It's not only Europeans whose ethnic and national rivalries are inflamed on the soccerLebanon Soccer: vs. Indonesia, April 2007 field. The BBC reports that at a World Cup qualifying match in Riyadh between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the Syrian national anthem was somehow played in place of the Lebanese anthem. According to the Beeb, some of the Lebanese "were visibly angry" about the mix-up. I don't get it. So Syria has undermined the sovereignty of Lebanon for decades, laid hegemonic claim to it, instigated and exacerbated bloody internecine conflicts, and (allegedly) murdered the prime minister. Do people really hold grudges over that sort of thing?

More broadly, what's the significance of the switcheroo? Does the Saudi Football federation now recognize Syrian soccer's claims on the Lebanese team's equipment? Or (gasp) is the Assad regime's reach as far as some hyperventilators fear? If it's any consolation to the Lebanese, they and the Syrians will probably all be introduced at international sporting events by the Hezbollah anthem before too long. And when they get the chance to play Syria next, they can fire themselves up with Phil Bennett's infamous pep talk to the Wales rugby team just before a match against England in 1977:

Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our homes and live in them for a fortnight every year. What have they given us? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, raped, controlled and punished by the English — and that's who you are playing this afternoon.

And of course, if Lebanon beats Syria at soccer, that settles everything, right? So hang in there!

How would our president inform the Knesset about this breaking news? It looks likeThe Golan Heights: Has Ehud Olmert already committed to returning them to Syria? the Olmert/Livni/Barak regime has been lured in by "the false comfort of appeasement," since they've decided to "negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Specifically, in what cannot be coincidences, news broke yesterday that the Israeli government is negotiating a cease-fire agreement in Gaza with Hamas (Egypt is brokering the talks), and then broke today that the Israeli government is in negotiations with Syria over a long-term peace treaty (with Turkey as brokers in that deal). The latter negotiations are the first time in eight years that Israel has attempted substantial diplomatic engagement with Syria, while the former is a profound volte-face on longstanding Israeli policy (now sustained with the charade of Ehud Olmert admitting publicly only that he is in talks with Egypt).

Jewcy has a few questions about the affair we'd like to find some answers to:

1) Given the president's recent public statements, do these latest moves by Olmert signal a repudiation of Washington? Or has the US government silently shifted positions without shifting rhetoric (see also this report from last spring that US pressure scuppered earlier efforts at Israeli-Syrian diplomacy)?

Ezzedin Choukri-Fiske of the International Crisis Group argues that US approval is essential for any negotiations to get off the ground, and so is pessimistic that anything can come of the talks before January 2009 at the earliest. Paul Salem of the Carnegie Endowment suggests a third route, namely, "The Americans are not obstructing it, but they are taking a wait-and-see approach. "The Bush administration doesn't want to give anything to the Syrians unless they give something first."

2) Apropos of which, did either side make any concessions before coming to the table?

Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University doubts that full negotiations could have resumed without an Israeli commitment to withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Shmuel Rosner argues that Syria's objective is neither talking to Israel or taking back control of the Golan Heights, but talking to the US and tightening control of Lebanon.

3) Speaking of which, any Israeli-Syrian negotiations are inextricably tied to the status of Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran. And at this particular moment, Hezbollah has essentially prevailed over the Lebanese government, thereby amplifying Iranian power and influence. What effect did that have on either the timing or the announcement of the Syrian negotiations?

4) And what about the Syrian side? Did Israel's strike at Syria's nuclear reactor last fall prompt Assad to come calling diplomatically? What about the chatter that surfaced recently in the Jerusalem Post to the effect that President Bush is determined to attack Iran before he leaves office? (The White House denies the report, though it isn't just opponents of the administration that are convinced an attack on Iran is coming.) Even if the rumors are bogus, might they still have been what spurred Assad to action?

5) What if any domestic political objectives is Olmert trying to achieve? His approval ratings are abysmal, which argues for some sort of popularity-enhancing diplomatic coup. But Olmert has given himself a very narrow line to walk: Israelis "prefer war over ceasefire with Hamas" by 56 to 33 percent, and though 57 percent favor negotiations with Syria, 54 percent oppose a Golan withdrawal that might have been (or might still be) a precondition for negotiations, and 70 percent believe "Israel cannot handle holding negotiations with both Syria and the Palestinians at the same time."

6) What about the roles of Turkey and Egypt? It used to be that the United States arbitrated all negotiations between Israel and its neighbors. Is Israel's new reliance on moderate governments in Muslim countries an expression of confidence --- i.e. Israel feels secure enough to engage in diplomacy without its strongest and only unequivocal ally present? Or is it an expression of desperation --- i.e. Israel feels it has no choice but to negotiate, and if the US won't be party, Israel will fall back on whatever alternatives it can find?

7) What does Israeli negotiation with Hamas, even through back-channels and without public acknowledgment, bode for Fatah and for Mahmoud Abbas in particular? If Israel comes to recognize Hamas as its negotiating partner over Palestine, de facto if not de jure, wouldn't such a development freeze the official Palestinian Authority out of its remaining claims to power?

Now you see it, now you don't: Syria's bombed nuclear facilityOne of the brainier conservatives to emerge from the Bush White House (and he's a Canadian Tory of all things) is David Frum, who famously gave us the much derided "axis of evil" coinage and in his spare time writes learned essays on George Eliot. Why much derided? Because an axis denotes a partnership or alliance, usually a nefarious one, and Daniel Koffler would sooner compliment Chelsea Clinton on her parentage at a dinner party at Leon Wieseltier's house than a Stalinist would collaborate with a mullah, or a Sunni help a Shia work the detonator on an IED. I read that on the Internet so it must be true.

Yes, well, I believe the relevant Latin is de te fabula narratur -- the joke's on you:

For years we have heard that it was impossible, inconceivable, that states such as Syria, North Korea, Iran or Saddam Hussein's Iraq could ever co-operate with each other. We were told that Shiite Iran could never possibly ally with Sunni terrorist groups such as Hamas or al-Qaeda. Yet again and again, over the past half dozen years, we have witnessed just that. North Korea did help Syria. Iran and North Korea did exchange technology. Iran did subsidize Hamas. Al-Qaeda leaders did find refuge in Iran.

You know, it's almost like they form an axis or something.

Syria wasn't even in the original Iran-NoKo-Iraq troika, so I guess it's an alternate if one of the regulars can't live up to its mustache-twirling malevolence on the designated day. Unfortunately, Barack Obama's go-to man on nukes, Joseph Cirincione, last September sounded more like Seymour Hersh when he dismissed the possibility that North Korean scientists could be helping Syria build a plutonium processing facility:

"This [early news of the Syrian facility] appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted 'intelligence' to key reporters in order to promote a pre-existing political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war in Iraq, it should. This time it appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement. Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria."

The leftist response to this, judging from how Talking Points Memo, et al. have alighted on Damascus's similarly themed "nothing to see here, folks" denials of wrongdoing, is to say that even if the Assad regime were guilty, it's all the fault of the Bushies for creating an atmosphere of plausible deniability after their Iraq caper. No one now believes the official intelligence -- except of course when it gives Iran a clean bill of health, or otherwise thwarts the "hard-liners" from arguing anything that could be used to make a case for military intervention.

What a shame, too. Had Israel not destroyed Syria's almost-completed reactor, we would have had another rogue state with WMD for the White House to confront in a cowboyish manner, demonstrating yet again its blatant disregard for negotiation and dialogue. Think of all the missed editorials and blog posts, then weep.

She May Not Be Dressed Like a Diplomat: but she sure can negotiate some rocky terrain!First, they refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence. Then, they log on to a website that's doubly forbidden: Not only is it Israeli--it's Israeli porn. Who are these seekers of sexy skin? Oh, just a few hundred thousand (at least) Arabs in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq, and if you ask me, they're exhibiting some kind of newfangled Madonna and the Whore complex. "I hate Israel and will beat her down...or at least, beat off to her lovely ladies!" The fact that some of these countries even go so far as to block the Israeli ".il" domain isn't slowing these sneaky porn rats down, either. Nosireebob: They're logging on in droves to a site called Ratuv, especially now that the site has been translated into Arabic, with lots of detailed descriptions and a veritable assload of free pics.

It happened like this: After installing software that identifies where users are logging on, the managers of Ratuv discovered that a large number of their visitors were in Arab countries. They decided that a lack of diplomatic relations didn't have to equal a lack of sexual relations, so despite not being able to accept money for video downloads from these countries, manager Nir Shahar set to work making the site as hospitable as possible. With the Arabic translations and extra free pics, traffic from these countries rocketed to 100,000 hits per week. The Ratuv team is currently looking into creating and registering a similar site in Europe or America, so that they can legally accept credit card payments from countries prohibited by Israeli law. They're also eyeballing the possibility of making films in which Arab and Israeli stars come together. So to speak. Talk about a forbidden fetish.

Perhaps there is something to the old adage, "make love, not war," after all. Someday soon, the ambassadors and diplomats of the world might just have names like Dick Long and Wendy Whoppers.

While the French are preoccupied with a new law that will prohibit smoking in public places, their president’s foreign policy is taking a strange turn. Remember how Sarkozy defended his invitation of Gaddafi through contracts that he did not end up getting? And how those contracts included “civilian” nuclear technology (which, we still don’t know for sure, he might have given off against the release of some prisoners)? Well, here’s a new twist.

 

Purportedly to retaliate for its role in messing up the latest Lebanese presidential elections, Syria was hit with a suspension of diplomatic relations with France -returning to its previous policy. WhileHa’aretz’s Daniel Ben-Simon is probably right to point out that the initiative is part of FM Bernard Kouchner’s personal investment in the resolution of the Lebanese crisis, and while indeed is it to be feared that further terrorist intervention from Syria in Lebanese internal affairs is to be seen again shortly, this move takes place in a larger and much more sinister Middle Eastern context.

 

Sarkozy’s announcement of diplomatic rupture with Syria might have come around one of his and Kouchner’s protected jogs -in Egypt, freedom of the press doesn’t exclude breaking journalists’ limbs-but it also came while Sarkozy was trying to sell French nuclear technology to the Egyptians… This is becoming a nasty habit, albeit sometimes humorous (as in when Sarko offered a baffled Angela Merkel some French nukes).

 

Why a possible connection to the Franco-Syrian diplomacy?  Because Syria is both an Iranian stand-in and a possible actor itself in the nuclear rise of the Evil Axis. And what did Iran offer to Egypt right about the same time France did, if not assistance with nuclear projects?

 

All the while, Egypt is appearing ambiguous in its alliances, probably to emphasise its pivotal role between the two blocks and to appease both sides in order to avert an internal crisis.

 

As I noted before, there is little new in French presidential foreign policy. However, this continued pragmatism -Sarkozy’s new friend now has the presidency of the UN Security Council- falsely sold as idealism (who can believe that France’s refusal to enter the latest Iraqi conflict had nothing to do with its petroleum needs?) means that Napoleon’s heirs are ready to wreck the world again by contributing to the dissemination of nuclear technology to less than tasty partners -we all remember the Osirak case.

 

Today The Jerusalem Post reports that Israeli authorities have started to talk about the September 6 IAF attack on targets in northern Syrian. Up until now Israeli officials had been uncharacteristically mum on the incident, leaving everyone to speculate on the nature and intent of the operation. The Jerusalem Post's round-up:

The Washington Post reported that the target had been a facility involved in a joint Syrian-North Korean nuclear project - a claim backed by former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

Britain's Sunday Times, meanwhile, reported just over a week ago that soldiers from the IDF's elite General Staff Reconnaissance Unit (Sayeret Matkal) had seized North Korean nuclear material from a secret Syrian military installation before it was bombed by IAF jets.

The paper claimed that the IAF attack on September 6 was sanctioned by the US after the Americans were given proof that the material was indeed nuclear-related. It also stated that Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who used to head the unit, personally oversaw the operation.

Someone who claims to have access to Binyamin Netanyahu told me that the strike was essentially a test of Iranian surveillance capability - to see what Iran could catch and how soon. Sounds far fetched, but who knows?

I was shocked from the start that this story wasn't a much bigger deal. It would seem to me that a nuclear nexus of Iran, Syria, and North Korea pretty much defines our worst nightmare. This comes, by the way, two months after a mysterious accident in northern Syria, widely believed to be the result of chemical weapons development, killed both Syrian and Iranian engineers.

What I find most interesting about this is that Victor Davis Hanson said a long a time ago we would start to see Saudi Arabia and Turkey and others in the area give Israel the implicit okay to take out regional threats to stability. Hanson said they'd condemn Israel publicly, but not do a thing about it. I'm not sure I've even seen the public condemnation.

 

File under Oy: 

Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” he said.

The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials estimate might have been supplied with material from North Korea.

It's popular in certain circles in Israel and the Diaspora to point out how impossible is the notion of making peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors. You hear it from the Likud. You hear it from the likes of AIPAC and the American Jewish Committee. There are a thousand reasons, so the argument goes, why an Arab could never make a suitable partner for peace. Prominent among these perfidious partners is Syria. Everyone knows that the Assad regime is a bunch of thugs who assassinated Rafik Hariri. Besides they're untrustworthy, support Hezbollah, shelter Hamas operatives, and call themselves brother to the even more perfidious Iran. No, it's hopeless. There can never be peace with Syria. Except there's one small fault with this argument: it's wrong on the most important counts. A senior former Israeli foreign ministry staffer met for months with a Syrian-American confidant of the Assad regime and basically ironed out most of the issues that separated the parties. At first, Ehud Olmert pooh-poohed the effort saying Alon Liel, the former foreign ministry director general, represented no one but himself (even though Liel negotiated with the knowledge and approval of the Sharon government). Then Olmert said Israel couldn't take the negotiations seriously because the Bush Administration had put the kibosh on the whole thing. That made Olmert look like an American marionette. There have been news reports saying the U.S. released Israel to pursue further discussions with the Syrians though Israel has said or done nothing to confirm this. And that is where things stand now. Two recent developments breath hope and substance into the Syria-Israel peace track. Haaretz reveals a recent poll of Syrians by Terror Free Tomorrow finds that 51% are in favor of peace with Israel in return for mutual recognition and return of the Golan. So much for those who claim that the Syrians would be an untrustworthy partner who doesn't even want peace. Polls show a majority of Israelis also favor Syrian negotiations. Don't get me wrong. There are as many reasons for Israel to distrust Syria as there are for Syria to distrust Israel. The only way to test an opposing party's good faith is to sit down and talk to them. Thus far, the Olmert government has refused to do this. But now there may be reasons to believe that hardened attitudes are beginning to shift. Last January, a group of prominent Israelis formed a new lobby, the National Movement for Peace With Syria, to pressure Israel to take the Syria peace track more seriously. The new group included former chief of staff Amnon Lipkin Shahak, former Shin Bet chief, Ya'akov Perry and former directors at the Foreign Ministry, David Kimche and Alon Liel. Ynet reports that the group recently went right into the lion's den to hold a public forum on the Israeli-Syrian peace diplomacy IN THE GOLAN which was attended by "hundreds of Golan residents." You may dispute the legitimacy of a group of self-appointed peaceniks, but the fact that Ami Ayalon and Alon Liel presented the National Movement's agenda to a group of Israelis who have the most to lose in a future peace settlement and received a respectful hearing says a great deal about the viability of peace with Syria. In fact these same Golanis have signed the following statement:

“President Assad has repeatedly declared his willingness to renew the negotiations for peace with Israel,” it says. “The Israeli government has rejected these calls, but in recent months has checked their authenticity with the help of a third party. “We call on President Bush and Tony Blair to facilitate the negotiations with American presence or representation from the Quartet. We believe such talks could remove the threat of the missiles that are currently flowing from Iran into Syria by the thousands and may soon land on our heads.”

Will Ehud Olmert and his new Labor partner, Ehud Barak, listen to this voice of pragmatism and vigorously pursue the chance for peace with Syria? Stay tuned.

By killing two South Korean hostages and refusing to release the remaining twenty-one, including eighteen women, the Taliban is taking a new path that hints it is becoming an Afghan branch of Al Qaeda. [Christian Science Monitor]

Cheney says he was wrong about the status of the Iraqi insurgency. The Vice President admitted to Larry King that he was (gasp!) "incorrect" in saying two years ago that the insurgency was in its “last throes.” [Iraq Slogger] It took two years of vicious, bloody insurgency and thousand of military and civilian casualties for the VP to finally admit he was "incorrect." That's noble of him. Now, how about some remorse.

The House of Representatives passed a measure intended to improve diagnosis and treatment of PTSD in service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. [Iraq Slogger]

Pro-Taliban fighters have seized control of a mosque and shrine in the Mohmand area of Pakistan's North West Frontier province and renamed it the Red Mosque. The tribesmen have expressed support for Abdul Rashid Ghazi, the leader of Islamabad's Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, killed in a government assault last month. [Al Jazeera]

Tori of Atlanta, a voluptuous Southern courtesan, will be in Iraq this month to entertain the men of the Private Security Contractors Association. [Iraq Slogger]

"One of the least covered aspects of the fallout from the Iraq war is the rising toll of suicides, both near the battlefield and back home." [Editor & Publisher]

Efraim Halevy, former chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, says it is time for Israel to speak directly with the leaders of Hamas. [The Wall Street Journal]

The Bush administration offers 25 percent more aid to Israel as part of the massive arms deal for Saudi Arabia, but Democrats and Jewish groups say they still want many questions answered before signing off on the plan. [Jewish Telegraph Agency]

Syria’s political and military leaders have rescheduled the start of hostilities against Israel on the Golan for the second two weeks of November, 2007, postponing their original planning by more than two months. Also, Saudi Arabia will not promise to attend Bush's proposed Mideast peace conference, and they say Israel needs to show peace rather than just talk about it. [Debka]

Professor Martin Kramer, a senior fellow at Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, blogs on the geopolitical situation of the Jews. [The Jerusalem Post]

Agence France-Presse: Pakistani security forces began their assault on the mosque compound before daybreak on Tuesday, just hours after talks broke down to end the eight-day siege in central Islamabad.

Olmert calls for Syria to resume peace talks with Israel; Blair pushes for greater authority in his peacekeeping role; Iranian executions for rape, adultery, insulting religious sanctities, and homosexuality; The Jewish Agency will house 58 Sudanese refugees near Sderot. [Jewish Telegraph Agency] [The New York Times]

Bloody battle ends, leaves 82 dead at Red Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan. [The Washington Post]
Craig Cohen, deputy chief of staff at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, discussed the deadly military raid at Pakistan's Red Mosque -- which ended an eight-day standoff with anti-government, pro-Taliban forces -- and the impact it will have on President Pervez Musharraf's control of the U.S.-allied country. [The Washington Post] [The Los Angeles Times]

Abbas convenes the Palestinian legislature; Hamas boycotts. [The New York Times]
According to Abbas, “thanks to the support of Hamas, Al Qaeda is entering Gaza.” [The New York Times]