my friend, “what did the Turks leave us? They were here for 500 years, and they didn’t even leave us their language. We speak Arabic, French, and English. No one speaks Turkish. Their most important political institutions were baksheesh and the khazouk.”

Baksheesh is bribery, and the khazouk is a spike driven through its victim’s rectum, which the Ottomans used to terrify locals and deter potential insurgents. The Ottomans were hated here and throughout the Arabic-speaking Middle East, not only by the regional minorities (Christians, Jews, Shia, etc.) but also by their Sunni Arab coreligionists. All felt the heavy yoke of the Sublime Porte.

In the last few weeks, however, half a millennium’s worth of history has been conveniently forgotten, perhaps even forgiven, as Turkey has emerged as a regional power and the guarantor of Arab interests—against Israel, to be sure, but more importantly against Iran.

Syria, Jordan slam Israel over blocked peace efforts
(AFP)

DAMASCUS — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and visiting Jordanian King Abdullah II on Thursday blamed Israel for blocking peace efforts in the Middle East, the official SANA news agency reported.

Assad, on the eve of his first Latin American tour, and Abdullah also demanded that Israel lift “the inhuman blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip,” the agency said.

It said the two leaders called for “a common international position to face up to the policies of the Israeli government which is blocking peace efforts and any chance of reaching a comprehensive peace” in the region.

Israel’s Isolation Deepens
Netanyahu Decries ‘Offensive of Hypocrisy’; New Strains on Trade, Cultural Ties
By CHARLES LEVINSON And JAY SOLOMON in the WSJ

JERUSALEM—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused his nation’s critics Wednesday of an “international offensive of hypocrisy,” as the growing diplomatic crisis over the raid on a flotilla of pro-Palestinian activists threatened to deepen Israel’s isolation from much of the rest of the world.

Israel’s Indefensible Behavior
Don’t blame the commandos for the flotilla disaster. Blame Israel’s leaders, who enforce the cruel and corrupt Gaza embargo, and their supporters in America.
Peter Beinart – the Daily Beast

“If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin but he who causes the darkness.” In the late 1960s, when America’s cities burned, Martin Luther King often quoted that line, which he borrowed from Victor Hugo. But it applies equally well to the catastrophe that occurred yesterday in international waters off the Gaza Strip.

It is not the Israeli naval commandos who should be judged guilty. Upon dismounting their helicopter onto the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, they found themselves, unexpectedly, in the belly of an armed mob. Anyone who thinks American troops would have acted with greater restraint should cast their mind back to October 1993, when U.S. Special Forces rappelled down from their Black Hawk helicopters into a sea of Somali militiamen, and killed or wounded perhaps a thousand of them as they shot their way to safety.

In the name of solidarity, we have practiced denial. In the name of anti-terrorism, we have justified the brutalization of innocents.

No, the guilt lies with the Israeli leaders who oversee the Gaza embargo, and with Israel’s American supporters, who have averted their eyes. Yesterday’s events are the most dramatic example yet of why the epidemic of not watching must end.

Radwan Ziadeh, who runs the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies, has written a report published in Washington this month by the Transitional Justice in the Arab World Project, entitled, “Years of Fear.”  He argues that as many as 17,000 Syrians may have been “disappeared” during Hafez el-Assad’s rule; the 117-page document contains heart-breaking accounts of disappearances and extra-judicial executions, and descriptions of the apparently vain 30-year wait of sons, wives and parents for the return of men who were almost certainly killed in the early 1980s.

Robert Fisk has written a interesting synopsis of his findings.

This does not disqualify his report, but he warns readers in his preface that “for security reasons, we withheld the names of those interviewed and have changed some facts to disguise their identities. Similarly, we have scrambled [sic] the details of many human rights activists and former detainees whom we interviewed.” This does not, to put it mildly, bestow total confidence on the report. The Syrian authorities will no doubt seize upon this to debunk its contents. So, reader, you have been warned.

Years of Fear covers the three-decade rule of Hafez el-Assad, Syria’s former air force commander whose long battle to maintain his Alawi rule and whose ferocious struggle against violent Islamist enemies clogged the fetid prisons of Syria with thousands of political prisoners. Using security forces who were often corrupt, he confronted an ever more violent sectarian guerrilla movement whose first major assault came on 16 June 1979 when an army captain, Ibrahim al-Yusuf, led the massacre of Alawi students at the Aleppo artillery school.

A subsequent assassination attempt on the president prompted Rifaat’s Defence Brigades’ assault at Tadmor in which up to a thousand Muslim Brotherhood prisoners were machine-gunned to death in their cells. By 1980, there was open war between the regime and its opponents. Law 49, of 7 July 1980, mandated capital punishment for those who did not renounce their Brotherhood membership in writing, and a Ghadaffi-style assassination campaign against overseas opponents was ordered.

The Hama uprising in February 1982, in which the old, rebel-held city was virtually destroyed by tank and shell-fire, caused up to 15,000 deaths, according to Ziadeh’s report – some put the figure at 20,000. What Ziadeh oddly fails to mention is the underground fighting in Hama in which girl suicide bombers hurled themselves against Syrian troops, and previous violence in the city in which Islamists slaughtered entire families of Baath party officials. There was nothing exclusive about Syria’s mass-murderers.

Ziadeh believes that in the early Eighties and later, up to 25,000 men went missing, swallowed into interrogation centres and prisons. “Most such cases occurred before 2000,” the report says. “Many detainees have been released during the past few years.” A credit to Bashar al-Assad, no doubt.

Carsten Wieland writes, “Here is an article of mine — The present context of syria’s foreign policy change in the region and stagnation at home,” that might be of interest to you and your blog.”

Wieland makes a number of policy recommendations for the US, such as encourage peace negotiations between Syria and Israel and helping Syria’s economic development. These are encouraging. Unfortunately,  Israel has stated clearly that Syria must give up the notion of getting back the Golan for peace. Syria is just as emphatic about getting back the entire Golan. And so long as Syria and Israel remain in a state of war, the US will insist on imposing economic sanctions on Syria and naming it a terror supporting state, rather than helping it develop economically.

Two additional recommendations are:

• Keep the human rights problems constantly on the table and do not use them in a seasonal manner for short term political purposes
• Express concern about the rising influence of Islamists

These are contradictory.  How can the West ask the Syrian government to contain the influence of Islamists without violating their human rights? I presume Mr. Wieland would agree that Islamists must be allowed free elections if they are to enjoy full human rights.  So why ask the Syrian government to limit their influence while pushing their rights? One cannot have both — human rights and the containment of Islamists. Western governments have chosen to deny Islamists human rights because they understand this trade off. Certainly, they pay lip service to democracy and freedom, but they don’t mean it. G.W. Bush pursued a Freedom Agenda of sorts. It back fired. Western governments have returned to soft peddling democracy.

Chris Phillips quite rightly critiques my Foreign Policy article suggesting that there is a New Cold War emerging in the Middle East.

US hegemony in Middle East is ending | Chris Phillips
Posted on May 31, 2010 By Chris Phillips

….Talk of a Middle East cold war is inaccurate – Russia and Turkey are simply capitalizing on the region’s new power vacuum

A recent arms deal between Russia and Syria has raised the prospect of a new cold war in the Middle East. Foreign Policy’s Josh Landis, for example, suggests that unconditional US support for Israel will draw Moscow back into its pre-1989 role as supporter and arms supplier for the enemies of Tel Aviv and Washington.

Yet Russia’s return to Syria, whether it be the sale of MiG-29s or building a naval dock on the Syrian coast, is not the action of a superpower challenging US hegemony as it was in 1945-89 but rather an assertive regional power taking advantage of the emerging power vacuum in the region. Instead of a new bi-polar cold war, regional powers such as Russia and Turkey are increasing their influence at the United States’ expense.

The idea of a new cold war has gained currency in some quarters for the wrong reasons. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad himself told La Repubblica last week that “Russia is reasserting itself. And the cold war is just a natural reaction to the attempt by America to dominate the world”.

Helena Cobban has returned from Syria and writes about how Syria’s new alliances are making it stronger.  “Damascus’s strengthening tie to NATO member Turkey provided what regime insiders have described as “almost literally, a lifeline for us.” Today, Syria’s relationship with Turkey […]”

ECONOMY

Sarah Birke adds to this theme by describing the economic boom that has struck the very top of the Syrian pyramid.

WSJ [Reg]: Post-Dubai, Syria on Rise
By SARAH BIRKE, 2010-06-22

YAFOUR, Syria—American-style luxury housing and mixed-use estates are springing up like daisies in this desolate valley set against the hills just a few miles from the capital Damascus, the latest manifestation of a Middle East real-estate boom.

The construction is being fed by Persian Gulf investors. While Dubai’s debt woes have halted some of that city-state’s more ambitious dreams at home, Gulf-based property developers are heading to other, lower-profile Middle East markets, like Syria.

At Jasmine Hills, owned by Palmyra Real Estate, a joint venture between United Arab Emirates property developer Belhasa International and Egyptian and Syrian investors, 173 peach-colored villas, clustered around a community center and a gym, are expected to be finished next year.

Down the road in nearby Sabboura lies the Saudi-based Bin Ladin Group’s Palm Village—33 modern villas and a four-star hotel.

And Emivest, a Dubai-based investment and development agency, is building Cordoba, a set of plush apartment buildings.

In Damascus, the U.A.E.’s Emaar Properties PJSC and IGO, an offshore investment and property-development company, are finishing off the $500 million mixed-use Eighth Gate development. An office park of towering buildings, the development is home to the Damascus Securities Exchange.
‘The Biggest Potential’

“Syria is a virgin and growing market,” says George Saba, vice president of the U.A.E.’s Majd al-Futtaim, which is investing $1 billion in a 250-acre, mixed-use retail, commercial and tourist estate in Yafour.

“Now that the Gulf market is saturated, many companies are looking outside,” he said. “Syria has the biggest potential in the region.”

Investors are plowing into Syria amid ambitions by the government of President Bashar al-Assad to liberalize the economy. Damascus is also hoping to benefit from a diplomatic thaw with the West. Washington is preparing to reinstate an ambassador here after several years of tense relations. That is all helping stoke demand for high-end residential homes and office space.

“Since 2005, when the government officially announced it would open up the economy, people and companies have been pouring in,” says Nabil Sukkar, a local economic analyst.

Jasmine Hills villas are selling for 29 million to 31 million Syrian pounds, or between $620,000 and $660,000, princely sums for a country with a per-capita gross domestic product of just $4,600.

A 2010 survey by real-estate advisers Cushman & Wakefield found Damascus came 32nd in the rankings for most expensive office space in the world, coming below Persian Gulf boomtowns Dubai and Doha, Qatar, but above the likes of other business hot spots in the region, including Istanbul, Cairo in Egypt, and Tel Aviv.

Prices have risen so quickly some analysts are bracing for a correction.

Investors are particularly wary after Dubai’s recent fall from grace.
Lessons of the Crisis

The U.A.E. emirate borrowed heavily to build a modern cityscape. After a property market crash there—with some prices down as much as 50%—many new buildings sit largely empty.

Analysts say Syria is protected from a Dubai-like crash. Demand for space far outstrips supply.

And Dubai’s troubles, and those of the rest of the world, have already taken some air out of prices here, they say.

“The financial crisis, which stopped prices rising quite so much, may have been a blessing in disguise,” says Mr. Sukkar.
syria spends $1.5 billion on education. The article claims that this is 4.3% of GDP. This means that GDP is $35 billion…Dardari has been throwing out numbers closer to 55-60 billion. Its insane…

300,000 students in Syria attend watershed entrance exam
2010-06-22, (Xinhua via COMTEX)

More than 300,000 students in Syria including foreign refugees’ children attended the national entrance exams for higher education, which might become the watershed for their future life. The exams, known as baccalaureate among Syrians, started on May 31 and will last for three weeks with an interval of 1-4 days between each test. Students will sit either the liberal arts exam or science exam.

Rami Aydi, a Palestinian refugee, said that he has chosen the liberal arts as it is much easier than science. “I want to study law, but I am not sure that I can make it due to the tough competition.” According to the Syrian Ministry of Education, more than 300, 000 students including Palestinian and Iraqi refugees, attend this year’s exams, aiming at obtaining the qualifications to enter the public universities and colleges.

….According to the Syrian Ministry of Education, more than 300, 000 students including Palestinian and Iraqi refugees, attend this year’s exams, aiming at obtaining the qualifications to enter the public universities and colleges. Statistics from the Ministry showed the rate of success in 2009 session was 72.81 percent for the science branch, and 56.05 percent for the liberal arts.

….Despite being a low-income country with a growing population, Syria has a good basic education system. Since 2000, the Government of Syria has significantly increased the expenditure on education. The total expenditure in the education sector doubled between 2000 and 2005 from 0.76 billion U.S. dollars in 2000 to 1.5 billion dollars. During this period, the share of education expenditure to GDP increased from 2.7 percent to 4.3 percent.

In 2007, there were 8 million students in the education system of Syria, 4 million in basic education, 1.4 million in secondary and 2.3 million in higher-education. Given the current growth rate in the school age population, it is projected that by 2015, the education system in Syria will need to cater for an additional 1 million students in basic and secondary education….

Severe Drought In Syria Drives People Into Cities Despite UN Aid – DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

DAMASCUS (AFP)–A severe four-year drought is devastating Syria’s rural communities, forcing them to abandon the country’s traditional breadbasket in the northeast for cities in search of employment.

Earlier this month, the World Food Program started delivering food aid to nearly 200,000 people in the provinces of Al-Hasakeh, Al-Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, areas worst hit by the drought. The WFP says tens of thousands of the most vulnerable families have benefited from the food aid program. But due to low levels of funding, the United Nations’ food agency says 110,000 people are still in need. “The situation is really bad” in northeast Syria, said WFP official Selly Muzammil.

It is the second time that food aid has been distributed in Syria since the U.N. initiated a plan last year to combat the drought in afflicted areas. The situation has triggered a mass exodus of people to urban areas in search of work. The U.N. estimates more than a million people have left the northeast for urban centers, with farmers simply not cultivating enough food or earning enough money to sustain them.

Wheat production, seen as one of Syria’s key strategic resources, is believed to have fallen this year to 2.4 million metric tons, down from 4.1 million in 2007, while domestic consumption has risen to 4 million tons annually, according to the ruling party’s newspaper Al-Baath.

“We are going to import wheat for the third consecutive year,” the daily said last week. The government has responded with urgent measures, including the rescheduling of loans and tax exemptions for investment projects.

Deputy prime minister for economic affairs Abdallah Dardari announced Saturday the decision to double public investment in Deir Ezzor to 21 billion Syrian pounds ($450 million) over the coming five years. Dardari appealed to the private sector to match public investment in the region and announced the construction of an EUR1 billion dam expected to irrigate 30,000 hectares of land.

In a letter published in the official Syrian press, the governor of Al-Hasakeh called on the authorities to reschedule loans to farmers for 2009-2010 “because of the 60% fall in production…and the spread of a disease that affects the wheat crop.” But it will take a lot more to reverse the long-term social changes unfolding in northeast Syria.

Syria President:New Iraq Government Needed To Restore Security – DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

DAMASCUS (AFP)–Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday urged the formation of a new Iraqi government to restore security, in a meeting with the head of Iraq’s main conservative Shiite political party. Assad met Ammar al-Hakim, the chief of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council which has close ties to Iran, and discussed efforts to form a new government, Syria’s official SANA news agency reported.

WSJ [Reg]: FOCUS Syria Looks To Old Foe Turkey As Economy Grows
2010-06-22 08:22:27.735 GMT

DUBAI (Zawya Dow Jones)–Syria is boosting relations with its former enemy Turkey to build on a decade of reform initiatives that have transformed the Arab state’s economy. After years of mistrust, overshadowed by the legacy of Ottoman rule and … Several joint initiatives in agriculture and tourism have been announced. Earlier this month, Turkey and Syria signed a free trade zone agreement with Jordan …

‘So tell me about your massage’
From The Sunday Times
May 30, 2010

If you’re heading to Syria, one of this year’s travel hot spots, just take it easy in the hammams. You’ll get a hell of a soaping2.6 million square meters of prime real estate in Syria’s major cities and tourist destinations, namely Damascus, Aleppo, and Lattakia.

EFG Hermes Syria closes first transaction – 2010-06-20

EFG Hermes said it has acted as sole buy-side advisor to top Egyptian real estate developer, Sixth of October Development & Investment Company (SODIC) on its acquisition of a 50 per cent stake in Syria’s Palmyra Real Estate Development Company, a …

Firas Tlass, MAS’s Chairman & CEO stated “The key to successful real estate development is vision for what could be. We believe that SODIC has the right vision for the future and together we have taken a positive step realizing that vision.”

Six Of October: Cairo/Damascus, 17th of June 2010 – 2010-06-21

Cairo/Damascus, 17th of June 2010 Date added: Monday 21st June 2010 Egypt based Sixth of October Development & Investment Company S.A.E. (“SODIC”), and MAS Economic Group (“MAS”) of Syria announced that SODIC will invest U$40.5 million to acquire …

From Syria Report and Jihad Yazigi:

Syria’s Wheat Output to Fall by a Third as Yellow Rust Epidemic Hits Crop: Syria’s wheat output is expected to fall by a third as a devastating epidemic of yellow rust has hit the soft wheat crop.

Agriculture and Water: The Syrian Parliament has ratified an agreement signed earlier this year between the Government and the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development to part finance the rehabilitation and expansion of water supply system in Damascus city and its suburbs.

Economy: Registered Iraqi Refugees in Syria Down to 165,000. The number of Iraqi refugees formally registered at the UN Refugee Agency representation in Syria has fallen by a quarter, to 165,000, according to a spokesperson.

Education: Syria and Iran have laid the foundation stone of a joint university to be built in Lattakia.

ISRAEL

Israeli NSC Arad on-record: Two states? That’s a zero-sum game!
Didi Remez | June 23, 2010 at 10:44

Yesterday (June 22 2010), In a speech to the Jewish Agency, Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad, asked Israelis to ‘curb their enthusiasm’ about a two state solution to the conflict, saying that legitimizing a Palestinian State is tantamount to de-legitimizing Israel:

Arad also leveled veiled criticism at the two-state solution. “On the one hand, most of the people of Israel see the two-state solution as the path to a peace agreement. There are even quite a few Israelis who have mobilized for a Palestinian state and the promotion of its legitimacy, and are winning converts to it.

“What they do not notice is that this claims a certain price. The more you market Palestinian legitimacy, the more you bring about a detraction of Israel’s legitimacy in certain circles. They are accumulating legitimacy, and we are being delegitimized. If we were aware of that, perhaps we would be less enthusiastic.”… Arad’s remarks came just days after Obama’s Middle East envoy, George J. Mitchell, met with Israeli and Palestinian officials to test the two sides’ readiness to engage in face-to-face talks on core issues such as borders, the future of Jerusalem, security arrangements and the fate of Palestinian refugees. So far, those contacts have not produced substantive results.

Strenger than Fiction / Israel should consider a one-state solution. 18.06.10
Israel would do well to become a truly liberal, secular state without ethnic dominance in which subgroups no longer impose their way of life on each other.
By Carlo Strenger

In a recent op-ed, Moshe Arens suggested that Israel seriously consider the option of a single state west of the Jordan, in which Palestinians be granted full citizenship.

The one-state solution is advocated by a number of Palestinian intellectuals and is becoming rather popular within the European left. Their reason is generally that the one-state solution would give more justice to the Palestinians – this position is mostly seen as anti-Israeli. Israel’s extreme right favors holding onto the greater land of Israel, generally on theological grounds.

Arens raises his idea from a different standpoint, because he is a secular liberal who indeed believes in full equality for Israel’s Arabs. Even though I have for years argued that the one-state solution is not feasible, Aren’s idea needs to be explored – at least as a thought experiment – because it may well be that the window of opportunity for the two-state solution is about to close. So far no Israeli government has succeeded in implementing it; Palestinians are beginning to reject it, and Israel may not be able to uproot more than one hundred thousand settlers.

Arens has indeed tried in his political career to increase equality for Israel’s Arabs, and he deplores Israel’s failure to do so. He has told me in conversation that this failure was his strongest motivation for writing the article on a one-state solution. In my mind, thinking about this failure requires us to face that Israel has been in an ongoing culture war for most of its existence – and not only with respect to its Arab citizens. Israel’s elections ostensibly seem to be about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in reality they are a reflection of the tensions in Israel’s society: religious vs. secular; Ashkenazi vs. Sephardim; Jews vs. Arabs.

Of course, many will not accept Arens’ assessment that there are only 1.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and Palestinians are unlikely to accept the exclusion of Gaza from the new state. But even in Arens’ scenario, Israel would de facto become a bi-national state. Jewish cultural hegemony would have to be largely renounced and give way to a multicultural model.

Arens’ idea raises a real challenge for Israel: It would, for the first time, have to truly face the task of radically revising its political system and culture and to think carefully about how ethnicities, religions and worldviews can truly live side by side with each other instead of struggling for cultural hegemony.

One consequence of Arens’ idea is that the state would have to sever its ties to all religious institutions, and would have to become completely secular, along the French or U.S. model. Both Jews and Muslims would have to accept that religion cannot play any role in affairs of the state, and religious institutions would become completely voluntary and communitarian. In order to avoid tensions between the various religious groups, and between religious and secular lifestyles, the Swiss confederative model might be considered. The federal government’s involvement in the canton’s internal affairs would be low to allow for maximal cultural flexibility.

Both Jews and Palestinians would have to be willing to renounce the struggle for hegemony. The political culture would have to be structured in a way that avoids such a struggle. Jews would have to be willing to accept Jabotinsky’s suggestion that the President of the state could be sometimes Jewish and sometimes Arab.

Of course the most attractive feature of the one-state solution is a complete restructuring of the Middle East. Arab rejection of a fully liberal Israel-Palestine would no longer have a case. Of course radical Islamists might continue to object to the presence of non-Muslims, but the majority of Arabs would feel much more comfortable with a bi-national state.

I continue to be skeptical about the one-state solution. I am afraid that it will be very difficult to implement, and it is almost unimaginable that a cohesive society would emerge after a century of bloody conflict, particularly if you consider that even states like Belgium are on the verge of falling apart. Economic inequality, which is very high in Israel today, would increase even further and create huge problems.

Arens’ challenge must be taken seriously, for a number of reasons:

First, we are close to the point at which only the one state solution will be possible.

Second, because we need to face that the culture wars have led to the point where Israel is currently on the verge of falling apart as a country. The events surrounding the refusal of Haredi parents in Immanuel to have their daughters study with Mizrahi girls must be seen as what they are. The Haredi community has staged the imprisonments of these parents into a grand event of martyrdom for the Torah. For them Israel’s legal system simply has no legitimacy.

Paradoxically, not only Ashkenazi Haredim think this way – the Haredi state of mind was made fully explicit by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Shas’ spiritual leader, who condemned the High Court of Justice for intervening. He said that the offended Mizrahi parents should not have turned to arka’ot – the term traditionally used by Jews to designate the courts of the gentile countries in which Jews lived. It was seen as a betrayal of Jews by Jews to turn to these courts instead of a rabbinical court. Add to this that some Haredim used terms like the Chelmnitzky pogroms and ‘inquisition’ to describe these events. This rhetoric shows the depth of the chasm between the Haredim and the rest of the country.

De facto, approximately one million Jews – Haredim and part of the settler community – have ceased accepting the authority of the state. Add to this that most of Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs do not identify with the state and you get a society without little cohesion and a state whose legitimacy is question from within and from without.

Given this situation we need to see that Israel will have to rethink its conceptual and legal foundations. Even if the two-state solution would finally be achieved, Israel would do well to apply some of the features of the one-state solution: to become a truly liberal, secular state without ethnic dominance in which subgroups no longer try to impose their way of life on each other. It should seriously consider a confederative structure to defuse its culture wars that are tearing it apart.

Hot on the heels of We Con the World, Caroline Glick’s US-funded operation has released another video, this time an anti-Tirkish screed. MJ Rosenberg points out that it has been endorsed by AIPAC and calls it “right out of 1930’s Central Europe.” Andrew Sullivan posts the full text of the AIPAC e-mail. Josh Block, AIPAC’s flack, must have a really bad case of Hasbara Derangement Syndrome if he thinks that he is helping Israel’s cause by endorsing an outfit that recently produced a racist segment on POTUS. In this video the Barack Obama character sings of his hatred for “dirty Jews” and his hope that the Koran will rule the world and the Jews will drown in the sea, and then calls for Iran to strike Israel with a hydrogen bomb.

100,000 Iraqi Refugees Approved For Resettlement -UNHCR

DAMASCUS (AFP)–United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees chief Antonio Guterres said Friday the body has referred 100,000 Iraqi refugees in the Middle East for resettlement in third countries since 2007. …..The acceptance rate by resettlement countries of UNHCR’s referrals now stands at 80%, of which nearly 76% have been accepted by the U.S., the UNHCR said.

Congress strikes deal on sanctions for supplying Iran
(By Colum Lynch and Thomas Erdbrink, The Washington Post)

U.S. lawmakers on Monday reached agreement on legislation that would penalize Iran’s business partners for selling the country gasoline, investing in its refineries, or providing financial services to firms linked to its political and military elite.

The Wall Street Journal was perplexed that the US. Deploys Tech Firms to Win Syrian Allies. They write that “the State Department has dispatched a high-level diplomatic and trade mission to Syria, according to senior U.S. officials, marking the latest bid by the Obama administration to woo President Bashar al-Assad away from his strategic alliance with Iran…”

The anti-Syrian and pro-Israeli hawks at Commentary magazine were appaplectic on reading this news. Here is Jennifer Rubin: It’s Not the State Department Duo, It’s the President, – 06.17.2010, Commentary

Although Obama’s efforts to engage the Syrian thugocracy have only succeeded in pushing Bashar al-Assad closer to Iran and placing Scuds in Hezbollah’s hands, the president is not deterred. Not even the Republicans’ effort to block the …

Syrians have a very different view of this than Israelis or pro-Israelis. They do not think it is about Iran or misguided love.  They think it is about al-Qaida and intelligence sharing.

A friend who is an Internet Security Specialist writes: “What Cisco, Dell, and Microsoft are going to sell to Syria are firewalls, high-capacity routers and switches, VoIP blockers, network sniffers, and ISP proxy servers to keep Internet traffic under strict control and surveillance. This gesture is all about intelligence sharing and government control, wallahi ya3ni.”

Another friend writes: “I know for a fact that the companies named in this article are doing a great business in libya now … Syria will be next…”

Jillian York of the Guardian writes: US gives Iran more net freedom – but what about Syria? 16 June 2010
Relaxing export controls on US technology is good news for some netizens, but many restrictions remain

……Iranian web users recently received some good news: following the media frenzy over last year’s elections, the US has chosen to relax export controls related to technology, giving users access to previously unavailable communications tools. The changes will affect not only Iran, but Sudan and Cuba as well, countries where free internet use has long been stifled by US restrictions…. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton, in her celebrated January speech on internet freedom, stated that American companies need to take a principled stand against censorship, and that it should be part of the country’s “national brand”….

Although there are no OFAC restrictions placed on Syria, the US department of commerce’s 2004 Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act prohibits the export of most goods containing more than 10% US-manufactured component parts to the country. The act also includes a provision on items deemed imports, including technology or source code controlled on the Commerce Control List, though licences are available for software providers through the bureau of industry and security.

Syrian netizens have long been aware of the effects of export controls on their lives. They are prevented from downloading popular software such as Java and Adobe Acrobat, and browsers such as Google’s Chrome. Microsoft products are available, but in pirated form, or smuggled in illegally. What is surprising to many, however, is when a new ban suddenly emerges; each year, a number of software providers seemingly crack down on Syrian users, often blocking access to entire websites for fear of non-compliance with the act.

For example, in early 2009, Syrian visitors to the professional networking site LinkedIn were surprised to be met with a blockpage. Though the full-on block was quickly removed, to this day users are barred from accessing the site’s proprietary software. Similarly, in January 2010, open-source code repository SourceForge began blocking the IP addresses of users in Iran, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea and Syria, much to the dismay of open-source enthusiasts. Though in the end, SourceForge removed the blanket block – placing responsibility on project managers to choose their level of restriction – the fact remains that a large swath of open-source projects are still off limits to users from restricted countries.

But in Syria, just as in Iran, the internet serves as an important communications and organising tool for dissidents and average users alike. And when you consider the fact that the Syrian government filters the internet internally as well (blocking sites such as Facebook and Blogspot, among many others), you realise that users are left with very little wiggle room.

On War and whether the Israeli flotilla killings are bringing us closer to war – there are a number of views:

Rami Khouri in the Daily Star believes that the two sides are stumbling towards war

“….. I can confidently announce that we are all in much greater trouble than appears to be the case on the surface. A catastrophe awaits us all, if immoderation prevails in these three lands, where American, Arab and Iranian politicians seem to be driven by a potentially devastating combination of righteousness, resentment, resistance and revenge. The political certitude, national self-confidence and self-proclaimed moral rectitude evident in the United States, Iran and Syria alike are stunning. The increasingly wasteful confrontation they provoke could result in immeasurably destructive and probably futile warfare, waged either by the principals themselves or their proxies and strategic allies, such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Israel.

Iran and Syria are important players in the Middle East because they anchor that large and powerful array of forces known to its adherents as the “resistance front.” They see themselves as repelling the military occupation, cultural penetration and predatory political domination of the United States and Israel, primarily.

The people, governments and organizations in this grouping probably enjoy the support of around half the 500 million or so people who make up the Arab-Iranian-Turkish Middle East. The “resistance front” is to be taken seriously because it represents a combination of phenomena that have never converged before in the Middle East: political and military forces that transcend the Arab-Iranian divide, unite Arab nationalists with secular Baathists and organized Islamists, join sovereign governments with grassroots organizations, and enjoy technical military and resistance capabilities that continue to develop. They feel increasingly vindicated by the events of the past decade, are prepared to stand their ground, and feel able – indeed, sometimes even seem eager – to withstand the threats, sanctions and attacks that they have either already experienced, or anticipate in the near future.

The United States, for its part, sees Iran, Syria and their allies as hopeless extremists and ideological miscreants who support terrorism, mistreat their own citizens, and abuse or threaten their neighbors (for example Lebanon and Iraq, among others). The US sees its battle against Iran and Syria as aiming to promote democracy and human rights, protect righteous and victimized Israel, defeat tyranny, and whittle down the havens and helpers of terror.

The rule of law, American politicians believe, is the core of their mission that also reflects the future of human civilization, while Iran, Syria and friends represent lawlessness and darkness from the past. There is little desire in the American ruling political elite to see beyond the surface evils that are virtually the only things that appear to Americans, who connect so seldom, and superficially, with Syrians or Iranians, let alone the men and women of Hizbullah and Hamas. The passions that drive both sides in this confrontational dynamic are impressive, if wastefully so. …

“Al-Assad and the increasing chances of war” (thanks to mideastwire.com)
Al-Quds al-Arabi, June 18, lead editorial:…

The region is currently witnessing the birth of a new tripartite alliance including the strongest states in it: Turkey, Iran and Syria. Moreover, this alliance has a military extension through the arms of resistance represented by the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, thus securing a state of strategic deterrence and practically ending Israeli military superiority which has terrorized Arab surroundings for at least the last thirty years.

In this context, the unprecedented confidence seen in the Syrian rhetoric embodies the new regional balance of power which is no longer in favor of Israel. True, the latter does have a sophisticated arsenal and an air-force which is still the most dangerous in comparison with its counterparts in Syria, Iran and Turkey. However, we must take into consideration the new military facts, the most important of which is the inability of the air-force to settle the battle in its favor as happened in previous Israeli wars and especially in the June 1967 and October 1973 wars. Syria is no longer isolated the way it was three years ago, and has managed to substitute its Arab depth which conspired against it, directly collaborated with American plans and indirectly collaborated with the Israeli ones, with the Iranian and Turkish depths which are more supportive of the critical Arab causes.

“Indeed, the region is changing but not in favor of Israel and the United States, and we must recognize that the most important elements which prompted this change are the Turkish factor firstly, the Iranian factor secondly and the Syrian intelligence which allowed the country to act in a pragmatic and practical way by securing rapprochement between the two latter factors… and providing national Arab legitimacy for this new strategic trio.” – Al-Quds al-Arabi, United Kingdom

Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek reminds us how “fancyfull” conservative thinking is about the power shifts going on in the Middle East. In the cover essay of the New Republic, McCain urges America to topple the Tehran regime by “unleashing its full moral power” on the illigitimate Iranian regime. He believes that if Obama had supported the Greens more vigorously, america would have won the day and democracy would break out all over. This is the same neocon fantasy that led us into Iraq and still has us “nation building” in Afghanistan.  Interestingly, neocons are taking a similar line to Turkey now that it has turned against Israel.

Elliott Abrams in the WeeklyStandard argues that Turks may tire of Erdoghan and his Islamist regime, rid themselves of him, and return to supporting Israel and America! (Thanks to FLC)

First, it’s obvious that our formerly reliable NATO ally Turkey has become a staunch supporter of the radical camp. … sought to strengthen the terrorist group Hamas—a group that is anathema not just to the United States and Israel, but to the governments of Jordan and Egypt. The recent photo of Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad in Damascus is an emblem of this change, and Turkey’s work to undermine U.N. sanctions against Iran shows its substance….

….Second, the Arabs are once again becoming objects, not actors, in history. The anchors of the Arab consensus have long been Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and both are now weakened forces in Arab politics and diplomacy. In part this is a story of old age: While for decades Mubarak was the key Arab leader, and the Saudis for 35 years counted on their foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, both men are now in a steady decline. Few observers expect Mubarak to live more than another year or two, and he may not make it to Egypt’s 2011 presidential elections. Saud suffers from Parkinson’s and has repeatedly asked to leave his post. States act in politics through the medium of men: at best, men who have prestige, persuasive powers, and whom it is thought dangerous to cross. Twenty years ago Saud and Mubarak were both such men,….

…… anyone who has worked with Arab diplomats knows that they almost instinctively ask “Where are the Saudis on this?” and “Where are the Egyptians?” whenever asked to support an American position. But today Qatar, with 225,000 citizens, has at least as much influence in Arab councils as Egypt with 80 million or Saudi Arabia with 30 million, and Qatar’s 51-year-old foreign minister has clout that would simply have been impossible 10 or 20 years ago. Erdogan and the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, further demonstrate how much damage clever, unprincipled, energetic actors can wreak when unopposed by more responsible officials of equal force.

So the Arab core grows hollow and less and less able to defend its interests against supporters of Islamism. Worse yet for the Arabs, peripheral powers are coming once again to dominate their region….

Third, while it is no secret that the United States is increasingly viewed as a spent force and an unreliable ally in this region, it is not so much the events of the past 17 months that impress Middle Easterners as it is that the Obama administration remains oblivious to the impact of its policies. Everyone there sees clearly that Obama desires to be out of Iraq more than he desires to stabilize that country. ….

The Gaza flotilla incident might have been a great setback to the radical camp had the United States reacted sharply, defending Israel, condemning the jihadists on board and their sponsors in Turkey, blocking U.N. Security Council action, and refusing to sponsor another international inquiry that will condemn Israel. And Israel’s interests were not the only ones at stake: The blockade of Gaza is a joint Israeli-Egyptian action to weaken Hamas. …

Still, whatever the trends and whatever the American errors, nothing is inevitable except the passing of certain key actors. Turks may tire of Erdogan’s speeches and return a government that seeks a true balance between East and West rather than a headlong dive into alliances with Iran and Syria. Iran’s nuclear program may be stopped by an Israeli action, or some day by the collapse of that increasingly despised regime. Israelis and Palestinians may find a way……..”

US Lawmakers Threaten Turkey with Reprisals Over Israel

Tortured Canadian that US deported to Syria will not get justice
Cory Doctorow, Jun 14, 2010

A Canadian who was deported to Syria by the US government for a hellish, 10.5 month torture ordeal will not get justice in the USA.

Maher Arar is a Syrian-born Canadian and father who was arrested while passing through the US on his way home to Canada. The Canadian government provided US authorities with bad intelligence suggesting Arar had ties to Al Qaeda. Arar was deported to Syria where he was held in a 3’x6’x7′ cell for 10 and a half months, during which time he was brutally tortured.

The Canadian government investigated Arar’s case, concluded that he was not a terrorist, had no ties to terrorists, and had been unjustly detained and tortured, and paid him $10.5 million.

Arar has tried to clear his name in the US — he is still considered a terrorist there, as is his family — but no court has heard his case, because the US government (including the Obama administration) claims that allowing the case to be heard would compromise national security. The Supreme Court has now refused to hear Arar’s case. …

Architectural Record on the Aga Khan’s restoration work in the Old City, with a nice slideshow care of their photographer:
by Freddy Deknatel

Syrian wheat harvest weak, needs imports-govt media
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Tue Jun 15, 2010

* Persistent drought to blame for falling output
* Expects less wheat from small farmers this year
* Imports forecast at 1.2 mln tonnes for 2010 (Adds reaction, figures)

 DAMASCUS, June 15 (Reuters) – The Syrian government will be forced to import wheat for the third year running after another weaker-than-expected harvest due to persistent drought, state media said on Tuesday.

Al-Baath government daily said the state, which has a wheat marketing monopoly and subsidises the crop heavily, expects to receive 2.4 million tonnes of wheat from small farmers this year, down from 2.8 million in 2009.

While the figures do not represent the whole of Syria’s output – a proportion is smuggled or kept by producers – the drop is the strongest indication yet that this year’s harvest was weak.

The agriculture minister had expected output to reach 4 million tonnes in 2010, enough to meet annual domestic consumption of 3.6 million to 4 million. But other experts doubted that production would reach that level due to a combination of drought and plant disease….. The water table had already been depleted by thousands of illegal wells sunk to irrigate subsidised wheat… The drought conditions resulted in the displacement of up to one million people from Eastern Syria

Syria Nears Signing of Partnership Agreement With European Union
2010-06-16

Damascus (dpa) — Syrian government officials said on Wednesday that Syria could be signing a partnership agreement with the European Union by the end of this year. The agreement, allowing Syria access to EU financial assistance in exchange for continued reform, was initially meant to be signed in October 2009. Syria postponed the final step over objections to certain clauses. Some amendments have been made to the agreement, official sources told the German Press Agency dpa. The agreement “will be particularly welcomed by the private sector but also by Syrians in general, as they look forward to more open markets,” the sources added.

Fidaa Horani was released from jail after “completing her full prison sentence,” the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said. Four opposition activists, including Horani, have been freed since Sunday. 12 activists who signed the Damascus Declaration calling for democratic change were sentenced to 30 months in prison in October 2008 for “damaging the state.” “The other leaders of the Damascus Declaration are expected to be released in the coming days,” SOHR said.

Italian boycott of Israel
Coteret by Didi Remez

Meanwhile, the boycott against Israel has expanded further and has begun to affect countries that are considered to be its friends. Italian government officials capitulated to Arab pressure and decided not to invite Israel to the conference of Mediterranean countries that is to be held in Milan in July, despite the fact that Israel is a member country of the forum. This decision has deeply angered the Israelis, who are pressuring the Italians to reverse the decision.

Israel’s banishment from the conference, which is to be attended by representatives of 26 countries, including Arab countries, was sponsored by Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Stefania Gabriella Anastasia Craxi. The Arabs said that they would make their participation contingent upon a refusal to invite Israel, and Craxi succumbed to the pressure. When Israeli officials tried to ask her to explain, she became evasive. Political officials said that this was a particularly odd decision, given the fact that Italy was one of the prime fighters against boycotting Israel.

Syrian political prisoner re-arrested on release
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis

DAMASCUS, June 17 (Reuters) – A Syrian military court has charged a prominent political prisoner with weakening national morale after he was due to be freed after serving a 2-1/2 year sentence for the same offence, his lawyer said.  

Ali al-Abdallah, a writer, was released from Adra prison on the northern edge of the Syrian capital on Wednesday. He was returned to Adra on Thursday after a court charged him with writing an article three months ago criticising Syria’s ties with Iran, Khalil Maatouk told Reuters. “I was waiting for him, but he was taken back to prison,” Maatouk said.

“Everything is possible,” Maatouk said when asked if Abdallah could be sentenced to another lengthy term.  The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an independent organisation, said Abdallah’s arrest was “arbitrary”.  Abdallah was among 12 people arrested during 2007 and jailed after they tried to revive the Damascus Declaration, a rights movement named after a document signed in 2005 by opposition figures.  They were charged with weakening national morale, an accusation used regularly by the government against its opponents.

  

Syrian lawyer Mohannad al-Hassani was arrested last year and charged with weakening national morale after campaigning all his professional life against the charge, which he called “medieval”. Hassani is due to be sentenced on June 23. The Damascus Declaration demanded that bans on freedom of speech and assembly be lifted, and emergency law abolished. This has governed Syria since 1963 when the ruling Baath Party took power, banning any opposition. Five of Abdullah’s fellow prisoners were released this month after completing their 2-1/2 year sentences, including Fida al-Horani, a physician and daughter of the late Akram al-Horani, a crucial figure behind the rise of the Baath. 

The government has intensified a campaign of arrests of political opponents over the last two years. Despite this, it has enjoyed international rehabilitation after years in isolation due to disputes with the West over Syria’s role in Lebanon and Iraq, and its support for militant groups.  The best-known opposition figure remaining in jail is former parliamentarian Riad Seif, who has cancer. Western leaders have appealed to the Syrian government to release him, but it has become clear that Seif will not be released before his 2-1/2 year sentence ends in July.  Seif was also in jail from 2001 to 2006. 

Landis Interview with a Foreign Journalist

1. Professor Landis, tensions between the US and Syria have deteriorated. What are the main reasons of this deterioration?

Syrian-US relations have been quite bad since 2000 when President Clinton’s efforts to broker an agreement between Israel and Syria collapsed. The reason for this failure are important because initially, the US blamed the on Syria, claiming that President Assad was not serious about peace. But in his memoirs President Clinton corrected the record and reversed his assessment of blame. Israeli statesmen, present during the talks have also weighed in recently to repeat Clinton’s argument that Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Barak “got cold feet” and was unwilling to close the peace deal that was on the table. The reasons that Prime Minister Barak could not complete the deal his team had negotiated with the Syrians is that he believed the Israeli public were not ready for it. Also, he was hoping to finalize a Palestinian agreement over the West Bank and Jerusalem, which was going badly. The Israeli public was turning to the right and Barak’s coalition government was losing popularity in 2000. Barak felt compelled to scuttle negotiations with Syria in order to concentrate on the Palestinian issue. He didn’t believe that the Israeli public would accept two big land deals at the same time. Central to the negotiations was the Golan Heights – a large fertile and strategic border region that Israel took from Syria in 1967 and annexed in 1981. Syria insists on the return of the entire Golan in return for providing Israel with water and security guarantees.

Relations between the US and Syria became unusually bad during the administration of President George W. Bush. Syria objected America’s the invasion of Iraq, placing it in Washington’s crosshairs. President Bush moved in 2004 to pull Lebanon out of Syria’s sphere of influence and bring it into that of the US. One of the casualties of this tug of war was Rafiq Hariri, Lebanon’s Prime Minister and leading statesman. The US withdrew it ambassador from Syria in 2005, following the assassination of Rafiq Hariri President for which it blamed Syria. Obama promised to make an effort at improving relations between the two countries and promised to send back an ambassador, but his confirmation has been blocked by congress, which accuses Syria of arming Hizbullah and helping Israel’s enemies.

2. Is the real issue of conflict between Israel and Syria the Golan Heights? Are there other reasons?

There are other reasons, but the Golan is the big reason today. Syria was never happy with the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. As early as 1920, parliaments in Syria began issuing statements declaring that Palestine was part of Syria and belonged to the Arab nation and not the Jews. Today, President Assad says that he is willing to recognize Israel when the Golan is returned. He insists that Syria is committed to a just peace and changing the strategic environment of the region. Syria’s ambassador to Washington says, “an Israeli peace agreement with Syria would open the door for Israel to comprehensive peace.”

3. Syria has long presented a serious problem for the Middle East region and Western policy. Has something changed?

Syria presents a major problem for the US, which would like Syria to stop helping Israel’s enemies, such as the Palestinians and Hizbullah. Syria will only do this if it gets back its occupied territory. Damascus claims it has a legal right to resist occupation. The United States does not recognize this right even though it does not officially recognize Israel’s right to occupy the Golan. US politicians, however, side with Israel on this issue. The US has designated Syria a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979.

4. Does Syria want to play an influential role in regional politics?

Yes, Syria insists it is an important regional actor that cannot be isolated or ignored. In particular it has opposed US attempts to ignore its interests. Syria has largely won this argument over the last few decades. When the US invaded Iraq, ignoring Syrian interests, Damascus opened its border to mujahedin and foreign fighters, which cost America dearly.

Syria is the most influential foreign actor in Lebanese affairs. It has kept Lebanon within its sphere of influence despite repeated Israeli and US attempts to wrest it away. When Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon in 1982 in order to destroy the PLO and bring Beirut into its own sphere of influence, Syria helped build up Hizbullah and other militias, which eventually pushed out the Israelis. Today, Hizbullah is a major power in Lebanon and remains close to Syria, much to America’s displeasure.

George W Bush tried to wrest Lebanon away from Syria and bring it into America’s camp in 2004, but largely failed. Syria has provided refuge for Hamas’ leader in Damascus despite repeated attempts by Israel and the US to force it to expel him. This past month, Turkey and Syria announced that they are forming a free trade zone, which will include Jordan and Lebanon.

5. Is Syria a chronic exporter of instability in the Middle East?

Syria’s enemies certainly argue that it exports instability. They point to its aid to various Palestinian resistance groups, its support for Hizbullah against Israel, and support for Sunni groups and the Iraqi Baath in Iraq. Syria has also been a constant ally to Iran, which both the US and Israel excoriate as a terrorist state.

Syria naturally sees things quite differently. President Assad argues that Syria is a conservative power that has tried to preserve stability in the region in the face of Israeli and US radicalism. Syria rejected British and American efforts to create a Jewish state on Syria’s border in 1948. It argues that the creation of Israel on Palestinian and Arab land brought great instability to the region, causing the Palestinian refugee problem and provoking numerous wars over the past 60 years. Likewise, it argues that America’s invasion of Iraq brought another wave of instability to the region and largely destroyed Iraq, causing some four million Iraqis to flee their homes. Syria is now refuge to almost a million Iraqis and half a million Palestinians.

Syria argues that it has struggled to preserve the status quo and stability in the region in the face of foreign violence and trouble making. The US and Israel see Syria as the trouble maker because it has been a major source of resistance it to their plans in the region.

6. Can the new alliance between Syria with Iran and Turkey change the situation in the Middle East?

Syria hopes that Turkey’s new turn toward the east will bolster its position with Israel and the US. Both countries also hope that Iraq will join their alliance but it is too early to tell how Iraq’s foreign policy will emerge. So far, Iraqi politics have been too unstable to support a consistent foreign policy.

Turkey and Syria eliminated visa requirements over a year ago and have just announced plans to form a larger free trade union with Lebanon and Jordan.

7. This Islamic alliance is dangerous for the very existence of the state of Israel?

Syria and Turkey are both secular states. They do not threaten Israel’s existence. Turkey has stopped its joint military exercises with Israel, but Israel remains the region’s supper power. It has an estimated 200 to 400 nuclear warheads, which it can deliver by nuclear submarine, the advanced US bombers, and by its inter-ballistic missiles. No other state in the region has this capability. Israel has threatened to destroy the Syrian regime and bomb the country if Syria continues to arm its enemies. Israel is in a much better position to threaten the existence of either Syria or Turkey, should it feel provoked. The killing of nine Turkish activists aboard a ship headed for Gaza gave Turkey a taste of what it can expect if it challenges Israel.

8. Is Syria the leader of the Arabs in their ongoing conflict with Israel?

Yes, Syria is the largest Arab state still at war with Israel. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace agreement with Israel and work closely with Israeli intelligence on security matters. Saudi Arabia has emerged as an Israeli ally in its opposition to Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran. All the same, Syria is a very weak military power compared to Israel. Syria has not acquired new fighter plans since the Soviet Union collapsed. Most of its military is in very bad shape. Israel is negotiating with the US to acquire stealth bombers. The US has recently provided substantial monetary and technological support to Israel to provide it with a sophisticated missile defense system and advanced weaponry.

9. Does Syria hinder U.S. policy in the Middle East?
Yes, Syria is a major obstacle to US objectives in the Middle East. It continues to resist Israeli territorial expansion to arm Israel’s enemies. It supports Iran, which the US has decided is the World’s greatest threat and a major supporter of terrorism, primarily because it provides weapons and money to Hizbullah. Iran is also a competitor with Saudi Arabia and the US for control of the Persian Gulf and influence in Iraq. Syria is not a democracy, although neither are America’s major Arab allies in the region: Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Syria will continue to challenge the United States in the region, especially in its relations with Israel – that is so long as Israel retains the Golan Heights, which is the primary obstacle to peace. In other areas, the US has common interests with Syria. Iraq is a primary example of this. Now that Washington is withdrawing from Iraq, Syria and the US find themselves with a number of common goals. Both countries want stability in the region and to ensure a role for Sunni Arabs in the Baghdad government. Neither country wants Iran to dominate Iraq. Syria and the US have a common enemy in al-Qaida. Both have resumed intelligence sharing on this issue. Despite their common interests, however, the US and Syria will continue to have strained relations so long as Israel’s borders with its Arab neighbors remain undefined and contested. For better or worse, the US largely treats its relations with Syria as a subset of its relations with Israel.

Uri Saguy tells all, ctd: Provides an insider’s account of Barak’s “missed opportunity” with Syria in 2000

Remez

Copied from Didi Remez’s blog Coteret. June 17, 2010

[I want to thank Didi for translating this very interesting interview and bringing it to us. I copy the whole thing shamelessly because it is such an important part of the record. What I understand from Saguy’s interview is that both Rabin and Barak believed at crucial moments that they could not close the Golan deal with Israel because it was politically unfeasable. This was particularly the case with Barak, who had the time. The blame shifting that went on later is not dealt with, but it is clear that both Saguy and Clinton had expected Barak to follow through with the deal. How much blame should be placed on Syria for not playing to the Israeli public more is an open question. Saguy argues, “Al-Shara made a big mistake when he refused to shake Barak’s hand.” He blames both sides for failing to understand the “ethos” necessary for a successful deal. All the same, security calculations are a mater of hard calclulation. Saguy quotes Ben Gurion who said: ‘It doesn’t matter what the people want, I will decide what the people need.’” Ultimately, he blames the collapse of the Golan deal on a failure of Israeli leadership. JL]

Uri Saguy continues to to reveal details of Israel’s diplomatic history with Syria. In April, Maariv relayed an interview he had given to veterans’ publication, in which he described the role played by Ron Lauder in brokering Netanyahu-Assad negotiations in the ’90s. Last Friday in an extensive interview given to Yediot’s Uri Misgav, Saguy calls for the resumption of the diplomatic process and provides a highly critical insider’s account of Barak’s handling of the previous round, in 2000.??

“At the end of the next war we will seek a diplomatic solution”

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uri Saguy, the best informed person on the details of negotiations with Syria, is concerned about Israel’s situation and convinced that in light of the crisis with Turkey, Israel’s utmost priority should be peace with Assad. In fact, he was sure it was about to happen (” I saw with my own eyes a draft agreement with the Syrians”) but then suddenly everything went wrong. Ehud Barak already provided his explanations here recently. Now Saguy reveals other details from the closed rooms

Uri Misgav, Yediot Friday Political Supplement, June 11 2010 [Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

“We were very close to achieving a peace agreement with Syria in 2000. Closer than ever. It would have happened had we done what we promised to ourselves, the Americans and the Syrians.” Ten years after the collapse of the Israeli-Syrian channel, Maj. Gen. (res.) Uri Saguy reveals the details behind what he calls “a missed opportunity of deep historic significance.” Saguy, appointed by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak to head the Israeli team for the talks, says “drafts of an agreement, written by Jonathan Schwartz from the US State Department, were already exchanged. I saw them with my own eyes. Not everything was agreed. Another meeting between the leaders was needed to conclude the deal. But the Syrians came to Shepherdstown with a mandate to move forward. That is what the head of their delegation, Foreign Minister Farouk A-Shara, said, and we knew this from the good intelligence we had at our disposal. It fell apart with a terrible crash. The Syrians and Bill Clinton came out of there with the feeling that the Israelis did not meet their commitments. I think Barak came there too soon. He should have come for the next stage. I told him it was a mistake for him to go at the head of the delegation, that the time was not ripe yet. He replied: “We are going for two or three weeks, whatever it takes, to make peace.”

The extensive series of conversations with Saguy took place over the last two weeks, in the midst of what looked like an Israeli slide into the depths of an unprecedented political low and international isolation. The discussion of the agreement not reached with Syria was not academic and not disconnected from the context. “There is no point in settling scores,” says Saguy, “but we are not exempt from asking ourselves questions. We are good at beating ourselves up in inquiries following military failures. We do not always check ourselves when it comes to strategic political failures of the highest order. And in 2000 we failed.”

What did it collapse over?

“I think it collapsed over the ethos. The Syrians said ‘June 4, return what you took by force.’ The Israelis said ‘Assad will not wade in Lake Kinneret,’ ‘we want to continue surrounding the Kinneret.’ There were technical solutions for everything. Israel played very cleverly with the solution proposed by the Americans, of the difference between sovereignty and control, and I will not elaborate so as not to cause damage. I will only say there were solutions for everything. But what we could not get over is the ethos. At the critical stages the Israeli side was not determined enough. It is a shame. But we must not give up.”

What happened to Barak at the moment of truth?

“I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. We talked from time to time. He sticks to his position that there are things I don’t know because I was not the prime minister. I accept that I wasn’t and I accept that I don’t know. And I still believe it was a real failure. The argument is not over the Golan Heights. The argument is over the state of Israel’s strategic national security. The Golan Heights is a very sensitive platform and we could do two things with it: either use it as a basis for an agreement or fight over it. Wars do not happen everyday but when they do happen it is very hard. I still remember. If there is no choice, we will fight and our children will fight. But when there is a choice, should we not even explore it? That does not seem moral to me.”

The Rabin deposit

Saguy, 66, a father of three and grandfather of two, is probably one of the Israelis who has met the most Syrians face-to-face. “I first met them on the Golan Heights. There were a lot of them then, too,” he quips. He fought on the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War and was wounded twice. Later in his service he commanded the Golani brigade, was head of the general staff’s operations department in the First Lebanon War and served as commander of the land forces and the Southern Command. Between 1991 and 1995 he served in his most important position, chief of intelligence. Only there, he admits, did the coin drop. “I spent many years as a military man on the Golan Heights, I saw it burn, not only thrive,” he explains. “I did not understand what only later as chief of intelligence I was able to understand. It was a job that helped me develop a much broader worldview. I understood additional factors, I understood the limits of power.

“I suggest looking around on the Golan Heights. Not being impressed only by the groves. Go to Tel Fares, to see the landmines and the killing fields there, where yours truly somehow came out alive from an entire command post that didn’t. At my age I’m allowed to have an opinion. I believe that a political agreement between Syria and Israel is a military national interest of the highest order. Anyone futzing around with all kinds of proposals that do not touch the core – a ‘compromise,’ a withdrawal to the cliff line, as proposed by Uzi Arad — does not want a settlement with the Syrians. That is not a possible opening point for negotiations. I am sorry to say this but it is the truth.”

When was the first time you met Syrians not through the gun sights?

“In 1995 I went with Chief of Staff Ehud Barak, on behalf of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, to meet the Syrian Chief of Staff Hikmat Shihabi. The meeting also included Itamar Rabinovich and Danny Yatom. It was a fascinating meeting, in the sense of intellectual stubbornness, but also Syrian stability, fortitude and even faith in their inner truth. I understood the Syrian position but I also found several openings and points of interface from which we could move on.”

The point of departure was the so-called “Rabin deposit.” Could you explain those simple words to the public?

Israelis don’t read. We are the people of the book who do not like to read books. You have to understand what the Rabin deposit said, because this was later used by four other prime ministers. One of them, Netanyahu, denies it, but his denial will not withstand the test of history. The deposit said that Israel would ultimately be willing to retreat to the June 4, 1967 lines, as long as it is satisfied in the areas of security, borders, water and normalization. A sentence and a half that was said verbally and then deposited in writing in the American pocket. Once it was said to the Syrians you have a basis for negotiations. It is still valid today. I think Bashar Assad does not understand the ethos, he recites it. The June 4 ethos touches upon matters of belonging, that what was taken by force shall be returned, who started the war. It is not a material thing, it is something you have to learn. Rabin talked about the June 4 lines but when I met the Syrians I managed to refute that there even was such a line. If negotiations resume the argument will break out again. There is no June 4 line, and therefore everybody will have to explain what they mean.”

So what did Rabin mean?

“Rabin knew what the Syrians wanted to hear, but I’m not sure how deeply he studied the ethos. Rabin also touched upon the Israeli ethos. Israelis are usually good at what they don’t want to happen and less clear about what they do want to happen. But here they said: we want security, agreed borders, normalization, water. Water is measurable but wading with your feet in the water of the Kinneret is an ethos. If in negotiations with the Syrians we rely only on the legal side, we are doomed to fail. You have to understand deeper cultural things.”

But in the end Rabin recoiled.

“In 1993 he was already unsure whether the agreement would pass. Listen to a story. At that time I participated in a critical talk in his office. The heads of all the negotiating track teams were called for a briefing. There were maybe six of us. Out of all the people in the room only Rabin, Barak and I knew that he was about to make a decision about Oslo. Rabin told me: ‘Israel is facing two important strategic decisions. Of the two tracks, what do you recommend?’ I said it was not the job of the chief of intelligence, and he replied: ‘Now you are in a discussion like at a kibbutz meeting. Speak freely.’ I told him I thought that Israel should prefer the Syrian track. Ehud Barak agreed and Rabin said: ‘I also think Israel’s strategic and military national interest is to close with the Syrians and then leverage that in favor of an agreement with the Palestinians, but I do not think I can pass that.’ And then I made a terrible and even impertinent mistake and asked him: ‘Mr. Prime Minister, why can’t you pass that here in public opinion?’  He went right along with me and said: ‘I have no way to pass that.’ I told him: ‘But your public as there, most of the people of the Golan are Labor Party settlers.’ And then he told me: ‘It is obvious you don’t understand anything about Israeli politics.’”

Lauder’s document

One of the conversations with Saguy, a seventh generation Israeli and a scion of settlers from Yisud Hamaalah, was held in the garden of his home in the village of Kfar Bialik. The recording was disturbed by the twitter of birds and the rumble of tractor engines. A large portion of his time is devoted to manufacturing olive oil and the business’s showroom displays prizes and citations in the field. After his discharge from the army he joined the Labor Party and was mentioned as a candidate to be a minister and Knesset member, but he avoided running in the primaries.

“I did not go into active politics because I understood that my added value in the current system would not be great,” he justifies. “It is true that in my generation better men than I reached the bleak conclusion that we are seemingly giving up. In one gathering of friends at our house Ilan Biran and Amir Drori and other friends were present. We talked, we complained and then my son piped up and said: ‘We grew up believing you guys were great heroes, leaders of the military system. But from what I hear here you are big cowards.’ And I would add: civilian courage is not less needed than courage on the battlefield. That is a criticism that we truly deserve.”

In the last decade Saguy has not met Syrian representatives and instead deepened his historic-academic knowledge in the area. This pursuit began in 1996, “when I was discharged from the IDF and invited for an academic sabbatical at Rice University in Texas at the James Baker Institute. I spent a few months there and wrote a thesis about the Israeli-Syrian dialogue. I met a lot of Syrians there. As chief of intelligence people avoid you, as a civilian I learned more. The research question was whether an Israeli prime minister would be willing to make peace with Syria, knowing the price.”

And what was your answer?

“I was asked both about Netanyahu, whom I did not know, and about Barak, and I estimated that they would. Today I am aware of an attempt by Netanyahu, which I appreciate, but he’s doing it with the wrong representatives. What I mean is, the emissary does not have his own agenda but if he has problems of comprehension then you fail. With Shihabi there was no problem, he understood what Hafez Assad wanted. Itamar Rabinovich and Barak and Shahak also understood what their boss wanted. Whereas Lauder went to talk about far-reaching proposals, which are formulated very wisely, but what is interesting is that it did not work.”

Did Netanyahu consult you during his first term?

“He did not rely on my knowledge beyond conversations here and there. He summoned me a few times, asked my opinion, consulted here and there. I do not understand why, but I told him that at Rice University the Americans asked me whether the new Prime Minister had what it takes to make an agreement with Syria, and without knowing him I said yes and explained. At one of the meetings Netanyahu asked to see my paper. I don’t know if it is good or not but he still hasn’t given it back to me. Maybe this is an opportunity to ask for it back.”

Once and for all, what exactly is Netanyahu’s position on this subject?

“During those conversations I did not know to what extent the services of Ron Lauder were being used. Later I would read the Lauder document. It is a very intelligent, well-worded document, and it circumvents the unavoidable debate between June 4 and the international line. On the other hand I know that Uzi Arad and maybe even Netanyahu deny what it says, so I leave it to the judgment of history. But if I were the head of Syrian intelligence reading the Lauder document, and I were asked whether the Israeli prime minister intended to retreat from the entire Golan Heights at the end of the day, I would answer yes. They understand that Netanyahu intended no less than Rabin intended, and Peres intended and Barak and Olmert intended. I reached the conclusion that five prime ministers argued about tactics but understood that in an agreement they had to retreat from the whole Golan Heights.”

Could the present Netanyahu make peace with Syria?

“I don’t know about his will. He has the ability, both personally and politically. But he has to decide that is the goal. There will not be a more convenient political situation. Barak is with him and the opposition will support it if there is a reasonable agreement. And if Barak is there I trust them there will be a reasonable agreement. Barak does not need my advice in the press. He is well aware of what was missed. They can do it but I see no sign. Maybe they will still surprise us, who knows.”

Barak’s withdrawal

A key figure in this story was and remained Ehud Barak. As Prime Minister and Defense Minister, Barak sent Saguy to secret meetings (see separate box) in Switzerland and the US “to try to get a draft that would allow renewal of negotiations,” in Saguy’s words. “There were two main, multi-session meetings. I traveled alone. I met Riyadh Daoudi. In Israeli terms, the attorney general. Dennis Ross was also there as the kashrut supervisor. This I am already allowed to tell. Later, for a meeting in the US, Daoudi asked if he could bring with him General Ibrahim Omar from the Syrian military intelligence, who had attended the 1996 meetings under Peres. I was still alone. I preferred not to bring a legal adviser. To this day I am against the tendency to let the legal side run our lives. It is another symptom of lack of leadership.”

How did the meetings go?

“They were instructive. That is where I learned it is not about technical things but about the ethos. I told Barak: ‘I suggest we talk to them about June 4.’ At first the approach was absolutely not. So I said ‘let’s try at least to ask them, when you say June 4 what do you mean.’ That was the fascinating part of the meetings. I prepared, I was equipped with plunder maps. I like to prepare for wars. I watched the Syrian thesis sort of collapse layer by layer. And then we could start talking. Until Barak no Israeli leader, and I say this to his credit, ever touched the core. No Israeli leader was willing to put his hands in the muck.

“Barak has a tremendous learning curve. He was willing, and I think he even wanted, to reach an agreement with Syria. Each side reported back to their country that there is what to talk about. The fact is that even the Americans publicized right afterwards the fact that the talks had taken place, and invited the sides to an open meeting at Blair House. There was a positive meeting there too, even though Al-Shara made a big mistake when he refused to shake Barak’s hand. He offended the Israeli honor. The damage to Israeli public opinion was huge. The Syrians came ready technically but they do not know the Israeli mentality well enough.”

So the problem was public opinion?

“Barak deliberated. After one of the last meetings, when we prepared the agreed solution that collapsed in Geneva, he asked me: ‘Will this agreement pass?’ I told him I thought it would. He asked: ‘What leads you to say that?’ I said the agreement was responsible and good and that it passed two reasonable people like you and me, who understand the Israeli interests.”

A month ago Barak told me on the pages of the Saturday Supplement that the problems were different.

“Maybe you need to interview him again. At the basis he really wanted it. He called me and others to the flag and allowed me to invest real inputs in it. He drew in the US as the leader and made sure Israel had military-political alternatives if we gave up the Golan Heights. But at the moment of truth, if you don’t score that goal you don’t have a goal.”

He claims that the Shepherdstown summit failed for two reasons: the lack of compartmentalization with the media and Assad Sr.’s worsening illness.

“I read the interview. It seems esoteric to me to pin this on the technical matter of the location of the meeting. It seems to me like a comment Barak might want to reconsider. Not that I am wowed by Shepherdstown, it is a town there is nothing to write home about. But those are questions of conduct, not of substance. I do not understand that comment. I said there was a deep dispute between us Israelis whether this stage was ripe for the prime minister to go to those talks. After all, Syria sent its foreign minister. And he made a decision. He went there with the feeling he was going to bring peace. Therefore a comment about the location of the talks as an obstacle seems strange to me. There was another strange thing that I learned from the interview. It should not have surprised Barak that Hafez Assad was sick. We knew that. Precisely because of his sickness there was a desire by Israel, the Americans and the Syrians to accelerate, because Hafez had the ability to make decisions. His son has a little less.”

So what happened in Shepherdstown?

“As opposed to our promise, we were not willing to talk about the questions of borders and water. We promised at the Blair House meeting that we would talk about everything and then Israel changed its mind. I had ready teams there for every subject. We sat there, we played sports, we waited for something to happen. After a day and a half I asked Barak what was going on. The question remained hanging in the air. I understood that something went wrong. It was strange, both in conduct and in substance. The place felt to me like the waiting room of a health fund, the kind where you take a number. Everybody was wandering around the hallways and waiting to begin talking.”

And you never clarifed this question with Barak?

“I don’t think it was possible to clarify it. Look who was there with him. Foreign Minister David Levy. Minister Amnon Lipkin Shahak. I as the head of the team. Atty. Gen. Elyakim Rubenstein. All to back up the fateful decision. He didn’t bring us there for nothing. I remember us all looking at each other, making hallway conversation and not understanding.”

How did it end?

“If collapsed at a dramatic dinner, with not-so-great American food. There were three of us on each side. A-Shara made a harsh speech, spilling out all of his frustration for more than 20 minutes. He attacked the Israeli approach that couldn’t decide. He said to Barak: ‘You said we were going to talk here about borders and water, that is what I reported to my president. It did not happen. What am I going to tell him now, that I deceived him?’ Barak tried to explain that he had political issues, that he had to be in Israel, to do some more checks, and then A-Shara confronted him sarcastically: ‘Who else can you consult? You have the best experts here. You are a military man, Shahak was Chief of Staff, Saguy was chief of intelligence, who else do you need?’ Clinton shared that feeling of disappointment.”

What was going through your head during those moments?

“Frustration and that we were missing an opportunity. I do not like getting lectured by Farouq A-Shara. We could have avoided that. If you don’t mean it, why do you start? But I am telling you we did mean it. Barak wanted it. We had a historic feeling. I am aware of the differences of opinion in Israeli society and the fact that there is a sharp and real debate here, but I felt that we were immeasurably improving Israel’s strategic situation.”

Barak actually agreed to return to the June 4 lines and then he recoiled?

“That is the core. If you ask whether we achieved border arrangements and security, water and normalization, the answer is yes. If you ask why it collapsed anyway, I go back to the elusive question of the ethos. To this day I and others wonder about that. Everything that has to do with technical things I felt we could solve, including things I was not in charge of, such as how to relocate our population from the Golan to another place in Israel. Barak went into the matter deeply, very thoroughly, and I have no answer what happened to him at the last minute.”

Wading in shallow water

One of our conversations took place a day before the Turkish flotilla. Saguy did not want to waste time on it. “This is a single incident. A politician deals with incidents, a statesman is supposed to deal with processes,” he explained. The next day I went back to him. I could not resist asking him if during the day he thought about the Entebbe Operation, during which he commanded a Golani force that landed at the Uganda airport. “You will not hear a word from me about the fighters,” he declared. “If I have anything to say it is about our leadership’s ability to clarify goals and ascertain that they are achievable. Entebbe is an incident, even if a constitutive incident. Life is not Entebbe. Life is much grayer. To survive in the Middle East we have to have a strong force but we cannot, for the sake of the continuity of life year, rely only on military power. It is just not possible. Maybe we can’t see this but occasionally we receive painful slaps.”

But what do you learn from the flotilla anyway?

“It is a hard event but I do not draw conclusions from it about wading in the shallow water of tactics. Here we have the embodiment of arguments in the name of justice that do not necessarily help achieve the goal. In the name of historic justice and the justice of our arguments we can bring disaster on ourselves. That’s the way it is when everything turns into the rock of our existence, in an almost fatalistic, historiosophic tone, and we both know where that comes from. Opening the Western Wall Tunnel, just like preventing the entry of consignments into Gaza — even if both decisions come from the most correct arguments — if it is not done rationally, the outcome is fatal. I look at this process with grave concern. Israel is looking worse and worse. We are not listened to even when we are right. Even when we are fighting terror. We have to ask why this is happening. I have a very hard time with the school of thought of people who think they know everything, that they are right about everything, and that move into the third phase of messianic righteousness. That is a bad thing. I would prefer we were a little humbler and try to understand there are other factors that influence reality.”

Such as?

“We underestimate the way the world sees us. I am not saying we are not right. Justice is subjective. But we are fighting less and less over the loss of our legitimacy. We are exposed to criticism that is only going to grow, until the Goldstone report will look like a small foretaste of what is yet to come. I hope I do not sound like a preacher and I am aware of my handicap, I am not the son of a historian. But the historic perspective of someone raised on practical Zionism allows me to say I see little deployment to meet this challenge. Complacence is a sure recipe for inaction. Israel has initiated almost nothing in the last years, except for a few military operations, which were also reactive.”

The concerned and disturbed citizen

Towards the end I asked Saguy whether a restarting of the political process by renewing the Syrian track was even realistic. “Bashar Assad is right when he says that more than 80% of the issues were resolved at the time,” he replied, “and the rest could be resolved in a meeting between the leaders. The average Israeli does not think we need to leave the Golan Heights in exchange for an agreement. This reflects a reality that I understand, of Israelis who hoped and believed and were disappointed. But leaders — if they are statesmen and not politicians — have to decide whether they believe that a political agreement with Syria is a primary interest of Israel. If the answer is yes then they have to make sure the agreement is good and then market it to the public. Ben Gurion said: ‘It doesn’t matter what the people want, I will decide what the people need.’”

And this is what the people need now as a top priority?

“That is debatable. I just want to mention that I have already seen different experiences. At the end of the next war you can bet Israel will be looking for political dialogue. Since 1974 the border with Syria has been quiet. Except for two incidents, one at Hispin and one at Mt. Hermon at Mitzpeh Shlagim, there were no incidents at all, because that is a Syrian interest. If it is in their interest you can be sure they can be trusted.”

Still, the average Israeli asks himself why the Syrians deserve to receive the Golan Heights.

“The question of whether I’m willing to give up the Golan Heights is a political question. What is willing? Okay, I am not willing. The question is what the alternative is. What are we going to be talking about at the end of the next war, that will have many casualties, our home front will also be hit, not just the Syrians’, and I tend to assume it will end with an Israeli military victory? We will be talking about the same things. We can spare it.”

Are Netanyahu and Barak capable of pursuing this?

“What is the test of leadership? An Israeli prime minister can during his term make no more than a single decision of historical significance. Even if it costs him his job. If we have a historic leadership with a vision — and after all the prime minister and defense minister claim to have one — then they cannot spend their term only maintaining the status quo and responding to all kinds of incidents.”

Do you claim that the alternative is war?

“Not deciding is also a decision. Of course it increases the chances of a military confrontation. According to what has been published, there have already been incidents between Syria and Israel in the last two years. I suggest listening to Arab leaders seriously. Bashar Assad did not say when, he did not say for sure, but he did say that the alternative way to achieve his interests includes the use of force. We do not need to be afraid of him but we should not dismiss him. Sadat said this a year before October 1973 and we tended to dismiss it.”

If you had another chance, how long would it take you to conclude a deal with the Syrians?

“That is not a fair question. It is not a consequence of my talents. It is true that the knowledge is there. I still function pretty well physically and mentally. I still remember everything. Some accuse me of remembering too much. I do not know how to conclude any deal in a vacuum. I do know how to do it if Israel decides it is its interest. It is still attainable. Until that happens I will continue to be a concerned and disturbed citizen. Israel deserves to avoid being a historic episode. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing is guaranteed here.”

—–

[Box]

“Ashkenazi’s prism is not only military”

If you want to know what the chief of staff thinks you can ask Uri Saguy

Uri Saguy is considered one of the pillars of the “Golani family,” whose veterans periodically meet in his large yard. The most intriguing aspect of that culture is the ongoing consulting he gives the incumbent chief of staff. It is interesting to note that it was recently reported that Gabi Ashkenazi, along with the head of the Shabak Yuval Diskin and even the hawkish head of the Mossad Meir Dagan have been putting pressure on the political echelon to re-examine the Syrian track. I asked Saguy what he knows about that unusual step by the heads of the security arms. “These are three very responsible people,” he replied. “They have been supporting Israel’s national security for many years and with great talent. So if they have something to say, I am sure they say it where they need to. I don’t know if what was attributed to them is true, but when it comes to Ashkenazi, whom I meet a lot, he has a solid worldview. A broad perspective, that does not look only through the military prism.”

Ashkenazi is considered a consistent supporter of a political agreement with Syria.

“I do not want to speak for him but I think he has a very coherent worldview of Israel’s national and military interests and he is attentive, open, understanding, informed.”

How does your dialogue with the Chief of Staff work?

“As soon as he took office he asked to consult a number of veterans. I am one of them. There are not many. As long as I am asked I will continue advising. That is how I do my ‘reserve duty.’ A year and a half ago I participated in a large exercise and they even sent me those coupons for the bus. It was amusing. In the end I took the train.”

—–

[Box]

“I was not a blonde woman”

Little stories that cannot be told

Naturally, the secrecy of the preliminary meetings Saguy held on behalf of Prime Minister Barak had its intruiguing side. “At home I did not say anything,” he recalls. “It is a strange quality of mine. My daughter is angry at me that to this day I have not told them what happened in Entebbe. I tell her it is too early.”

Did you travel in disguise?

“Yes, yes. I was not a blonde woman but I definitely went in disguise and not for the first time. It was a pretty fascinating business. You are on a flight, sitting across from people who know you well, and they simply do not identify you. No matter how much they prepare you and hide you, in the end you meet somebody unplanned on the flight. The head of El Al security at Kennedy Airport was a subordinate of mine. He did not identify me either. I could tell something looked strange to him but he did not manage to attach the body build to the person. It was amusing. In the end I told him who I was, I couldn’t take it.”

As far as you know, what is happening today on the Syrian track?

“Not much. There are feelers. At the indirect talks in Turkey the sides refreshed their files a little. We have to find a way, not without the Americans and not through messages in the media, to have secret meetings to ascertain whether there is a basis to renew negotiations.”

Are you involved in such communications?

“No, but even if I were involved I could not tell you.”

Tit-for-tat Diplomatic War between Syria and US:
Syrian Visas for Americans are no longer being issued at the border with Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey. They must be procured in Washington. For the last few years Syria did issue visas at the border, but made Americans wait between an hour to seven hours before issuing them. Now they are not being issued at all. This appears to be part of the tit-for-tat diplomatic war being waged between the two countries. Washington recently refused to confirm Ambassador Ford as the new US envoy to Damascus.  Fulbright graduate students have also been running into increased troubles. A fairly large number of graduate Fulbrighters have been denied entry back into Syria once they leave the country at the end of their grants. Faculty Fulbright Grants seem no longer to be advertised at all.  One recent recipient was denied permission by the Syrian government and is seeking permission to go elsewhere even though her topic on Syria is fairly advanced.

Addendum: A WORD OF ADVICE TO FUTURE FULBRIGHT SCHOLARS IN SYRIA:

Dear Professor Landis,
I commend you on having addressed a troubling trend which has become apparent in the Fulbright program in Syria. Over the past two years, most of the American Fulbright fellows who were in Syria were either deported or prevented from returning to Syria upon the completion of their grants. This occurred in the cases of all Fulbright grantees who studied in Syria in 2007-08, no exceptions. Most were informed that they were banned from reentering Syria upon leaving the country; others were either deported or prevented from reentering the country after their departures. The only two Fulbright fellows who studied in Syria in 2008-09 who attempted to return to Syria after the completion of their grants were denied entry. We can only assume that the same pattern will be repeated with future groups of Fulbright fellows. I advise all future Fulbright fellows to Syria to think twice before accepting the grant, because they might end up in a situation in which they can never return to Syria, one the main cultural and historical centres of the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Fulbright program and IIE have not done enough to solve problems surrounding the Fulbright program. We can only hope that this situation will improve pending ambassador Ford’s confirmation. Sadly, scholars pay the price for the sins of politicians, and being a scholar in the Middle East has never been more difficult. I hope, at the very least, that this note will help open people’s eyes to the reality of a situation which has inflicted untold damage on the academic and professional lives of scholars from diverse backgrounds who are committed to studying Syrian history and culture with an open mind and in the spirit of mutual exchange and cooperation.

Sincerely, Anonymous

BBC MidEast: Syrian, US sources deny reports Syrian envoy withdrawn from Washington [JL – Word has it that Ambassador Moustapha is now enjoying himself on the French Riviera]
2010-06-14 Excerpt from report by London-based independent newspaper Al- Quds al-Arabi website on 14 June

[Report by Kamil Saqr in Damascus: “Following Senate’s Refusal To Appoint Robert Ford Ambassador in Damascus, US and Syrian Sources; Ambassador Mustafa’s Long Vacation Does Not Mean a Call Back From his Duties”] The sparse information from US and Syrian sources in the Syrian capital Damascus about the issue of the long stay which the Syrian ambassador to the United States is spending inside Syria has resulted in an almost identical denial that this long stay implies a decision by the Syrian leadership to withdraw its Ambassador in Washington Imad Mustafa following the US Senate’s rejection of Robert Ford who was nominated by President Obama’s administration to be its ambassador in Damascus.

In the details that “Al-Quds al-Arabi” has obtained, a high- level Syrian source with connections to the Syrian Foreign Ministry expressed its surprise at the reports that Syria had withdrawn Imad Mustafa, its ambassador in Washington, in response to Washington’s delay in sending its ambassador to Damascus. It pointed out that Amb. Mustafa “is having a working vacation” in Syria and took part in several official occasions and meetings in Damascus. When the same source was asked if matters had recently reached what could be a dead end in the prospects of the political dialogue and thus prompted Syria to withdraw its ambassador, the source said contacts were continuing between the Syrian and American capitals and there was no blocked prospect between the two countries…..

Three Opposition rights activists Freed
Three opposition rights activists Freed who called for democratic change in Syria were freed on Sunday after serving out their full jail terms, a human rights group said
Sunday, June 13, 2010
By: AP writers

DAMASCUS, June 13, 2010 (AFP) – Three opposition rights activists who called for democratic change in Syria were freed on Sunday after serving out their full jail terms, a human rights group said.

Al-Bunni

“The Syrian authorities today released Akram Bunni, Jabr al-Shufi and Ahmed Tomeh after they had served their sentences” for signing the so-called Damascus Declaration, the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said.
The three were among 12 signatories of the Damascus Declaration, which calls for democratic change, who were sentenced to 30 months in jail in October 2008 in a court in the Syrian capital for “damaging the state.”

“The remaining Damascus Declaration leaders will be released in the coming days,” the SOHR said in a statement.
Those still in jail are author Ali Abdullah, Dr Walid Bunni, former MP Riad Seif and Fidaa Hurani, Yasser al-Iti, Mohammed Haji Darwish, Marwan al-Ish, Fayez Sara and Talal Abu-Dan.

Akram Bunni, freed on Sunday, is a brother of human rights lawyer Anwar Bunni, who is serving a five-year jail term. The rights group welcomed the releases, and urged the government to “free all prisoners of conscience in Syrian prisons to bring an end to this issue.” It also urged Damascus to “allow the return of all exiles who fear being jailed” if they come home, and to “pass a law allowing political parties and civil groups to operate in Syria in a way that would preserve national unity.”

Egyptian police seized Khaled Said, a 28-year-old Egyptian man, at a cyber-cafe in Alexandria and proceeded to beat him to death. The event sparked protest and condemnation, with protests at the Alexandria prosecutor’s office, widespread outrage in online forums, and calls by international human rights groups for a full investigation. On Sunday protests spread to Cairo, where police arrested dozens of demonstrators, reportedly beating many of them. The incident brings to the forefront concerns over Egypt’s record of torture and other egregious human rights violations. …

Ayman Abdalnour’s website – All4Syria – has published an article purporting to explain the The New Syrian Bourgeoisie. The author breaks down the new wealthy into sections, such as the military bourgeoisie, traditional, government, etc. It lists names and is controversial. One reader of Syria Comment writes:

Dear Joshua,  I would not link to this article. There is a lot more credible news out there than this sensational populist leftist reporting. I cannot believe you are promoting anything from all4Syria, especially this leftist, communist propaganda. Who uses the term “bourgeoisie” anymore? I was once accused by a stupid university guard who was wearing flip flops and carrying a big Kalashnikov, of being a bourgeois because I took a taxicab to university in Damascus. Joshua, these are fighting words.

U.S. Deploys Tech Firms to Win Syrian Allies Article
By JAY SOLOMON in Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—The State Department has dispatched a high-level diplomatic and trade mission to Syria, according to senior U.S. officials, marking the latest bid by the Obama administration to woo President Bashar al-Assad away from his strategic alliance with Iran.

The U.S. delegation comprises senior executives from some of America’s top technology companies, including Microsoft Corp., Dell Inc., Cisco Systems Inc. and Symantec Corp., according to the U.S. officials. All these companies’ businesses in Syria are constrained by U.S. sanctions.

The mission is controversial, given recent U.S. allegations that Syria transferred missiles to the Lebanese militant radical group Hezbollah. Syria, Hezbollah and Lebanon deny the allegations.

U.S. officials said the group will meet with Mr. Assad and his cabinet and seek to facilitate the flow of information technology into the Arab state, which is ranked by watchdog group Freedom House as among the most repressive in the world. The delegation will also meet with Syrian businessmen, members of the country’s civil society and travel to two leading Syrian universities in a four-day stay, ending Thursday.

Mr. Assad has previously expressed to the Obama administration his desire to develop Syria’s telecommunications infrastructure, which has been imperiled by U.S. sanctions since 2004, according to American officials involved in the trip.

“We’re going into this open-minded. This has never been done before with a country of this nature,” said a senior U.S. official. “We’re hopeful and optimistic that this will lead to collaborations. But that’s something we can’t be sure about until the trip is done.”

The delegation is being led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s point man on global promotion of Internet freedoms, Alec Ross…..

“I think the administration is fooling itself it believes that this type of engagement will bring about a more democratic Syria,” said Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syrian dissident based in Washington. “Assad has shown absolutely no signs of loosening his grip on society, and in many ways he’s gotten worse.”

Mrs. Clinton has made the spread of information technology a cornerstone of her foreign-policy mandate, arguing it can aid the global development of democracy and civil society.

In recent months, the Obama administration has taken steps to ease exports of certain types of telecommunications equipment and antifiltering software that were previously banned from entering countries such as Iran, China and Sudan out of concern they would be used as tools of government oppression.

Syria is Iran’s closest strategic and diplomatic ally. U.S. officials have publicly voiced their interest in driving a wedge between the two, in part by appealing to Mr. Assad’s desire to modernize his economy.

U.S. sanctions ban the sale of virtually all high-technology equipment and parts to Syria. But the legislation provides the White House with waiver powers that can allow U.S. companies to sell certain products to the Syrian market.

Over the past year, U.S. officials said they have facilitated the sales of spare airplane parts to Syria’s national carrier as part of the process. Members of the current U.S. mission to Syria said it is aimed at assisting companies such as Microsoft and Cisco to more easily enter the Syrian market.

Opposition among Republicans on Capitol Hill toward the Obama administration’s engagement policy with Syria remains strong. A number of leading Republican senators have threatened to place a hold on the White House’s nominee for ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, until they are given a clearer reading on Syria’s alleged arms transfers of missiles to Hezbollah.

U.S. officials said they briefed lawmakers in Congress ahead of the trip and believed the State Department had their support.

Turkey, the 16th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest economy in Europe, has proposed a free trade zone with Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Turkey’s trade with Arab countries topped USD 29 billion in 2009. Its trade with Iran was $10 billion in 2008. Erdoghan recently said that he expects Turkey to be the 10th largest economy in the world by 2025.

Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan to Set Up Free Trade Zone
Written by Adam Gonn
Published Sunday, June 13, 2010

As Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria sign free trade agreement, analysts discuss whether a new regional trading zone is in the cards.

Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria have agreed to set-up a regional agreement that would allow for free trade and travel between the four countries.

The news, first reported by the Lebanese business website iloubnan.info, would mean the removal of visas for travel between the four countries, as well as the establishment of a joint cooperation council to develop a free trade zone.

The deal, signed by the foreign ministers of the four countries on the sidelines of the Turkey-Arab Cooperation Forum in Istanbul, comes only one week after Turkey presented a range of measures to strengthen its economic ties with its eastwards neighbors, including Syria, Iraq and Iran. ….

ANALYSIS-Arab banks eye small but profitable Syrian market

* Major Arab banks setting up branches in Syria
* Bankers see opportunities if reforms continue
* Private bank assets may reach $30 bln in 3 years

By Khaled Yacoub Oweis DAMASCUS, June 14 (Reuters) – After decades of state control and isolation, Syria’s moves to ease restrictions on its banking sector offer international banks a potentially lucrative opportunity in one of the last untapped Arab markets.

Big regional banks, which include Jordan’s Arab Bank, Qatar National Bank and Lebanon’s Bank Audi, boosted branch numbers to 145 last year from 83 in 2008, despite currency and financial restraints.

And though Western banks are still steering clear, 13 newer entrants have increased their assets in Syria to $9 billion — out of total bank assets of $43 billion — and one banker said he expected that figure to triple in three years.

“Conditions in Syria are not perfect, but if reforms continue it will be one of the most important Middle East markets in the next five years,” said Hassan Heikal, chief executive officer of Egypt’s EFG-Hermes which plans to launch a $250-300 million private equity fund in Syria.

The expansion has been spurred by Syria’s cautious steps towards liberalisation started by President Bashar al-Assad, who succeeded his late father, Hafez al-Assad in 2000.

New regulations have allowed foreign majority shareholding of banks and trade finance, but foreign banks cannot open branches outright in Syria. Banks can also adjust interest rates within an expanded four percentage point margin set by the central bank, but the Syrian pound is not fully convertible.

The central bank says reforms can only be gradual, pointing to regulations limiting exposure to outside markets that have helped Syrian banks weather the financial crisis.

But financiers say the banking sector will not thrive if the state keeps maintains its dominant role in the economy, a legacy of four decades of Baath Party rule that discouraged foreign investment and caused capital to flee.

Bassel Hamwi, who heads the Syrian unit of Bank Audi, said he expected private sector bank assets to grow to $23-35 billion over the next three years and predicted a “bonanza” if U.S. sanctions were lifted, Syria privatised state assets, issued treasury bills and allowed private sector banks to compete with state banks for government business….

NEW APPLICANTS – Western banks have stayed away from Syria, partly due to U.S. sanctions imposed on Damascus since 2004 for its support of militant groups. The U.S. Treasury also imposed specific sanctions on well connected Syrians for corruption.

But the central bank expects to receive applications for three Gulf bank licences, including Saudi Arabia’s Samba, and is working on an investment banking law.

Egypt’s state-owned Banque Misr said last week it has received approval to open in Syria. Turkey’s Akbank said it was also looking into the Syrian market, and Syria’s finance minister said on Friday Turkey’s state-run Ziraat Bank would take a stake of up to 60 percent in a joint bank in Syria…

Criticism of Israel permitted in US policy shift
Tuesday June 8, 2010

UNITED NATIONS, June 8 (Reuters) – Under President Barack Obama, the United States no longer provides Israel with automatic support at the United Nations where the Jewish state faces a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation….

In an article called “Joining the jackals,” Elliott Abrams, who advised two Republican administrations and is now at the Council on Foreign Relations, accused Obama of exposing Israel to a virtual UN “lynch mob.”

“The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel,” Abrams said. “Rather, its policy is one of distancing and pressure.”

Abrams also criticized the White House over the recent five-year review conference of signatories to the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Israel, like nuclear-armed Pakistan and India, has never signed.

Washington backed a call for a 2012 meeting of all countries in the Middle East to discuss making the region a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction — a plan originally proposed by Egypt with Arab backing to add pressure on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.

After allowing it to pass, the U.S. delegation criticized the NPT final declaration for “singling out” Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having atomic weapons.

This statement did not satisfy commentators like Abrams, who said Obama had “abandoned Israel in the U.N. and in the NPT conference in the course of one week.”

Some analysts say Washington wants to improve ties with Arab nations and regain lost status as a neutral peace arbiter while being careful not to alienate pro-Israel voters.

“During the George W. Bush years, Washington’s automatic siding with Israel on any issue seriously eroded what had been America’s long-standing posture as an honest broker in the Middle East,” said Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

“Obama has been trying to reclaim that status, while keeping in mind the domestic political need of not being seen as anti-Israel,” he said….

American Enterprise Institute: On June 10 a Whose Who of neocons praised Syria and the accomplishments of President Bashar al-Assad on the occasion of his 10th anniversary as president. See Elliott Abrams, Tony Badran, Scott Carpenter, Danielle Pletka, David Schenker, Brian Fishman, William D. Wunderle, Bill Harris, Andrew Tabler, and Michael Rubin spoke on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Bashar’s ascension to power. See their remarks by clicking: Click full video and you will be taken to a link where you can select to view any specific speaker’s comments.

Turkey’s shift spurs concern on Capitol Hill
Flotilla clash draws scorn
By Rowan Scarborough
8:38 p.m., Sunday, June 13, 2010

Rep. Mike Pence said on the House floor that Turkey’s actions are “deeply troubling.” (Associated Press)PrintEmailView 10Comment(s)Enlarge Text|ShrinkClick-2-

The deadly May 31 flotilla clash off Gaza has prompted some in Congress to condemn Turkey, not Israel, and to note with concern Ankara’s steady shift in favor of U.S. adversaries Iran and Hamas.

While the world press reported international criticism of Israel, away from the headlines was a bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers criticizing Turkey for home-porting the flotilla that Israel says carried terrorist-linked activists. The ships were organized by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), whose leaders acknowledge their aim was to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

For years, Turkey has held a special place on Capitol Hill as a NATO ally and Muslim country maintaining close economic and military ties to the Jewish state. Turkey has acted as a go-between in Israel-Arab dialogue. But that relationship started to sour several years ago, and now some in Congress are taking a second, more critical look at Turkey.

“I urge you to condemn Turkey’s support of IHH which has been known to maintain ties to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Al Qaeda,” Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., New Jersey Democrat, wrote in a letter to President Obama. “I also ask that you condemn Turkey’s reaction to the incident involving the flotilla. Rather than engaging in an open dialogue, Turkey has chosen to recall their ambassador from Israel and disrupt diplomatic relations. … Turkey has chosen to ignore the facts and force its own view of events through threat. We can not allow these same old tactics to prevent us from taking the right position.”..

One of the harshest attacks came from the Republican House leadership.

“The complicity of Turkey in launching a flotilla to challenge the blockade in Gaza, the ensuing violence that occurred, the grievous loss of life is deeply troubling to those of us who have supported the U.S. Turkish alliance in the past,” Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who heads the House Republican Conference, said on the House floor.

“Hamas used the Gaza Strip to launch vicious and brutal attacks, thousands of rockets on civilians,” he said. “It cost lives in Gaza, it cost lives in Israel. Turkey needs to count the cost. Turkey needs to decide whether its present course is in its long-term interest.”

Rep. John Sarbanes, Maryland Democrat, said the U.N. inquiry should not look just at Israeli actions….

“ICRC says Israel’s Gaza blockade breaks law” by Imogen Foulkes (BBC)

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has said…. “The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law,” the agency said in the statement.

And the ICRC blames differences between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for some of Gaza’s shortages. But the key message from the body which rarely publicly criticises governments is that Israel’s blockade of Gaza must be lifted. That message is yet another indication of growing international concern over conditions in Gaza – just last week US President Barack Obama called the situation there unsustainable.

Egypt raises the retirement age to 65 from 60 for workers entering the workforce from 2012. It also stipulates the establishment of a pension and unemployment fund for each employee, in the public and private sectors, into which employers and employees will contribute, a parliament official said.

Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn’t about security
By Sheera Frenkel | McClatchy Newspapers

JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as “economic warfare” against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

Jordan’s Nuclear Ambitions Pose Quandary for the U.S.
BY JAY SOLOMON in WSJ

SAWAQA, Jordan—The Kingdom of Jordan is in a sprint to become the Arab world’s next nuclear power. And America wants to help it succeed.

U.S. and Jordanian officials are negotiating a nuclear-cooperation agreement that would allow American firms to export nuclear components and know-how to the Mideast country, America’s closest Arab ally in the volatile region.

The Obama administration views Jordan as a key potential partner in its global program to promote the nonmilitary use of atomic energy—part of a broader plan to increase pressure on other Middle East countries, particularly Iran and Syria, to bring transparency to their own …

Syria Comment is not dangerous.

It is not infected with a virus or malware.

Many readers are receiving warnings from their webbrowser claiming that Syria Comment is a danger.

It is not a danger. The malware script that triggered the warning a week ago was immediately cleaned from the server. Unfortunately, Google, which flags the site and introduces the warning to the various webbrowsers, such as Firefox and Internet Explorer, must reconsider Syria Comment’s status. 

This can take a few weeks because a live person must review my request.

Syria Comment is not dangerous. Thanks for your patience. SC has stepped up security measures to frustrate malicious attackers.