LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 07/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 11,25-30. At that time Jesus said in reply, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him. Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Syria: Close to Israel, Far from Saudi Arabia. By Tariq Alhomayed.Asharq Alawsat 07/07/08
Syria, Lebanon, and France: Love and Revenge.Dar Al-Hayat 06/07/08
Waltz with Nasrallah.By Zvi Bar'el. Harretz 06/07/08
Lebanon’s new status quo. By: Paul Salem 06/07/08
Can Nasrallah Unite Lebanon?-By RANNIE AMIRI.CounterPunch 06/07/08
A clear message to Israel.By Duraid Al Baik. Gulf News 06/07/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 06/08
New Cabinet Tuesday or Wednesday, Pending Agreement on Distribution of Majority Portfolios-Naharnet
Israel tests 'Iron Dome' anti-rocket system-Telegraph.co.uk
Sfeir From Australia: Greed Threatens Lebanon from Far and Near-Naharnet
New Cabinet Tuesday or Wednesday, Pending Agreement on Distribution of Majority Portfolios-Naharnet
Report: Ex-top Israeli diplomat says Syria ready to cut Iran ties-Ha'aretz
Lebanese leaders close to government deal: sources-Reuters
Israeli official: Syria ready to sever ties with Iran-Ynetnews
Zahra Criticizes Christian Gathering-Naharnet

New Cabinet Tuesday or Wednesday, Pending Agreement on Distribution of Majority Portfolios
Naharnet/After more than one month of intensive consultations to form a new government, the national unity cabinet was expected to be announced on Tuesday or Wednesday. The leading daily An Nahar, which carried the report, said Prime Minister-designate Fouad Saniora, will on Sunday hold consultations with the pro-government ruling majority camp after having settled the issue with the opposition over the distribution of cabinet seats.
Saniora had received a list of candidates for the five ministerial portfolios allotted to Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun's Change and Reform parliamentary bloc. They are: Gebran Bassil (telecommunications), Mario Aoun (social affairs), MP Elias Skaff (agriculture), Alan Tabourian (energy), Issam Abou Jamra (deputy premier). An Nahar quoted Saniora circles as confirming late Saturday that there were "No difficult obstacles" facing the cabinet line-up.
It said Saniora was planning to launch his new government under the slogan: "Living in Harmony" to make up for all the time and attention not spent on the people during the three-year-old political crisis. The positive atmosphere emerged following a visit by Saniora to Aoun on Saturday after which the premier said he was confident that a national unity government would be announced soon. "The clock has started ticking for the formation of a government," Saniora told reporters after talks with Aoun that lasted two and a half hours. "It's an extraordinary step under extraordinary conditions and we will work hard to make it succeed," he said.
Saniora circles described the meeting as "excellent," adding that the two leaders discussed issues beyond the cabinet portfolios -- "visions for the future" of Lebanon.
Saniora also tackled with a Hizbullah delegation on Saturday the party's portfolios in the new cabinet.
Hizbullah's three seats include the ministries of labor and youth and sports. The Hizbullah delegation named MP Mohammed Fneish for the labor ministry and said it would later announce its candidates for the two other cabinet posts. Meanwhile, the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat said Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri told Saniora during a meeting between the two men late Saturday that he wants Fawzi Salloukh for the interior ministry and Mohammed Khalifeh for the health, adding that he would later announce his candidate for the industry portfolio.Beirut, 06 Jul 08, 08:33

Israel tests 'Iron Dome' anti-rocket system
By Carolynne Wheeler in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 5:07PM BST 06/07/2008
Israel has carried out a successful test of its "Iron Dome" anti-missile defence system intended to combat crude rockets of the kind launched from Gaza and south Lebanon. The test, which Voice of Israel radio reported was carried out secretly late last week, follows earlier delays and warnings that the $300 million (£150 million) system may not catch all Qassam rockets launched by Palestinian militants at southern Israeli communities. But Israeli security officials, while not commenting publicly on specific tests, say the system will be operational by early 2010. "We are doing our best so that the system will be operational by 2010 and all the checking we are doing now is going very well," said a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence, Shlomo Dror. Israel's former defence minister, Amir Peretz, ordered the Iron Dome system, which is manufactured by Israel-based Rafael Advanced Defence Systems, early in 2007 to intercept both Qassams and Katyushas, after more than 4,000 of the latter were launched from south Lebanon into Israel during the 2006 summer war. The system, which uses a small kinetic interceptor to stop such missiles, is scheduled for deployment along Israel's northern border as well as around Gaza. Its developers have come under heavy pressure to finish the system ahead of schedule, even receiving a rare exemption allowing them to work on the Jewish Sabbath, as the Qassam rockets grow more powerful. Defence analysts have warned the system may not work quickly enough to sense all rockets and say the cost of interception will amount to tens of thousands of dollars per rocket. The news comes as Israel and Hamas-ruled Gaza struggle to maintain a ceasefire declared nearly three weeks ago. Though Israel's southern towns have remained largely quiet, the truce has been shaken several times by sporadic rockets and mortars, in turn prompting Israel to temporarily close its border crossings with the territory.

Syria: Close to Israel, Far from Saudi Arabia
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat,
06/07/2008
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Muallem does not see any problem in achieving peace with Israel since he announced that Syria is ready when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is ready. Muallem repeated Damascus’ request for the required rapprochement with the United States based on the consideration that the peace process with Israel requires American sponsorship. Yet at the same time, the Syrian foreign minister sees that rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia requires efforts to be exerted by both sides!
Is it conceivable that restoring normal relations between Syria and Saudi Arabia would be more difficult than achieving peace between Syria and Israel? That is unbelievable! Saudi Arabia does not occupy any Syrian territory just as it has never sought to destabilize the Syrian regime. Saudi Arabia does not tamper with Syria’s security and does not facilitate any security threats to meddle with the security of that country.
Rather, on the contrary, Riyadh, and specifically King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, was the one that defended Syria in some of the most difficult political situations both before and after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. In fact it was the Saudis who strove to save face for Damascus after the International Tribunal to try suspects of the Hariri assassination began to take form.
Walid al Muallem said “Syria and Saudi Arabia can both play an important role in serving Arab issues and regional security and stability and in confronting the dangers that surround the region”; the question is how?
Is it Saudi Arabia that wants dominate and occupy Lebanon? According to reality, Saudi Arabia seeks to consolidate Lebanese institutions in contrast to what Syria wants.
It was Saudi Arabia that wanted to unify the Palestinian ranks and it did not support one party at the expense of another unlike Damascus.
It was Riyadh that wanted good neighborly ties to be established between Iran and other countries in the region without exploiting sectarianism or intervening in the affairs of others whilst Damascus went too far in its alliance with Tehran, to the extent that one would think that Iran borders Syria, or Lebanon, in spite of everything that the Mullah regime has done in the region.
Damascus, and its allies that are now concerned about Syrian-Israeli negotiations, had previously criticized Saudi Arabia for its moderation. At that time, we were told, “Leave us to get on with our adventures and you enjoy your moderation.” Today, we see that it is Riyadh that has become a resistant state whilst Syria, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas, is negotiating with Israel, and Iran has stayed quiet because of the United States.
A few days ago the Syrian Foreign Minister expressed regret that his country does not own a nuclear weapon like Israel. What the foreign minister actually wanted to say was that he is regretful because Israel possesses a power that Syria does not have.
Well, if Syria has not engaged in war in almost thirty years, has not built a thing and has not been able to surpass Israel economically, militarily or scientifically, then what has it accomplished for the Syrians and the region?
Nobody wants to make an enemy out of Syria and it would not be wise to do so; that is my belief. However what is baffling is how Syria can leave a vast playing field, where it can do a lot, and squeeze itself into a tight corner. Imagine a moderate Syria that calls for regional stability; we would be on the threshold of a new history in the region. This is where the danger and importance of Syria lies

Syria, Lebanon, and France: Love and Revenge
Abdullah Iskandar
Al Hayat - 06/07/08//
Bilateral or tripartite relations between France, Syria, and Lebanon have been moving back and forth between two extremes ever since the two Arab countries gained their independence. They are relations that are good, even exceptional, at times, and tense at others. They fluctuate unjustifiably between extreme love and extreme revenge, given the relations that are supposed to exist between countries with a common history and common interests. Such relations are supposed to be cumulative in terms of cooperation and exchange of interests, instead of regressing to zero. On the other hand, these relations witness an excess of enthusiasm that does not seem to have benefited from this regression.
These relations are also characterized by the fact that the Lebanese issue always remains in the background, even when it is about French-Syrian matters, such as cooperation in administrative reform or cultural cooperation. This means that bilateral relations in this triangle still involve a whirlwind of emotions and irrationality linked to the establishment of the Syrian and Lebanese States, under French sponsorship, a little less than a century ago. These relations have not yet been able to overcome the impact of such establishment and turn into normal relations among independent countries which history is supposed to be an incentive for widening the scope of cooperation and reconciliation.
Nowadays, a new phase is on its way, for as Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem put it, he is in Paris in order to prepare for president Assad's "historic visit" and meeting with his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy in margin of the Mediterranean Summit after a week. This phase moves the Syrian-French relation from contention to understanding, and restores cooperation. Nowadays, we also witness the formation of the first government during Lebanese president Michel Sleiman's mandate, which eases French openness to Syria and puts an end to Syrian reservations regarding authority in Lebanon.
In other words, circumstances are propitious for the Syrian-Lebanese relation to move from the phase of disputes and accusations to the phase of normalization. It is obvious that a prerequisite for this would be to overcome the impact of the establishment of the Syrian and Lebanese States, i.e. to establish diplomatic relations based on the full independence of both. It is also obvious that Damascus is ready to bring about such a relation, according to many Syrian declarations - the last of which was that this will take place after the formation of the Lebanese government.
In parallel, it appears from Syrian diplomacy that there is an adjustment of Syrian objectives. Regardless of the motives behind it and the extent which such a step may reach, Damascus has taken unexpected measures in the last months, from attending the Annapolis Conference to facilitating a solution in Lebanon to indirect negotiations with Israel.
It is thus that in a short period of time, all the essential constituents are present for applying what should have been done more than half a century ago, i.e. diplomatic exchanges between Beirut and Damascus, with normalized relations between two neighboring independent countries linked by givens and interests that exceed mere borders. With this step, Syrian-French relations are normalized, with a solid foundation - getting rid of the Lebanese obsession and recognizing the independence of Lebanon. Assad and Sarkozy's agenda will surely include many important items, including Lebanon, and it is probable that Paris will witness the first Lebanese-Syrian summit during Sleiman's mandate. What better time than these meetings to announce the agreement on starting the practical measures for diplomatic representation between Beirut and Damascus and on introducing the troubled relations among the countries of this triangle to the context of normalization

Lebanon’s new status quo
Paul Salem
Daily Times
Until the Lebanese state is able to integrate or dominate non-state militias, and until some of the raging confrontations in Lebanon’s immediate environment are calmed, Lebanon is not likely to know real stability
Hezbollah’s armed insurrection in May, which overran Beirut and other parts of Lebanon, has dealt a further blow to hopes of true state sovereignty in the country, strengthening Hezbollah and weakening the Western-backed government. But it also brought about a new political accord, negotiated in Doha, Qatar, providing for election of a president after a long stalemate, formation of a national unity government, a new election law, and a return to a national dialogue over relations between the state and non-state actors, particularly Hezbollah.
There is much speculation about the reasoning behind the government’s decisions in May to dismiss the pro-Hezbollah chief of airport security and investigate Hezbollah’s private telecommunications network, which sparked the confrontations. The government had been under longstanding international pressure to honour at least some of its international commitments to contain Hezbollah, and it wrongly calculated that the group would only respond in a limited way. Most importantly, the government mistakenly reckoned that Hezbollah would not risk Shia-Sunni clashes in Beirut.
Similar questions surround Hezbollah’s reasoning in unleashing large-scale action that risked sectarian warfare and jeopardised its moral high ground. But it has largely achieved its aims. Militarily, it has nipped in the bud any potential armed militia in West Beirut that could hinder its movement beyond the southern suburbs. It also secured key highways south and east of Beirut that Druze leader Walid Junblatt previously dominated and reasserted its access to the capital’s airport and seaports.
Politically, Hezbollah abandoned its policy of waiting out the government, in favour of pushing it to the breaking point and quickly fashioning a new status quo. Now it has strong influence with the new president whom it helped bring to power, a blocking veto in the next government, and it has drawn a clear line in the sand regarding the untouchability of its arms and its communication and operational infrastructure.
Hezbollah and its main backer, Iran, were motivated by two concerns: fear of the next Israeli attack, which Hezbollah believes is inevitable, and concern over Syrian-Israeli peace talks that, if successful, could leave Hezbollah without its main bridge to Iran. Hezbollah has been rearming and redeploying since the 2006 war; the actions of May further consolidate its position in and around Beirut. By reasserting its access to the airport and seaports, and by consolidating the political situation in the country, Hezbollah can better survive a shift in Syrian policy: the United States and Israel can no longer ask Syria to “deliver” Hezbollah as part of any peace deal over the Golan.
Moreover, by resuscitating the weak institutions of the Lebanese state, Hezbollah gains important political protection from external attack. It will be hard for Israel to launch a large-scale attack on Hezbollah if it is participating in a semi-stable Lebanese state headed by an internationally recognised president, with a pro-Western prime minister and a democratically elected parliament, teeming with tourists, and buffered by 10,000 UNIFIL troops in the south. In other words, Hezbollah’s survival strategy partly depends on the protective shell of a rickety Lebanese state.
Hezbollah’s moves were clearly a defeat for the US and Saudi Arabia. However, when they saw that Hezbollah had limited demands and wanted Lebanon’s Western-backed coalition to continue to lead the government, they chose to make advantage out of adversity. The US and Saudi Arabia welcomed the Doha Agreement and the election of the new president, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Beirut to express US support for the president and the Lebanese state.
Qatar’s role in bringing about a resolution, alongside that of Turkey in mediating Syrian-Israeli talks, signals a return to pragmatism in Middle East relations. It also indicates the dead-end to which the ideological politics of the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia has led. Although the Doha agreement papers over serious political and institutional contradictions, it reinforces the emergence of a pragmatic approach toward managing the region’s crises. Lebanon now limps forward carrying the contradictions of internal and regional politics with it.
The Doha agreement might allow a number of months, or years, of relative calm. But until the Lebanese state is able to integrate or dominate non-state militias, and until some of the raging confrontations in Lebanon’s immediate environment are calmed, Lebanon is not likely to know real stability. —DT-PS
Paul Salem is the Director of the Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut, Lebanon
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C07%5C06%5Cstory_6-7-2008_pg3_6

Can Nasrallah Unite Lebanon?
By RANNIE AMIRI - CounterPunch
"Differences among the Lebanese have reached the edge of suicide."
- Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, in a meeting of the country’s Christian and Muslim religious leaders after renewed violence in the city of Tripoli.
The foreboding statement by Lebanon’s newly-elected president at first seemed out of place. It came on the heels of clashes between Sunnis loyal to the government in the Bab al-Tebbaneh quarter of Tripoli and Alawite supporters of the opposition in the neighboring Jabal Mohsen quarter. The June 22nd-23rd clashes ultimately left nine dead and 45 wounded before the Lebanese Army stepped in to end the fighting.
The situation in Tripoli though pales in comparison to the events that unfolded in Beirut more than a month prior. At that time, Hezbollah’s men swept across and extended control over nearly all of West Beirut after Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s cabinet ordered the group’s private telecommunications network dismantled. Beirut appeared to be poised for all-out civil war. After intervention by Qatar’s prime minister, representatives of the opposition and the ruling March 14 Coalition agreed to convene in Doha. The result was the Doha Accord, reached on May 21st, which allotted the opposition enough ministerial posts to wield veto power over cabinet decisions and led to the election of General Michel Suleiman as president four days later.
After Siniora was nominated by March 14 to continue on as prime minister, hopes ran high that a cabinet would soon be formed and the 18-month political crisis that had paralyzed the country would finally be over. Continued wrangling over key portfolios between the opposition-allied Change and Reform Bloc of Michel Aoun and Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, the leading party in the majority coalition, has prevented one from materializing.
The resumption of fighting on sectarian grounds (albeit in Tripoli and not Beirut) after Doha, coupled with the failure to form a national unity cabinet is likely what led Suleiman to issue his fatalistic pronouncement.
Lebanon however, is a nation where hope and despair often co-exist.
As the two-year anniversary of the July 2006 War nears, Hezbollah and the Israeli government have reached an agreement on the exchange of prisoners. In a July 2nd press conference, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah confirmed that the two Israeli soldiers captured after found trespassing in the summer of 2006 (providing the needed pretext for the subsequent Israeli invasion) would be handed over to Israel in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners held there.
The most famous of them (or infamous, depending on which side of the Lebanese-Israeli border the narration is told) is Samir Kantar, a Lebanese Druze. Acting as a member of the Palestine Liberation Front, he was sentenced to four life terms for a 1979 raid that killed three Israelis, including a young girl (Kantar asserts she died in the firefight with Israeli soldiers).
Israel will also hand over the remains of other Lebanese and Hezbollah fighters killed in the July War and release an undisclosed number of Palestinian prisoners at a later date. Israel will likewise receive the remains of its soldiers and be given definitive information on the fate of the long missing airman, Ron Arad.
In his press conference confirming the deal reached with Israel, Nasrallah concluded by saying:
"First, I congratulate all Lebanese on this achievement and I hope that all the Lebanese consider it their achievement. We will deal with it just as we dealt with the 2000 victory and we will not use this new achievement for internal ends.”
“The second point is the bodies that will return to Lebanon…their funerals should be a national, unified event, a chance for the Lebanese to meet again… I personally announce Hezbollah’s absolute openness to any political meeting under any title and in any context if it helps in uniting Lebanon, preserving civil peace and overcoming the previous phase in Lebanon.”
“The final point is that I urge all popular powers to distance themselves from any provocation so that we can make good and civilized use of the sacred blood in bridging the gaps between the Lebanese.”
The reaction to Nasrallah’s speech from among those who have opposed him most, including Siniora and Walid Jumblatt, was refreshingly positive.
Siniora hailed the imminent return of the Lebanese detainees, declaring it a “national success.” He vowed to attend the ceremony marking their return and make it a national holiday. Jumblatt described Nasrallah’s statements as “encouraging” and also planned on greeting Kantar and the others remarking, “This issue goes beyond any security or political considerations." Unfortunately, but quite predictably, Future Movement head Saad Hariri failed to comment but indicated his party would participate in the welcoming ceremonies as well.
Whether the outreach found in Nasrallah’s words or the upcoming return of Lebanon’s captured and fallen will be enough to unite this fractured country remains to be seen. The initials signs are hopeful. But as Lebanon’s political future has always been a risky one to predict, it is probably best to say this is a chapter yet to be written.
**Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on the Arab and Islamic worlds. He may be reached at: rbamiri (at) yahoo.com.

Waltz with Nasrallah
By Zvi Bar'el
Haaretz 6/7/08
Last Wednesday negotiations that went on for almost two years reached a highly successful conclusion, from the viewpoint of Hassan Nasrallah. "No Arab country has been able to close its file of prisoners and MIAs," the secretary general of Hezbollah said, as though he himself were a head of state. Still, even now he stuck to custom and offered not a scrap of information about the condition of the Israeli abductees.
On the other hand, he effused generosity toward his political rivals. "This is a victory for all of us," he declared. "We should all celebrate." It is not only a Lebanese victory, he said, but one of all Arabs and Muslims.
Gloating and smiling, Nasrallah took the unusual step of describing in detail the negotiations with Israel, emphasizing in particular his guiding principles: total secrecy; release of all the Lebanese prisoners, headed by Samir Kuntar; obtaining all the bodies of fighters who came out of Lebanon, "whether they are Lebanese, Palestinian or Arab," including those killed before the Lebanon War; release of Palestinian and Arab prisoners; and receipt of information about the fate of four Iranian diplomats. Nasrallah did not omit saying that Israel at first did not even ask for the body parts of its fallen soldiers that remained in Lebanon. As he put it, "It seemed as though Israel forgot we had body parts in our possession."
His rivals were fiercely critical of the prisoner exchange deal - not because of the return of the Lebanese prisoners but because of the prestige it accords Nasrallah. Amin Gemayel, the former Lebanese president and a minister-designate in the new cabinet, complained that "the state of Lebanon was absent from the negotiations" and that "the signing of an agreement between a state and a Lebanese organization is a new model of indirect diplomatic activity with Israel. What is there to prevent a non-Lebanese mediator, such as the president of France or the king of Jordan, from conducting negotiations between Lebanon and Israel on liberating the remaining occupied lands in Lebanon and on blocking the Israeli violations?"
Gemayel's sarcasm was aimed both at Nasrallah and at Syria, which intends to hold direct talks with Israel. Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, also spoke his mind: "How does it happen that some of us have the right to conduct negotiations for the return of prisoners, to conduct negotiations with Israel on the table and under the table, whereas Lebanon is not allowed to demand international protection for the Shaba Farms and, when that idea is raised, its government is accused of collaborating with the enemy?"
What these trenchant critics forget to mention is that the abductees are not in their hands to be negotiated for; that the Israeli government did not insist that the contacts be held exclusively with the government of Lebanon or with mediators of its choice; and that Hezbollah proposed that the Lebanese government mediate, on condition that the abductees remain in the organization's hands. Now, when the time has come to reap the rewards, the critics can only whine over their weak stance.
'Positive atmosphere'
These events are strung like beads on the slight string that Syrian President Bashar Assad last week termed a "positive atmosphere in the Middle East." Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was scheduled to meet with Assad in Damascus last weekend. This week a new government is supposed to be installed in Beirut, and at the end of this week Assad will visit France to take part in the summit meeting of the Mediterranean Union, the big project of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The dialogue with Israel is progressing; another "Turkish round" took place last week, and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem no longer had a problem stating that the discussions held last week in Turkey were intended to lead to direct negotiations. He even abstained from reiterating his statement of last week, according to which Prime Minister Olmert will not meet with Assad at the Mediterranean Union event. Indeed, people who sit at the same table will probably not be able to evade a handshake.
Assad also has a few other arrangements to make. For example, he has to decide whether to accede to the request of Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store, who visited Damascus last week, and organize a meeting between Abbas and Hamas chief Khaled Meshal. Moallem explained that the invitation to Abbas is part of the Syrian effort to bring about Palestinian reconciliation. How can reconciliation be brought about without the sides meeting, and where can the sides both meet and reposition Assad on the region's diplomatic map if not in Damascus?
True, Hamas and Fatah spokespersons have made it clear that no meeting is planned between the two and that no arrangements have been made for such an encounter. But with Egypt dallying and still not inviting the leaders of the two camps to meet in Cairo, why should Assad not snatch an important political victory? After all, Hamas is angry at Egypt, and there are some in the organization who are calling for Egypt's replacement as a mediator with Israel. These people say it is untenable for Egypt to mediate in a deal involving the release of prisoners from Israel when Cairo itself is holding three commanders of Hamas' military wing, Iz al-Din al-Qassam, in detention. (By the way, one of the three is Iman Nufal, who was a key organizer of the breaching of the border fence between Gaza and Egypt half a year ago.)
Still, despite the anger, Hamas knows it cannot forgo the services of Egypt, as only Cairo can conduct negotiations with Israel, both in any deal for the release of abducted soldier Gilad Shalit and for the continued implementation of the terms of the Israel-Hamas tahadiyeh (truce). That this need not detract from Syria's ability to play a useful role was demonstrated when Damascus pressed Hamas to accept the tahadiyeh. This fact is not lost on Abbas, who will meet in Damascus with representatives of all the Palestinian groups affiliated with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) that continue to coordinate their positions with Hamas.
Syria will also have an important part to play in the reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas and the other groups. Those talks were supposed to begin two weeks ago, and there were reports that Abbas was to visit Gaza for the first time since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip a year ago. But Abbas decided to switch tactics and first muster the support of the moderate Arab states, and now also Syria, in order to ensure that his conciliation initiative will have Arab backing.
Nasrallah has started to wonder about Syria, which is returning step by step to the Arab "mainstream." Assad told the Norwegian foreign minister last week that as far as he is concerned, there is nothing to prevent the Shaba Farms from being placed under United Nations protection, though the demarcation of the border between Lebanon and Syria, which will determine the final status of the Shaba Farms, will have to wait until the IDF withdraws. The very fact that the farms will be placed in UN custody will raise anew the question of Hezbollah's military role. After the release of the Lebanese prisoners, and if Israel leaves the Shaba Farms, and in the wake of the understanding that the Lebanese army is the only force that should protect the country, the dispute over disarming Hezbollah will break out again in Lebanon. Hezbollah, of course, will have enough excuses to hang on to its weapons. It is also hard to see any force in Lebanon that can disarm Hezbollah, but from a public point of view, Nasrallah will face unnecessary pressure from his perspective. Nor has Nasrallah made public his position on the Israeli-Syrian negotiations. If the indirect talks morph into direct negotiations, and if the United States joins the discussions after the presidential elections, Syria and Hezbollah will have to reexamine their mutual relations. It will be a delicate examination, because Hezbollah continues to act as a key anchor for Syria's political control in Lebanon, but the more important this becomes, the greater becomes Syria's dependence on the organization's political behavior.
The Doha Agreement, which generated the breakthrough for the election of the president and the establishment of a unity government in Beirut, provided both Hezbollah and Syria with an important achievement. However, a government has still not been formed, and this is becoming an urgent priority for Syria. Assad would like to arrive in Paris with the affair of the government behind him and after a state visit to Beirut, where he is scheduled to announce for the first time the opening of a Syrian embassy in the Lebanese capital. As part of the new deal, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora will visit Damascus.
This will mark the final acceptance of Syria by the government of Lebanon, and Assad's most important diplomatic victory. The days ahead will show whether Hezbollah and its partners have the ability to stretch the web of Syrian interests in Lebanon and how far Assad's timetable matches that of Nasrallah.

A clear message to Israel
By Duraid Al Baik, Associate Editor
Published: July 05, 2008, 23:24
Last week, Israel agreed to hand over five Lebanese prisoners, including Sameer Al Kantar who was convicted to serve 542 years in prison of which he has served only 30 years! This is great news for many Lebanese and Arabs. It is a great victory for Hezbollah, but what is the price that Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, is ready to pay for the long awaited deal that he has been promising his Lebanese citizens and Arab supporters? What Israel has asked is the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev who were captured by Hezbollah in July 2006. This event sparked the 33-day war on Lebanon.
The main element of the deal will be known in maybe a week's time, as per the announcement made by both Israel and Hezbollah. It is definitely not the swapping of bodies of Israeli soldiers with the release of five Hezbollah prisoners. The Israelis have described Al Kantar as the most notorious criminal who have worked against the state of Israel. The bizarre indication about the whole deal is the recklessness with which Israeli leaders have handled the issues that are facing their state in the past three years. Added to this is their carelessness in protecting the interests of their nation.
Following the Israeli Cabinet's approval for the deal last week, Israeli leaders proved once again that they lack any level of strategic thinking. They also proved to the Arabs and to the rest of the world that force is the only language they understand and abide by.
Why we must come to this conclusion? Let me explain.
First of all, let us remind ourselves with the fact that the current deal, although it is a big victory for Lebanon and Hezbollah, is not happening for the first time. It has been done twice in the past few years with the very same party which Israel tags as a terrorist organisation. But, why should it have taken the Israeli leaders a full scale war, in which thousands of rockets were launched on Lebanese cities and scores of soldiers and civilians were killed, in order to come up with a similar deal that had been done in the past?
Let us refresh our memories to the events before the 2006 war. On the eve of the 2004 prisoner exchange, Hezbollah announced that it has agreed with Israel - through German mediators - to continue the exchange of remaining Lebanese and Arab prisoners in return for Hezbollah conducting a comprehensive investigation into the fate of the Israeli pilot, Ron Arad. At the time of the announcement, Hezbollah had no chip to bargain with, except its commitment to conduct an inquiry on Arad. In principle, Israel deem not fit this gesture from Hezbollah to require it to release Al Kantar and hand over the bodies of prisoners who had died in their custody. This is what the Hezbollah were demanding at that time too.
On the other hand, Nasrallah, who promised the Lebanese that he would do all he could to free Al Kantar could not keep his promise because Israel showed no interest in the price that he was willing to pay. The result, Nasrallah decided to collect more chips to bargain with Israel. They were Goldwasser and Regev.
The rest of the story is known. Over 1,300 Lebanese, in addition to more than 100 Israelis were killed, in a war that tilted the balance of power in the region and gave Hezbollah a place on the negotiation table to discuss a deal!
Today, the Israelis have every right to ask their leaders the reason for Israel to strike a deal with Hezbollah when it had refused to so three years ago and the reason for launching a war against Lebanon which gave Hezbollah the upper hand in dictating its terms to the Jewish state? These questions are quite reasonable, but the Israeli leaders have no logical answers for them. Their answers border on arrogance, stupidity and lack of strategic thinking.
Cannot rely on firepower
The exchange of Lebanese prisoners next week should offer Israelis a lesson that they cannot hold the region and the rights of the Arabs as ransom to their arrogance. They cannot rely any more on their firepower to ignite fires in the region. If today, Israel accepted to return Al Kantar after a war, how many wars will it take it to return the Sheba'a Farms? For that matter, how many kidnapped soldiers will it accept to return the other seven Lebanese villages in Kfar Shuba? This are questions that many Arabs and Israelis ask at this stage, including the leaders of Hezbollah. And finally, how many people will have to die from both sides before Israel stop violating Lebanese airspace?
Israel, which has celebrated its 60th anniversary two months ago, is passing through a critical moment of its history - a moment that will decide the future of Israel and the whole region. The Jewish state which is busy in digging up the graves of the Lebanese martyrs in order to hand over their remains to Hezbollah before the deadline, has to apply the same yardstick to its conflict with Hamas in Gaza and in the West Bank and elsewhere.
The lesson of the current Hezbollah-Israel agreement is that the Jewish state cannot survive without peace with its neighbours and cannot categorise any Arabs as terrorists before it first stop terrorising its neighbours.
If the exchange of prisoners, which will coincide with the second anniversary of the meaningless July 2006 war against Lebanon, failed to offer Israelis with a useful lesson; I and many people in the world, would have a big doubt about the future on Israel.
Charles Darwin once said: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." This is exactly what Israel needs to understand. I hope it will do.