Hezbollah and Lebanese authorities continue to round up alleged spies for Israel.
One of the most recent persons arrested is a Lebanese Army Colonel in good standing. His arrest might lead investigators to continue investigating up the ladder of Lebanese society into usually untouchable, un-prosecutable areas: the clergy, generals, members of parliament, government ministers, and feudal leaders.
These revelations created a national drama, and are giving a major boost to Hezbollah's electoral campaign just before the June 7 elections.
Many foreign policy enthusiasts have long awaited newly elected President Obama's meeting with newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Why didn't they meet sooner? Does Obama secretly dislike Israel? Is Netanyahu arrogant and disrespectful toward American presidents? These kinds of questions are being asked, as well as many other useless, immaterial, entirely pointless questions the intellectually immature, unelected ask about elected individuals working for the best interests of their nations.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been forthright and outspoken in their support for Israel. Even if the President does hold negative feelings for the Jewish state, the US and Israel are so closely integrated on matters of defense and intelligence, from missile defense to online security to activities in Lebanon's Palestinian camps and Hezbollah's international activities, that it is ridiculous to even suggest that America will distance itself in any tangible way from Israel.
Might the Obama Administration pressure Israel more aggressively? Sure, and this would be well within the normal, historical range of US-Israel relations. The United States has supported a two state solution for years, opposes expanding settlements, and the State Department is in high dudgeon whenever the Israeli government demolishes Palestinian property. As Barry Rubin recently put it, US policy toward Israel exists on a scale from the George HW Bush Administration's "realism" to the first 6 years of the George W Bush Administration's "romance" with Israel. The Obama Administration will undoubtedly fall between the two.
Myriad voices with diverse and varying opinions exist in Iran. Unfortunately, the diversity of their opinions is not heard in the public sphere. When an opinion differs from that of the ruling regime, the voice is silenced, even if it comes from the mouth of a small child.
The announcer on a live Iranian child's program asked a child caller the name of his toy monkey. The child responded, "Well, my father calls him Ahmadinejad."
The popular show, which was on the air for seven years, is now canceled. I wonder what happened to the boy's father.
Tony Badran's new piece in Foreign Policy "Don't Let Damascus Out of the Doghouse" discusses the challenges the US faces with engaging Syria.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent envoys to Damascus, which suggests the possibility that the relationship between the US and Syria could change from the Bush Administration policy of isolation. However, Secretary Clinton is going about redefining America's relationship with the Assad regime with caution. Badran notes,
in [Secretary Clinton's] stop in Jerusalem, she told reporters that Washington would "not engage in discussions for the sake of having conversation. There has to be a purpose to them; there has to be a perceived benefit for the U.S."
Critics of the policy of isolating Syria have often made "engagement" seem like an end in itself, but through her careful remarks, Clinton clarified that engagement should be based on a clear understanding that talks are but a tool to an end. This is a welcome development. The Assad regime is notorious for dragging out processes and offering no meaningful concessions while extracting unilateral ones.
Previous American efforts to engage Syria and build a consensus of peace in the Middle East have been spurned by the Syrians, although the Syrians accepted all of the gifts the US presented. More recently, French President Nicolas Sarkozy re-opened relations with the Syrians on the understanding that the regime would make a few modest concessions, but the regime has yet to make them while continuing to ask for more concessions from the French.
Badran recommends "meaningful engagement," not meaningless negotiations in which the US makes offers for Syria to spurn, which the US makes only to placate domestic audiences and international observers unaccountable for the results of failed engagement. The US must actually negotiate, which means fully understanding Syria's power and relevance in the Middle East:
Meaningful engagement requires a proper understanding of the limited nature of Syria's relevance, assets, and what it really has to offer. By any measure, Syria is at best a secondary regional actor. Syria has no real economy to speak of. Its minuscule oil reserves, which are the regime's main lifeline, are dwindling, and the country has already become a net importer of oil. Its conventional military power is modest. Its only ability to project any influence has been through its sponsorship of militancy and violence and its ties to Iran, without which it would be relegated to the status of a marginal backwater. The regime's legitimacy hinges on radical narratives of "resistance and rejectionism" toward the United States and Israel. But the gap between the Syrians' actual importance and their self-image and sense of entitlement is vast.
What Washington wants from Syria is not help, but an end to misbehavior. The State Department has rightly defined U.S. policy objectives by making public a list of issues on which the United States seeks tangible Syrian behavioral change: support for terrorism, clandestine nuclear programs, subversion in Lebanon, and human rights at home.
We will see what these negotiations yield. Unfortunately, like Badran, I do not see these negotiations leading to anything fruitful.
Ali Sethi writes in the NYTimes that the verdict is out as to perpetrators of the Lahore attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team.
He describes the conversations average Pakistanis have with one another. Did Pakistani authorities plan the attack to prove that Pakistan, too, suffers from terror attacks? Was it Islamists?
This reminds me of living in Beirut during the string of assassinations in 2005. Who assassinated former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri? Syria? Israel? Islamists? The Russian mob?
Why were all of the people assassinated or targeted for assassination in 2005 after Hariri's assassination Greek Orthodox Christian: Samir Kassir, George Hawi, Elias el-Murr, May Chidiac (through marriage), and Gebran Tueni?
In Lebanon, the perpetrators often choose not to explain. The message might be meant for a major political actor, and that person might receive the message, but we, the people, who must live amidst the chaos try to make sense of the violence, even when few clues are available. This leads to conspiracy theories, strange behaviors, and long-term psychological problems.
The idea that Syria can or should be separated from Iran keeps popping up. It is a ridiculous idea, which I've written about before. However, most news stories discussing US Syria relations bring up the matter.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is sending two diplomats to Damascus. One of those two diplomats, Jeffrey Feltman, is former US Ambassador to Lebanon. Few Americans know the actors and actions of the Syrian regime and its Lebanese acolytes better than Feltman.
Feltman began his term as ambassador when Syria violated UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and ordered the Lebanese parliament to change their constitution to extend the term of the unpopular Syrian-appointed Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. Many of the politicians Feltman met and became friends with were assassinated, nearly assassinated, and threatened. In fact, a US Embassy convoy was blown up under Feltman's watch, and some observers believe that Feltman was the target of the attack. Some allege that Feltman's life was threatened on myriad occasions.
The Special Tribune for Lebanon began operating on Sunday.
Shortly after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al Hariri on 14 February 2005, the United Nations began investigating the crime. Lebanon was still under Syrian rule at the time, and it is widely suspected that the Syrian regime and Syrian-appointed Lebanese government, military, and intelligence officials perpetrated the crime.
Since the assassination and the beginning of the investigation, myriad other politically motivated assassinations occurred, including the assassination of a police official investigating the case. The UN investigators suggested that these other assassinations are related in motive and style to the Hariri assassination.
After four years of investigations, assassinations, wars, and political turmoil, Lebanon will perhaps finally hear the truth about what happened at noon on 14 February. Regardless of whether or not the culprits will be punished, it will be a major improvement merely for the truth to be revealed.
This trial could have political consequences given that it is occurring just prior to Lebanon's 2009 parliamentary elections. These elections will define the future of Lebanon, and could dramatically effect the future relationship between the Lebanese government and the on-going Tribunal.
I don't see how this could possibly be a good thing.
There are many different kinds of settlements, from communities in the Jerusalem suburbs, to historic Gush Etzion, to the pogrom making settlers in Hebron. Ariel Sharon had a plan to unilaterally incorporate the larger communities into Israel, and exclude other outposts.
Analysts and journalists have come to different solutions regarding settlements/communities of Jews on the other side of the Green Line. Many American and Israeli analysts and commentators believe it is unrealistic to require a complete withdrawal to the Green Line because of the historic nature of many of the communities on the other side, and also and especially for security reasons.
However, the Israeli government does not have official and coordinated policies for settlement creation, expansion, and the demarcation of a possible border with the West Bank. In fact, there is no agreement in Israel that there will ever be a border between Israel and the West Bank. When there is a government policy regarding settlements, settlers trample over it and the government makes minor, and ineffective gestures to police its citizens.
At the moment, it appears that the Green Line is a potential border for only the Arab League and the Israeli left, while most Israeli and Western commentators believe that a negotiated border is preferred in the two state solution scenario. Some Palestinians believe in using the Green Line as a starting point for negotiations over an eventual border, but plenty of other Palestinians view Tel Aviv as an illegal settlement.
Israel has yet to define the future of its relationship with the Palestinian people. Settlement expansion is not necessarily bad if it follows the negotiated border/ two state solution plan and occurs within settlements that will one day be fully separate from a Palestinian state. However, the Israeli government shows no indication that settlement expansion will do anything aside from harm the possibility for future peace.
The Israelis don't have to define their border. They can continue to believe that creating settlements will effect future border demarcation with the Palestinians, or will justify never creating a border and incorporating all of the West Bank into Israel. They can continue to hope that the Palestinian Authority will remain in disarray and incapable of negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian people. However, this will not only alienate the world, it will redefine the state of Israel to be something that most Israelis and Zionists do not recognize.
The United States and the international community support a two-state solution. Even if the Israeli government does not, building settlements will only damage Israel's relations with its allies.
The Israeli elections occur on Tuesday. This is an event I will be watching closely.
Regardless of which party is elected, the next Israeli government faces myriad international challenges. Ariel Sharon was fortunate to be elected under President Bush, but his untimely successor Ehud Olmert wasted the unprecedented privileges Bush bestowed upon him.
Since the 2006 war, the Israeli population has been desperate for an alternative. Now is their chance to elect a new party, but the polls show that the Israeli people are as divided and disillusioned as ever. What is worrying is that many Israelis claim they do not even want to vote.
As usual, new and unique parties are running in the elections. We will see if these parties reach success to as significant a level as in the previous 2006 elections. At the moment, the Israeli press is concerned with the potential success of Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, which horribly upsets the Ashkenaz elite, but provides a "pragmatic" alternative to some "settlers" and Eastern European immigrants. The party was surprisingly successful in the previous 2006 elections.
