الثلاثاء، 30 سبتمبر 2008

American Diplomats Meet Syrians in Sign of Thaw

Sphere: Related Content
The Wall Street Journal

American Diplomats Meet Syrians in Sign of Thaw
Damascus Official Sees Growing Bond; U.S. Lists Concerns

Jay Solomon
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

NEW YORK -- Senior American and Syrian diplomats held a series of meetings over the past week here, a sign of a potential thaw between the U.S. and a country that President George W. Bush has alleged is a principal sponsor of international terrorism.
A State Department official said the U.S. used the talks as an opportunity to list its grievances with Syria. But the diplomats also discussed Washington's support for peace talks between Syria and Israel over the future of the disputed Golan Heights region, participants in the talks said. The two sides also talked about Damascus's role in the security situations in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
"I consider this a good progress in the American position," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in New York Monday. "We agreed to continue this dialogue."
Mr. Moallem met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, and held a more-detailed dialogue Monday with the State Department's Mideast point man, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, in New York.
The Bush administration has been grappling with the divisive question of whether to engage Syria, as well as Iran and North Korea. U.S. officials stressed the talks with Mr. Moallem were used to raise concerns about Syrian human-rights abuses and support for terrorism, as well as its strategic ties with Iran and other issues. "The international community still awaits a credible demonstration of Syria's willingness to renounce their sponsorship of terrorism," a State Department official said.
The White House largely froze its ties to Damascus in 2005 after the murder of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. A subsequent U.N. investigation linked the murder to Syrian President Bashar Assad's security forces. Syria has denied any involvement.
The Bush administration also imposed financial sanctions on Damascus over its support of militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas and its alleged assistance in helping foreign fighters enter Iraq.
The U.S. says Syria must do more to improve regional security.
In recent months, these efforts to isolate Syria have foundered, as even Washington allies such as Israel and France said they viewed Damascus as key to stabilizing the Middle East.
Israel has engaged in indirect peace talks with Syria. Turkey brokered the talks, which have been aimed in part at wooing Syria away from its alliance with Iran.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Damascus earlier this month as part of his government's push to win Syrian support for peace efforts in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
After Monday's meeting, the State Department official reiterated U.S. concerns, saying Syria needs to "do more to end the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and of weapons into Lebanon."
Mr. Moallem put a positive spin on the talks, saying Syria's increased engagement with the U.S. underscores Washington's recognition of Damascus's role in promoting stability in Iraq and Lebanon. "The situation in the Middle East is improving," he said.
The Syrian diplomat said Damascus is in the process of sending ambassadors to Iraq and Lebanon and is seeking to step up economic ties with both nations. He said Damascus would seek to improve counterterrorism cooperation with the West, particularly after Saturday's bombing of a Syrian military installation in Damascus, which killed 17 people.
"There are Islamic extremists coming over our borders," Mr. Moallem said. Terrorism has "spread and increased because of a lack of cooperation and a failure to tackle its roots."
Serious obstacles remain to normalizing U.S.-Syrian ties. President Bush told the U.N. General Assembly last week that "a few nations -- regimes like Syria and Iran -- continue to sponsor terrorism."
Last year, the Bush administration supported an Israeli missile strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility near the Euphrates River and called for an investigation into the site by the U.N.'s atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr. Moallem said the bombed site was a non-nuclear military facility and that the IAEA had informed Damascus that it found no evidence of a nuclear program inside Syria.
The U.S. has pushed for an international tribunal to try those implicated in the murder of Mr. Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, and has alleged that Damascus has impeded the U.N.'s probe. Mr. Moallem said the tribunal was an issue between Lebanon and the U.N. and that Syria "has nothing to do with it."
The U.S. also says Syria must do more to "end human-rights violations against Syrian dissidents," the State Department official said after Monday's meeting. Syria denies any such violations.
Syria's foreign minister said his country is looking forward to closer ties with the next U.S. administration, whether it is headed by Barack Obama or John McCain.
"Unfortunately, [the Bush administration's position toward Syria] shifted too late," Mr. Moallem said. "But I hope this shift will have its implications for the future administration."

الأحد، 28 سبتمبر 2008

لماذا يتعذّر انتقال "عدوى" المصالحة الاسلامية الى المسيحيين؟

Sphere: Related Content
رئيس الجمهورية يرى الصلح المسيحي ملحا "لاقفال ابواب الفتنة"
لماذا يتعذّر انتقال "عدوى" المصالحة الاسلامية الى المسيحيين؟

البطريرك الماروني يبارك جهود سليمان ورعايته المصالحة المسيحية
مسيحيو المعارضة يجددون المطالبة بميثاق شرف


ينشر في "الاسبوع العربي" في 6/10/2008
تعددت التسميات والتوصيفات لما تحقق من لقاءات بين افرقاء النزاع واخصام السياسة في صفوف الطائفة الاسلامية في خلال الاسابيع الفائتة. ولعل التوصيف الابرز هو ان هذه اللقاءات اتت لكسر الاحتقان السني- الشيعي في خطوة اولى على طريق تحقيق المصالحات الحقيقية، من المرتجى ان تمتد الى الضفة المسيحية وتتخطى الشكليات والصور التذكارية والتواقيع الجافة الى مكنونات النفس والنيات الصادقة البعيدة من المصالح السياسية والانتخابية، لطي صفحة سوداء من تاريخ لبنان الحديث.
بعد القطيعة وتراشق التهم والانتقادات اللاذعة التي شكلت مادة دسمة استخدمها بعض الاعلام للتحريض والتوتير والشحن لزوم "ام المعارك"(!)، تراجعت حدة التخاطب السياسي والاعلامي الى نقطة معتدلة بعدما كسرت الرقم القياسي في الفترة التي رافقت وتلت احداث السابع من ايار (مايو) الفائت لناحية التجريح والتخوين وخطاب القطيعة واستحالة التعايش.
بين "المصالحة" و"فك الاشتباك السياسي" و"المصارحة" و"اعلان النيات"، تنوعت التسميات لحقيقة واحدة وللقاءات التي جمعت في الاسابيع الفائتة "اضداد السياسة"، والتي شكلت باكورة اعادة فتح قنوات تواصل بدا قبل اسابيع قليلة مستحيلا بين الافرقاء، وتحديدا منذ السابع من ايار (مايو) والاشتباكات المسلحة في احياء بيروت، التي وسعت رقعة التباعد والشرخ بين ابناء الطائفة الاسلامية على الرغم من تداخل الاحياء البيروتية ديموغافيا وطائفيا ومذهبيا وحتى عشائريا.
شذود مسيحي!
وفي ظل الانفراج في العلاقة السنية- الشيعية وما سبق ذلك على صعيد العلاقة الدرزية- الشيعية، يظهر الجمود والتمترس على الجبهات المسيحية شاذا عن القاعدة السارية والمتنقلة من الشمال الى البقاع والجبل واخيرا بيروت. هذه المصالحة التي اعادتها حادثة بصرما في الكورة بين "القوات اللبنانية" وتيار "المردة" الى الواجهة من جديد، تبدو محبوسة ومتروكة لمصيرها في قفص حديدي، مكبّلة، كأنه من المحظر اطلاق سراحها على الرغم من ان ثمن حريتها دفع ويدفع بالدم. وكأن وعي القيادات الاسلامية على الخطر المحدق بالبلد والمناخ الاقليمي الذي ساعد ودفع نحو تحقيق اولى خطوات المصالحة الاسلامية من خلال الاسراع الى التفاهم على الرغم من التباعد والافتراق، يقابله جمود مسيحي قاتل يوحي أن القادة المسيحيين يقتاتون من الخلافات والصراعات الدموية، ويبنون زعاماتهم ونفوذهم على تحطيم صوت وصورة المسيحي الآخر المختلف معهم سياسيا.
وامام واقع شذوذ الوضع المسيحي عن قاعدة المصالحات بعد مبادرات ولدت ميتة في السابق، يبقى الافرقاء في المناطق المسيحية متفرجين او مراقبين للحراك السياسي كأن "لا حول ولا قوة" للتقدم ولو خطوة واحدة في البحث الجدي عن مصالحة باتت اكثر من ضرورة او مجرد رغبة منشودة.
تحرك سليمان على خط المصالحة
وفي وقت تصاعدت حدة الصراع بين الفرقاء- الاخصام في الواقع المسيحي على خلفية حادثة بصرما وما تلاها من تفاعلات، رصدت منذ اسابيع حركة لرئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال سليمان بعد تلقيه تقارير مقلقة عن اجواء الشحن في بعض الاحزاب والتيارات المسيحية.
وينقل مصدر مطلع عن رئيس الجمهورية، في هذا الصدد، انّ "من شأن المصالحة المسيحية التي اضحت ملحة في هذه الظروف المقلقة التي يعيشها المناخ المسيحي، ان تقفل ابواب الفتنة الداخلية وتسهّل المساعي المبذولة لتنفيذ الاتفاقيات التي رعت انطلاقة العهد الجديد ولاستكمال تطبيق اتفاق الدوحة بكل بنوده تمهيدا للانتخابات النيابية المقبلة في ربيع السنة 2009".
ويقول المصدر انّ "الرئيس سليمان اتصل قبل رحلته الاميركية بالبطريرك الماروني الكاردينال مار نصرالله بطرس صفير شارحا له خلفيات مسعاه وطالبا الدعم من بكركي لانها المرجعية التي كانت على تماس مع العديد من المحاولات السابقة لتحقيق المصالحة".
ويشير الى انّ "رئيس الجمهورية كلف مستشاره للشؤون السياسية النائب السابق ناظم الخوري بهذا الملف، الى جانب اهتمامه بملف طاولة الحوار، بإعتبار انّ هذا الجهد مكملا لها، وقد قام الخوري بسلسلة من الاتصالات في الفترة الاخيرة بجميع المعنيين بالمصالحة من قادة وشخصيات، ونقل اليهم رغبة الرئيس في استئناف المساعي على خط المصالحة ووقف بعض التصرفات والمواقف التي يمكن ان تزيد من التشنج الامني مما يعيد خلط الاوراق من جديد على الساحتين اللبنانية والمسيحية".
ويلفت المصدر الى انّ "نتيجة هذه المساعي ومتابعتها ستتصدر اهتمام رئيس الجمهورية في المرحلة الآتية، ولن تحول سفراته المتوقعة في اكثر من اتجاه دون ان يتابع بحزم هذا الملف".
خصوصية الوضع المسيحي
وبين الفوضى المسيحية والتنازع على تثبيت الزعامات والهدوء الاسلامي المضطرد، يعتبر قطب مسيحي في قوى الرابع عشر من آذار (مارس) انّ "المصالحات التم تتم داخل صفوف الطائفة الاسلامية تندرج من ضمن اتفاق على فك اشتباك، وتأتي تنفيذا لما تم الإتفاق عليه في ورقة الدوحة، اي إخراج السلاح من الصراع السياسي الداخلي. اما المصالحة المسيحية فأبعادها أوسع وشروطها مختلفة، ويفترض ان تبدأ بخطوة إعتذار تفسح المجال الى اعادة التواصل مع الآخر".
ويشير الى انّه "ليس المطلوب اتفاقا بين زعماء أحزاب وعشائر على تقاسم مناطق النفوذ، بل مصالحة تبدأ أولا بالإقرار بالخطأ، وثانيا باستخلاص الدروس والعبر من الأخطاء، وثالثا بالبحث عن موضوع مشترك يجمع بين المتصالحين".
ويقول: "ان تنظيم الإختلاف وفك الاشتباك يترجم بالإحتكام الى الدولة والاجهزة الامنية من جيش وقوى امن داخلي وليس بتوزيع مناطق النفوذ بين الزعماء، بينما المصالحة المسيحية تتطلب اقرارا من مسيحيي المعارضة بالخطأ وان يعيدوا الاعتبار الى مركز اساسي هو مرجعية بكركي التي دأبوا في مهاجمتها بشخص البطريرك، فالمصالحات بالمعنى العميق للكلمة هي خطوة اخلاقية تتخطى السياسة ولديها مركز واحد هو بكركي".
في المقابل، يعتبر قطب مسيحي معارض ان "المصارحة بين المسيحيين هي الطريق الاساسي لتحقيق المصالحة الحقيقية بينهم"، لافتا الى ان "المطلوب راهنا هو العودة الى ما بدأت به بكركي وميثاق الشرف الذي يعطي حق الاختلاف من ضمن سقف الديموقراطية".
ويقول انّ "التنوع المسيحي والاختلاف في الرأي من صلب الممارسة الديموقراطية التي اعتادها اللبنانيون منذ نشأة النظام، شرط ان يبقى هذا التنوع ضمن اطار الاختلاف لا الخلاف او الاشتباك العنفي والدموي".
ويعتبر انّه "من غير الجائز القول للمسيحيين "اذا لم تكونوا في التوجه الخط والممارسة السياسية اياها، فتلزمكم مصالحة". ويشدد على انّ التفاهم يجب ان يكون على الثوابت الوطنية الواضحة، مشيرا الى ان "سقف الخلاف يجب ان يقف عند حدود صناديق الاقتراع، التي تحدد خيارات المسيحيين واي تعطيل لهذا الخيار هو تعطيل للدور المسيحي في النظام".
ويرحب القيادي اياه بكل المساعي في اتجاه تصويب العلاقة بين المسيحيين "شرط ان تلحظ تنظيم هذه العلاقة بشكل يحفظ دور المسيحيين ورسالتهم وموقعهم في لبنان والمنطقة"، لافتا الى "ان المسيحيين في لبنان ليسوا تبعيين بل هم نموذج حضاري للممارسة الديموقراطية".
مساع معلنة واخرى في الكواليس
وفيما تنشط المساعي المعلنة التي تضطلع بها الرابطة المارونية على خط استطلاع امكان تحقيق المصالحة المسيحية بعد حادثة بصرما، وفي وقت يتسابق الآخرون لالتقاط فرص الانفتاح والتفاهم والتعايش، يبرز اختلاف شديد في صفوف الافرقاء المسيحيين حول النظرة الى دور بكركي ومرجعيتها، الامر الذي يفسر في ضوئه بعض المراقبين تردد بكركي في القيام، هذه المرة، بأي مبادرة او رعاية مباشرة لاي مصالحة تجنبا للفشل والانتقاد والاحراج من جديد، وتفضيلها ومباركتها مسعى رئاسيا.
ففي وقت يعتبر مسيحيو المعارضة ان بكركي "منحازة الى مسيحيي الرابع عشر من آذار (مارس)، ومصطفة سياسيا الى جانب هذه القوى"، ترى مصادر متابعة لملف المصالحة في التيارات المسيحية المعارضة انّ "البطريرك صفير بات طرفا"، مذكّرة بأن رئيس تكتل "الاصلاح التغيير" النائب العماد ميشال عون ورئيس تيار "المردة" الوزير السابق سليمان فرنجيه كانا اول من وقع ثوابت ميثاق الشرف، وعندما دعا البطريرك صفير الى عقد اجتماع رباعي في بكركي عرقل رئيس الهيئة التنفيذية في "القوات اللبنانية" سمير جعجع الامر، ولم يبادر البطريرك الى تسمية المعرقل".
وترى ان "البطريرك الماروني عاجز عن اي دور وفاقي وتصالحي في حال ظلت مواقفه السياسية على حالها، لذلك فالكرة الآن في ملعب رئيس الجمهورية".
وعلى الرغم من انتقادها لموقف البطريرك الماروني تؤكد المصادر قدسية مرجعية بكركي مطالبة سيدها بالوقوف على مسافة واحدة من الجميع كي يستطيع القيام بأية مبادرة. وتسأل: لماذا تلكؤ البطريركية المارونية التي اضطلعت في الماضي البعيد والقريب بوقفات تاريخية مسيحيا ووطنيا؟ وما الذي يمنعها بما لها من سلطة واحترام معنويين كبيرين من فرض المصالحة، امرا واقعا والدعوة من دون فتح باب النقاش الى لقاء القيادات المسيحية في الصرح البطريركي للمصارحة اولا ولتوقيع ميثاق شرف يحمي حرية الاختلاف من دون اللجوء الى العنف ويرسم سقفا للتنافس السياسي المسيحي على ان يحتكم الى الديموقراطية ويحترم ارادة الراي العام عبر الانتخابات النيابية وصناديق الاقتراع؟.
في الضفة الاخرى، يرفض مصدر مطلع في صفوف مسيحيي الرابع عشر من آذار(مارس) تسويق أن على بكركي ان تحيّد نفسها بإزاء المساعي لتحقيق المصالحة المسيحية وان الكرة هي في ملعب رئيس الجمهورية وحده. ويؤكد انّه "مهما كانت شدة الانتقادات التي تعرضت وقد تتعرض لها بكركي نتيجة مساعيها السابقة لاتمام المصالحة، فانها تبارك وتواكب كل تحرك لاي طرف كان، لافتا الى انها "تقوم من وراء الكواليس وبمساع بعيدة من الاعلام، وتضطلع بها اللجنة الرباعية التي تضم الاساقفة بولس مطر وسمير مظلوم ويوسف بشارة ورولان ابو جودة، بالاتصالات الضرورية لتزخيم المبادرة وتجنيد القدرات المتوافرة عبر الرابطة المارونية وغيرها من الهيئات المقربة من الصرح البطريركي".

الاثنين، 22 سبتمبر 2008

ديبلوماسي اوروبي: دمشق تقارب بإيجابية القرار 1701!

Sphere: Related Content
كشف ديبلوماسي اوروبي رفيع ان نشر الجيش السوري وحدات عسكرية تضم نحو 10 الاف عند الحدود الشمالية للبنان في مناطق سورية محاذية لمعبر العريضة الحدودي، يأتي في سياق المقاربة السورية الايجابية للقرار الدولي 1701.
ولفت الى ان الانتشار العسكري مرتبط مباشرة بتحولين رئيسين في سياسة دمشق:
-اولهما، القمة الرباعية السورية – القطرية - الفرنسية – التركية والتي كانت مراقبة الحدود وضبط التهريب (اسلحة وبضائع) من ضمن المطالب التي ضمّنتها الترويكا الاوروبية في كتابها الاوروبية الذي رفعته في 22 تموز الفائت الى وزير الخارجية السوري وليد المعلم، في اطار دعوة كل من لبنان وسوريا الى بدء تطبيع العلاقات بينهما.
-وثانيهما، مستلزمات التفاوض السوري - الاسرائيلي غير المباشر.
وكشف الديبلوماسي اياه في هذا الصدد ان نشر الفرق السورية العسكرية سبقه اقفال دمشق 6 مكاتب عائدة الى منظمات الرفض الفلسطيني العشر وتحضير المناخ لابعاد رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة "حماس" خالد مشعل الى احدى العواصم العربية - الافريقية.
وكان قد تردد ان وزارة الدفاع السورية اعملت الجهات اللبنانية الرسمية ببدء نشر الفرق عند الحدود اللبنانية -السورية انطلاقا من الشمال وصولا في مرحلة لاحقة الى كل النقاط الحدودية.
وعلم ان التفسير الاولي للقرار اظهر انه يعود الى اوامر رئاسية عليا بأخذ كل الإجراءات والتدابير الآيلة الى ضبط الحدود اللبنانية -السورية من كل أنواع التهريب، وفي كل الإتجاهات والمواقع.
ولم يستبعد الديبلوماسي الاوروبي الرفيع ان يكون القرار الرئاسي السوري نتاج القمة التي جمعت الرئيسين اللبناني العماد ميشال سليمان والسوري بشار الاسد، وكذلك الاصرار الفرنسي الذي تجلى في محادثات الرئيس نيكولا ساركوزي مع الأسد في زيارته لدمشق، ومن ثم التقرير الاممي الذي صدر اخيرا عن الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة بان كي مون والذي اعتبر ان بقاء الحدود غير مضبوطة هو في مثابة خرق سوري للقرار 1701.
ورأى ان القيادة السورية ارادت ايضا ان يكون انتشار الوحدات رسالة ايجابية الى الرئيس سليمان عشية لقاءاته الهامة في الامم المتحدة وخصوصا مع الامين العام، وفي واشنطن مع الرئيس الاميركي جورج بوش.

السبت، 20 سبتمبر 2008

طالب دعاوى الطلاق ينشد زواجا عرفيا ويكرّس اعادة التموضع!

Sphere: Related Content
جنبلاط يتذمّر من حليفَيه المسيحيَيْن: ما نفعهما اذا هجم "حزب الله" من كفرشيما وحومال وبدادون؟
طالب دعاوى الطلاق ينشد زواجا عرفيا ويكرّس اعادة التموضع!

لقاء نصرالله – جنبلاط يفتح الباب امام سيد المختارة الى دمشق؟
رياح اقليمية ودولية في المختارة لطّفت خطاب قاطنها ودوّرت الزوايا


ينشر في "الاسبوع العربي" في 29/9/2008
لم يكن مفاجئا للرأي العام اللبناني مشهد استدارة رئيس "اللقاء الديموقراطي" النائب وليد جنبلاط نحو "حزب الله"، على الرغم من كل التصاريح والاتهامات التي وجهها اليه والتي وصلت الى حد التلميح بعلاقته المباشرة بالاغتيالات التي شهدها لبنان في الفترة التي سبقت اتفاق الدوحة، كذلك اتهامات الحزب له بالكذب والعمالة والتخوين. اراد جنبلاط اسقاط النظام في دمشق ولكن رغبته لم تتماش مع السياسة الدولية وخصوصا الاميركية، التي عادت واكتفت بطلب تغيير السلوك بعدما روجت سياسة اسقاط النظام، فعاد زعيم المختارة ليرتب سياسته الداخلية وفق ما يتماشى مع المتغير الاقليمي والدولي.
تبدلت رياح جنبلاط بعد احداث ايار (مايو) الفائت والاشتباكات التي شهدها الجبل اللبناني على خلفية الاحتدام السياسي الذي وصل الى حد العداء بين الحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي و"حزب الله"، لا سيما بعد حديث جنبلاط عن كاميرات المراقبة الراصدة للمدرج 17 في مطار بيروت والمطالبة باقالة قائد جهاز امن المطار العميد وفيق شقير وكذلك حديثه عن الشبكة الهاتفية الخاصة بـ "حزب الله" "الممتدة الى المناطق المسيحية". فانخفض منسوب حدة الخطاب الجنبلاطي بعد هذه الاحداث ليلامس التهدئة والحوار. وانتقل من استحالة التعايش مع سلاح "حزب الله" ونعته بالشمولية والغوغائية وبانه امتداد لنزعة الهيمنة الفارسية، إلى أن "لا مجال لإلغاء الحزب"، وأن الحوار معه ضرورة تفرضها معادلات محلية وإقليمية ودولية، مع الدعوة إلى إيجاد صيغة لإدخال هذه "القوة الجهادية" تدريجا في الدولة ضمن إستراتيجيا دفاعية.
هكذا انقلب المشهد من تصادم الى تصافح ومن شبه عداء وتخوين الى انفتاح وتعايش، حدّاً بات اللبنانيون مدهوشين امام خبر مصالحة خلدة، هل يعيشون حلما ام يعاينون واقعا؟
الحلفاء عبءاً؟
التفاهم الوطني الابعد من التحالفات السياسية كان عنوان المصالحة التي تمت في خلدة برعاية وزير الشباب والرياضة ووسيط التهدئة في الجبل اثناء احداث ايار(مايو) الامير طلال ارسلان، لكنّ اوساطا سياسية مراقبة ترى في هذه الخطوة الانفتاحية التي ترجمت في لقاء خلدة "فعلا غارقا في الماضي وليس مستقبليا بمعنى انه ليس وليدة اللحظة التي تلت عملية اغتيال عضو المجلس السياسي في الحزب اللبناني الديموقراطي الشيخ صالح فرحان العريضي بل هو وليد "تكتيك" غير مرئي، يعود اقله الى السابع من أيار (مايو)". ويربطون بين هذا الواقع وبين تصريحات جنبلاط وتصرفاته "التي نادرا ما تخلو من الدهاء السياسي"، لافتين في هذا الاطار الى كلامه الانتقادي الاخير عبر بعض وسائل الاعلام المكتوبة لحلفائه الاساسيين:
أ-من رئيس كتلة "المستقبل" النائب سعد الحريري بقوله انّ مذهبية "المستقبل" باتت تتفوق على عروبته ووطنيته، وبأنّ الحريري لن يستطيع بناء حزب لانه تياره يعتمد على الخدمات والتعليم والمستشفيات،
ب-الى حليفيه المسيحيين في قوى الربع عشر من آذار (مارس) اي حزبي الكتائب و"القوات اللبنانية"، والاخيرة نالت القسط الاكبر من الانتقاد لا سيما بعد قول جنبلاط لرئيس الهيئة التنفيذية سمير جعجع في احد اجتماعات قوى الموالاة: "سأعيد لك الوديعة" في الجبل، ويعني في هذا النائب جورج عدوان.
وتكشف الاوساط لـ "الاسبوع العربي" ان جنبلاط صارح زواره في شأن مستقبل علاقته بحلفائه المسيحيين (مع وقف التنفيذ!)، فقال ان "حزب الله" يمكنه الوصول الى الجبل من الضاحية عبر كفرشيما وحومال وبدادون، فماذا ينفعني حزبا الكتائب و"القوات اللبنانية"؟ وسأل: "ما هي القيمة المضافة التي يمكن ان يقدماها في الانتخابات النيابية المقبلة؟". ولمّح بانهما اصبحا حملا عليه، معترفا لو بشكل مبطن أن رئيس "التيار الوطني الحر" العماد ميشال عون "هو خيار المسيحيين اليوم".
المصالحة فرض لا خيار
وفيما اجمعت المواقف السياسية على الترحيب بمصالحة خلدة كخطوة ايجابية لوأد الفتنة والاحتقان وارساء مناخ من التعايش في الجبل بعد الاشتباكات التي شهدها منذ اشهر بين الاطراف المتصالحة،
يرى مصدر ديبلوماسي رفيع في بيروت انّ "لقاء المصارحة والمصالحة في خلدة، حظي باهتمام سياسي وديبلوماسي، لانه سيؤسس الى مرحلة جديدة من التعاطي بين فريقين اساسيين في الموالاة والمعارضة ستنسحب حكما على الكتلتين السياسيتين المتصارعتين، وسيكون له وقعه الايجابي في الحوارات المرتقبة حول الاستراتيجيا الدفاعية".
ويعتبر ان "المسعى الى اعادة رص الصف داخل الطائفة الدرزية من جهة، واصلاح ذات البيْن بين الطائفة والمجموعتين الشيعيتين وجمهور كل من "حزب الله" وحركة "امل"، من شأنهما ان ينتجا حوارا هادئا على مستوى الموالاة والمعارضة، لا مانع من ان يسلك طريقه بالتوازي مع حوار بعبدا لكن بالتأكيد بالتكامل معه، ذلك ان الجلسة الاولى التي انعقدت في السادس عشر من ايلول (سبتمبر) وضعت الآليات المناسبة للحوار حول الاستراتيجيا الدفاعية، لكن المتحاورين سينقطعون عن اللقاء تحت مظلة بعبدا لقرابة الشهر، بسبب ارتباط رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال سليمان بسفرات عدة من نيويورك وواشنطن الى عدد من العواصم العربية والاقليمية بينها الرياض وطهران وربما القاهرة، وفي هذه الحال، وبفعل اتاحة هوامش من المصالحات، ومن المفيد اذذاك استمرار الحوار الموازي للحوار الرسمي عبر ممثلين للقيادات في فريقي الازمة، لان اي تعبيد للطريق من شأنه ان يسهل مهمة رئيس الجمهورية في الخروج بخلاصات واضحة ونهائية حول الملفات والعناوين موضع النزاع".
ويشير الى ان "المصارحة الممهدة الى المصالحة اضحت فرضا، ولم تعد ترفا او خيارا يبحث فيه على هامش التطورات وفي ضوئها، ذلك ان جميع الافرقاء المحليين والمحيطين بلبنان وقعوا على خطورة تفلت الشارع ونمو مجموعات متطرفة ستسحب البساط من تحت اقدام الجميع، لبنانيين كانوا ام جيرانا لهم".
ترحيب ولكن...
ولا يخفي مصدر موال من القوى الحليفة للنائب جنبلاط "الارتياح لأي مصالحة تحصل بين اللبنانيين خصوصا تلك التي تمت بين "الاشتراكي" و"حزب الله" لا سيما أنها أتت بعد إشكالات كبيرة حصلت يجب معالجة تداعياتها وعدم التقصير في ارساء الوفاق الوطني". ويؤكد المصدر "الثقة الكاملة بالحليف الاشتراكي وبخطه السيادي والوطني"، مشيرا الى ان المصالحة التي تمت جاءت نتيجة الواقعية التي تحلى بها "حزب الله" بمقاربته للمواضيع الداخلية، حيث رأى ضرورة أن يكون تفاهم بين اللبنانيين وحوار الند للند وعدم وجود إمكانية لأي مشروع غلبة، وتاليا فهذه الأمور جميعها ساهمت في وجود عقلانية في التعاطي بين الأطراف اللبنانية".
ويشير الى أنّ "لقاء خلدة" جاء "نتيجة قناعة الحزب الاشتراكي وعلى رأسه النائب جنبلاط بأن مسألة سلاح "حزب الله" هي مسألة إقليمية ولا يمكن التعامل معها في الداخل من دون إراقة الكثير من الدماء". ويقول: "اذا كانت المصالحة تؤدي الى حقن الدماء ووقف المشاحنات وإقفال باب التدخل الخارجي في الشؤون اللبنانية في كل شاردة وواردة فهي مطلوبة".
في غضون ذلك، يرى مصدر نيابي في قوى المعارضة (السابقة) انّ لمصالحة خلدة "نكهة خاصة لانها ربما قد تشكل مقدمة لعودة المهجرين الى الجبل، بكامل كرامتهم وحقوقهم السياسية ما قد يمهد لمصالحة حقيقية". ويشدد على أن "تحقيق هذه العودة المادية والمعنوية للمهجرين تشكل الحجر الاساس للمصالحة الشاملة في الجبل وقد تكون حتى مقدمة لتحالف انتخابي مع الحزب الاشتراكي ولكن على قاعدة واضحة وليس لفترة موقتة وعلى حساب دماء الشهداء الذين سقطوا في الجبل أو على خلفية مصلحة معينة".
اقتراب اللقاء – الحدث؟
وفيما تنقل مصادر رئيس "اللقاء الديموقراطي" عنه تأكيده ان "المواقف المرنة التي يعتمدها هي اكثر من ضرورة لتفادي اي تطورات على الارض، تنفي ان يكون الذي حصل في دارة خلدة، وبمبادرة من ارسلان، يشكل خطوة في سلسلة خطوات تقود الى المصالحة بين جنبلاط ودمشق"، لتضيف انه "يعطي الاولوية للمصالحة الداخلية التي يعتبرها اساسية جدا في الوقت الحاضر".
وتكشف مصادر مقربة من "حزب الله" أن اللقاء بين الأمين العام للحزب السيد حسن نصر الله والنائب جنبلاط بات قريباً جداً، ويمكن أن يحصل في خلال الأسابيع القليلة المقبلة. وتشير الى أن "الظروف السياسية لدى جنبلاط باتت ناضجة لمثل هذا اللقاء، وأن ارسلان الذي بادر الى عقد لقاء خلدة، ناقش أمر اللقاء مع سيد المختارة الذي افصح أعلن عن جهوزيته واستعداده".
وتؤكد المصادر "أن لجنة تألفت في خلال لقاء خلدة انطلقت مباشرة للعمل على تحضير وثيقة للتفاهم السياسي بين الطرفين بقصد الوصول في نهاية المطاف الى الاتفاق على قواسم مشتركة سياسية يتم الاعلان عنها على شكل وثيقة تفاهم، وتوضح أن "حزب الله" ينتظر من الطرف الآخر إعلان نوايا "تؤكد عدم العودة في العلاقة بين الطرفين الى الوضع الذي كان سائداً قبل محطة السابع من أيار، مع التشديد على ضرورة إبقاء الخلاف السياسي في حال حصوله بعيداً عن المقاومة وسلاحها".
وتتوقع المصادر ذاتها أن "يفتح اللقاء بين نصر الله وجنبلاط الطريق مباشرة أمام زعيم المختارة نحو العاصمة السورية".


Damascus warily eyes the prize

Sphere: Related Content

Bilal Y Saab and Bruce Riedel

WASHINGTON - The indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel that began last May have gone as far as they can. Their purpose - to break the ice between the two states after eight years of not talking, and to test one another's resolve over certain issues - has been achieved. Now, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad wants to move forward, as evidenced in his proposal to Israel for direct peace talks at a recent four-way summit in Damascus involving Syria, Turkey, France and Qatar.
But Assad knows there are still two big uncertainties surrounding the prospects of a historic peace deal with the Israelis: the position of the next US administration and the results of a possible Israeli election. While Assad is grateful for the role Turkey has played so far in hosting four rounds of negotiations (a fifth is scheduled for 18-19 September, according to Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan), and for France's pledge of help in any direct Syrian-Israeli talks, he is only interested in a peace agreement with Israel if it is mediated by the United States.
An agreement endorsed by Washington would not only guarantee the return of the Golan to Syria (in exchange for a long-term security deal with Israel), but also - and perhaps more significantly - end Syria's isolation in the world. The most important lesson Bashar Assad learned from his father is that good relations with Washington, more than any other foreign capital, serve Syria's strategic interests. But, until a new US administration is in place, he knows there's little point in proceeding with the negotiations he's proposing.
Uncertainties besiege the Israeli home front, too, and Assad is waiting for the future of Israel's government to be decided - something that is likely to be contingent on an election - for assurance that the next prime minister will be on the same track as Ehud Olmert. (Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is tipped to take over, but Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz is also in the frame.)
So between now and the election of an American president in November, and the selection of a new Israeli prime minister some time in the next half year, represents a delicate waiting game for Syria and Israel.
In the meantime, however, tensions between Syria and Israel remain high, even two years after the inconclusive conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. Israel has remained deeply concerned about Syria's role in rearming the Shi'ite militant group in anticipation of a second round.
Senior Israeli defense officials believe that with their current deployment, the Syrians would be able to airdrop commandos into the Golan and take over several hills there within hours. To prepare for this eventuality, Israel recently launched large-scale military exercises with live ammunition in the Golan Heights.
"There is reinforcement on the other side," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who closely observed the drills. "It's not by chance that we are training intensively on a major scale." In response to the drills, Syria immediately put its military on high alert.
From a military perspective, it is unlikely that Syria and Israel would embark on an all-out war in the short or medium term. Despite Syria's recent upgrade of its air- and coastal-defense systems, its acquisition of the most advanced anti-tank hardware from Moscow, and its development of asymmetrical fighting capabilities, its military is still no match for the Israel Defense Forces. The Syrian leadership is fully aware that any direct military encounter between the two states would result in a clear Israeli victory.
While Israel may have no big concerns about a conventional military confrontation with Syria, it does worry about the latter's stockpile of chemical and biological weapons (CBW) and its surface-to-surface missiles. Syria has been developing its CBW capability since the 1980s and has gained the capacity in recent years to launch large numbers of medium and long-range rockets. If tipped with chemical or biological warheads, these rockets could cause significant damage and terror in Israel.
Do these military considerations rule out any chance of war, then?
Not necessarily. Conflict between the two countries could still occur over a miscalculation or a misinterpretation. Not since the early 1980s has there been such danger of escalation should one side mistake the other's intention.
To avert any dangerous miscalculations, Israel and Syria need to keep meeting and talking. As long as the situation on the ground remains volatile, the indirect negotiations still underway in Turkey are important, because they reduce the risks of misinterpretation and misunderstanding between the two states. This is the real value of the role Turkey has been playing to date.

Bilal Y Saab is a research analyst at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Bruce O Riedel is a senior fellow at the Saban Center and author of the new book The Search for al Qaeda (Brookings Institution Press).

IDF intelligence: Syria strengthening ties with radical axis

Sphere: Related Content
Yedioth Ahronoth

IDF intelligence: Syria strengthening ties with radical axis
Head of Military Intelligence research division tells Knesset committee Damascus simultaneously boosting ties with West, radical countries. Adds: Hamas establishing bona fide country in Gaza

Amnon Meranda

"Syria is moving forward along the path of peace and openness toward the West while simultaneously strengthening its ties to the radical axis," the head of the research division of Military Intelligence, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Monday.

Addressing the Iranian nuclear program, Baidatz said "the most optimistic scenario as far as the Iranians are concerned is that they will have obtained nuclear capabilities by 2010," but added that such a scenario was "not likely".

According to the intelligence official, Iran is continuing to advance technologically while the international community is not showing any signs of trying to stall the Islamic Republic's progress.

'Weapons smuggling continues'
Baidatz told the MKs that Hamas is continuing to arm itself with Qassam rockets and is obtaining capabilities that may threaten Israel's home front.

"Hamas is also improving its defense capabilities in case of an Israeli operation (in Gaza)," he said. "The Islamist group is turning Gaza into a bona fide state. Hamas is the clear and decisive ruler there."

According to Baidatz, the smuggling of weapons and goods into the Strip through the Rafah crossing continues despite the Egyptians' efforts to prevent it.

As for Israel's northern border, Baidatz said Hizbullah may attempt to shoot down any Israeli aircraft that enters Lebanese airspace, adding that the Shiite group's armament was also continuing "north and south of the Litani River".

He said the transfer of arms to Hizbullah from Iran and Syria is continuing in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War.

Israel's initiative may not be enough

Sphere: Related Content
Haaretz

By Amos Harel

The recent deluge of dramatic reports, albeit incomplete (due to censorship), have not sufficed to piece together the puzzle. Two or three times a week, there are sketchy reports of Hezbollah plans to attack Israeli targets abroad, sometimes noting that these attempts have already been foiled. What is happening now, in many places around the world, is nothing less than an Israeli counterterrorism offensive: a series of impressive successes that have so far kept the Lebanese organization from carrying out any resounding revenge attacks. And still, the average news consumer is in the dark.

Hezbollah and its patrons, Tehran and Damascus, still have an open account with Israel over three operations on Syrian soil: the bombing of a nuclear facility in northeastern Syria last September, the assassination of Hezbollah operations chief Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus in February, and the murder of Syria's liaison to Hezbollah, Mohammed Suleiman, in Tartus last month.

According to media reports, Israel was responsible for the first operation. It has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility for the second and has vigorously denied any connection to the last. But these nuances are of negligible importance to the other side.

Yesterday, another mysterious incident was added to the list: A Syrian opposition web site reported that the secretary of Hamas chief Khaled Meshal was assassinated in Homs. The identity of the perpetrator is not known, but it is clear that Syria is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. No wonder Meshal has been issuing reports, apparently untrue, that he has decided to move to Sudan.

Hezbollah's revenge program spans the globe. So far, intelligence warnings and signs of the group's operations have been reported in Central Asia, in "Muslim states without diplomatic relations with Israel" (where retired Israeli officers are nonetheless present), along the Lebanese border, in Sinai, in West Africa, in Canada and in South America. The warnings are also varied: kidnappings, attacks on embassies, an attempt to shoot down an Israeli aircraft, assassinations of former and current officials.

Last week's declaration by Defense Minister Ehud Barak revealed part of the story: "We have already, in conjunction with foreign authorities, thwarted at least two attacks in different corners of the globe," he revealed.

One can infer from this that Israel is now more willing than ever before to share detailed intelligence with foreign security agencies in order to avert terror attacks abroad. Like the Shin Bet security service with regard to Palestinian terror in recent years, the defense establishment is apparently no longer only guarding the gate, but is prepared to meet the enemy outside it. It is taking the initiative rather than merely reacting.

This effort has been bolstered significantly by Israel's understanding, with assistance from Argentina, of the modus operandi used by Hezbollah and Iran in the Buenos Aires terror attacks of 1992 and 1994. When one knows how Hezbollah is aided by both Iranian diplomats and members of the Shi'ite emigre community from Lebanon, it is easier to take preventive steps.

But all the Herculean security efforts abroad, including the extraordinary cooperation among security organizations that usually guard their intelligence jealously, may still not be enough. It must be acknowledged that despite all these efforts, Hezbollah could yet manage to carry out a significant attack.

‘Damascus spring’ fades from memory

Sphere: Related Content
The Financial Times

By Andrew England in Damascus
September 13 2008

Aref Dalila was not alone in believing that change may have been on the horizon in Syria, a nation where political freedoms are virtually nonexistent and its human rights record notorious.

At least the economics professor and other intellectuals and activists hoped it would as they gathered for lively debates and lectures, daring to discuss the need for political and social reforms.

But that was seven years ago and today, Mr Dalila, 65, sits in his simple flat contemplating his first month of freedom. He was released on August 7 after spending six of his seven years of detention in solitary confinement and suffering from poor health.

In 2001 he was among activists buoyed by a sense of optimism as Bashar al-Assad, the young, new president was feeling his way into office. Such was mood that the period was dubbed the Damascus spring.

But a bleak reality check hit in September of that year as Mr Dalila and nine others were rounded up in a government crackdown.

“It’s difficult to stay seven years without any reason, only because you do your duty, nothing more,” he says. “Where is the law, where is the constitution?”

His crime was to argue for reforms and speak out against corruption from the top down – an issue he could claim to be an authority on as one of the country’s leading economists who had served as a professor at universities in Aleppo and Damascus. Others note that he stood out as as a rare critical voice from the Alawite sect, the minority to which the president belongs and which has dominated power since the late Hafiz al-Assad took power in 1970.

And while the Syrian government has enjoyed a remarkable recent turnround on the diplomatic front, human rights activists claim little has changed in their arena since Mr Dalila was picked up at his flat by plain clothes security agents. A number of prominent activists arrested with Mr Dalila and released before him find themselves back behind bars, along with dozens of others detained for political reasons.

Few activists expect that situation to improve in spite of thawing international relations.

In July, Mr Assad was feted in Paris by Nicolas Sarkozy, his French counterpart, and last week he enjoyed a public relations coup as Damascus hosted a summit that included Mr Sarkozy and the leaders of Turkey and Qatar. The improved relations are the result of Syria’s support for an agreement between rival Lebanese factions that has for now ended the crisis in Lebanon, and the revelation that Damascus was holding indirect talks with Israel.

Yet activists point to other Middle East states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have poor human rights records but enjoy strong ties with the west – even adding Libya to the list after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the north African state last week – to argue that international relations are one thing, internal reform another.

The best they hope for is some easing of the internal pressure as the regime feels less threatened externally, says an activist who – like hundreds of others – is banned from travelling outside the country.

“In 2006 it became clear to Bashar Assad that human rights was not important to these [western] countries, he has more important points [for the west] ... the situation in Lebanon, the situation in Iraq,” says Ammar Qurabi, president of the National Organisation for Human Rights in Syria. “I’m not optimistic because up till now it’s been very good for the regime without any price.”

Like other civil society groups, his organisation is banned, and in spite of government discussions about a law allowing new political parties, no legislation has been implemented and political activity is severely restricted.

When Mr Sarkozy was asked about human rights during his Damascus visit, he said two Syrians had been released from detention. But activists smile wryly – they can cite Mr Dalila’s release, but none others. In fact, they say, two leaders of the Kurdish minority were arrested days before the French leader’s visit. “It was just stupid,” says an activist. “If you do not know how many prisoners are released, how can you help?”

Tzipi Livni is preparing to end talks with Syria if she becomes Israel's new prime minister

Sphere: Related Content
The Telegraph

Tzipi Livni is preparing to end talks with Syria if she becomes Israel's new prime minister
The woman who is on course to become Israel's next prime minister is preparing to end fledgling peace talks with Syria unless it cuts its ties with Iran and the militant Hizbollah group.

By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv
14-9-2008

Tzipi Livni, who is expected to win the ruling Kadima party's leadership race despite a growing challenge from her main opponent, is using the last days of her campaign before Wednesday's primary to broadcast a strong message to the Arab world.

She is determined to ensure that nobody assumes that the presence of a woman at Israel's helm might leave the country more susceptible to attack.

Ms Livni has made plain that she is likely to end the indirect talks with Syria, brokered by Turkey and made public only in May, bringing to an abrupt halt one of the few innovations of the outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

In her harshest statement yet on the matter, during a rare interview with the Al-Arabiya television network, Ms Livni said last week she has "no need to meet with Syrian representatives" as long as the country continues to allow weapons smuggling to Hizbollah in neighbouring Lebanon.

She has previously warned that in her view Syria has used the opening of talks with Israel to bolster its international standing, after years of pariah status, without showing serious intent to cut ties with either Hizbollah or Iran - both sworn and deadly enemies of Israel.

"This is a point in which we need to find out whether Syria is serious in terms of peace," she said. "In order to show that they are serious enough, they need to stop what they are doing right now, in supporting all these terrorist activities in the region."

Her harder line on Syria was a rare moment of toughness in an otherwise low-key campaign, despite the corruption controversy surrounding Mr Olmert, US pressure to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians and the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Ms Livni has portrayed herself as the only leader who can maintain the party's fragile government coalition and avoid early elections, while toughening her position on Syria and Iran.

She has pledged to continue talks with Palestinian leaders but cautions that rushing could lead to a breakdown and more violence. She has also promised that Israel will not hesitate to launch a military strike on Iran if sanctions fail to curb its nuclear programme.

"She is not trying to be nice, or to please anyone," said Amira Dotan, a retired general and fellow Kadima MP who shares Ms Livni's philosophy on Syria. "Courage is the ability to speak up and voice your voice, even if your voice is not bass or tenor, but soprano."

However, in the closing stages of the campaign wildly varying polls have indicated that the clear 20 point lead that Ms Livni enjoyed among party members three weeks ago may be narrowing - with some polls suggesting that her lead may have dropped slightly and one indicating a drop to about six per cent.

It has not been an easy fight against Shaul Mofaz, her nearest rival. Mr Mofaz, the transportation minister, is a former defence minister and chief of staff for the Israeli army. Two other candidates, Avi Dichter, who is minister of public security, and Meir Sheetrit, who is minister of the interior, have fallen well behind, though their influence may become crucial if the leadership primary goes to a second, runoff vote.

Mr Mofaz has cast himself as the guardian of Israel's security and openly questions whether Ms Livni is prepared for 3am telephone calls requiring quick but complex defence decisions.

But, while Mr Mofaz is said to have strong support from the party's grassroots, Ms Livni's supporters have been more vocal during this campaign.

At a Kadima meeting to toast the Jewish New Year last week, Ms Livni entered the hotel ballroom in a Tel Aviv suburb to a crush of television cameras and chants of "Tzipi Livni! Who is coming? Our next prime minister!"

Smiling, with the occasional toss of her blunt-cut hair, she moved slowly through the room, shaking hands and posing for pictures with rank-and-file members. Still, she was clearly uncomfortable with the attention and awkward in her embraces, finally cutting the show of warmth short to take her seat.

Her supporters maintain that she will reconnect Israelis with their leaders and help dispel the growing sense that all politicians are corrupt.

Yoel Hassonm also a Kadima MP, said: "When you go into the street, you feel that Tzipi Livni is a new hope."

Ms Livni and Mr Olmert are bitter rivals personally but politically see eye to eye on most fronts; the two even exchanged an awkward handshake before Mr Olmert's gave what may prove his valedictory address to Kadima loyalists last week.

On Syria, however, Ms Livni's policy is a clear departure and comes despite Mr Olmert's direct pleas to continue the indirect negotiations.

"These negotiations provide a very serious opportunity to reach peace," Mr Olmert said in an address Thursday night. "I didn't promise [Syrian] President [Bashar] Assad anything. What I said was, 'I know what you want, you know very well what I want. Let's sit down and talk about it.'"

Despite all campaign promises, Wednesday's leadership primary may come down to who shows up to vote: with a one-member, one-vote system and what some see as a suspicious 70,000 brand-new members in Kadima's first ever leadership contest, the winner may simply be the best organised candidate.

"We don't have a clue what will develop in the very short time we are left with before the vote," said Tamar Hermann, a political scientist and pollster. "I tend to believe many people who are eligible to vote in the Kadima primary have not made up their minds yet."

Still, Ms Livni's team is working hard for a first-round victory, for fear a more drawn-out campaign will only weaken Kadima and send the country into early elections. All polls suggest an early election would be easily won by Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, which has pledged to end the US-backed Palestinian peace talks in favour of joint economic projects.

"Israel needs to have a steady government. To change it every two years is not a good thing," said cabinet minister and Kadima member Gideon Ezra, who has also endorsed Ms Livni. "It's very important for her to win in the first round because it will give more power to the party, and to her."

الأربعاء، 17 سبتمبر 2008

تراجيديا قانية ومقززة تتكرر .. لاغتيال الحوار؟

Sphere: Related Content
بصرما بعد مزيارة واهدن وضهر العين والتاريخ الحافل بين القوات والمردة
تراجيديا قانية ومقززة تتكرر .. لاغتيال الحوار؟


كتب المحلل السياسي
لم تكن حادثة بلدة بصرما فجر الثلاثاء – الاربعاء، على بشاعة الجريمة التي ذهب ضحيتها كل من يوسف "الشب" فرنجية وبيار اسحق اضافة الى وقوع 3 جرحى، لا مستغربة وخارجة عن سياق الاحتقان الحاصل في الشارع المسيحي وخصوصا في قرى وبلدات قضاءي البترون والكورة، التي تشهد في استمرار احتكاكات حزبية بين "التيار الوطني الحر" وتيار "المردة" من جهة و"القوات اللبنانية" من جهة ثانية. فيندر ان يمر اسبوع دون تسجيل القوى الامنية احتكاكات تظل محدودة لكنها كانت تشي بما هو اخطر واعظم، في ضوء بلوغ الخطاب السياسي الحزبي في هذه المناطق درجة كان من المستحيل ان تمر مرور الكرام. فالانتخابات النيابية على الابواب، وتبادل التخوين وعرض العضلات في اوجهما، والرؤوس الحامية كثيرة، تتجاوز عدد المرشحين او الطامحين في هذين القضاءين، وهو عدد قياسي بالنظر الى الاعوام الفائتة وبفعل تداخل الولاءات والعوامل السياسية والحزبية والعائلية.
في 1/7/2005 اقدم يوسف فرنجية، المعروف "أبو وجيه"، على إطلاق النار من سلاح حربي في محلة ضهر العين في قضاء الكورة على كل من طوني عيسى وشقيقه كلوفيس، وعزيز صالح، وتسبّب بقتل طوني وعزيز. يومها لم يكن قد مر شهران على الانتخابات النيابية في ربيع العام 2005، وكان الاحتقان في عزه بعد اقصاء رئيس تيار "المردة" سليمان فرنجية عن المجلس النيابي للمرة الاولى منذ العام 1992. يومها ايضا سقط من سقط وهرب من هرب، وتسارعت جهود تطويق الحادث منعا لتسرب الفتنة الى المناطق المسيحية، وايقاظ ذكريات اهدن والكورة والبترون وشكا، لكن الجمر ظل تحت الرماد، على العادات الثأرية في بعض القرى والبلدات. مر عامان ونيف، وعاد المتهم يوسف فرنجية من حيث كان متواريا (قيل انه كان في دمشق) في صندوق خشبي ووري الثرى بهدوء. لكن الجراح لم تكن قط طابت بعد، ولا يطيبها بالتأكيد موت طبيعي وهادئ لا تهدر فيه الدماء التي وحدها، في بادية الثأر، تمحو الدماء.
وحدها الصدفة، وربما التماثل، جاءا بيوسف فرنجية آخر لتهدر دماؤه مع دماء بيار اسحق، في تكرار ممل ومزعج حد القرف لتراجيديا الدم القاني التي طبعت تاريخ الحزبين العريقين (القوات بإمتدادها الجذوري الكتائبي والمردة) قبل مجزرة اهدن في العام 1978 وقبل اغتيال نائب رئيس اقليم زغرتا – الزاوية الكتائبي جود البايع في مكتبه في شكا (الشرارة التي حركت الثأر) وحتى قبل مجزرة كنيسة مزيارة في العام 1957، وبينها تهجير مئات العائلات على الخلفية الحزبية البغيضة اياها.
لكن ليست وحدها الصدفة هي التي ارادت ان تهرق دماء جديدة في منطقة تطفح بعبق الثأر وبخور المآتم والصناديق الخشبية البيضاء والباردة!
تأتي هذه الحادثة المشبوهة في وقت تُبذل جهود مضنية لارساء مصالحات في عدد من المناطق التي تحولت خطوط تماس بين قاطنيها، ان في العاصمة او في طرابلس او في البقاع، كما انها تسجل في منطقة ذات غالبية مسيحية وسبق ان شهدت اشكالا حزبيا مماثلا ومطابقا قبل 3 اعوام. وتاليا، من غير الممكن مقاربتها الا في هذا الاطار المتصل بمجمل المسار التصالحي – الحواري الذي يحرص عليه رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال سليمان حرص الوالد على طفله البكر.
ومن غير المستبعد وجود خيط رفيع بين حادثة بصرما (بعد اقل من 24 ساعة على بدء الحوارالوطني) وتفجير بيصور (قبل ساعات من بدء هذا الحوار)، وهو خيط يمسكه بإتقان وحرفية متضرر او اكثر من هذا المسار الوفاقي يرمي الى عرقلة هذا المسار وتعطيله، ربما لـ "عدم رضى" جهات ما على اداء رئيس الجمهورية نفسه!
1-ألَمْ يقل الرئيس في انتصاف كلمته الافتتاحية امس الاول: "ما ان اطلقنا الحوار حتى وقعت جريمة بيصور وعوقب فيها احد هؤلاء الشجعان، لكن رياح المصالحة كانت قد هبت، فأثمرت بالامس لقاء خلدة الميمون، ولم تقو عليها ايدي الغدر والجريمة، فلنغتنم جميعاً الريح المؤاتية، اذ ان الجريمة من فعل اعداء لبنان، وليس امامنا سوى ان نتصدى لاعداء لبنان بمثل هذه الارادة في الحوار والشجاعة في المصالحة"!
2-ألَمْ يؤشر الرئيس بسبابته وبأسلوب تورية راقية الى الفاعل او المجرم او المخطط او المرتكب او المحرض؟!
3-أما كان ليقول الشيء نفسه في حادثة بصرما؟!
4-والاهم، ألم تكن مزيارة واهدن وضهر العين ومثيلاتها المضرجة دماء ومذابح، لتهدم تواصلا وتقيم مربعات سياسية وحزبية، ولتغتال حوارا كان في كل مرة هو المرتجى؟!

الثلاثاء، 16 سبتمبر 2008

Talking with Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah

Sphere: Related Content
World Security Network


Manuela Paraipan
15-Sep-08

I did not feel nervous when I met His Eminence, Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah - just curious about how the meeting would be. It is not every day that I get to meet such an important religious figure for Shia Muslims throughout the world.

Before entering the gate of Sheikh's Fadlallah's residence, the man in charge of security verified if indeed I was expected and also checked the car. I remembered from last time that I had to go the through women's entrance where I would be searched and dressed with the abaya (long, black robe) over my clothes and I would be asked to put a veil on my head.

It wasn’t just that I thought I looked funny with the abaya and the hijab. Like most women, I started to look more carefully at the garment and discovered it was actually fashionable in a traditional way, as well as being a very new style to me. But I felt the veil was too tight on my head, and one literally could not spot a single hair from under it.

One of the doors kept opening and a man would call women to go and see the Sheikh. I thought that they were perhaps there to seek his advice, blessing or both and I was actually not far from the truth. The ladies - most were with their mothers, other relatives or friends - were there to ask the Sheikh to sign a paper for their upcoming marriages. In Lebanon there is no civil marriage; therefore, the Shias will go to Shia religious figures, the Druze to their own religious figures and so on. It is not necessary to go to Sheikh Fadlallah, but because he is the most senior Shia figure in Lebanon it is an honor to have him giving the blessing.

After getting the signature (during this time I imagine some advice the Sheikh could have given these women), the women come back to the room and all who were waiting their turn would wish them their best, or as they say it here, “Mabrouk.” I said it too, as noticeably all looked happy and proud.

After a while, one of the girls started a conversation with me, and by the end of it, I received an invitation to see her in Tehran where she will live with her husband after the marriage. Finally, I was invited to step into the lobby. I was glad to see familiar faces, and I felt truly welcome: Not because everyone kept telling me this, although it pleased me very much.

After I talked to someone I consider a friend by now, and I even managed to practice a little of my Italian, I was invited to move into Ayatollah's office. I remember having a sort of deja vu feeling for a split second. The Ayatollah was in the back of the room waiting, with his specific garments and black turban.

I admit that I started to feel intimidated by the whole setting, but there was no other choice than to move forward. I greeted the Sheikh and the others who were around, and I sat on one of the armchairs next to him. I liked the fact that as soon as we exchanged the first few words he looked me straight in the eyes. That is something that I do not see as often as I'd like to.

The interview was recorded on a video camera thus I had to put a tiny microphone on the abaya, and I was told that I would have a maximum of 20 – 25 minutes. In the end, the 25 were 30 minutes. I was rather surprised knowing that the meetings with the Ayatollah for the past few years were usually shorter and mostly for the foreign media, and I also knew that soon it would be prayer time.

I thought I would have time to ask at the very least five or six questions, although I had at least 20 or so in my mind. In the first question I referred to Hizballah as a political party and as a resistance; the former does not refer to Hizballah's armed wing but rather to what Hizballah and before that the movement started by Musa Sadr meant for the Lebanese Shia at a socio-economic level. It was a resistance movement meant to give them a voice in a state where the Shia voices were merely whispers ignored by all, starting with their own feudals. The Ayatollah is a brilliant rhetorician and a skilled linguist. His answers were long, but I could not interrupt him. I thought it would not only be impolite, but also I feared I might miss something important that he had to say.

The others around us who tried to tell him to give brief answers were not successful either. Even the translator made the summary of a summary; otherwise we would have needed more time. Time that we did not have. At the end of the meeting, the Sheikh signed one of his books for me. I left his office with more questions than I entered but hopefully there will be a next time.

Special thanks to Mohammad Amro and Hani Abdallah, and to everyone I met and talked to in Ayatollah Hussein Fadlallah's office, His Eminence included.

WSN: Your Eminence, can we talk about the rise of political Shiism as a concept in the region? And I am asking this because we see Iran emerging as a regional power, and you also have Hizballah as a political party and as a resistance in Lebanon.

AYATOLLAH FADLALLA: The Shia is an Islamic and humanitarian party. They encountered several problems in the past and were prosecuted by many Islamic parties who followed a different doctrine or ideology. These circumstances generated in them a psychological dilemma which led to realistic and social cumuli shown in their relationships with others.

Hence, the issue of freedom, the freedom of choice and the freedom of faith essential to the Shiite course to lead a normal human life wherever they are found in the world.

Rejecting the countries of the West wasn't the cause of this negative attitude towards them based on the fact that in the past they (the Shias) used to visit the Western countries, seeking experience, knowledge and living opportunities especially due to the economic crisis. But the West, mainly Britain during the last century and after the fall of the Ottoman regime (which prosecuted the Shia as well), observed that there are problems between the Shia and other Islamic parties from the West due to the fact that they took over their countries, potential and resources which jeopardized the kind of life they were living.

Later on, we noticed that the Shia in Iraq just like the Shia in Lebanon were against the colonization – be it the French colonization of Lebanon or the British colonization of Iraq.

The Shahs were against Iran, which is a Shia country, during the Shah's regime because they considered the regime to be an American political tool. Also the Shah seized people's freedom, especially the Shias’. But there is a certain bond between the Shia and Iran that is of a theological nature, through the religious figures and not political ones.

After the Khomeini revolution in Iran, the Shia and other Islamic parties supported the revolution extensively since it represented the fall of the American policy with the fall of the Shah. This doesn't mean that the Shia outside Iran are linked to Iran in such a way that they would follow the political lines that Iran dictates. Not all the Shia support the Faqih regime; there are those who support Iran's political line and those who don't. For example, some of the Shia in Iraq support Iran's political line and some don't. This goes for the Shia in Lebanon and other countries in the world; they might not have the same political views as Iran although they meet on the religious level.

We know as well that the Shia in Lebanon who strictly follow the Faqih's regime are Hizballah that support Iran. They feel the need to face Israel along with United States, Israel's ally, to free their country and face Israeli raids on Lebanon. They are not like some organizations that get instructions and execute them literally. By the time they support Iran and they stand up against the American system, they consider themselves Lebanese fulfilling their role on the Lebanese political scene.

Now there's a Lebanese Shia party that doesn't follow Iran's political line, while they share the same position with Hizballah and the Amal Party on some political points.

WSN: Sir, can we talk about unity between the Lebanese after what happened on May 7 in Hamra and also in the Chouf?

AF: The way I see it, the events that have taken place in Lebanon lately were similar to others that had already taken place in the past many times.

We remember how the civil war in Lebanon started between the Christians and the Muslims and between the national movement and the Palestinians, with the right movement. But the Lebanese got together afterwards and reunited in participating in the government and in many political issues. This is what we noticed when war exploded among Christians themselves, when Samir Geagea led the war and General Aoun was leading the army for example. Many were dead from both sides, but the Christians reconciled afterwards, even if the political differences remained.

Therefore, the Lebanese history is a history of differences which is close to the coexistence among the Lebanese confessions. The problem of Lebanon is that it is the scene where all the regional and international intelligence services meet and where there are attempts to implement international projects in the conflicts among countries, like the conflict led by the United States and some European countries against Syria and Iran and organizations which are fighting Israel and which reject the US policy.

Even the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said that the Lebanese scene is the preferred place to implement the greater Middle East project. President Bush has even said that US homeland security is linked to Lebanon. Hence since its creation, Lebanon has been based on the confessional system, a scene of conflicts in the region through the liberties found in Lebanon, which didn't exist in any country in the region, be it religious, cultural or political freedom.

We notice how the Lebanese became reunited in this unity government after May 7 because they felt that the existence of this rupture would lead to the destruction of all of Lebanon. Like we say, the temple will fall on our heads.

Through the long experience of the political reality in Lebanon, we don't fear for unity among the Lebanese people, whether the Muslims and Christians join together or among each other in the same religion. There are differences in the political lines but there is coexistence in the social and economic aspects of their lives. Therefore we find that all the Lebanese agglomerations are mixed together and include many confessions at the same time.

WSN: In your opinion until when does Lebanon need a resistance alongside the Lebanese army?

AF: The Lebanese army doesn't have the capacity regarding the quality of the arms to confront any Israeli aggression, doesn't have the needed equipment like aircrafts or missiles or anti-raids missiles etc. Therefore, the army cannot face a future Israeli aggression or liberate the occupied territories like Shebaa Farms and plains of Kfar Shouba with its existing capacity. We know that the Army Commander and now President General Michel Sulayman while leading the battle of Naher al Bared asked for the help of Syria in providing ammunition and arms to the Lebanese army, which lacked all of this military equipment.

On the other hand, if the army wanted to start a war with another army, it should have the power to confront its enemy. We are aware that Israeli military power far exceeds that in Lebanon, but the resistance represents a street war and it's natural for Israel to weaken in front of this kind of fight, whereas it wouldn't in front of another army. Therefore, the Israeli power defeated the Arab armies but it got defeated by the resistance.

We notice that in the World War II, France wasn't able to defeat the Nazis with the French army, but with the French resistance.

WSN: In spite of the apparent calm, is it possible to have another conflict within the country? Would you say this is the calm before the storm?

AF: I don't believe there is a problem in the near future in this regard, because the circumstances which led to May 7 don't exist anymore. The Lebanese have learned their lesson that these circulating small conflicts among them are not in their interest. Therefore, I don't think there is a storm coming, so to say it's the “calm before the storm.”

Plus the international and regional axes which usually work on shaking up the security situation don't consider it to be in their best interest to disturb the situation, whether it be the Western or the Arab countries. The Lebanese, of all confessions, reject the civil war, thus we saw that the events of May 7th didn't turn into a global civil conflict. On the contrary; it was restricted and limited to certain regions.

Manuela Paraipan is WSN editor Broader Mittle East.

الاثنين، 15 سبتمبر 2008

ديبلوماسي بارز: مصالحة اللبنانيين لم تعد ترفا او خيارا!

Sphere: Related Content
قال مصدر ديبلوماسي رفيع ان لقاء المصارحة والمصالحة في خلدة، حظي باهتمام سياسي وديبلوماسي، لانه سيؤسس الى مرحلة جديدة من التعاطي بين فريقين اساسيين في الموالاة والمعارضة ستنسحب حكما على الكتلتين السياسيتين المتصارعتين، وسيكون له وقعه الايجابي في حوار بعبدا وفي المناقشات المرتقبة في الجلسات اللاحقة حول الاستراتيجية الدفاعية.
ورأى ان المسعى الى اعادة رص الصف داخل الطائفة الدرزية من جهة، واصلاح ذات البيْن بين الطائفة والمجموعتين الشيعيتين وجمهور كل من "حزب الله" وحركة "امل"، من شأنهما ان ينتجا حوارا هادئا على مستوى الموالاة والمعارضة، لا مانع من ان يسلك طريقه بالتوازي مع حوار بعبدا لكن بالتأكيد بالتكامل معه، ذلك ان الجلسة الاولى المقررة اليوم ستضع الآليات المناسبة للحوار حول الاستراتيجية الدفاعية، لكن المتحاورين سينقطعون عن اللقاء تحت مظلة بعبدا لقرابة الشهر، بسبب ارتباط رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال سليمان بسفرات عدة من نيويورك وواشنطن الى عدد من العواصم العربية والاقليمية بينها الرياض وطهران وربما القاهرة. وفي هذه الحال، من المفيد استمرار الحوار الموازي للحوار الرسمي عبر ممثلين للقيادات في فريقي الازمة، لان اي تعبيد للطريق من شأنه ان يسهل مهمة رئيس الجمهورية في الخروج بخلاصات واضحة ونهائية حول الملفات والعناوين موضع النزاع.
واشار الى ان المصارحة الممهدة الى المصالحة اضحت فرضا، ولم تعد ترفا او خيارا يبحث فيه على هامش التطورات وفي ضوئها، ذلك ان جميع الافرقاء المحليين والمحيطين بلبنان وقعوا على خطورة تفلت الشارع ونمو مجموعات متطرفة ستسحب البساط من تحت اقدام الجميع، لبنانيين كانوا ام جيرانا لهم.
في اطار متصل، علم ان النائب اغوب بقرادونيان سيكون ممثل الارمن في اولى جلسات الحوار التي تبدأ غدا في بعبدا.
وكانت بطاقة الدعوة الرئاسية الى الحوار قد وجهت حصرا الى القادة الاربعة عشر الذين وقعوا اتفاق الدوحة، ومن بينهم بقرادونيان الذي وقع بالاصالة عن نفسه وبالنيابة عن زميليه الى طاولة الحوار في العام 2006 النائبين يغيا جيرجيان واغوب قصارجيان اللذين شاركاه في مداولات اتفاق الدوحة واللذين تناوبا واياه في الجلوس في الصف الاول في طاولة الحوار في مجلس النواب.
وينحصر جدول اعمال الجلسة بكلمة يلقيها الرئيس سليمان، ومن ثم يصار الى رفعها الى ما بعد عودته من نيويورك وواشنطن. ويتضمن جدول الاعمال بندا وحيدا متعلقا بالاستراتيجية الدفاعية، الا اذا توافق القادة على تضمينه بنودا إضافية.
ومن المستبعد ان تحسم الجولة الاولى من الحوار إنضمام قيادات اخرى، علما ان ثمة اتصالات تجري لكي يتوصل المجتمعون الى قرار موحد في هذا الصدد. اما بالنسبة الى حضور مساعدي القادة، فمن المتوقع ان يبت هذا الامر لاحقا في حال قرر المجتمعون تشكيل لجان متابعة، واذذاك قد يصبح حضور المساعدين متاحا للمشاركة في المداولات.
وحضّرت دوائر القصر الجمهوري 16 كرسيا رصفت في قاعة 22 تشرين الثاني (ارادها الرئيس لرمزيتها الاستقلالية) حول طاولة شبه بيضوية، وستخصص لرئيس الجمهورية وللامين العام لجامعة الدول العربية عمرو موسى الذي يصل اليوم وللقادة الاربعة عشر، ما يعني ان لا حضور قطريا مقررا خلافا لما تردد في اليومين الاخيرين.

الأحد، 14 سبتمبر 2008

التعديلات الدستورية ضيف ثقيل على حوار بعبدا؟

Sphere: Related Content
سليمان يستعيد هيبة الرئيس – الحَكَم .. في انتظار استعادة نَصِّ ما قبل الطائف
التعديلات الدستورية ضيف ثقيل على حوار بعبدا؟

100 يوم في عهد العبور الشاق بين الالغام .. الى الاستقرار
مداولات كواليس الدوحة لامست اعادة 3 صلاحيات تنفيذية الى الرئاسة


ينشر في "الاسبوع العربي" في 22/9/2008
فاجأ رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال سليمان المدعوين الى الافطار الرسمي الاول منذ 9 اعوام في قصر بعبدا باعلانه انطلاق اولى جلسات الحوار الثلاثاء في السادس عشر من الجاري، تزامنا مع قضائه اول 100 يوم في عهده. وعلى الرغم من الترحيب المعلن الذي اعقب دعوته الحوارية، لم يكن خافيا امتعاض بعض افرقاء المعارضة واعتراضهم بأن يسبق الحوار، وهو البند الرابع والاخير في اتفاق الدوحة، بتّ قانون الانتخابات النيابية والذي كانت المعارضة استعجلت اقراره في الشق المتعلق بالتقسيمات الادارية قبل الانتهاء من اقرار الاصلاحات، تنفيذا لبنود اتفاق الدوحة بشكل تسلسلي.
اتخذ رئيس الجمهورية، رأس الدولة ومرجعيتها وراعي الحوار الوطني، قرار الدعوة الى الحوار من دون مشاورات - كانت لتطيل امد الانتظار وتجعل من توقيت الحوار مادة سجال سياسي عقيم. فحدد الموعد واضعا الجميع امام مسؤولياتهم وامام ضرورة الشروع في البحث الجدي في المسائل الخلافية التي عثّرت وتعثّر قيامة سوية للدولة، الامر الذي اراده ان يسبق زيارته للولايات المتحدة الاميركية حيث يشارك في نيويورك في الجمعية العامة للامم المتحدة، ويلتقي في واشنطن الرئيس الاميركي جورج بوش في اول لقاء بينهما.
البند الاهم الذي يجمع عليه اقطاب الحوار والافرقاء في قوى الموالاة والمعارضة (سابقا) على حد سواء يتركز على رسم استراتيجيا دفاعية وطنية تشكل مناعة للبنان، وتندرج في اطارها، كما اعلن رئيس مجلس النواب نبيه بري، مواضيع الدفاع عن لبنان وحمايته عسكريا وأمنيا واقتصاديا وسياسيا واعلاميا وديبلوماسيا ومسألة دور المقاومة والجيش.
وفيما يرى مصدر موالي انّ "ارادة المعارضة بتّ قانون الانتخاب قبل التوجه الى الحوار الوطني في قصر بعبدا ينطوي على هدف التهرب من بحث الاستراتيجيا الدفاعية وطرح سلاح "حزب الله" على بساط البحث قبل موعد الانتخابات النيابية المقبلة"، يعتبر مصدر معارض ان "المعارضة هي في طليعة الراغبين في بحث الاستراتيجيا الدفاعية ليتشارك الجميع في مواجهة الاخطار المحدقة بالبلد واولها خطر العدوان الاسرائيلي الذي يتهدد لبنان في كل لحظة".
الا انّه وفقا لمعلومات خاصة لـ "الاسبوع العربي" قد لا يقتصر الحوار على المواضيع المعلنة واهمها الاستراتيجيا الدفاعية، وقد يصار الى توسيع جدول اعماله كي يشمل اضافة الى المواضيع السجالية الوطنية كملفات التوطين ومحاربة الارهاب وارساء المصالحة الوطنية الشاملة، مسألة اعادة النظر في صلاحيات الرئاسة الاولى ما بعد الطائف لاسيما بعدما اثار الرئيس سليمان هذا العنوان امام وفد نقابة الصحافة قبل اسبوعين، وما نقله عنه نقيب الصحافة محمد البعلبكي لناحية تعديل صلاحيات الرئيس المحددة في الطائف بالنسبة الى حل المجلس النيابي ومجلس الوزراء ومدة توقيع المراسيم ونصاب جلسة انتخاب رئيس الجمهورية.
تفهم عربي لعودة الرئيس - الحَكَم
ويقول ديبلوماسي عربي رفيع في بيروت لـ "الاسبوع العربي" ان "اعادة النظر بالصلاحيات تستحوذ تفهما عربيا ودوليا واسعا، وهي طُرحت في كواليس مداولات الدوحة في ايار (مايو) الفائت، وعلم في حينها نتيجة المداولات بين مسؤولين عرب كبار وبين وزير خارجية سوريا وليد المعلم انّ الرئيس السوري بشار الاسد لا يمانع طرح الموضوع على بساط البحث الجدي".
واستحوذ كلام رئيس الجمهورية اهتمام السياسيين والمراقبين على حد سواء، لما يحتويه من دعوة رسمية اولى الى تعديل اتفاق الطائف لتجنب ادخال البلاد مرة اخرى في ازمة مشابهة الى التي عاشتها طيلة العامين الفائتين، وادت الى نزاع في الشارع ومن ثم الى تدخل خارجي لانتفاء امكان الحل الداخلي والدوران في شبه حلقة مفرغة حيث كل طرف يلقي بالمسؤولية على الآخر.
في هذا السياق، يرى مصدر نيابي رفيع في الموالاة ان "كلام الرئيس سليمان ودعوته الى مناقشة صلاحيات رئاسة الجمهورية لجهة ادخال تعديلات على اتفاق الطائف من اجل تعزيز صلاحيات الرئيس في ما خص مسائل حل مجلسي النواب والوزراء ومهل توقيع القوانين والمراسيم اضافة الى توضيح مسألة نصاب انتخاب رئيس الجمهورية، ورد في اطار عام وفي سياق رؤية الرئيس لتطوير العمل السياسي لكي يتمكن من ممارسة الصلاحيات المحددة له في الدستور ولا سيما انه يقسم اليمين على حماية هذا الدستور وعلى صون البلاد ومؤسساتها". ويلفت الى انّ "هذه التوجهات هي نوع من الطموح لاجراء بعض التعديلات التي تسمح للعمل الدستوري ان يستقيم في لبنان"، ويقول: الشكوى التي وردت على لسانه ليست جديدة، وسبق ان كان مطلب اعادة صلاحيات تنفيذية ضرورية الى رئيس الجمهورية محط نقاش مستفيض رسمي وغير رسمي، بحيث تعود الى الرئيس القدرة على لعب دور الحكم بين السلطتين التشريعية والتنفيذية، وعلى الحسم عند وقوع خلاف كبير والعودة الى استفتاء المواطنين من خلال حل المجلس والدعوة الى انتخابات نيابية مبكرة.
ويضيف: يشكو الجميع من القيود التي وضعت على الرئيس في هذا الموضوع فيما لم توضع على غيره من المسؤولين، لا على رئيس الوزراء ولا على الوزراء، وهذا خطأ إلا في حال وضعت القيود ايضا على باقي اطراف السلطة الشرعية.
ويعتبر المصدر النيابي انّه "من الممكن ان يقرّ هذا الموضوع بنظام داخلي في مجلس الوزراء وان يلزم رئيس الوزراء والوزراء بتوقيع المراسيم، مستبعدا انه قد يستدعي تعديلا دستوريا". ويؤيد ان "يبحث الموضوع راهنا بشكل علمي وقانوني هادئ وليس عند اقتراب موعد الانتخابات"، مشددا على ضرورة توضيح مسألة نصاب جلسة انتخاب الرئيس، وان "تحسم القضية نهائيا وان تخضع الى البحث القانوني وليس الى البحث تحت وطأة الانتخابات".
صلاحيات الرئيس
في الضفة المقابلة، يرى قيادي في قوى المعارضة ان "المواضيع الاساسية على طاولة الحوار تتركز على الاستراتيجيا الدفاعية وكل ما يتصل بها من سياسة دفاعية، اي البحث في سلاح "حزب الله" والسلاح الفلسطيني داخل المخيمات وخارجها لانعكاس ذلك على الامن في لبنان"، لافتا الى انّ الاولوية هي لبحث هذه الامور الدفاعية والامنية.
ويشير الى انه في معزل عن الحوار والمواضيع التي ستطرح على الطاولة، فإن لبنان في حاجة الى ورشة دستورية لتوضيح كثير من الامور حول ضرورة تفعيل المؤسسات واعادة النظر بالصلاحيات الرئاسية وفي تشابكها، خصوصا صلاحيات رئيس الجمهورية بعد الطائف، لافتا الى ان هذا الموضوع في حاجة الى طرح جدي والى بحث داخل المؤسسات الدستورية اي في مجلسي النواب والوزراء، ويجب ان يكون هناك مناخ مناسب يهيء لطرحه".
في هذا الاطار، يعتقد مراقب سياسي انّ طرح رئيس الجمهورية البحث في تعديلات دستورية تتناول 4 بنود مرتبطة بصلاحياته، "يأتي من اهمية تطوير اتفاق الطائف في ضوء الممارسة التي اظهرت وجوب تصويب او توضيح بعض بنوده، لكن على قاعدة عدم المس بالثوابت والتوازنات الاساسية او الاخلال بكل ما من شأنه انتظام عمل المؤسسات الدستورية".
ولم يخف المراقب ان "يكون فتح النقاش رسميا على تطوير اتفاق الطائف خطوة اولى للتأسيس في مرحلة لاحقة الى ورشة سياسية دستورية قانونية، تنطلق من ضرورة اخذ العبرة من التداعيات السياسية للازمة الاخيرة التي اصابت البلد في بنيانه الكياني وفي امنه وجعلت مؤسساته الدستورية، رئاسة وحكومة وبرلمانا، مشرعة على ازمات عاصفة وشلت عملها".
ويلفت الى ان النقاش الهادئ والرصين في شأن التعديلات الدستورية يحتاج الى انضاج الظروف المناسبة ويأخذ في الاعتبار احترام البنيان الدستوري، لكنه في الوقت عينه اضحى واجبا لتدارك كل ما شارك او اسهم في تسعير الازمة السياسية الاخيرة، بهدف اسمى وهو استدراك تكرار اي من مسبباتها واستخلاص دروس العامين الفائتين وعِبرهما لتلافي وضع لبنان امام مشهد مماثل يضع المؤسسات والدستور في مهب التعطيل والشلل".
اسقاط الطائف؟
ويتخوف بعض قوى الموالاة "ان يفتح طرح تعديل صلاحيات رئيس الجمهورية الباب امام اسقاط اتفاق الطائف بكامله، واتاحة المجال امام تعالي الاصوات (الشيعية؟) المطالِبة بالمثالثة علانية وبوضوح خلافا لما كان سائدا عندما تولت القيادة الايرانية طرحها على المبعوث الفرنسي في محاولة لجس النبض واستكشاف ردود الفعل، ما يعني قلب الامور رأسا على عقب وارساء نظام سياسي جديد يعيد افراز واقع مستجد تنال من خلاله الطائفة الشيعية التي تعتبر نفسها مغبونة ومن ورائها "حزب الله"، الحق في المشاركة الفعلية في الحكم او بالاحرى الامساك بمفاصل الدولة من الداخل عبر العمل الشرعي ومن الخارج عبر التفرد بامتلاك السلاح وبقرار السلم والحرب والسياسة الخارجية".
وتقول هذه القوى ان "هذا الامر في حال حصوله سيقود الى نسف اتفاق الطائف من اساسه لأن الحل السحري الذي ابتكره الطائف وأنهى بموجبه الحرب قام على أساس إهمال العدد الراهن للمسلمين والمسيحيين، واعتماد المناصفة بينهم، وتوزيع النسب المذهبية في كلا النصفين المسلم والمسيحي، بما لا يمكّن أيا من المذاهب امتلاك الثلث منفرداً، وتالياً حاجة الجميع إلى التوافق الدائم، في إطار نوع مبتكر من الديمقراطية عُرفت بـ "الديمقراطية التوافقية".
وتلفت الى انّ "صيغة المثالثة تنسف "الديمقراطية التوافقية"، لأنها تعطي الشيعة منفردين الثلث، وباقي المسلمين الثلث، وجميع المسيحيين الثلث الاخير، ويصبح "الكيان اللبناني" عبارة عن ثلاث كتل طائفية اقرب الى فدرالية الطوائف، لكل منها حق التعطيل، شرط اتفاق المذاهب داخل الكتلة الواحدة، اي المسيحيون من جهة، والسنة والدروز والعلويون من جهة أخرى، بينما ينال الشيعة الثلث الصافي. وفي حال عدم الاتفاق بين المسيحيين، أو بين المسلمين من غير الشيعة، ينفرد الشيعة في حق "الفيتو"، وفي حال تحالفهم مع طائفة أخرى، تضحي الغالبية المطلقة في قبضتهم، وفي هذه الحال لا "ديمقراطية توافقية" ولا دولة قابلة للحياة".

السبت، 13 سبتمبر 2008

The Syria Israel Peace Gambit

Sphere: Related Content
Khaleej Times

By Ramzy Baroud

Few would argue that the indirect Israel-Syria talks through Turkish mediation, which were first announced 21 May, were a sign of political maturity and readiness for peace. In fact, while the discussions seemed concerned with the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and Israel's desire for security at its northern borders, the true objective behind the sudden engagement of Syria is largely concerned with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas.

A precarious report published in The Jerusalem Post -- citing a news report in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai on 2 September -- claimed that the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has left Syria and moved to Sudan. "Palestinian sources told the paper that Meshaal had come to an understanding with Damascus whereby the Hamas chief would agree to leave the state," according to the report. It suggested that the indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel "may have played a part in the decision". Hamas soon denied the report.

Whether the report is fully, partially or not at all accurate, the fact remains that Israel's key objective in engaging Syria is to further isolate Hamas and to deny its leadership safe haven. Syria opened its doors to several Palestinian factions, who have operated politically with a degree of unison, following the September 1993 Oslo Accords. The relationship between Syria and Hamas in particular was often scrutinised as a Syrian bargaining chip in any future negotiations with Israel over the fate of the Golan. It is no secret that Israel would not transfer the Golan back to its rightful owner if Hamas and other Palestinian groups continue to use Damascus as their headquarters, a platform of political freedom and a degree of legitimacy.

But this is an issue that even Hamas itself doesn't seem to be concerned with, at least at the moment, for it's equally understood that Israel is not serious about its negotiations with Syria, and that the whole affair is a political manoeuvre aimed at disturbing the Syria-Iran alliance, cutting off the supposed Hizbullah weapon supply route, and further de-legitimising Hamas, while propping up its Palestinian rivals. Israel is "engaging" Syria because it's simply running out of options.

Consider A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a report prepared and signed by major Washington-based neoconservatives in 1996. It made the following recommendation to the Israeli government at the time: "Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naïvely with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbours, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organisations."

The mindset behind the report had great sway over Israeli thinking, as was made clear in 2000 when then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak froze Israeli-Syrian negotiations at a point that an agreement was reportedly at hand. The thrust of Israel's policy towards Syria was predicated on the latter's presence in Lebanon. Even after Hizbullah forced Israel out of Lebanon in the summer of 2000, Israel never disavowed its interests in that small country, and thoroughly focussed on removing Syria, a task that was made possible with backing from Washington.

"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathise, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon," the Clean Break report recommended.

That was tried and failed miserably. Israel's goals were trashed in its war on Lebanon in July-August 2006. The war delivered more than a military blow to Israel and a political blow to its benefactors in Washington. It empowered Hizbullah to emerge as Lebanon's strongest party without any direct Syrian involvement.

Since then, Israel has resorted to a strategy of scare tactics against Syria and its Iranian ally. French President Nicolas Sarkozy used a recent four-way summit in Damascus to deliver an essentially Israeli message. He warned Iran of a "catastrophic" Israeli strike if it insists on pursuing its nuclear programme. Although the message was to Iran, the hope was for Syria to take notice as well.

But Sarkozy's choice of Damascus to promote Israel's ominous threat further highlights the relevance of Iran to his efforts, which would not have actualised without prior Israeli consent. Considering how quickly the Iraqi regime fell following the US invasion in 2003, and the succumbing of the Libyan government soon after, Syria is treading carefully, while trying to hold on to several winning cards, its strong relationship with Iran being one.

Although Syria is eager to reclaim the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights, its leaders must also realise that the current Israeli leadership is in no position to negotiate withdrawal from what was illegally annexed by the Israeli Knesset in 1982. To override the strong opposition to withdrawal, the Israeli leadership must be indisputably interested in ending the occupation -- which it is not -- and strong enough to pull off such a major "concession", which is also not the case.

Nonetheless, Syria carries on with its indirect talks with Israel, one round after the other, with much enthusiasm, coupled with talks about economic development, investment, etc.

It is clear that neither Israel nor Syria is anticipating a "breakthrough" anytime soon. For now, talking is an end in itself. Concurrently, Israel wishes to woo Syria to break with Hamas and other Palestinian groups, break with Iran and, at least, twist Hizbullah's arm in Lebanon. Syria, on the other hand, knows well that indirect talks with Israel are an unmatched act of political validation in the West, enough to lessen US threats, win France's friendship, and appear in a positive light internationally.

Both parties want to come across as accommodating, willing partners in peace and, at a future point, there might be a few overtures, the extent of which could be devastating to Palestinian factions in Damascus. Meshaal might not be in Sudan, but if he is, or will be soon, one cannot be entirely surprised.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

الجمعة، 12 سبتمبر 2008

What Lebanon Needs Now

Sphere: Related Content

Hady Amr, Director, Brookings Doha Center
June 04, 2008
Middle East Times

After years of turmoil, and on the heels of the highly successful Lebanese National Dialogue held in Doha in mid-May, Lebanon's leaders swore in a new president on Sunday under the banner of a broad-based coalition government. The government will include both Hezbollah – which led Lebanon into war with Israel in 2006 – and its allies, as well as Saad Hariri's Western-leaning Future Movement; a diverse but necessary coalition to keep the country from splitting in two.

The coalition formula in the Doha Accord on Lebanon was just about the only thing that could have stopped the bleeding today, but Lebanon's real problems are more fundamental; much deeper reform is needed.

Continue Reading
www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0604_lebanon_amr.aspx - 49k -

The Future of U.S. Homeland Security

Sphere: Related Content
The Brooking Institution
A Discussion with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
The Future of U.S. Homeland Security

Event Summary
On September 5, the Brookings Institution hosted Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for a discussion of America’s homeland security. With the upcoming anniversary of the September 11th attacks, Secretary Chertoff reflected upon the department’s progress to date while also outlining future challenges we may face over the next five years, with a particular focus on our nation’s critical infrastructure. He broadened the scope of the discussion with a forward-looking view of homeland security, and how best to address certain vulnerabilities as we advance into the twenty-first century.

Michael Chertoff was sworn in as the second Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on February 15, 2005. He formerly served as United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and was previously confirmed by the Senate to serve in the Bush Administration as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. As Assistant Attorney General, Chertoff helped trace the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the al-Qaida network, and worked to increase information sharing within the FBI and with state and local officials.

Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon provided introductory remarks.

Transcript
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Let me begin by outlining the fact that I think there are two very different views that are often offered when we address the question of how to reduce the threats and the vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure. One view is basically a government-centric model. It’s a view that takes the position that the federal government really should pull the laboring oar in reducing vulnerabilities to all of our critical infrastructure and protecting the public. Under this view, homeland security is essentially a government function in all respects. And, therefore, Washington should figure out where the vulnerabilities are, should dictate to the private sector what the private sector should do to reduce those vulnerabilities, and in many cases, that the government should simply send its own personnel to guard the most critical vulnerabilities and the most critical infrastructure all across the country.

Under this view, essentially any business which operates or owns critical infrastructure ought to be managed with a great deal of detail and a great deal of specificity by officials in Washington or in state capitals, that the only way to show we’re truly serious about reducing vulnerabilities is to have a lot of regulation, preferably painful or punitive regulation, and that where we see threats that we have to protect against, federal boots on the ground should be involved in guarding those particular elements of infrastructure.

Now, I term this a kind of 20th century command and control view of how you protect things. . . .Our position, rather than the 20th century command and control position, our position is that the 21st century requires a different approach to protecting critical infrastructure, and that’s what I call a partnership approach. It’s an approach that is not merely relying on government, or even mainly relying on government, but that looks to work with the private sector to leverage their capabilities and their incentives together with federal government know how to get the maximum reduction in risk for the most efficient use of resources. This 21st century approach to reducing vulnerability is focused on cooperation and stakeholder input. It’s based on the recognition that most businesses are very keenly aware of their personal incentive to maintain security and to protect their own assets and employees.

The fact is that the federal government or the state government does not need to order people to protect assets when the people themselves place great value on the assets. What we have to do is, we have to help them do the job they have a natural incentive to carry out themselves.

Continue Reading
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2008/0905_homeland/20080902_chertoff.pdf

Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem

Sphere: Related Content
Inter press service

By Mel Frykberg
EAST JERUSALEM, Sep 9 (IPS) - The Israeli government is attempting to Judaise Palestinian East Jerusalem, and maintain a Jewish majority against the demographic threat of a higher Palestinian birth rate.

To that end, the Israeli government is enforcing a number of policies aimed at establishing facts on the ground in order to limit the number of Palestinian residents in the city.

To make any future division of Jerusalem almost impossible, the Israeli authorities are applying a combination of strategies including limiting family reunification permits, redrawing Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, enlarging Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and establishing new illegal ones.

Under international law the Green Line divides Jewish West Jerusalem from Palestinian East Jerusalem. However, Israel has illegally occupied East Jerusalem since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Last month Israel published tenders for the construction of 1,761 illegal housing units for Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem alone, according to the Israeli rights group, Peace Now.

Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem says there are nearly 192,000 Israeli settlers residing illegally in 12 settlements in East Jerusalem.

Jerusalem municipality's redrawing of the city's municipal boundaries has incorporated the illegal settlements, while the building of the separation barrier, which separates Israel proper from the West Bank, has increased the number of Palestinians on the 'wrong side' of the barrier or wall, thereby further limiting a Palestinian presence.

According to conservative UN figures, about 25 percent of the 253,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have been cut off from the city by the barrier.

"The Israelis are implementing the final plan to Judaise Jerusalem completely," Suhail Khalilieh, head of the Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem (ARIJ) settlement unit told IPS.

"The plan began when Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967. The last stage of the plan involves the completion of the barrier with the specific aim of manipulating the demographics and limiting the balance of the Palestinian population to a mere 15-20 percent, with the remainder being Jewish," said Khalilieh.

East Jerusalem is of particular importance to Palestinians because under international law it belongs to them and is designated the capital of a future Palestinian state. They also have significant cultural, religious, educational and business ties to the city.

Al-Aqsa Mosque, the second holiest Islamic site, as well as sites where Christ is said to have been buried and crucified are in East Jerusalem. Many Palestinians are Christian, even though they are a minority.

The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is trying to address the future status of East Jerusalem, which it considers a red line issue, within the framework of final negotiations on a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

But the PNA faces a task of Sisyphean proportions as Israel's encroachment of East Jerusalem has steadily increased over the decades since 1967, when a third of the area was expropriated from individual Palestinian landowners during the annexation and used exclusively to build settlements.

The expropriation, in defiance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was justified on the basis of classifying Palestinian-owned land as vacant or unused, as many Palestinians fled the war temporarily to neighbouring countries.

"Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem for seven or more years lose their Jerusalem residency status unless they can prove Jerusalem residency within the municipal boundaries and the importance of the city in their daily life, which is imperative in order to keep their identity cards," says B'Tselem.

This does not apply to Israelis in West Jerusalem.

According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.

In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.

As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.

In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.

Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder.

Jerusalem's urban planning too, has been fine-tuned to increase the Jewish population with tax incentives and massive investment in Jewish neighbourhoods, while severely restricting construction in Palestinian neighbourhoods to seven percent of East Jerusalem.

"However, even before Palestinians are permitted to build they need to obtain the requisite building permits which are both expensive and extremely difficult to obtain," said Khalilieh.

Even if Palestinians are fortunate enough to get the permits, they are still restricted to building on only 25 percent of their land.

Again, these restrictions do not apply to Jewish residents of West Jerusalem.

Jeff Halper from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) says there is currently a housing shortage of 25,000 units in East Jerusalem, and fewer homes means higher prices.

"Despite the housing shortage, Israel's municipality grants Palestinians only around 150 to 350 work permits a year, yet demolishes 150 or more existing homes at the same time," said Halper.

Houses built without permits are demolished by the municipality.

B'Tselem states that both Israelis and Palestinians build illegally, but that the response of the authorities is not equal. Palestinians account for about 20 percent of illegal construction, yet more than 75 percent of the demolitions are carried out on Palestinian homes.

"While demolitions carried out in Jewish neighbourhoods target either commercial buildings or additions to a house, in Palestinian neighbourhoods such demolitions leave entire Palestinian families homeless," added the human rights group.

ICAHD further asserts that Palestinians face discrimination in regard to budgeting and taxation as well as essential needs like water, sewage, roads, parks, lighting, post offices, schools and other services.

The PNA continues to negotiate with the Israelis despite the continued settlement building and land expropriation.

"The Palestinians are in an extremely weak position. If they stopped negotiations on this basis, Israel would put the blame on failed talks squarely on their shoulders, with the support of the U.S., and continue with establishing facts on the ground irrespectively," Khalilieh told IPS.

Israel aims to break up Syria-Iran alliance

Sphere: Related Content
The Washington Times

Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Nicholas Kralev
EXCLUSIVE:

Israel's envoy to the United States said Tuesday that the main reason his government began talks with Syria earlier this year was to "bring about a strategic repositioning" in the Middle East by breaking up Damascus' alliance with Iran.

In the most direct and frank public discussion by a senior Israeli official of the Jewish state's rationale to talk to the Syrians, Ambassador Sallai Meridor said that a "U-turn" in Syria's policy is a "litmus test" for reaching a broad peace agreement with Damascus.

"There can't be true peace if Syria continues to align with the Iranian regime and with terror groups," such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, Mr. Meridor told editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

"By far, the first reason to engage with the Syrians is to explore whether there is a chance for a strategic U-turn, and to have them separated from their special relationship with Iran and stopping their harboring, encouraging and supporting of terror," he said.

The indirect talks, which are being facilitated by Turkey, have yet to yield any positive results, but "it's so important that for us it was worth trying to explore," Mr. Meridor said.

He compared the current negotiations with former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's efforts to achieve peace with Israel in the 1970s, which ended with the historic Camp David accords concluded with the active participation of then-President Jimmy Carter.

"If they choose to move a la Sadat, then we'll know that we have contributed to a significant change for the better, not only for us, but for the world," Mr. Meridor said. "If they choose not to, we know where we stand and we know that we tried."

He also said that Israel is prepared to make "very painful compromises" in exchange for Syria's breaking away from Iran's influence, though he declined to be more specific.

Asked whether the United States has advised or otherwise contributed to Israel's reachout effort, the ambassador said that nothing of what Israel has done so far was a surprise to Washington.

He said repeatedly that the prospect of Iran building a nuclear weapon is the most serious security threat in the Middle East today. "The window of opportunity" to deter that threat "is narrowing but not yet closed," he added.

The three rounds of U.N. sanctions on Tehran so far are "not enough," Mr. Meridor said. He called on European companies to consider cutting the supply of refined gasoline products to Iran as a way to put more pressure on the regime.

The Foreign Policy Difference

Sphere: Related Content
The Wall Street Journal

By FOUAD AJAMI
September 10, 2008; Page A15

The candidacy of Barack Obama seems to have lost some of its luster of late, and I suspect this has something to do with large questions many Americans still harbor about his view of the dangerous world around us. Those questions were not stilled by the choice of Joe Biden as his running mate.

To be sure, the Delaware senator is a man of unfailing decency and deep legislative experience; and his foreign policy preferences are reflective of the liberal internationalist outlook that once prevailed in the Democratic Party. To his honor and good name, Sen. Biden took a leading role in pushing for the use of American military power in the Balkans when the Muslims of Bosnia were faced with grave dangers a dozen years ago. Patriotism does not embarrass this man in the way it does so many in the liberal elite. But as Bob Woodward is the latest to remind us, it is presidents, not their understudies, who shape the destiny of nations.

So the Obama candidacy must be judged on its own merits, and it can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II. This is not only a matter of Sen. Obama's own sensibility; the break with the consensus over American exceptionalism and America's claims and burdens abroad is the choice of the activists and elites of the Democratic Party who propelled Mr. Obama's rise.

Though the staging in Denver was the obligatory attempt to present the Obama Democrats as men and women of the political center, the Illinois senator and his devotees are disaffected with American power. In their view, we can make our way in the world without the encumbrance of "hard" power. We would offer other nations apologies for the way we carried ourselves in the aftermath of 9/11, and the foreign world would be glad for a reprieve from the time of American certitude.

The starkness of the choice now before the country is fully understood when compared to that other allegedly seminal election of 1960. But the legend of Camelot and of the New Frontier exaggerates the differences between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. A bare difference of four years separated the two men (Nixon had been born in 1913, Kennedy in 1917). Both men had seen service in the Navy in World War II. Both were avowed Cold Warriors. After all, Kennedy had campaigned on the missile gap -- in other words the challenger had promised a tougher stance against the Soviet Union. (Never mind the irony: There was a missile gap; the U.S. had 2,000 missiles, the Soviet Union a mere 67.)

The national consensus on America's role abroad, and on the great threats facing it, was firmly implanted. No great cultural gaps had opened in it, arugula was not on the menu, and the elites partook of the dominant culture of the land; the universities were then at one with the dominant national ethos. The "disuniting of America" was years away. American liberalism was still unabashedly tethered to American nationalism.

We are at a great remove from that time and place. Globalization worked its way through the land, postmodernism took hold of the country's intellectual life. The belief in America's "differentness" began to give way, and American liberalism set itself free from the call of nationalism. American identity itself began to mutate.

The celebrated political scientist Samuel Huntington, in "Who Are We?," a controversial book that took up this delicate question of American identity, put forth three big conceptions of America: national, imperial and cosmopolitan. In the first, America remains America. In the second, America remakes the world. In the third, the world remakes America. Back and forth, America oscillated between the nationalist and imperial callings. The standoff between these two ideas now yields to the strength and the claims of cosmopolitanism. It is out of this new conception of America that the Obama phenomenon emerges.

The "aloofness" of Mr. Obama that has become part of the commentary about him is born of this cultural matrix. Mr. Obama did not misspeak when he described union households and poorer Americans as people clinging to their guns and religion; he was overheard sharing these thoughts with a like-minded audience in San Francisco.

Nor was it an accident that, in a speech at Wesleyan University, he spoke of public service but excluded service in the military. The military does not figure prominently in his world and that of his peers. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party convention, as was the case on the campaign trail, he spoke of his maternal grandfather's service in Patton's army. But that experience had not been part of his own upbringing.

When we elect a president, we elect a commander in chief. This remains an imperial republic with military obligations and a military calling. That is why Eisenhower overwhelmed Stevenson, Reagan's swagger swept Carter out of office, Bush senior defeated Dukakis, etc.

The exception was Bill Clinton, with his twin victories over two veterans of World War II. We had taken a holiday from history -- but 9/11 awakened us to history's complications. Is it any wonder that Hillary Clinton feigned the posture of a muscular American warrior, and carried the working class with her?

The warrior's garb sits uneasily on Barack Obama's shoulders: Mr. Obama seeks to reassure Americans that he and his supporters are heirs of Roosevelt and Kennedy; that he, too, could order soldiers to war, stand up to autocracies and rogue regimes. But the widespread skepticism about his ability to do so is warranted.

The crowds in Berlin and Paris that took to him knew their man. He had once presented his willingness to negotiate with Iran as the mark of his diplomacy, the break with the Bush years and the Bush style. But he stepped back from that pledge, and in a blatant echo of President Bush's mantra on Iran, he was to say that "no options would be off the table" when dealing with Iran. The change came on a visit to Israel, the conversion transparent and not particularly convincing.

Mr. Obama truly believes that he can offer the world beyond America's shores his biography, his sympathies with strangers. In the great debate over anti-Americanism and its sources, the two candidates couldn't be more different. Mr. Obama proceeds from the notion of American guilt: We called up the furies, he believes. Our war on terror and our war in Iraq triggered more animus. He proposes to repair for that, and offers himself (again, the biography) as a bridge to the world.

Mr. McCain, well, he's not particularly articulate on this question. But he shares the widespread attitude of broad swaths of the country that are not consumed with worries about America's standing in foreign lands. Mr. McCain is not eager to be loved by foreigners. In November, the country will have a choice between a Republican candidate forged in the verities of the 1950s, and a Democratic rival who walks out of the 1990s.

For Mr. McCain, the race seems a matter of duty and obligation. He is a man taking up this quest after a life of military and public service, the presidency as a capstone of a long career. Mr. McCain could speak with more nuance about the great issues upon us. When it comes to the Islamic world, for example, it's not enough merely to evoke the threat of radical Islamism as the pre-eminent security challenge of our time. But his approach and demeanor have proven their electoral appeal before.

For Mr. Obama, the race is about the claims of modernism. There is "cool," and the confidence of the meritocracy in him. The Obama way is glib: It glides over the world without really taking it in. It has to it that fluency with political and economic matters that can be acquired in a hurry, an impatience with great moral and political complications. The lightning overseas trip, the quick briefing, and above all a breezy knowingness. Mr. Obama's way is the way of his peers among the liberal, professional elite.

Once every four years, ordinary Americans go out and choose the standard-bearer of their nationalism. Liberalism has run away with elite culture. Nationalism may be out of fashion in Silicon Valley. But the state -- and its citadel, the presidency -- is an altogether different calling.

Mr. Ajami is professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also an adjunct research fellow of the Hoover Institution.