Turkey, Syria to hold joint army drills
26 April 2010

AFP – Turkish and Syrian soldiers will hold joint drills this week to enhance border security cooperation, the Turkish general staff said Monday.

The announcement came as yet another sign of the flourishing ties between the two neighbours, came to the brink of war in the late 1990s after decades of hostility.

The three-day exercises, starting Tuesday at two border outposts on the Turkish side of the frontier, aim to “boost cooperation and confidence between the land forces of the two countries and raise border units’ level of training and ability to work together,” the statement said.

Turkey has significantly improved ties with Syria in recent years, much to the annoyance of Israel, its once close ally with whom relations have badly deteriorated.

The Syrian and Turkish militaries held joint exercises in April last year, stirring criticism from the Jewish state.

from JPost

….Until Operation Cast Lead last winter, the IAF frequently flew over Turkey, and had participated in several annual exercises with the Turkish Air Force. Following the offensive against Hamas and the deterioration in Israeli-Turkish relations, Ankara has refused to allow Israel to deploy its fighter jets in Turkey.

… Israel is concerned that the border-protection exercises between Syria and Turkey will lead to full-fledged defense ties between the countries and to the possible transfer of Israeli technology from Turkey to Syria.

Nevertheless, the two countries are pursuing joint business ventures and are in talks with the Colombian military about the possible sale of upgraded M60 tanks, the same tanks that Israel Military Industries together with Turkey’s Aselsan upgraded for the Turkish military.

Internal report on Syria says embassy lacks clear guidance on sanctions
Posted By Josh Rogin at FP’s Cable Via FLC

What good are sanctions if the people on the ground don’t know how to implement them?
That’s a question lawmakers are sure to ask at today’s opening of the conference on new Iran sanctions legislation, and that’s the criticism levied in a new State Department inspector general’s report on Syria.

“The most immediate issue requiring greater clarity concerns economic sanctions,” reads the IG’s latest report on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus. “There is no front-channel guidance on the issue. The inspection team reviewed email and informal traffic regarding sanctions and waiver policy, and found several areas in which the guidance appeared to be contradictory.”

The major U.S. sanctions against Syria are laid out in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which limits U.S. exports there to food, water, and a select list of items approved by the Commerce Department. And while the embassy staff in Damascus, who have been without an ambassador since 2005, is great about reporting on the Syrian government’s wide-ranging efforts to subvert the sanctions, the report found there was “inadequate guidance regarding how embassy officers should advise potential U.S. exporters of sanctions and possible waivers.”

The report also states that although the Obama administration’s initial announcement last summer that it was restoring an ambassador to Syria yielded some diplomatic benefits, those benefits have trailed off and the Syrian government’s engagement remains poor almost one year later.

Although the embassy has noticed some increased access to Syrian officials, for the most part, they avoid contact with U.S. diplomats for any reason, the report explained. For example, the chargé d’affaires, Charles F. “Chuck” Hunter is not able to meet with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem. “Economic officers have no access to officials in key ministries such as the finance, energy, or industry ministries, and the situation is similar for officers elsewhere in the Embassy,” the report states. “Most Embassy business, routine and otherwise, is conducted through diplomatic note or during visits by senior Washington officials and congressional delegations, when access is granted.”

One of the problems could be the fact that since 2005, there have “excessive changes” in the embassy’s front office personnel, including five chargés d’affaires and seven acting deputy chiefs of mission. “However, this situation can be expected to improve with the return of an ambassador to Damascus,” the report says.

And if and when Obama’s ambassador nominee, Robert Ford, ever gets to Damascus, he faces a herculean task in resurrecting an embassy that has taken a series of beatings over the last few years. “Embassy Damascus operates in an exceptionally difficult political and physical environment,” the report notes, citing Syrian government activities to thwart the embassy’s attempts to conduct public diplomacy as well as security threats, such as the car bombing of the embassy in 2006.

Our sources report that the State Department hasn’t been pushing hard recently for Ford’s nomination to move forward. Several GOP senators have placed holds on the nomination, partly because they want more information about alleged Syrian weapons shipments to Hezbollah……

The inspector general is calling on the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, headed by former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman, to “initiate an interagency review of all sanctions-related issues and provide the embassy with explicit, formal guidance on how to address them, including specific clarification regarding the rules of engagement.”…

Syria to set up electronic civil registry database

DAMASCUS, Apr 28, 2010 (Xinhua via COMTEX) — The Department of Civil Affairs at the Ministry of Interior announced that it would replace the civil registry from paper with digital form to preserve citizens’ data, the local web SyrianDays reported on Wednesday.

The computerization of the civil registry is one of the largest information projects in Syria, as it aims to build a national electronic database containing the electronic fingerprint of Syrian citizens and connect the civil registry secretariats via a network.

Brig. General Hassan Jalali, Assistant Minister of Interior for Civil Affairs said that the project includes providing a national number for each citizen on his or her own ID card as a main key to access to his or her data with additional personal identifications such as a photo or fingerprint, the report said.

Jalali pointed out that establishment of a civil national database server would form the main structure of the electronic government on which all of ministries would rely to access the needed data.

This initiative by the Syrian Ministry of Interior aims to boost the administrative work of the governmental information systems and to facilitate the access process to the individual data of the Syrian citizens, in addition to save effort, time and money.

Settlement Freeze? What Settlement Freeze?
Michael Isikoff, April 28, 2010, Newsweek

Say this much for Nir Barkat, the multimillionaire venture capitalist who serves as mayor of Jerusalem, the world’s most contested city: he doesn’t pull his punches.

Just one day after press reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government had ordered a freeze on new Jewish construction in contested East Jerusalem, Barkat offered his own blunt message to the Obama administration and special Mideast envoy George Mitchell: forget about it.

“There’s no freeze,” Barkat told a group of reporters at a Washington restaurant Tuesday night. “There is building going on. There will be more building going on.”

Lebanese Municipal Elections on Time, But Reform Delayed by Karam Karam (here is the Arabic original from Arab Reform Bulletin)

A question for Aaron Miller
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Wednesday, April 28, 2010

In his FP essay, The False Religion of Mideast Peace, David Aaron Miller is in effect saying that the peace process is dead, yet his analysis also unintentionally illustrates the myopia that has doomed U.S. efforts for twenty years or more. ….

Miller’s main message is that the United States simply lacks the capacity to advance the peace process at present. Give up the “peace process religion” he suggests, it just ain’t gonna happen. He offers a familiar laundry list of obstacles (divisions among the Palestinians, the dysfunctional nature of Israeli politics, the absence of strong leaders, other regional issues looming larger, the United States is now chastened by its difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). But none of these elements explain why the United States cannot exercise the enormous potential leverage that it has over the relevant parties. …

So here’s the question I’d really like Miller to address: if it becomes clear that “two states for two peoples” is no longer an option, what does he think U.S. policy should be? Should we then favor the ethnic cleansing of several million Palestinian Arabs from their ancestral homes, so that Israel can remain a democratic and Jewish state? (By the way, that would be a crime against humanity by any standard.) Or should we then press Israel to grant the Palestinians full political rights, consistent with America’s own “melting-pot” traditions? (That is the end of the Zionist vision, and may be unworkable for other reasons). Or should we back (and subsidize) their confinement in a few disconnected enclaves (in Gaza, around Ramallah, and one or two other areas in the West Bank), with Israel controlling the borders, airspace, and water resources? (This is the apartheid solution, and it’s where we are headed now.) I fear that some future president will have to choose between these three options, and it would be interesting to know what an experienced Middle East negotiator like Miller would advise him or her to do then….

Syria’s smoking ban leaves cafes empty
By Roueida Mabardi (AFP)

DAMASCUS — Damascus’s oldest cafe, the Havana, used to be packed with customers whiling away the hours sipping coffee and puffing on a water pipe, but today it is three-quarters empty.

Like so many other places in the world, Syria has been hit by a ban on smoking in public places.

Smoking nargiles, or water pipes, in the country’s ubiquitous coffee-houses is a firmly established tradition in Syria, as in most of the Middle East.

“It helps me to relax and makes me happy,” says Nayla, 30, who often goes out with her friends for a nargile.

Syrians are heavy smokers of nargiles and cigarettes, with official figures showing 60 percent of men and 23 percent of men indulging in the habit, for which they collectively spend about 600 million dollars (448 million euros) a year.

A packet of cigarettes here costs 50 to 80 Syrian pounds (1.10 to 1.60 dollars/82 euro cents to 1.19 euros) and the average smoker spends eight percent of his annual salary on tobacco, says Societe Generale Pour le Tabac, the state-owned tobacco entity…….

Radwan Ziadeh on behave the Syrian Human Rights Movement receives the Democracy Courage Tributes آ award from the World Movement for Democracy Sixth Assembly in Jakarta.

Growing number of Palestinians back one-state solution: poll
(AFP) – 21 April 2010

JERUSALEM — A growing number of Palestinians support the establishment of a single state for Jews and Arabs including Israel and the occupied territories, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

The survey by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre (JMCC) found that support for a bi-national state in which Israelis and Palestinians would have equal rights had grown to 33.8 percent from 20.6 percent in June 2009.

During the same period, support for a negotiated two-state solution dropped from 55.2 percent to 43.9 percent, while 32.1 percent of respondents said the “peace process is dead” in response to a separate question.

Most Palestinians, 43.7 percent, support peaceful negotiations, while 29.8 percent support armed struggle and 21.9 percent support peaceful resistance as the best strategy for ending the Israeli occupation, the poll found.

Concerning internal politics, the poll found that 39.7 percent of voters would back the secular Fatah movement if elections were held this year, compared to just 14.4 percent would would vote for the Islamist Hamas.

The Western-backed Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas remains the most popular leader, and would receive 19.1 percent of the vote compared to his closest Hamas rival Ismail Haniyah, who would receive 11.2 percent.

However, nearly 30 percent of Palestinians said they would not vote in legislative or presidential elections if they were held now. Pollsters conducted face-to-face interviews with 1,198 adults throughout the West Bank and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on April 10-15. The survey had a margin of error of three percent.

Obama spreads the love, keeping Jewish leaders happy—for now
By Ron Kampeas · April 27, 2010

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Obama administration is projecting a new attitude when it comes to Israel, and is selling it hard: unbreakable, unshakeable bond going forward, whatever happens. Jewish leaders have kicked the tires and they’re buying — although anxious still at what happens when the rubber hits the road.

“It’s a positive development,” Alan Solow, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents Of Major American Jewish Organizations, said of the recent Jewish outreach blitz by the administration. “There are two questions, though, that will only be answered over time: Will the outreach be sustained, and will the policy be consistent with the positions being expressed in the outreach?”

Obama renews push for peace in Middle East
By Daniel Dombey in Washington, April 27 2010
Financial Times

Barack Obama on Monday stepped up his push for Middle East peace talks as some diplomats said the rift between Israel and the US was narrowing.

In a manoeuvre often seen as a sign of presidential favour, the US President “dropped by” on a meeting between James Jones, his national security adviser, and Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister. He also called Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president, whose backing would be important if the Palestinians are to begin indirect talks with the Israelis.

Mr Obama made his moves amid indications that Israel has come closer to meeting US demands to halt or restrict announcements about the construction of settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

Washington says such a halt is necessary to give the Palestinians confidence to begin talks. George Mitchell, Mr Obama’s Middle East envoy, has been in the region in recent days, in an attempt to kick-start the process.

“It looks like we may be getting some kind of gentleman’s agreement that there won’t be anything new in East Jerusalem,” said a foreign diplomat in Washington. “[Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is not going to publicly declare a freeze in Jerusalem, but it is possible to have a mechanism to make sure that there are no unpleasant surprises,” the diplomat added.

The diplomat hailed the meeting between Mr Obama and Mr Barak as a sign the two sides were “back to normal” after strains in recent weeks.

He said Israel was now discussing a “menu” of possible steps to build confidence with the Palestinians, including discussing “core issues” such as Jerusalem in the negotiations; a prisoner release; allowing a Palestinian institution to be set up in East Jerusalem and easing restrictions on the Gaza strip. Israel argues that the next step is up to the Palestinians, amid expectations that Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, will soon seek the support of the Arab League over returning to the talks.

The White House said Mr Obama had talked to Mr Mubarak about “the importance of creating an atmosphere for peace in the Middle East”. It added that Mr Obama and Mr Barak had discussed “challenges to regional security, how to deal with threats that both the US and Israel face, and how to move forward toward a comprehensive peace”.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Iran a Threat? I Mean, Really?
by Ray McGovern

With all the current hype about the “threat” from Iran, it is time to review the record — and especially the significant bits and pieces that find neither ink nor air in our Israel-friendly, Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).

First, on the chance you missed it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said publicly that Iran “doesn’t directly threaten the United States.” Her momentary lapse came while answering a question at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, on Feb. 14…..

“Part of the goal — not the only goal, but part of the goal — that we were pursuing was to try to influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. And, as I said in my speech, you know, the evidence is accumulating that that [pursuing a nuclear weapon] is exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn’t directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond.” (Emphasis added)

Time to do a reality check. Former French President Jacques Chirac is perhaps the best-known world statesman to hold up to public ridicule the notion that Israel, with between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, would consider Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb an existential threat.

In a recorded interview with the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, and Le Nouvel Observateur, on Jan. 29, 2007, Chirac put it this way:

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

Chirac concluded that Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb would not be “very dangerous.”….

Time to do a reality check. Former French President Jacques Chirac is perhaps the best-known world statesman to hold up to public ridicule the notion that Israel, with between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, would consider Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb an existential threat.

In a recorded interview with the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, and Le Nouvel Observateur, on Jan. 29, 2007, Chirac put it this way:

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

Chirac concluded that Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb would not be “very dangerous.”….
Resisting Pressure

Nevertheless, the intelligence admirals, generals and other high officials seem to be avoiding the temptation to play that game, so far.

The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Ronald Burgess, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. James Cartwright, hewed to the intelligence analysts’ judgments in their testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last Wednesday.

Indeed, their answer to the question as to how soon Iran could have a deliverable nuclear weapon, in fact, sounded very familiar:

“Experience says it is going to take you three to five years” to move from having enough highly enriched uranium to having a “deliverable weapon that is usable… something that can actually create a detonation, an explosion that would be considered a nuclear weapon,” Cartwright told the panel.

What makes Cartwright’s assessment familiar — and relatively reassuring — is that five years ago, a previous DIA director told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until “early in the next decade” — this decade. Now, we’re early in that decade and Iran’s nuclear timetable, if you assume it does intend to build a bomb, has been pushed back to the middle of this decade.

Indeed, the Iranians have been about five years away from a nuclear weapon for several decades now, according to periodic intelligence estimates. They just never seem to get much closer. But there’s no trace of embarrassment among U.S. policymakers or any notice of this slipping timetable by the FCM.

Not that NIEs — or U.S. officials — matter much in terms of a potential military showdown with Iran. The “decider” here is Netanyahu, unless Obama stands up and tells him, publicly, “If you attack Iran, you’re on your own.”

Don’t hold your breath.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared and briefed the President’s Daily Brief. He serves on the Steering Committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). ….

Bruce Maddy Weisman – The Impotent Summit

…The Arab summit conference in the coastal Libyan town of Sirte at the end of March offers a snapshot into the current state of the Arab system.,,,

The most significant axis of tension in inter-Arab affairs at this point in time is between Egypt and Syria, which was reflected in a variety of ways at the summit.

Syrian President Bashar Asad has managed to substantially strengthen Syria’s regional weight in recent years, restoring its preeminence and patronage over Lebanon’s feuding communities, deepening its ties with Turkey, maintaining its strategic relationship with Iran while achieving a thaw in Saudi-Syrian relations, and extending its support to Hizballah and Hamas, thus blocking Egypt’s efforts to achieve intra-Palestinian reconciliation.

All of this has been deeply disturbing to Egypt: indeed, the editor of the al-Ahram daily newspaper, in commenting on the summit, called Syria Iran’s “Trojan Horse.” Overall, the impact of what one Palestinian commentator termed “the impotent summit” appeared to be close to zero, reflecting the overall state of Arab fragmentation and weakness.

Who Speaks for the Palestinians?
Fifteen months of Obama diplomacy have undermined Palestinian autonomy.
BY Elliott Abrams, April 28, 2010 in Weekly Standard

Will proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority soon begin? While both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas have said they hope so, the matter is no longer in the hands of the Palestinians but in those of the Arab League foreign ministers–who meet May 1…..

There are two remarkable elements here.

First, Abbas is now refusing to make any decision about peace, instead deferring to Arab states. With all the talk about the critical importance of Palestinian independence, this is a giant–even historic–step backwards…..a return to the days when the Palestinians were under the control of Arab states rather than masters of their own future.

Second, putting the Arab League in charge magnifies the influence of bad actors. To get negotiations going, the Obama administration now has to convince not only Abbas, but Bashar al Assad. Perhaps this helps explain why George Mitchell has visited Damascus and why the administration persists in “outreach” to Syria despite its continuing evil conduct (most recently, reports of the shipment of Scud missiles to Hezbollah). Having committed itself to the “peace process,” the administration simply cannot afford to treat Syria as it deserves; Syria has too much clout now.
…….

Abbas certainly bears great responsibility for this development, but one can’t hold George Mitchell and Obama policy harmless. Fifteen months of Obama diplomacy have not only badly damaged U.S.-Israel relations and produced no peace talks, they have also undermined Palestinian autonomy. It is a keen measure of the fall of American influence in the region when a Palestinian leader responds to intense American pressure to go to the negotiating table by waiting to see if Arab League foreign ministers will let him take that step.

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.