LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Presidential Election in Lebanon: The Constitutional Problem
WCCR - CRNEWS Washington May 23rd, 2008
Sources in Lebanon and in the West are concerned about the possible constitutional crisis to explode as a result of the projected Presidential election. According to the Lebanese Constitution for a sitting Commander of the Lebanese Army to be elected as President, a constitutional amendment has to take place beforehand. And for such amendment to take place the Lebanese Cabinet must send a bill to the Assembly.
The Lebanese Cabinet didn't meet yet to sign a bill. Hezbollah is not accepting that the departing Seniora Government would meet and send such a document. This means that on Sunday, the Constitution won't be amended constitutionally. Hence, if a vote takes place without a bill from the Lebanese Cabinet, the vote won't be constitutional. It is important that the sole candidate, General Michel Sleiman, refuses the current process before the Lebanese Cabinet of Fuad Siniora initiates it. For the election could be deemed unconstitutional by future parties. If that is the case, the Parliamentary election of the next President could be taken to courts, both internal and international. To remedy this crisis, the Seniora Cabinet should meet and issue a bill to the Parliament askign for amendment. The Parliament would meet only as a voting assembly to amend the constitution, then meet again to elect. If these steps are not achieved, a large mass of Lebanese citizens may engage in a legal action inside the Republic and overseas. Majority Threatened to Boycott Sunday's Session, Berri Retreats Invitation Decision
Reports that Speaker Nabih Berri was not going to invite Prime Minister Fouad Saniora's government to Sunday's presidential elections session since he deems it "unconstitutional" prompted the ruling majority to threaten a boycott. Press reports have said Berri will not allow Saniora's cabinet to take part in Sunday's session as a "cohesive government" since he deems it unconstitutional.Leaders of the pro-government majority believed that the government is considered resigned by a Presidential decree and that would only take place after the new head of state had been sworn in.
Therefore, the majority believed, Berri has no more excuses for considering the government "unconstitutional." When leaders from the majority inquired about Berri's move, they were told that cabinet attendance is not required as stipulated in the constitution. Other sources, however, said Saniora's participation in the sworn-in session would not be in his capacity as prime minister but rather as Lebanon's former premier since the government is considered resigned after the election of a President. That prompted for MP Saad Hariri's intervention who contacted Qatari officials, who in turn telephoned Berri.
Meanwhile, Saniora telephoned Arab League chief Amr Moussa in this regard. Contacts were swiftly launched between Beirut and a number of Arab states only to be discovered that the eight-member Arab ministerial committee that mediated the Lebanon agreement in Doha was not invited to Sunday's session. Reason is: Lack of enough room, they were told. The pro-government majority then threatened to boycott the session, prompting Arab intervention on all levels which led Berri to back off his decision not to invite the Saniora cabinet. Beirut, 24 May 08, 10:32

Suleiman: My Era Will be Devoted to Reconciliation
Naharnet/Army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman said Saturday he will be working under one slogan: "Reconciliation.""My era will be devoted to reconciliation and (building) understanding," Suleiman told the daily An Nahar. "This slogan has a lot of meanings – security, stability, prosperity," Suleiman explained, expressing hope that "together with all the devoted (leaders) we will be able to achieve that.""We are facing a big challenge and our objective is saving (Lebanon) and this requires everybody's help no matter what their political affiliations may be." Beirut, 24 May 08, 10:05

Syria, Iran, U.S. Delegation to Attend Lebanon Presidential Elections
NaharnetLebanese MPs are poised to elect army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman as president on Sunday at a parliamentary session that would be attended by 200 dignitaries among them the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran as well as a U.S. congressional delegation. The elections would be a first step toward defusing a crippling and often deadly 18-month standoff between the rival Lebanese factions. Suleiman, 59, will be elected during a session attended by several foreign dignitaries, including Qatar's Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa. It was Qatari mediation during talks in Doha that brokered a deal on Wednesday morning to end the Lebanon crisis, which earlier this month had degenerated into violence, killing 65 people and pushing Lebanon to the brink of civil war.
Ali Hamdan, spokesman for parliament speaker Nabih Berri, said that among the 200 dignitaries invited were also the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran. Those two countries are strong backers of the Hizbullah-led opposition, of which Berri's Amal movement is part. Prime Minister Fouad Saniora, who enjoys support of Arab countries as well as the U.S. and the West, and members of his current cabinet have also been invited to attend. And Hamdan said a U.S. congressional delegation had been invited and would be headed by Representative Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat of Lebanese origin. "The speaker wants this election to be a reconciliation wedding," he said.
Suleiman's main challenge will be to impose himself as a neutral figure in order to reconcile the interests of the parliamentary majority, from which the current Saniora government is drawn, and the opposition. The Doha accord calls for Suleiman's election, a national unity government in which the opposition has veto power and a new law for parliamentary elections due next year. The daily An Nahar on Saturday said the electoral law will not be amended during Sunday's session as earlier believed. The Lebanon agreement came only after Hizbullah piled pressure on Saniora's government earlier this month, staging a spectacular takeover of mainly Sunni west Beirut in a matter of hours. But while the Doha accord brought the country back from the brink of civil war, it failed to address many key issues, including Hizbullah's arsenal. Under the deal, Suleiman will choose three ministers in the new 30-member cabinet, and he will be treading a fine line as he tries to maintain the peace. "I cannot save the country on my own," he said. "This mission requires the efforts of all."
"Security is not achieved by force but joint political will." Some people accuse Suleiman of being a supporter of Syria, Lebanon's neighbor and former powerbroker, but he has managed in his nearly 10 years as armed forces chief to steer clear of taking sides. Although he hails from the Maronite Christian community, from which Lebanon's presidents are traditionally drawn, Suleiman says he is against religion playing a central part in politics. Suleiman hails from the northern coastal town of Amsheet. He joined the army in 1967, following in the footsteps of his father, a member of the Internal Security Forces. He graduated from the military academy in 1970 and moved up the ranks until being appointed to the job in December 1998. The general and his wife, Wafaa, have three children.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 24 May 08, 07:03

Berri: Lebanese Leaders Showing Good Intentions after Doha Accord
NaharnetParliament Speaker Nabih Berri said that the Doha accord put Lebanon back on the right track. "This is why we wanted Presidential elections to be a complete wedding," Berri told the daily An Nahar on Saturday "Honestly I felt what happened in Doha had a good impact on all sides," Berri said. "Everybody is showing good intentions." He said the Doha accord has "made it our duty to work on protecting Lebanon and save it from the challenges we all face."

Saniora Lists his Cabinet's Accomplishments
NaharnetPrime Minister Fouad Saniora said Friday that his cabinet has protected the nation's independence and the democratic system throughout its nearly three-year term. Saniora made the remark during the last meeting held by his cabinet that would resign after the presidential elections scheduled for Sunday.
Saniora said the Doha Accord has foiled a scheme that was aimed at targeting Lebanon's mere existence. He stressed that "we are committed to the Doha accord," noting that hundreds of investors are preparing to return to Lebanon. Saniora said his cabinet confronted terrorists who assassinated a dear colleague, the late Minister Pierre Gemayel and terrorists of the Fatah al-Islam faction. "Criminals also targeted innocent citizens in the streets and alleys of the capital and several areas," Saniora told his ministers. The cabinet's most important accomplishment, according to Saniora, was the re-launching of an "independent foreign policy."
Beirut, 23 May 08, 22:15

Qabalan: No Arms Should be Pointed at Lebanese People
NaharnetLebanon's most ranking Shiite cleric on Friday declared opposition to the deployment of weapons in domestic disputes. Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan, Vice Chairman of the Higher Shiite Islamic Council, said: "We reject pointing guns at Lebanese (citizens), irrespective of differences."He said the Doha Accord launched "a march that serves Lebanon." Beirut, 23 May 08, 20:20

Sison: U.S. Backs Spread of State Authority
NaharnetU.S. Charge d'Affaires Michele Sison said Friday that Washington welcomes the Doha Accord and urges the Lebanese to implement it, beginning with the election of a president. "Lebanon has entered a new era which halts violence and requires political stability leading to economic recovery," Sison told reporters after visiting Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. The Doha accord is a "positive step" along the march of bolstering democracy through electing a new president and forming a new cabinet, she added. The United States supports the spread of state authority over all Lebanese territories, Sison said. Beirut, 23 May 08, 19:38

Hizbullah's Qassem Hails Doha Accord
NaharnetHizbullah deputy chief Naim Qassem welcomed as an "important achievement" a breakthrough deal reached by rival Lebanese political factions to end the country's crisis. "This accord is an important achievement for all the Lebanese and a key step toward ending a difficult phase that lasted for 18 months," Qassem told the Shiite militant group's radio station Al-Nour. He added that he wished the deal had been reached more than a year ago. Qassem said the next challenge for the Western-backed ruling bloc and the Hizbullah-led opposition backed by Syria and Iran will be the formation of a national unity government. "If both sides are positive, we can form a national unity government and find solutions to everything," he said. The agreement reached in Qatar on Wednesday calls for consensus candidate army commander Michel Suleiman to be elected president, the formation of a unity government, in which the opposition has veto power, and a new law for parliamentary elections next year. The accord ended a standoff that erupted into sectarian violence earlier this month, leaving at least 65 people dead and bringing the country close to a new civil war.(AFP) Beirut, 23 May 08, 18:58

Hezbollah secures demands
By: Lucy Fielder
Al-Ahram Weekly
23/05/08
The deal hatched in Doha by Lebanon's sparring factions has ended, for now at least, a crisis that had raised the spectre of renewed civil war, Lucy Fielder reports from Beirut
If the "no victor, no vanquished" formula was predictable, the deal finalised this week in Doha grants Iranian- and Syrian- backed Hizbullah its main demands.
Washington, opposed to its allies in the government sharing power with a group it considers "terrorist", has suffered yet another blow to its Middle East policy, and in the country it once hailed as its "success story".
At the time of writing, Army Chief Michel Suleiman's election to the presidency, vacant since pro-Syrian Emile Lahoud left in November, appeared certain. Suleiman has long been the consensus candidate and the "14 March" ruling team had made election of a president before the formation of a cabinet their main demand. Suleiman's decision not to stand against Hizbullah during the recent military escalation appears to have overcome opposition wariness that he was unsupportive of Hizbullah's resistance. More than 80 people were killed in the clashes when Hizbullah and its allies briefly seized control of mainly Muslim west Beirut. "Today, we are opening a new page in Lebanon's history," said Saad Al-Hariri, whose Future Movement gunmen were defeated in the battles. "I know the wounds are deep but we have no one except each other."
Al-Hariri is being touted as frontrunner for prime minister, which might go some way towards salving Sunni resentment against the Shia, exacerbated by what some saw as a takeover of "their" city. In a conciliatory gesture the opposition started dismantling the "tent city" occupying two downtown Beirut squares that had become a symbol of political stagnation and blockage.
Having flexed its muscles, Hizbullah's strength is proven without doubt, but by turning its weapons inwards it has fuelled internal fears and criticism of its arms. Those weapons, and a US-led international campaign to wrest them from the Shia group's grip, have lain at the heart of the political crisis that has polarised Lebanese since Rafik Al-Hariri's assassination in February 2005.
Crucially, the Doha agreement granted the opposition a "blocking third" of cabinet seats in the government to be appointed after Suleiman's election, enabling Hizbullah to exercise a veto on any decisions that encroach upon its arsenal. That demand was at the heart of six ministers' decision to resign in November 2006.
Despite the rhetoric, it appears force has once again won out in Lebanon, inducing the birth of a deal that has been on the table for a year and a half.
"This all begs the question, why didn't they agree more than a year ago?" says Karim Makdisi, assistant political studies professor at the American University of Beirut. "As always, there'll be no accountability for these leaders who drag the country down with them."
Despite attempts by Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and others in the ruling team, the Doha agenda left the issue of the "resistance weapons" untouched. Instead, a national dialogue, presided over by Suleiman, will discuss the state's relationship to internal "organisations", for which read Hizbullah.
Reassurances that weapons will not be used internally demanded under the deal appear aimed at giving government leaders something to take home, since Hizbullah has made clear that it respects no red lines if it comes under threat. "Nobody emerged with total victory but certainly Hizbullah won inasmuch as it got the things it most wanted," says Makdisi.Walid Charara, a political analyst who works for Hizbullah's Centre for Study and Documentation, said "constructive chaos" could not be used to disarm the guerrillas after the July 2006 war failed to crush them. "Hizbullah has shown that if the so-called majority forces want to have a role in this country they have to reach a compromise."
Few Lebanese believe the group should maintain its arms forever, with a weak Lebanese army always at risk of splitting along sectarian lines and Israel's destructive power demonstrated as recently as July 2006. "But the notion that you can have disarmament without a regional peace agreement is a non-starter," believes Makdisi. "The US and Israeli demand for disarmament has been the block for the past few years."
With vehement US-Israeli opposition to Hizbullah's arms and lingering fears of a US-led attack on Iran, which backs Hizbullah, the issue is unlikely to go away. "This is not the end of the story, just the end of one chapter and the immediate threat of confrontation and battles," says Makdisi.
Washington, vocal in its support of Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora, has suffered a serious knock in Lebanon, but now that Hizbullah and its allies command the "blocking third" it will be hard to engineer another government clampdown of the sort that prompted the crisis. Last minute haggling over a new electoral law had threatened to scupper the deal, which enshrines a return to the 1960 electoral law, another opposition demand, though with tweaks that were a nod to the ruling majority. With parliamentary elections expected in 2009, squabbling over electoral boundaries and the number of seats to be allocated to Beirut's three districts became central to negotiations, with both sides trying to swing the poll to their advantage at least 11 months before it takes place.
Beirut, a crucial stronghold for Sunni majority leader Saad Al-Hariri, also contains large Christian districts important to opposition leader Michel Aoun. Aoun accused his opponents of trying to "swallow" Christian areas by diluting them with Sunni voters.
The tussle, argues Makdisi, epitomises the sectarian rot at the heart of the Lebanese system which the Doha deal, like the 1990 Taif agreement that ended the civil war, has only consolidated. "Such is the gerrymandering in some parts of Beirut that there is little point voting," he says. "As always, the political class is rewarded for nearly destroying the country. Now they are busy dividing the spoils." (see p.7 and In Focus p.12) © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Efforts To Disarm Hezbollah Feared To Have Ended in Qatar
By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun
May 23, 2008
UNITED NATIONS — Western diplomats are concerned that an Arab-backed agreement on changing Lebanon's political system, which was largely seen as a major victory for Syria, Iran, and its Lebanese allies, would end even the façade of an international effort to disarm Hezbollah, allowing the terrorist group to become the de-facto ruler of the country.
Nevertheless, the United Nations Security Council yesterday issued a statement saying it "congratulates the leaders and the people of Lebanon" and "strongly supports" the agreement reached in Doha, Qatar, on Wednesday. The Arab League pact gave Hezbollah enough concessions to end — at least temporarily — its military assault on Beirut and other parts of the country, and to allow the political institutions that the Shiite parties have held hostage for the last 18 months to resume their activity.
America and France, which have backed the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Siniora, showed support for the Doha agreement, although Washington officials expressed regret that it included no reference to disarmament, a key Security Council demand since 2004. Despite that demand, Hezbollah has been able to build a large army that has clashed with Israel and, more recently, attacked Mr. Siniora's Lebanese allies.
"My concern is that people will confuse Doha, which is a weigh station, with a solution," an American U.N. ambassador, Alejandro Wolff, said. "Doha is not a solution. Doha is a vehicle by which the Lebanese parties can start building their unity, a functioning government again." Such unity should then allow implementation of past resolutions, including "ultimately leading to the disarmament of militias," he said. "One of the core elements of a nation's sovereignty is a monopoly of the use of force kept in its army, in its military."
Yesterday's council statement made a vague reference to "all relevant" past council resolutions, even though America and its allies wanted to add explicit references to the ones that dealt with disarmament, according to diplomats. The French U.N. ambassador, Jean Maurice Ripert, noted that Mr. Siniora and his allies agreed to the Doha agreement. The council could not have moved further than an agreement that is "supported by all the factions" in Lebanon, he said.
As result of the Doha agreement, Lebanon's parliament is expected to convene on Sunday to elect a new president. The country's political factions have already agreed to elect the army chief, General Michel Suleiman, who is considered politically independent. His job, however, has required maintenance of close ties with Damascus, which has a lot of influence over Lebanon's military and intelligence services.
As well-armed Hezbollah operatives ransacked and burned the Beirut offices of Future Television and other assets of Saudi-backed Sunni parties earlier this month, the army declined to intervene and the show of force has deepened the impression that the only viable military force in the country is Hezbollah, according to a diplomat who follows Lebanon closely, and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Shiite politicians allied with Hezbollah, which is backed by Tehran and Damascus, have held up the country's political process by withdrawing their representatives from Mr. Siniora's government, and later refusing to convene the parliament. Numerous attempts to convene legislators since the presidential palace was emptied last November had been blocked by the parliament Speaker, Nabih Berri, who leads a Hezbollah-allied Shiite party, Amal.
According to the new agreement, Hezbollah and its allies will control 11 of the government's 16 seats, giving them enough power to veto all decisions, including those related to cooperation with the international tribunal to try those responsible for Lebanon's political assassinations. Although Arab leaders are concerned about the growing Iranian influence in the region, they have backed the Doha agreement enthusiastically. "It's up to the Lebanese," Qatar's U.N. ambassador, Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser, said yesterday. "They agreed to elect a president and move forward."

I've been waiting for someone else to explain what happened in Lebanon in the last week. But I guess that grim responsibility falls to me. Hezbollah has effectively
taken over control of the reins of power in Lebanon in a military coup.I know you haven't heard it explained this way before. But that is precisely what happened – as the U.S. and Israel stood by and watched. For all intents and purposes, Iran now has a new power base right over Israel's northern border in what was formerly the one Christian country in the Middle East. Here's how it happened: Slowly but surely over many years, Hezbollah, the Iranian-directed terrorist organization, built up its militia forces in Lebanon, eventually becoming the largest military force in the country. Beginning about 18 months ago, Hezbollah sent its operatives into the streets of Beirut, occupying much of the capital city and disrupting business as usual in a country that scarcely remembers what business as usual means. Then, in recent days, Hezbollah stepped up the pressure on the Lebanese government by launching an armed military takeover of mostly Sunni West Beirut, easily defeating pro-government militia forces in a single night of firefights. Outgunned and outmanned, the Lebanese army had little chance to disarm the Hezbollah militias as it was ordered to do by Lebanon's leadership.Lebanese officials were probably hoping and praying they might get some backing from the U.S. or Israel. But the U.S. is still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is little political will to get involved in another Middle East front. And Israel, whose prime minister is battling corruption charges and clinging tenuously to power, has frankly lost the political will to get involved in yet another Lebanon war.So, Lebanon, once the jewel of the Middle East, has fallen to the Shiite terrorist barbarians who are certain to use the country as a major base of operations against Israel and against the U.S.These are the incredible concessions won by Hezbollah through military intimidation of the Lebanese: Iran's proxy gets to dictate which leader will be elected by the Lebanese Parliament as president. His name is Gen. Michel Suleiman, the current head of the Lebanese army. But, as you might guess, Suleiman will be little more than a figurehead. The new government constituted will give Hezbollah a majority of seats, ensuring the terrorists can veto any initiatives by the president or anyone else.That means there can be no efforts organized to disarm Hezbollah. It will remain the strongest military force in the country, as well as the strongest political force. That was the price of "peace" in Lebanon – an agreement applauded by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who seems more inept by the day.
"We call upon all Lebanese leaders to implement this agreement in its entirety," she said in an official statement.
Is she joking? What happened to the war on Islamic terrorism? Doesn't she know Hezbollah is the largest and most dangerous Islamic terror organization in the world? Doesn't she remember these thugs were responsible for the cold-blooded murder of 244 U.S. Marines? Hasn't she heard Hezbollah has an operational alliance with al-Qaida, the murderers of 3,000 Americans? Doesn't the Bush administration recognize the strategic and political importance of Lebanon? Iran surely does. Why would U.S. officials be so eager to see the results of this military coup by Hezbollah "implemented in its entirety"? Hezbollah and Iran have only one goal in Lebanon – total hegemony, total submission by all of the diverse ethnic and religious factions to its radical Shiite, anti-Israel and anti-U.S. agenda. As the grandson of a Christian Lebanese immigrant to the U.S., as an American, as a freedom lover, it pains me to see this kind of capitulation.Didn't President Bush just return from the Middle East where he warned against the dangers of appeasement?

Damascus, Syria
Young nations—like young people—sometimes do crazy things. The Syrian Republic was 28 years old when the Golan Heights were occupied in 1967. Young, passionate, spirited—and foolish—it dragged itself, and everybody around it, into a imbalanced war with Israel. The rest is history. Six days later, Israel occupied the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. Today, 41 years later, the scar and its permanent distortion of the Arab psyche remain strongly imprinted in the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian mindsets.
The Syrians did go to war in 1948 or 1967 for the Golan Heights. They went to war for Palestine. Many long years have since passed, and four generations have grown up, hearing of the Golan. We still speak nostalgically about it—certain that it is going to be restored at some point in our lifetime, through a peace process that was started at Madrid after the Gulf War. We have written thousands of poems, authored hundreds of books, produced dozens of documentaries, and named endless projects, factories, and monuments, after the Golan. This week, hopes were raised, for the first time in years, that the Golan was on its way to being restored to Syria. Damascus, Tel Aviv, and Ankara announced, within an interval of no more than five minutes, that peace talks were underway between Syria and Israel, under patronage of the Turks.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but I have seen this scene, and heart this rhetoric, far too often since 1990. Last June 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared on the Saudi al-Arabiyya TV, and appealed directly to President Bashar al-Assad, saying “Bashar Al Assad, you know that I am ready for direct talks with you. I am ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war.” The Syrian President responded in July, claiming that Syria was ready for talks, based on UNSCR 242 (land-for-peace) and restoration of land up to the June 4, 1967 border. By September 2007, instead of talking peace, the Israelis sent four warplanes into Syria and bombed a military site, claiming (six months later) that it was being used for nuclear technology by the Syrians and North Koreans.
Last April 2008, Israel conducted the largest military maneuver in its history, on the border with Syria. The Syrians called in their reserves. Then the Israelis do nothing and rather, claim that they are still, ready for peace with the Syrians.
The indirect talks between Syria and Israel, via Turkey, are not new. Nor are they a prelude to any peace treaty—so long as George W. Bush is in the White House. They have managed to lift spirits, however, coming hours after warring Lebanese factions announced that they had reached an agreement in Doha on May 22, 2008.
There was optimism in the air in Damascus.
No more talk of summer war in the Middle East, which has haunted Syrian lives since 2006.
No more dangers of another sectarian outburst—at least for now—in neighboring Lebanon. The Syrians were pleased that Beirut—the traditional haven for all Syrians—was now back to normal and they could go there again, for education, medication, shopping, pleasure, and to see family and friends.
Peace would mean many things, as far as the Syrians are concerned. No more emergency laws that have been in-place since 1963. Nor more forced conscription into the Syrian Army for a draft that lasts up to 24-months. No more limited investment in Syria, and thus, much more job opportunities.
Parts of the puzzle suddenly seemed to fall into place. One year ago, US Speaker Nancy Pelosi came to Damascus, carrying a message from Olmert. Last month, ex-US President Jimmy Carter visited Syria and said that, "about 85% of the differences between Israel and Syria have already been resolved, including borders, water rights, the establishment of a security zone, and on the presence of international forces. It was just a "matter of reconvening the talks and concluding an agreement." Then comes a statement from the Syrians, saying that they were discussing peace with the Israelis, through Turkey. The Turks confirmed. And then, so did the Israelis.
To many this seemed like the romantic exchange of goodwill gestures between Israel and Anwar Sadat on the eve of his historical visit to occupied Jerusalem in 1977. What made it easier for Sadat is that at the time, Likud was in power, headed by the reliable Menachem Begin. Although one of the Arabs' worst enemies, whose name graced the massacre of Deir Yassin in 1948, Begin was a leader. The Israelis knew that he was patriotic to the bone and would not question his intentions in peace with Egypt. He was not flirting with Sadat because he wanted peace. On the contrary, he wanted to drown the efforts of the then recently elected US president Jimmy Carter to broker peace between Israel and Yasser Arafat.
Begin would have dealt with the devil rather than the Palestine Liberation Organization. He took the initiative, sending messages to Sadat, via Romania, Iran and Morocco, calling for a bilateral peace that would drown all of Carter's ambitions for the Middle East. At the end of the day, however, there was also a reliable president in Washington DC, who although not informed on the talks, immediately supported them.
Olmert is not Begin and George W. Bush is not Carter. Begin could do things and get away with them - like relinquish the Sinai Peninsula. Now, however, even before talks started, Israeli MPs were outraged with their defeated prime minister making a move towards Syria.
Yuval Steinitz of Likud was quoted in Haaretz saying, "Olmert's readiness to withdraw from the Golan represents an unprecedented political and national abandon."
Additionally, the Turks are not the United States and they cannot deliver peace in the Middle East. They can however, play the role of a mediator. If any real deal were to materialize, it would need American blessing. At this stage, and in what remains of the Bush administration, the Americans are simply un-interested in a Syrian-Israeli peace. That is a fact. They believe that the Syrians are interested in a 'peace process' rather than a 'peace deal' to end the US-led isolation imposed on Syria since 2003.
Bush made it clear, five years ago, when he said "Syria just has to wait" before it sits down to talk peace with the Israelis. That changed when progress on the Palestinian-Israeli track started going nowhere after Annapolis. Olmert, desperate for some kind of a success story to wash out his 2006 adventure in Lebanon, might have decided to switch tracks between Mahmoud Abbas and Syria. Although the Americans do not endorse such a move, they have repeatedly affirmed that they will not oppose it.
American neutrality is equal to American passiveness. This simply can never see the light without a determined US administration. That’s why the entire fuss over what this latest ‘breakthrough’ means for Syria and Israel is out of place. These are just stepping stones—much needed nevertheless—for whomever wins the upcoming US elections.
**Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst and historian based in Damascus, Syria. Moubayed is the author of "Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship (2000)" and "Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000 (2006)." He has also authored a biography of Syria's former President Shukri al-Quwatli and currently serves as Associate Professor at the Faculty of International Relations at al-Kalamoun University in Syria. In 2004, he created Syrianhistory.com, the first and online museum of Syrian history. He is also co-founder and editor-in-chief of FORWARD, the leading English monthly in Syria, and Vice-President of Haykal Media. Close.

Doha Compromise is 'No Cave In to Hezbollah'
Interviewee: Michael Young, Opinion Page Editor, Daily Star, Beirut
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
Updated: May 23, 2008
Editor's Note: This is an update to a May 12 interview with Michael Young published before the Doha Agreement.
Michael Young, a political analyst in Beirut, says that he does not see the Doha compromise, which has ended the recent political standoff in Lebanon, as a victory for Hezbollah and Syria. Rather, he says, it is a “classic Levantine compromise – everyone gets something out of this.” He says that the elevation of army commander, General Michel Suleiman to the presidency, will inevitably lead to a new alignment of political parties by next year. “I think that you will have a parliament that is more friendly to Syria than you have today but at the same time that will hopefully be more able to assert a Lebanon independent of Syria,” he says.
If all goes well, after a six-month government crisis in which Lebanon had no president, there will finally be a new president, General Michel Suleiman, sworn in on Sunday. This is the result of an agreement reached by the government and opposition negotiators in Doha. What is the mood like in Beirut now that the crisis seems to be over.
The mood is upbeat over the fact that there will finally be a president. For the moment at least it seems that the political vacuum which has gripped the country for the last six months may finally end. A lot will depend on the details of the Doha agreement and I think we should be careful to not be overly optimistic at this stage but at least one step has been crossed. For the moment at least, the military option [civil war], which many people were afraid might happen, in my mind is not on the table.
As I read the agreement, Hezbollah is closing this tent city it had in west Beirut but it will get enough seats in the new government to give them a veto over any government action. This has been interpreted as a capitulation to Hezbollah, a victory for Syria, and a defeat for the United States, although the United States has supported the agreement, as has France and Germany and other countries. What is your evaluation of this so far?
I disagree that this is a victory for Hezbollah. I think it is a classic Levantine compromise – everyone gets something out of this. To be quite honest, the veto power in the government today is far less important than it would have been six months or a year ago. The fact of the matter is that the government in the coming year until parliamentary elections next June is probably not going to be engaged in any major divisive policies. That means the veto of Hezbollah and its allies will probably be less significant than many people assume. I also feel that given that there now is or will be a president, the political alignments in the country are going to change. I don’t think they are going to change radically but they will change in a way that the calculations that we've been basing our assessments on in the last year may actually begin shifting somewhat. Who will be in opposition or who will not is a question that is perhaps unclear today. In other words, some groups aligned with the opposition in the coming year may on a specific issue decide that they are better off siding with groups in the parliamentary majority. Depending on the issue it may be more than a question of Hezbollah and its allies getting veto power in the government.
Talk a bit about General Suleiman. Does he have a political party? We know he's a Christian but what can you tell us about him?
He is the commander of the army. He was brought in by the Syrians. He is someone who has retained close relations with the Syrians so I don't think we should assume for one moment that Suleiman is someone who is going to break with Syria in any way. On the contrary, I think that the Syrians have given their approval to his election after having spent six months preventing an election. Now the reasons for that we can interpret in various ways but the fact of the matter is that they are not unhappy with Suleiman. His agenda really looks to be the following: His primary objective in the coming year will try to build the Christian electorate so that when elections come next June he will be able to build a sizeable bloc in parliament.
Without a parliamentary bloc, a president is very weak so that will be his first objective, to sort of build up support within Christian communities because he is a Christian. He will try to transcend that but I think his main focus will be to build up Christian support. Given the fact that he is not a traditional political leader with a traditional political base, I anticipate that he will rely heavily on the army as other army commanders have in the past who have become president. I fear that this will be divisive. I think it is a bad idea when the army is involved in politics but the fact of the matter is that he will be president and his only real base of support now is in the army.
He will bring the army into politics. I anticipate that this will create problems. I think that the third priority of Suleiman will be to essentially move to some kind of discussion of the role of Hezbollah's weapons and the control of the Lebanese state over Hezbollah's weapons. This is of course perhaps the most potentially difficult problem in the early months because of course two weeks ago Hezbollah turned its weapons on fellow Lebanese. As president he will have to try to find a formula to put this on the table to satisfy both sides. On the one hand, he wants to satisfy the Sunni community in particular, which was targeted by Hezbollah. On the other hand he doesn't want to alienate Hezbollah and he doesn't want to enter into a conflict with Hezbollah over its weapons. So he will be providing a dialogue it seems; a dialogue that will have to address directly or indirectly the issue of Hezbollah's weapons. I think it will be quite tough. He will have to find a formula or sponsor a formula that satisfies both sides.
Now what about the former leader of the Christian community – former General Michel Aoun, who has been an ally of Hezbollah during all this? Is he now going to be relegated to a secondary role politically?
Yes, but I would disagree that Aoun was the leader of Christian community. Aoun's base of support in the Christian community in the last year and a half to two years has gradually declined. He is politically weak enough that in a way Hezbollah indicated on several occasions that it had no problem with Suleiman as president. To a certain extent Aoun has been a dupe. He's been used by Hezbollah to block the election of a president that Hezbollah was opposed to; in other words, a president supported by the parliamentary majority. Of course Aoun because of his sizeable bloc in parliament was able to block the elections because there wasn't a quorum to elect a president. So Hezbollah used him as did the Syrians to block the election of the president. Today Aoun finds himself with nothing and in a way I suppose that was always predictable. Many people told Aoun over the months and even in the past year or more, including foreign ambassadors and many others, that you cannot be a king but can be a king-maker. The general only wanted to be a king and now he is not a king. He is basically one of the big losers.
Over time, with new elections next year for a new parliament, how will the new alignment look?
Now without getting lost in the details, what will happen, I foresee, is that Hezbollah will retain its base of support in predominantly Shiite areas. Now on the other side however, the Sunni community in predominantly Sunni areas will support the camp of Saad Hariri, the son of the assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Now where you will have a big question mark is what happens in those areas where there are Christians or mixed areas? The anticipation is that at the end of election what you are going to have is a parliament that will mostly be made up of what is currently the March 14 coalition [the anti-Syrian grouping that came together after Rafik Hariri’s assassination in 2005], but after the next election will not be the March 14 coalition. It will be mostly the March 14 coalition plus the parliamentary bloc that Michel Suleiman brings into office, which will most probably come from the Christian areas predominantly and you will have a Hezbollah bloc.
So what you're going to have is a parliament that includes, I say, three broad forces: the Hariri camp, the Sunnis behind the Hariri camp, the Hezbollah and their allies in another camp; and in the middle you're going to have a more amorphous group of people, the Suleiman Christian groups. In terms of the alignments as they play out today, in terms of the relationship vis a vis Syria for example, I think that you will have a parliament that is more friendly to Syria than you have today but at the same time that will hopefully be more able to assert a Lebanon independent of Syria.
In other words, you have to understand we're still in the post-2005 period when the Syrians left Lebanon. From that time the Syrians have tried to reassert their control over Lebanon. I anticipate and I hope that it's not wishful thinking that the next parliament will be a step in the direction of asserting a certain measure of autonomy from Syria. We will have had a year with a president in office, there will be a new legitimacy in the new parliament. Syria at the same time will continue to have influence in parliament, through Hezbollah and smaller allies, and perhaps through a friendly Michel Suleiman. But by and large hopefully the next parliament will be one that will be more balanced in its ability to assert independence from Syria. As I said I hope this is not wishful thinking.
I've been intrigued by the fact that simultaneous with the agreement in Doha, it was announced in Ankara that the Israelis and Syrians had begun peace negotiations. Now clearly Israel, if it is going to give back the Golan Heights, is going to insist on Syria doing something to disassociate itself from both Hamas and Hezbollah. How do you see this playing out in Lebanon?
I see a lot of coincidence in the last few weeks between several events that suggest a broader image of a general calming down of the situation regionally. The Iraqi army has moved into Sadr City this week and my belief is that Iran played a role in that. There has been a calming down in Mosul in Iraq. There has been a calming down in Gaza. There has been the solution in Lebanon or the temporary solution in Lebanon. There have even been reports that the formation of the tribunal that would try suspects for the assassination of Rafik Hariri has been delayed six months. Without wanting to fall into conspiracy theories, I don't think that it is coincidence that all the events are occurring at the same time. The Syrian-Israeli track is very interesting. I am still very skeptical that either Syria or Israel at this stage is deeply committed to reaching a final solution. I think that Syria sees this as a means of opening a dialogue with the United States. They see negotiations with Israel as a way of getting out of the Hariri tribunal. I think the Israelis have their own interests in pursuing this dialogue, perhaps to put pressure on the Palestinians. Certainly both parties have a vested interest in appearing to advance on this track. Sometimes these kinds of exchanges create a dynamic of their own which will eventually lead to something more positive. There is no doubt that I think what happened in Lebanon, the agreement in Doha, is in one way or another tied into a series of regional developments. But precisely how these are tied into each other I am not clear yet on.

Beirut steps back from the brink... again
Nicholas Blanford in Beirut
May 24, 2008
“Was there really a protest here or was it just a bad dream?” joked Fadi Abu Karim, 34, an accountant, gazing at the traffic-filled streets and full car park that a few days ago had housed a tent city that was occupied by Hezbollah supporters and their allies.
Cars, shoppers and diners have returned to central Beirut after the feuding leaders of Lebanon struck a deal this week to end a 19-month political deadlock and a mass sit-in by opposition protesters. The rows of coiled razor wire, concrete blocks and white canvas tents were removed and businessmen smiled as they reopened restaurants and cafés, amid predictions of a bumper tourist season.
The sense of relief in Lebanon is palpable. One week ago many feared that the country was sliding inexorably into a new civil war after west Beirut was seized by Hezbollah and the bloodiest sectarian battles since the end of the last conflict in 1990.
The heady optimism will peak tomorrow with a lavish ceremony in which Arab and foreign dignitaries will attend a parliamentary session to elect General Michel Suleiman, the commander of the Lebanese Army, as head of state, filling a presidential vacuum that has existed since November.
The city centre, the commercial and tourist hub of Beirut, became a ghost town when the opposition began its sit-in in December 2006 in an effort to topple the Western-backed Government. The Government proved tenacious and, as the months passed by the sprawling encampment, which spread over two squares, became as much of an embarrassment to the opposition as it was an irritation to residents of Beirut.
The breakthrough came on Tuesday when Lebanese leaders, flown to Qatar and corralled in a hotel, reached an agreement on the shape of a national unity government, an electoral law and the election of General Suleiman. As rival politicians kissed cheeks and slapped backs in Qatar, Beirut prepared to reopen after 18 months.
In the Scoozi restaurant dusty chairs were stacked on equally dusty tables. Naif Fakih, a manager at the restaurant, was fielding congratulatory telephone calls from customers and friends. “I was so happy to hear the news. I could not believe it,” he said.
Some establishments - particularly chain restaurants, which had more financial backing - had stayed open as a gesture of defiance against the crippling effects of the sit-in.
“We never closed and we kept all our staff,” Hussam Sweid, the manager of TGI Friday, said. “We are looking forward to a good summer.”
Lebanon relies heavily on summer tourism as expatriate Lebanese visit families, and Arabs from the Gulf swap the blazing heat of the desert for the cool air of the Lebanese mountains - and Beirut's frenetic nightlife.
The past two years were ruined by violence: last summer the Lebanese Army was locked in a three-month battle with a group in north Lebanon linked to al-Qaeda that left more than 300 people dead and in 2006 Hezbollah and Israel fought a month-long war that killed more than 1,000 Lebanese and caused £3.5 billion of damage.
On Thursday night crowds descended on central Beirut, sipping coffeeor wandering the cobbled streets around Nijmeh Place, home of Lebanon's parliament. Even Fouad Siniora, the Prime Minister, took a stroll around the city centre, shaking hands and greeting wellwishers. Mr Siniora has spent most of the past 19 months holed up in the Grand Serail, the hilltop Ottoman-era barracks that serves as the offices of the Government. The threat of assassination meant that he and several of his Cabinet colleagues were forced to work and sleep there.
The tenure of Mr Siniora is drawing to a close, however. His aides have said that he will not seek reappointment as head of the next government when negotiations on its composition begin next week.
The likely candidate is Saad Hariri, the head of the Future Movement, Lebanon's largest Sunni party. Mr Hariri is the son and political heir of Rafik Hariri, the former Prime Minister, whose assassination in February 2005 sparked the events that led to the political crisis.