LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 19/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 1,18-24. Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means "God is with us."When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.

Pope Benedict XVI
(© L'Osservatore Romano)/Saint Joseph, a model of listening

The silence of Saint Joseph is a silence drawn from his contemplation of the mystery of God in an attitude of complete availability to the divine will. In other words, Saint Joseph's silence is not a sign of interior emptiness but, to the contrary, of the fullness of the faith he carries in his heart and that guides each of his thoughts and actions. It is a silence due to which Joseph, together with Mary, keeps the Word of God made known through the Holy Scriptures while confronting them all the time with the events of Jesus' life. It is a silence woven of constant prayer, of prayer blessing the Lord, of adoration of his holy will and of total trust in his providence. Let us allow ourselves to be «infected» by Saint Joseph's silence! We have such need of it in a world that is often far too noisy, unsupportive of listening in recollection to the voice of God. At this time, as we prepare for Christmas, let us cultivate an interior recollection that we may welcome and keep Jesus in our lives.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports

Olmert: Peace with Syria feasible-Ynetnews
Lebanon warlord apology falls on dear ears.By:Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times 18/12/08
Free and Fair Elections in Lebanon Impossible with Hizballah’s Weapons.By W. Thomas Smith Jr. 18/12/08
Let's not be crushed by the Syria train-By Michael Young 18/12/08
More fluff from the world's leading manufacturer of hollow declarations-The Daily Star 18/12/08
The proper way to shoe a president.By: Marc J. Sirois 18/12/08
'People are always ready ... to be corrupted'-By Fidelius Schmid 18/12/08

Not the Center of the World-By: Prof. Barry Rubin/Global Politician 18/12/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 18/08
Bellemare: Detainees to be Moved to The Hague after Launch of Hariri Court-Naharnet
Russia-Lebanon Arm Deal Worries Israel-Naharnet
U.N. Wary of Possible Threat to U.N. Troops in Lebanon-Naharnet
Condoleezza Rice talks successes, failures of past 8 years-CNN
Hunt for Car Thieves in Bekaa Left 1 Man Killed, 2 Policemen Wounded-Naharnet
Obama to Name Lebanese-American LaHood Transportation Secretary
-Naharnet
Aoun: Investigation into Hariri's Assassination is Unclear
-Naharnet
Geagea: Corruption Stench Emanates From Ministries held By March 8 Forces
-Naharnet
March 14 Calls on Minority to End its 'Coup d'état Betting'
-Naharnet
Arslan Pays Surprise Visit to Jumblat
-Naharnet
Jumblat: Dialogue is Necessary and Lebanon is Committed to Taef Accord
-Naharnet
More praise for Russia's promise of free- (AFP)
Hariri case 'can be solved' - Bellemare to Security Council- (AFP)
MPs tussle over sharing power and changing Taif-Daily Star
Chamoun puts March 14 interests first-Daily Star
Corm advocates remodeling of Lebanese economy to 'do miracles like other countries'-Daily Star
Rihani scholar gets PHD from LU-Daily Star
USAID touts funding for Christian bodies-Daily Star
Sidon fisherman launches blowfish-awareness drive
Search on for car-bombs as security forces gird for Fatah al-Islam strike-Daily Star
ILebanon 'far behind' in protecting migrant workers-Daily Star



Free and Fair Elections in Lebanon Impossible with Hizballah’s Weapons
http://www.worlddefensereview.com/dropzone/archives/113
By: W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 17 December 2008 at 6:53 pm UTC
If the U.S. State Department-designated terrorist group, Hizballah, and Hizballah’s allies gain control of Lebanon through parliamentary elections slated for June 2009, “American support for Lebanon will be placed in jeopardy” and “we should have no illusions about that,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk during a panel discussion hosted by the Washington, D.C.-based Aspen Institute, last week.
Indyk’s remarks reflect a particularly disturbing reality for the pro-democracy majority in Lebanon, which lost much of its political power to Hizballah and its allies when concessions were granted to Hizballah in order to persuade Hizballah to stop the killings (after the organization turned its weapons on the Lebanese people in May 2008). And the remarks should reflect a disturbing reality for the rest of the world.
“[Hizballah] is a premier terrorist organization,” Indyk said. “Beyond that, it has built up an independent military capability that is greater than the military capabilities of the Lebanese armed forces.”
Indeed, as we have time-and-again reported, Hizballah – the so-called “party of God,” which rules a Shia kingdom inside the sovereign state of Lebanon, which battled Israel in the 2006 war (inflicting enormous damage on Lebanon), and which gained enormous strategic / political leverage in May of this year – may well have evolved into the world’s most formidable terrorist army.
Consider the following:
Hizballah is trained, equipped, and heavily financed (an estimated one-billion dollars annually) by Iran, and the organization is operationally supported by both Iran and Syria.
Hizballah is expanding its base, and the organization is increasing its global reach.
Hizballah has “conducted very large, spectacular” terrorist operations worldwide.
Hizballah has defiantly refused to surrender its arms in Lebanon as called for under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701.
Hizballah has demonstrated time-and-again since May that it has no qualms about overtly killing Lebanese civilians as a means of furthering the organization’s aims.
Hizballah has heavily infiltrated the Lebanese Army.
Hizballah, since May, has wormed its way into position as an official component of the overall Lebanese Defense apparatus.
Yet the U.S. has provided – and continues to send – hundreds-of-millions-of dollars in military aid to Lebanon’s armed forces and national police when some experts and analysts have surmised that money may well end up in the hands of the terrorists.
Moreover, last month, Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman – the pro-Hizballah, pro-Syrian former Lebanese Army commander – signed a new Defense pact with Iran, and Sleiman’s newly dubbed Army commander, General Jean Kahwaji, traveled to Damascus for a series of schmoozing sessions with his Syrian counterpart General Ali Habib.
On Monday, Naharnet reported Iran’s allocation of some “$600 million for the Lebanese elections” as told to the Kuwaiti newspaper, Alseyassah (Al-Siyassa).
Simply put, total control of Lebanon achieved by-and-for the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis may well-be in the offing and under our noses. The pro-democracy movement may be effectively quashed within six months, and the West may lose – in fact it may have already lost – its Lebanese front in the broader war on terror.
In a letter just released by the World Council of the Cedars Revolution (Lebanon’s largest pro-democracy movement), WCCR president Joseph P. Baini calls on both Sleiman and the “parliamentary majority” to postpone elections until Hizballah and all armed militias lay down their arms.
I’m not holding my breath, but at least Baini is saying what must be heard.
“It should be clearly stated that Hizballah is not the only faction to be fully armed,” Baini writes. “There are of course its very close affiliates such as the Amal movement, the Palestinian Camps, and terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Fatah al-Islam and Islamic Jihad, who are all proxies for and subservient to Syria and Iran. Therein lies the real dilemma for the people of Lebanon and the Cedars Revolution. Most of the military arsenal within Lebanon is in the possession of organizations classified by the free world as ‘terrorists.’”
Speaking to Alseyassah, Tom Harb, secretary general of the International Lebanese Committee for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, says Hizballah must be disarmed before free and fair elections can take place.
“Elections cannot take place while groups are intimidating voters by force or the threat of force,” says Harb, and after all, “elections in Lebanon have been postponed in the past.” If elections take place as is, Hizballah will be the one political party in possession of rifles, grenades, machineguns, missiles, and a demonstrated willingness to use them on anyone who does not wish for the same things the terrorists wish. And the Lebanese Army has demonstrated its unwillingness to confront Hizballah.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Rihani scholar gets PHD from LU
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BEIRUT: Savo Karam Haydar has received a Ph.D. in English Literature from the Lebanese University for a dissertation titled "Ameen Rihani the Multifold Critic." The defense committee included professor Henry Melki (chair), Mohammad al-Shahhal, Atef Faddoul, Hassan Murtada al-Hassan, and Ameen Albert Rihani. The dissertation analyzed Rihani's English and Arabic works as a critical thinker in the fields of literature, politics, sociology, and art. It also discussed two newly published works of Rihani's English manuscripts, namely: "Critiques in Art" and "The Lore of the Arabian Nights." - The Daily Star

Search on for car-bombs as security forces gird for Fatah al-Islam strike
Militants believed to have surveilled international target in beirut

By Andrew Wander
Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BEIRUT: Lebanese security forces are searching for two cars believed to be rigged with explosives which Fatah al-Islam militants are planning to use in "specific operations" against the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) or UN peacekeepers, The Daily Star has learned. A senior security source said that the rigged cars are believed to be somewhere inside Sidon's sprawling Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp, and could be used in an attack on a military target designed to cause heavy casualties.
The source said one of the cars had recently been stolen from Sidon and security forces are desperately trying to trace all vehicles reported missing in the city to identify the potential car-bomb.
The official added that the plot was evidence that Fatah al-Islam is keen to "hit back" against recent security successes which have seen many of their members arrested and their new leader, Abdel-Rahman Awad, forced to live as a fugitive inside Ain al-Hilweh.
Security forces are also trying to trace the occupants of a car which was seen being driven suspiciously near the headquarters of an unidentified "world body" in Beirut. The car was driving near the building and photographs were being taken of it, prompting guards to record the details of the vehicle before passing them on to counterterrorism specialists.
The suspected car-bomb plot was uncovered following an American tip-off to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) about an impending militant attack on peacekeepers traveling on the main coastal road between Saynique and Khalde last week. UNIFIL in turn alerted Lebanese security forces and requested a heightened security presence in Sidon, which was immediately granted.
This led to the discovery on December 10 of 750 grams of TNT wired to a timer charge near Sidon's seafront. Experts say the bomb would have detonated within 10 to 12 minutes of being manually armed and could have devastated an area within a 5-meter radius. The bomb was defused, and during follow-up investigations, security officials discovered the plot involving the car-bombs.
The news comes at a time of increased tensions in and around Ain al-Hilweh, where Awad is believed to be hiding. The militant leader is wanted by security forces in both Lebanon and Syria in connection with deadly bombings in Tripoli and Damascus.
The LAF has repeatedly asked for the fugitive militant, who has links to Al-Qaeda, to be handed over by Palestinian security forces, but he has not been arrested, apparently due to concerns that his capture could destabilize the delicate security situation inside the camp.
The scheme involving the two cars is the first Fatah al-Islam plot that security services have discovered since the militant group announced the suspected death of its first leader, Shaker al-Abssi, at the hands of Syrian counter-terrorism agents. In an unconfirmed message posted on an Al-Qaeda linked website last week, the group said that Awad was now the new leader.
In fact, Awad may have been in operational command of Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon since Abssi fled the country after escaping from the 15-week battle with the LAF at Nahr al-Bared in the summer of 2007. The fighting at the camp left it destroyed and more than 400 people dead.
Awad has been linked to two deadly bombings that took place in Tripoli over the summer, whose perpetrators were said to have been financed by the group and his connections with international Islamic militant networks have earned him the moniker "Prince of Al-Qaeda."
But security sources have played down media reports suggesting that a major attack similar to those launched in Mumbai earlier this month is imminent. "When we receive specific information, we act," a senior LAF general told The Daily Star. He added that he believed the bomb found in Sidon last week, was "more of a message than an attempt to do anything."
Media reports on Wednesday said that European officials had called off trips to the South of Lebanon in response to the security concerns. But an official at the European Union's delegation to Lebanon said he had no information about any canceled travel plans among the delegation's staff. "The EU delegation has certainly had no trips to the South canceled over security concerns," the official said, adding that individual member states made their own security decisions.
Several security and military sources named the Americans as the source of the tip-off which led to the discovery of the Fatah al-Islam's latest plot, but when contacted by The Daily Star on Thursday, the US Embassy in Beirut declined to comment.
UNIFIL also said that it had nothing to add to comments made by political affairs officer Milos Strugar last week concerning security threats to the peacekeepers. "There is no change in the threat assessment of UNIFIL," Strugar said after last week's events. "UNIFIL already has comprehensive protection measures in place."

'People are always ready ... to be corrupted'
By Fidelius Schmid

Special to The Daily Star
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BEIRUT: If you ever wondered how to make someone you meet in the street laugh instantly, try and ask them how to best fight corruption in the Lebanon. "Combat corruption? Hahahaha" or similarly joyful remarks were the most frequent answer when The Daily Star asked passersby in Beirut about strategies to get hold of the use of bribery and cheating in the Lebanon on Wednesday.
However, the reality seems much less of a laugh. A little favor here, a permission for that without too much scrutiny there, a pair of closed eyes in the right moment in exchange for money or other things - the Lebanese are used to it.
And people in many other countries, too. In this year's survey of perceived corruption by Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO, Lebanon scored 102nd out of 180 countries surveyed. In other words but still according to the same ranking released in September, corruption seems less of a problem than in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Congo, but still is fairly rampant here.
Almost everyone ready to speak on the subject agreed it was a problem. "Oh my goodness, there is so much", was Joelle Abi Antoun's first reaction. "People are always ready to do something, people are ready to be corrupted."
"Corruption is deeply rooted. I think it is already an enormous task to make people learn it is wrong," Elsy Sader agreed.
"It is so much part of the culture that we probably have to change the whole system. We should get to a point, where a culture of non-corruption reigns," said Pierre Basil.Now, short of a complete makeover of the state and the people altogether, what should be done? In Russia, for instance, the government has reverted to combating the problem with draconic punishments - apparently with meager success.
"Punishing people more severely cannot be the solution - like that they do not really learn" Sader objected.
The European Union, on the other hand, is advising other countries with corruption problems, among other things, to set up anti-corruption bodies, liberate the press and make the judiciary independent. But in fact, one of the EU's freshest members, Bulgaria, is not getting hold of it and has therefore seen some of the EU aid it expected frozen by Brussels.
In Beirut on Wednesday, views differed on where to tackle the problem first.
"To have a positive result, it must start from the top of the state. Even the president knows, what is happening," Pascal Imad. "I think setting up a specialized office that deals with complaints over corruption is a good idea. It should be something were people can complain and where complaints are dealt with swiftly. In Lebanon, there is ever so often a tradition to receive complaints, then not react to them for months or forget them."
Nohad Khoueiri suggested that tackling corruption was also the business of private citizens. "We have to fight for our rights every day. I do it," she told The Daily Star.
"I think there could be some kind of special police," said Rosy Bathish, whom the Daily Star met at a shop in Gemmayzeh, said. "First of all it is a question for the police, and then the politicians ... have to follow through. Parents and schools should also pay attention - the upbringing is a key question here, too."
"I think the idea of banning politicians convicted on corruption charges from public office is not bad," said Rami Halal.
"The media could also have a main role in this: They should not be biased for any side. And they should pay more attention to this," he added, describing the matter as "a very big question."
Sader agreed with this, saying that exposing corruption cases in the press could be helpful for the country's voters. "Like that, we could elect some fresh faces", she said. "The central institution in this should be the press. If they were more onto exposing corruption, it would create more of an awareness. It could be a first step," Carlos Keyrouz, a lawyer. He then went on to identify three levels necessary to tackle corruption: a legal basis, an institution that holds citizens to obeying the laws on corruption and a judicial system that punishes offenders.
"In Lebanon, we have excellent laws. But we are lacking levels two and three," he argued.
"We do have the necessary laws, they are just not followed through," agreed Roula Keyrouz, his wife.
A young woman working for a European country which is trying to set up an anti-corruption project in Lebanon agreed but questioned if there was actually much interest in tackling the issue. "Well, the feeling I get is that many politicians do not want to get involved with it. There is a lot of hesitance," she said.
On a more positive note, Keyrouz said he had experienced corruption in Lebanon as a lesser problem than in many countries in Africa and South America. "At least, people know each other here. And corruption gives you a bad smell and will harm you. In Mexico, you're not bound to get a bad smell because the country is so big," he said. How about simply refusing to pay bribes? Nohad Khoueiri and others instantly burst out in laughter on that one because "then you'll never get what you asked for."

Lebanon 'far behind' in protecting migrant workers
Government has 'not even managed the incremental step of creating a fair employment contract'

By Dalila Mahdawi /Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BEIRUT: Lebanon has not done enough in 2008 to address the plight of its population of female migrant workers and falls "far behind" the efforts of other Middle Eastern countries, rights group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Wednesday. "Lebanon lags far behind almost every country in the region when it comes to protecting migrant women's rights," said Nisha Varia, deputy director of HRW's women's division.
Her comments came on the eve of the eighth annual International Migrants Day on Thursday, designated by the United Nations in 2000 in recognition of the increasing numbers of migrants across the world.
According to estimates by the International Labor Organization, there are approximately 9 million migrants working in the Middle East. Lebanon hosts some 200,000 women domestic workers, mostly from Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and the Philippines, as well as an unconfirmed figure of Syrian and Egyptian male laborers who may number in the hundreds of thousands.
Women migrants in Lebanon work mainly as live-in "maids" and do not enjoy legal protection under the country's labor laws.
Vulnerable to exploitation and rights abuses, many domestic helpers work long hours without a weekly day off. A 2006 survey of 600 migrant domestic workers in Lebanon by American University of Beirut professor Ray Jureidini found that 56 percent worked more than 12 hours a day and 34 percent were not allowed regular time off. According to a 2005 survey conducted by the non-governmental organization (NGO) Caritas Lebanon, some 90 percent of employers retained the passports and other legal documents of their employees, seriously limiting their freedom of movement. Many workers are also forcibly confined to the residence where they work and denied regular, if any, payment of their salaries.
According to Caritas project manager Rania Hokayem, the NGO takes on an average of 40 new cases of distressed migrant womens each month.
Like those of many other countries in the Middle East with large migrant worker populations, the Lebanese government has promised to take measures to protect domestic workers, but has yet to show any substantial progress on the matter, HRW said. Lebanon is still not a signatory to the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.
An official steering committee was established by the government in 2006 to improve the lives of Lebanon's migrant workers. The committee is charged, among other things, with creating standard employment contracts written in Arabic, English, French and the native language of the worker, and with formulating a new law for migrant workers. It is also supposed to have published a booklet detailing the rights and obligations of employers and employees, for distribution at airports, ministries and recruitment agencies. But while other Arab countries were "debating concrete legal reforms," said Varia, "Lebanon has not even managed the incremental step of creating a fair employment contract."
"It is encouraging that [Middle Eastern] governments are finally considering serious reforms, but these proposals mean nothing until the new protections are in place and being enforced," she said. "Each day of delay leaves migrant domestic workers open to abuses such as unpaid wages, being locked in their workplaces, and to physical and sexual abuse."
The number of women falling victim to such abuse in Lebanon is alarming. A HRW report issued in August found that "at least" 95 women migrant workers had died between January 1, 2007, and August 15, 2008, a figure equal to more than one woman per week. Of the 95 deaths, 40 were "classified by the embassies of the migrants as suicide," said HRW, stressing that the list was not exhaustive.
"Most deaths resulting from a building fall are failed attempts to escape" abusive employers, a labor attache told the group.
Since releasing the report, HRW has continued to monitor migrant deaths and has found the figures have remained more or less the same. "Unfortunately we are still seeing approximately the same death rates," HRW senior researcher Nadim Houry told The Daily Star.
While media coverage on the issue of domestic worker rights had increased in 2008 "both in terms of quantity and quality," official attitudes had not changed, Houry said. "The government still does not see the rights of migrant workers as a pressing issue, despite the high death tolls and the extent of human right violations," he said. "We need to see concrete action."
The failure to improve the plight of migrant workers has led to Ethiopia and the Philippines banning their citizens from working in Lebanon. The bans were "expressions of frustration," Houry said, but seem to have had little impact.
Nevertheless, adopting standard employment contracts, prosecuting abusive employers and modifying the labor law were all changes that, with the commitment of the government, could "be achieved before the next parliamentary elections" in 2009, Houry said.


More praise for Russia's promise of 'free' MiGs

By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BEIRUT: Local parties reacted Wednesday to Russia's decision to provide Lebanon with 10 MiG-29 fighter-bombers as the head of Moscow's defense cooperation body confirmed the planes would be free of charge. "Russia's Defense Ministry has decided to deliver to Lebanon, as part of defense cooperation, 10 MiG-29s from our existing contingent," the Interfax news agency quoted Mikhail Dmitriyev as saying.
The planes will be modernized before delivery and the transport of the jets would be paid for by the Russian Defense Ministry, he added following a visit to Moscow by Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr.
"Military-technical assistance - this means assistance in budgetary funds," he said.
Dmitriyev said the warplanes would be covered by a limited warranty period and the parties would later have talks on a long-term maintenance agreement.
Parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri of the anti-Syrian March 14 Forces alliance welcomed the move as support for Lebanon's "legitimate institutions."
"Russia gives a good example of how to deal with Lebanon's cause, and we wish that all those calling for Lebanon's independence and sovereignty would do the same," he said.Dmitriyev said Russia could also supply ground equipment for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). "We consider the Lebanese Army a key element of political stability," he said, "and we are ready to provide it with arms."
March 14 also welcomed the Russian move. "This strategic decision comes in line with Russia's continuous support for the international tribunal" to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the alliance said in a statement.
Addressing a separate issue, the statement accused ministers affiliated with the rival March 8 Forces of "obstructing the work of the Cabinet by threatening to leave the last session," referring to a meeting on Saturday that saw a dispute over appointments to the commission in charge of monitoring next year's elections.
March 8 ministers reportedly pledged to leave the session if the appointments were decided by a straight vote rather than consensus.
Economy and Trade Minister Mohammad Safadi of March 14 actually did walk out of the meeting over the absence of representation for his Tripoli constituency in the panel. Also Wednesday, Lebanese Forces boss Samir Geagea criticized the March 8 camp as "irresponsible" while offering some good words for Russia.
"Russia would not have provided us with the fighter jets had Lebanon not been an independent and sovereign state," he said after receiving Egyptian Ambassador Ahmad al-Bidyawi at his residence in Maarab.
Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader MP Walid Jumblatt, who received his Druze rival, Youth and Sports Minister Talal Arslan, at his residence in Beirut late on Wednesday, said earlier in the day that he was "highly appreciative of Moscow's decision to help Lebanon."
On Saturday, Jumblatt said he was ready to meet Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah if Arslan still wanted it. Arslan had mediated a cease-fire between PSP gunmen and Hizbullah-led fighters during last May's clashes. After their talks on Wednesday, Jumblatt said that Arslan's "mandate" to solve problems between the PSP and Hizbullah was "still in effect." For his part, Arslan said: "I insist on our common adherence with Jumblatt to civil peace.
After a meeting with President Michel Sleiman at the Presidential Palace earlier Wednesday, Jumblatt said Lebanon was "today more committed than ever to the Taif Accord" that ended the 1975-1990 Civil War. He added that Taif, which also introduced major amendments to the Constitution, provided the necessary mechanism for Lebanon's relations with Syria. "Both the Taif Accord and the Arab League charter provide a mechanism for such relations ... We should stick to that," he said.
Also Wednesday, former Prime Minister Najib Mikati called for respecting and implementing Taif before thinking of amending it. His comments came after talks with Sleiman. Mikati was responding to recent calls by Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun to reconsider the agreement.
On a separate level, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Hale is expected to arrive in Beirut on Friday to follow up on the issue of US military aid to the LAF, the Central News Agency said Wednesday. US Embassy sources told The Daily Star that Hale's trip was routine and had nothing to do with either former US President Jimmy Carter recent visits to Lebanon and Syria or Russia's gift of the MiGs. The United States has pledged $410 million in military aid to the LAF since 2006 but this has been limited to light weapons and vehicles. Speaking to the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat on Wednesday, Hale warned against the "rearming of Hizbullah by Syria and Iran," adding that it could lead to another destructive war with Israel. - AFP, with The Daily Star

Hariri case 'can be solved' - Bellemare to Security Council
Inquiry's mandate extended

By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
NEW YORK: The UN Security Council on Wednesday unanimously agreed to extend for two months the mandate of the UN panel probing the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The 15-member council decided to extend the mandate, which expires late this month, until February 28 on a request by the head of the Beirut-based commission, Canadian prosecutor Daniel Bellemare, who said on Wednesday that the Hariri murder case "can be solved despite difficulties."He asserted that the Hariri case could be solved irrespective of the fact that nobody was able to provide any guarantees.
"So, can this case be solved? While no one ever said it would be easy, my answer to this question is unequivocal: Yes, this case can be solved," Bellemare said.
To donors funding the tribunal and wondering whether it is worth continuing, he said, "Once again, my answer is unequivocal: absolutely!"
Last month, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said in a report that the international tribunal that will try suspects in the murder, to be based in The Hague, could begin work on March 1.In his briefing to the council Wednesday, Bellemare said he sought the two-month extension "to allow the commission to continue to function until the day the tribunal starts to operate."He told the council that his investigation team has uncovered fresh information that may link additional individuals to the "Hariri network."
However, the identities of such individuals will not be made public in order to protect their safety, he added.
He noted that the mandate extension would allow "the momentum of the investigation to be maintained" and would also provide "a period of time in which the commission could gradually transfer its investigative operation from a Beirut base to a base in The Hague."He also made it clear that he could not predict when his probe would be wrapped up."I cannot predict when all the various elements of evidence required to support an indictment will be discovered," Bellemare said.
Early this month, a report from his panel said fresh evidence might help identify new suspects in the Hariri slaying.Bellemare notably said that progress was made "in relation to identifying the geographical origin of the suicide bomber in the Hariri case." Hariri was killed on February 14, 2005, in a massive car bombing on the Beirut seafront that also killed 22 others. The attack was one of the worst acts of political violence to rock Lebanon since the 1975-1990 Civil War, and led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops after a 29-year presence. The Hariri murder was blamed on Syria by many Lebanese, but Damascus denied any involvement.
The tribunal was authorized by Security Council Resolution 1757 in June 2007. It will have 11 judges, including four from Lebanon. - AFP

MPs tussle over sharing power and changing Taif
Reform 'must be the fruit of dialogue'

Daily Star staff/Thursday, December 18, 2008
BEIRUT: Lebanese MPs questioned both the government and each other on Wednesday, in a general discussion session that saw disagreements over several issues. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's response speech, which had been expected to be delivered at the end of Wednesday's evening session, the fourth since Monday, was reportedly delayed until Thursday, which is also scheduled to witness the election of members to the Constitutional Council.
Thirteen MPs addressed Parliament during the evening session, touching on matters such as the efficiency of the current Cabinet (a unity government containing members of both the March 14 and rival March 8 camps), possible amendments to the Taif Accord that ended the 1975-1990 Civil War, and the establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria.
March 14 MP Butros Harb did not rule out calls by the opposition to amend some provisions of Taif, particularly those pertaining to the powers of the president and prime minister.
Harb said Taif was not a "sacred text" that could be amended or modernized, adding that he had personally submitted a proposal in 2004 to introduce some amendments, including ones related to the parliamentary elections law and the formation of Cabinet.
He added, however, that such proposals were "reform projects to fill the gaps that were found in Taif."
"The Taif Accord was the result of national consensus and each amendment to it must be the fruit of dialogue and consensus," Harb said.
He added that he was hesitant to trust Cabinet.
"The Cabinet includes [both] excellent and competent ministers who have our confidence and ministers on whom we can never rely," he said.
He also argued that a government containing both majority and opposition members "constitutes a violation of constitutional principles in democratic parliamentary regimes."
Consensus Cabinets have been a regular fixture of Lebanon's sectarian power-sharing system since independence in 1943.
On the March 8 side, Change and Reform bloc MP Ghassan Mokheiber called for "realizing the shortcomings of the Taif," adding that some of its articles "need to be amended."
He also urged the Cabinet to officially approve the right of return of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon and to address the deputy prime minister's authorities and powers. Development and Liberation bloc MP Ali Hassan Khalil reiterated that if the opposition prevailed in next year's elections, it would preserve the consensus formula. "If we win the majority of the parliament's seats, we will not abandon the concept of partnership within the Cabinet," he said, adding that his bloc was also committed to the national dialogue in order to come to an agreement over a defense strategy that would protect Lebanon.
March 14 MP Georges Adwan of the Lebanese Forces, however, ruled out any such partnership, declaring: "In the name of the parliamentary majority, if we lose the majority in the upcoming elections, we would not participate in the Cabinet."
He also stated that the participation of both opposition and majority members in the Cabinet, a system that has been used by several of the world's most stable democracies, was a "violation of democratic principles."
For her part, March 14 MP Nayla Mouawad complained that "the inflow of arms is still taking place through the border with Syria." She also accused "some parties who are represented in the government" of supporting the smuggling.
During the earlier session, 14 MPs raised development and political issues, with some also focusing on calls to amend the Taif Accord.
March 14 MP Marwan Hamadeh of the Democratic Gathering used his address to the House to thank Russia for the arms it has agreed to send the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). "We want to liberate Gaza, not besiege Lebanon, and we want the unification of Iraq, not the division of Lebanon," he said.
Hamadeh also called on all those who demanded what he described as the toppling of the national consensus that was Taif to "work with us to implement it first in a unified state."In addition, he questioned some of the reservations that were emerging on the issue of arming the LAF, saying: "Beware of turning Lebanon into a state where the government is divided between Sunnis, Shiites and Christians instead of the fair and equal sharing of the government between Muslims and Christians."
He concluded that formal diplomatic relations with Syria would not remove his suspicions about "the Assad regime."
Reform and Change bloc MP Ibrahim Kenaan focused on the campaign against calls to amend Taif, which were raised by Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun during the latter's recent visit to Syria.
"If we are not able to raise such issues in Parliament, and if we do not have the right to talk about constitutional problems in Parliament; where else do we raise them?" he asked. Kenaan also charged that "what is happening today at the level of ministerial authorities, commissions and councils, including the Higher Relief Commission, totally contradicts the Taif Accord." He went on to say that re-examining constitutional prerogatives falls within the authority of Parliament.
"We are not ready to spend another 20 years when the next generations will ask 'is the problem in the text or in the practice?'" He added.
"The problem is present and it must be resolved," the legislator argued. Meanwhile, six MPs submitted a proposal to Speaker Nabih Berri to form a "parliamentary investigation committee to probe all crimes attributed to officials over the past two decades."
The MPs submitting the proposal were Harb, Hamadeh Mouawad, Ammar Houri, Antoine Zahra and Hagop Kassardjian. They also said that the committee must be granted judicial investigation powers, saying that they hoped their plan would be raised and adopted at the end of the general discussion sessions.
Parliament was still in session when The Daily Star went to press. - The Daily Star

Chamoun puts March 14 interests first

Daily Star staff/Thursday, December 18, 2008
BEIRUT: National Liberal Party (NLP) leader Dori Chamoun said Wednesday he was more concerned about securing a win for the March 14 Forces in next year's parliamentary elections than by his own party's fortunes. "The victory of the March 14 Forces is more important than the personal interest of any party," he said at an NLP office in northern Metn. "We are more than ready to withdraw our candidate in Metn if such a move would serve the general interest of March 14." Chamoun is expected to run in the qada of Chouf. - The Daily Star

Let's not be crushed by the Syria train
By Michael Young

Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 18, 2008
"Don't panic," the former US ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, told his Lebanese friends at a conference organized jointly last week by the Lebanon Renaissance Foundation and the Aspen Institute. And the Lebanese panicked, because the March 14 majority doesn't know how to make itself relevant as the transition in Washington accelerates, amid signs the Obama administration intends to engage Syria.
There is disconcerting haziness whenever American officials, past, present, or future, explain why it is time to talk to Syria. The principal argument is that the Syrians can be broken off from Iran and Hizbullah, that now is the time to pry Bashar Assad away from his dangerous liaisons. That reasoning, when not utterly na•ve, happens to be counter-intuitive. Assad knows that it is his dangerous liaisons that make engaging Syria desirable; the Syrians' strong card is their ability to dance with Iran and Hizbullah and Hamas and manipulate the Lebanese and Palestinian scenes while continuing to oversee mayhem in Iraq. For Assad to give all that up as a prerequisite for dealing with Washington is a non-starter. It would mean surrendering his leverage before getting down to the serious business of negotiations. Why should he do that?
Assad can read the dynamics as well as anybody. The reality is that it is the Americans who want a new relationship with Syria, so the onus is on them to make the concessions. Nor are the Syrians blind to the lessons of recent history. Hafez Assad spent decades playing the spoiler in the Middle East, many Americans were killed thanks to his efforts, but that only induced successive US administrations to pursue him with greater vigor. Syria has violated United Nations resolutions on Lebanon that the Bush administration considered vital, most damagingly Resolution 1701, but the fact is that Bashar Assad has paid no price for this and may soon be rewarded with heightened attention from the Obama administration.
Assad is under no great pressure from the US to give up anything significant. So why does the mood in Washington become so animated whenever the subject of dealing with Syria is brought up? Why does so potentially bad an arrangement seem high on the agenda of those in the Obama transition team dealing with Middle Eastern affairs?
The only convincing explanation is that the Americans are pining for the 1990s, when states rather than non-state actors happened to be more dominant in the region. As US policymakers look around these days, they see a disconcerting vista. In Lebanon, Hizbullah seems more powerful than the state; in the Palestinian areas, Hamas has a decisive advantage over the Palestinian Authority; in Egypt and Iraq, groups outside the reach of the state, or alienated from or inadequately integrated into the state, are challenging governments or ruling regimes. On the margins of the region, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Islamist movements, sometimes sponsored by state organs but also able to resist state authority, seem to be proliferating. A natural reaction of American diplomats and policymakers used to dealing with formal state structures is deep unease.
This the Syrians have skillfully understood. At a recent conference in Venice, I sat next to a Syrian doctor who several months ago was sent with colleagues to Washington to explain why Syria was worth opening up to. If one could distill his argument into a single phrase, it was this: "Syria is a state; it's best for everyone to bolster states in the Middle East against non-state actors." For many policymakers, the Syrian dictatorship remains attractive because it wards away the prospect of non-state Sunni Islamists taking over in Damascus. That Syria has been at the epicenter of efforts to arm and assist non-state actors such as Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda seems largely irrelevant to Western policymakers and opinion-shapers. In the absence of a desirable alternative to the Assad regime, the Syrians are making headway in marketing themselves abroad.
Which leads us back to the Lebanese panic - or at least the panic of those who understand that there are those in Washington who would welcome going back to the time when Syria could control Hizbullah. If the US preoccupation is with the growing power of non-state actors, then what better way to contain Hizbullah than by allowing a new form of Syrian hegemony in Lebanon? Reinforcing that argument is the fact that Israel has no real problem with it. According to reports, Israel and Syria advanced quite far over Lebanon in their talks in Turkey. If Benjamin Netanyahu becomes Israel's prime minister after his country's elections next February, one of the ways he might avoid making concessions on the Golan Heights is to cut Assad more slack in Lebanon.
Some US officials argue that Washington's engagement of Syria will help assure that Lebanon is not on the block in future Syrian-Israeli discussions. Perhaps, but if the Obama administration's priority is to inhibit Hizbullah, then we must be realistic: The sovereign Lebanon that emerged from the 2005 Independence Intifada is expendable, because that Lebanon has been unable to prevail over Hizbullah. Even within the US bureaucracy, those defending an independent Lebanon will have to persuade colleagues that a Lebanese state backed by Syria is less attractive to Washington and Israel than a weaker government that has been unable to extend its authority over all its national territory.
Does that mean an independent Lebanon is finished? Not necessarily. There are fundamental difficulties in a Syrian return to Lebanon, whichever form it might take: The Syrians need Hizbullah as leverage in their own talks with Israel. That means that far from weakening the party, they may only ensure that Hizbullah resumes its cross-border attacks. At the same time, Syria is incapable of fully imposing its writ on the party in the same way it could before 2005. Iran is now a major player on the scene, and there are many ways for the Iranians and Hizbullah to show that Syrian power in Lebanon is not what it used to be. This would make even less likely a Syrian-Iranian rift, however, since Syria could neither defeat Hizbullah militarily in that event, nor would it see any benefit in breaking with a party that has been its de facto enforcer in Beirut.
In other words, the Obama administration may soon come to realize that Syria doesn't have the means to give the US what it seeks in Lebanon. The Lebanese March 14 majority must see to it that while Obama is experimenting, an independent Lebanon survives. The majority has another strong suit, namely that it represents a far more desirable, pluralistic, even liberal Lebanese future than the despotism of Syria or the religious militancy of Hizbullah. However, March 14 has displayed crying incompetence in adapting to change in Washington, or shaping American attitudes in this transition period - for example by pushing for a delay in US engagement of Syria before the parliamentary elections next spring.
If the majority loses, alas we all lose. There is still a policy vacuum to be filled in Washington. There is still time for March 14 to fill that vacuum with practical proposals to ensure the US does not throw out the Lebanese independence baby with the bathwater when it chats up Assad. The Syria train is moving out in Washington, and the majority must ensure it will be on board.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

More fluff from the world's leading manufacturer of hollow declarations
By The Daily Star

Thursday, December 18, 2008
The United Nations Security Council has been the author of some bizarre resolutions over the years, but Tuesday's on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process established a new standard for grandiose declarations masking dreadful circumstances caused by studied inaction. For 60 years the council has been seized by no matter so much as the hollowness of its own pronouncements, promulgating literally dozens of resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli dispute and then watching them gather dust.
Rather than issuing a call for the principals to remain engaged in negotiations that have yielded not a shred of progress in more than a year, perhaps the council might have endeavored to at last see to the implementation of one of its earlier resolutions. Instead it forlornly urged the parties to "fulfill their obligations" when one of them, Israel, has for decades serially broken and/or disavowed its commitments, denied the right of the UN to have a say in its behavior, and written prima facie violations of international law into government policies stated by the cabinet and ratified by the Knesset.
The council is not alone in having allowed the situation to reach this point. The "international community" has repeatedly embarrassed itself by not only refusing to take concrete action, but also by going so far as to reward the Zionist state for its depredations. No less a body than the European Union just decided to upgrade its relations with the Israelis despite the crimes against humanity being committed openly, every day, by the latter in the besieged Gaza Strip. The United States' shameless and spineless acquiescence in the evil farce goes without saying.
Even the Palestinians have had a hand in the worsening of their own plight, with the rival Fatah and Hamas factions allowing themselves to be so horribly disunited as to have forgotten who the enemy is. If they cannot at least put up a common front for the purpose of salvaging their people's birthright, why should anyone expect the outside world to give a damn?
The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s has made possible a geometric expansion of the number of resolutions issued by the Security Council because the permanent members are not so profligate with their vetoes. Why, then, has the same period witnessed a similar expansion of illegal Israeli settlements activities in the Occupied West Bank? One answer is that Israel has sought from the beginning to sabotage the peace process. Another is that the Security Council has cravenly allowed it to do so.

The proper way to shoe a president
By Marc J. Sirois

Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 18, 2008
In all the fanfare about Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W. Bush in Baghdad over the weekend, many of those who have commented on the incident - myself included - have neglected to mention that the act was entirely inappropriate to the man's profession. We in Lebanon know all too well what can happen when representatives of the media go from reporting or interpreting news to participating in it, so this is my apology to those readers who have rightly pointed out what I failed to.
In a way, Zaidi's very public failure to control his temper caused him to sink to Bush's level, however briefly, and that is truly unfortunate, because although his message might continue to resonate for some time, his reputation in the long run will have been sullied - and some of the usual suspects in the Western press are already exploiting his outburst to smear the Arabs as a whole.
Respect for decorum demands that we acknowledge the poor judgment Zaidi displayed, but it is not fair for him to be condemned by those who have not - yes, I'm going there - walked in his shoes. This is a man, after all, who has seen his country destroyed, and who among us, those with far less personal reasons to loathe Bush and his policies, has not harbored an occasional secret longing to fling something (a soiled diaper, maybe, or a copy of the Geneva Conventions with key passages highlighted in fluorescent yellow) at his head?
To criticize Zaidi's actions without recommending an alternative method of making his point, then, would be disingenuous and irresponsible. It should be something that would take advantage of the enormous publicity generated by the incident without endorsing the use of physical force of any kind, even if the level of "violence" in question was infinitesimal - especially when compared to that unleashed by Bush in Iraq. It must a strike a precise balance between agreeing with the content and even the style of Zaidi's sentiment, just not with his method of delivery.
My own suggestion is this: If you think throwing the shoes was a poor way to convey a good message, take an old pair of your own and mail them to Bush at The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, 20500. The president leaves office on January 20, so there is plenty of time, and even if your package gets there after that date, I'm sure the Obama administration will have his forwarding address in Dallas and would be more than happy to see that he gets what's coming to him. Alternatively, you could mail a photograph of a shoe or two, or email it to comments@whitehouse.gov, but neither of these would contain the fitting aroma exuded by actual footwear.
I know this is the kind of gimmick used to great effect by rabble-rousing talk-radio hosts in the United States, but that all is the more reason to do it: Those zealots have tended overwhelmingly to support Bush's bankrupt leadership, so why not use one of their tactics against him?
I'm also sure that some Homeland Security type will shortly be updating my file because of this subversive suggestion, but many of the proudest moments in America's storied history have involved some form of civil disobedience. In fact, incidents like the so-called "Boston Tea Party" - when American revolutionaries destroyed private property to protest one of many flagrantly unfair tax policies imposed by the authorities in London - have continued to define what the United States was supposed to be for more than 200 years. That same history has inspired individuals and groups around the world to believe that they too can throw off the yoke of illegitimate governance and put ultimate political power where it belongs: in the hands of the people.
Of course, all that that was before Bush made a general hash of the Middle East, shattered America's standing in the community of nations, and undermined the belief of his own citizens in the special nature of their country, but as Canadians like myself know, Americans are a resilient lot: When we torched their capital during the War of 1812, they returned the favor with such vigor that we decided to move our own seat of government to a remote fur-trading post that even the beavers avoided because it was so cold. Americans can get over what Bush has done to them, too, and lots of them would get quite a kick out a few shoes mailed to him as farewell gifts.
If my instincts are right, a few of them might even get in on the act.
**Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of THE DAILY STAR. His email address is marc.sirois@dailystar.com.lb.

Lebanon warlord apology falls on dear ears
Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times

Thursday, December 18, 2008
They already had formed their opinion of Samir Geagea, once the leader of a fearsome Christian militia. His supporters loved him regardless of what he did. And his rivals and enemies would never see him as anything but a caricature of the excesses, brutality and impunity of Lebanon's civil war.

But there are twists to Geagea's tale. Unlike other commanders during the country's civil war, Geagea (pronounced zsa-zsa) paid a price afterward, locked in a windowless prison cell beneath the Defense Ministry building for 11 years. During that time, he said, he studied literature, mysticism and religion, finding spirituality and a longing for salvation.

In September, he told thousands of supporters gathered in the coastal city of Jounieh that he regretted some of his actions during the conflict and asked for God's forgiveness.

Old ghosts
"If you don't bury the old ghosts, they'll keep bothering people," the lanky, balding 56-year-old said during an interview at his party's mountaintop headquarters here in Maarab, about 15 miles northeast of Beirut. "All in all, we had to do this immediately after the war. Unfortunately, after the war, there was no peace."

The war set the standard for a new kind of lawless, media-saturated civil conflict now common in desperate corners of the world. The 15-year war, which ended in 1990, left an estimated 100,000 people dead and nearly a million displaced. It pitted Palestinians, Shiites, Sunnis, Druze, Christians and their foreign backers against one another, and sometimes against their own kind.

Geagea's story illustrates the complexity of coming to terms with that past.

He was a year away from completing medical school at the American University of Beirut when he was sucked into the conflict's vortex as a member of a right-wing Christian militia eventually called the Lebanese Forces. He gained a reputation for no-holds-barred killing, including violence against rival Christians.

In 1990, Syrian troops occupied the country, ending a conflict already subsiding. There would be no truth commission to examine who did what during the conflict. All parties agreed to sweep the war's dirty business under the rug. The government offered amnesty to all fighters except those accused of killing foreign diplomats, high-ranking officials and religious leaders.

Geagea immediately alienated other Christian leaders and Syrian-backed authorities, who charged him with bombing a church and assassinating several officials during the war. After a trial that independent observers said was seriously flawed, he was thrown into prison in 1994, in the third basement level, with "no fresh air, no sun, no winter, no summer ... nothing," he said.

For 11 years, he was allowed to see only his wife and some relatives, barred from talking politics with anyone or even reading newspapers.

But he was allowed to read books. He devoured philosophy, psychology and religion, twice rereading the Quran and devouring translated works of mystic theologians.

"Always I have a mystic tension, a mystic inclination because I'm acquainted with the Christian mystics," he said. "I went deep into the Hindu philosophy."

Alone in his cell, he began what he called a process of "auto-psychoanalysis" to examine his actions.

"It's not as easy as it seems," Geagea said. "This needs fasting all the time. It needs concentration. It needs meditation. Of course, it needs silence, and I had the silence because I was solitary."
He said he tried to determine what he did right during the war, such as making a tactical retreat that cost positions but saved civilian lives, and what he did wrong, which he declined to specify.
"I would leave that to history," he said.
In 2005, Syrian forces withdrew from the country, and Geagea was pardoned by the parliament. Many hailed the new era, but old political demons emerged: Sunni radicalism, Christian chauvinism, Shiite grievances, Palestinian desperation, all the ingredients that brought the civil war.
Unprecedented speech
In September, Geagea stood before thousands of supporters and made an unprecedented speech.
"I fully apologize for all the mistakes that we committed when we were carrying out our national duties during past civil war years," he said. "I ask God to forgive, and so I ask the people whom we hurt in the past."
His supporters hailed him as Lebanon's Nelson Mandela, the anti-apartheid leader who was imprisoned for 27 years in South Africa and later became that country's president.
But others don't buy it. Although many of his Christian and Muslim rivals acknowledge the speech as important, they say he continues to practice divisive politics, emphasizing Christian grievances and suffering, that could drag the country back into war.
"This is a courageous attitude," one intellectual close to the Shiite militia Hezbollah said of Geagea's stance. "But his current political ideology depends on fear, and his political outlook is in contradiction to his regret and will not end the logic of civil war."
Others say that he should resign from politics, that even wars have rules and that his behavior during the civil war was so bad that he should be barred from public life.
No one really knows who did what during the conflict. Stories of horror continue to float and fester. Few care to open old wounds; the war is even excluded from school curricula.
But Geagea says he wants the younger generation to know the horrors of war.
"They don't know what the war is, what civil war is," he said, bowing his head slightly and drawing closer. "We know. War is the worst thing in this world. You have to try to do anything, but not war."
**This article appeared on page A - 32 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Not the Center of the World
Prof. Barry Rubin - 12/18/2008
Political Politician
Israel isn't going to be the center of the world for the Obama administration and that's a good, if ego-disappointing, thing. Both the pro-Israeli right's paranoia and the wishful thinking of the anti-Israeli left in the United States (and, in the latter category, Europe plus the Middle East as well), are operating out of expectations rather than the actual situation.
What can be safely assumed is something along the following lines:
* The Obama administration will put the main emphasis on domestic issues rather than foreign policy. It faces humongous problems at home and has gigantic ambitions to change America, for better or worse.
Of course, foreign policy has a way of imposing itself on the White House through crises, though many of these might not come from the Middle East or at least the part where Israel is located. Still, what this means is that presidential prestige won't be involved at high levels or consistently to wage campaigns unless really deemed unavoidable.
* The administration's Middle East priority will be dealing with Iraq. If you want, you can add Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan. The key point, though, is that withdrawing at least American combat troops successfully from Iraq, no matter how many months it takes precisely, must top the list. This will take massive amounts of policymaker time and political capital, both domestic and international.
* No doubt there will be much apparent activity on peace process stuff including endless delegations, speeches, and other showpieces. Nevertheless, the administration will put little effort behind it. Many academics, journalists, and ideologues haven't yet gotten the word but the kind of Washington types who will actually make government decisions understand this issue isn't a panacea for all problems, Middle East or global.
* They also know there aren't quick or easy solutions. So while the Obamaists criticized Bush for not doing enough on the issue, deep down they know that not a lot could be done. Policymakers, and especially Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, aren't going to waste time on issues that won't make them look successful.
* Consequently, there will be no all-out effort to pressure Israel into major concessions because everyone who counts knows these aren't going to lead anywhere.
* Rather, the administration will certainly expect Israel to keep things quiet so as not to interfere with its Iraq strategy.
* Periodically, Hilary will make some demand on Israel regarding minor points in order to make her look good and give the illusion of success and progress. She'll be angry if she doesn't get what she wants. But what she will want will be fairly petty stuff.
* And she isn't going to make nice with Hamas and Hizballah, whatever the administration does with Iran and Syria.
* If Bibi Netanyahu is Israel's next prime minister there's certainly potential for friction between him and Obama. But if Israel has a national unity government, Bibi continues talks with the PA, seeks to strengthen it against Hamas, and even keeps chatting with Syria--even knowing these negotiations won't lead anywhere--bilateral relations should be okay.
* This administration will probably never support an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, but if Israel's leaders deem such a strike necessary for national survival, they should go ahead anyway and the relationship will weather the crisis.
* The long-touted idea of creating a U.S. Middle East coordinator has run into trouble because Hilary and others won't give away turf to someone who reports directly to the president. Such a person wouldn't influence Afghanistan or Pakistan policy (which might get a separate coordinator) or the withdrawal from Iraq (which will have its own czar as well as being overseen by NSC chief General James Jones), nor in dealing with Iran (which remains with Hilary). It isn't even clear if that person would get the Syria portfolio. So they'd end up as a sort of equivalent of former British prime minister Tony Blair, running around cajoling people to be friends.
* The administration will try to engage Syria and Iran but won't get anything real out of them. Let's see how long it takes the administration to realize this.
* Even Arab states have largely stopped their old propaganda line: "Solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and all other problems will disappear. Of course, there's a wide gap between what's said in private and in public.
In reality, though, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are scared of Islamism; Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are afraid of Iran, Shia Muslim power, and Islamism; smaller Gulf states are just interested in making money and living well (not that there's anything wrong with that);Â Lebanese are desperately trying to survive an Iran-Syrian onslaught; and Iraqis are trying to end their internal conflict and build a stable government.
That doesn't mean regional leaders won't keep using Israel as scapegoat. They're unable and unwilling to make peace; but they don't want war either and are more interested in getting U.S. protection from Tehran than a Palestinian state. They'll simultaneously be pleased if Israel destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities and denounce Israel for "aggression." Why not have your baklava and eat it, too?
We're in a new Middle East, or rather a battle between two new Middle Easts. This isn't the old Middle East of Arab nationalist regimes striving for regional hegemony and using the Palestinians as a tool in that battle. Nor is it the new Middle East of 1990s' hopes for peace and democracy.
The choice is between the Iran-Syria model for a region of "resistance" (fighting Israel and America as top priority; installing Islamist regimes) and that of Arab states resisting Islamism and Iranian hegemony.
Anyone unprepared to deal with these realities is incapable of understanding what's going on now and what will happen in coming years. The Obama administration is wrong in making conciliation with sworn, ideologically sincere enemies its main theme rather than building a united front against radical Islamism and Iranian imperialism. At the same time, though, it doesn't seem to be intoxicated with the bash-Israel-and-save-the-world fantasy.
**Prof. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary university. His new book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). You can buy his latest book The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict on Amazon.com here.