In an event already being declared a breakthrough in Arab political identity and self-esteem by media outlets throughout the Middle East, Islamic resistance group Hamas secured the return of 20 Palestinian female prisoners held in Israeli jails, in exchange for a video of a single, emaciated Jew.

Hamas-leader-in-exile Khaled Meshal said during a speech-in-exile in Damascus that the exchange represented the greatest-ever affirmation of the sanctity that the Arab world places upon its prisoners, and the righteousness of their sacrifice.

"Imagine if we send them a fingernail, we could free every prisoner in Israel", Meshal told the crowd at Martyrs' square in the Martyrs' Heights neighborhood of Damascus, before mumbling something about "Zionist vampires" hijacking his Twitter feed.

In later statements made to an AP writer in Damascus, Meshal said he had received "unconfirmed proof" that Israeli agents had implanted a GPS tracking device in the left breast of each prisoner, in order to better facilitate future punitive air strikes on their homes and sleeping children.

The Gaza newspaper "Palestine", which secured a choice product placement in the video, reported that all 20 prisoners were currently undergoing reprogramming in UNRWA-run schools in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in order to expunge the trade school certifications and high school equivalency exams they completed while in the prisons of the Zionist entity.

On Friday, Palestinian families throughout the West Bank rejoiced in the glory of their loved ones' return home, with many saying it was their happiest day since the last of their regular visits to them in Israeli prison.

Also Friday, relatives of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit celebrated their first view of their son since he was kidnapped in a cross-border raid by Hamas in 2006, saying that the three years without any contact or confirmation of his well-being and Hamas' refusal to allow Red Cross visits made viewing the 2:42 video all the sweeter.

 

Benjamin L. Hartman is an editor at Haaretz.com, the English Web site of Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz

Dear Abe,

You've been at the forefront of American Jewish criticism of President Obama's renewed push for Israeli-Arab peace.   After a recent meeting with the President along with 15 other Jewish leaders, you confessed that you continue "to feel uncomfortable with the assumptions that underlie President Obama's approach" to Israel and the Middle East. 

You've charged that President Obama's outreach to the Muslim world is being conducted "at Israel's expense."   For Obama, you say, "there is a need for the US to demonstrate that it can be tough with Israel to win back credibility with Muslims. We are seeing it already on the settlement issue..." 

But being tough on Netanyahu about settlements is not at "Israel's expense."  It is a blessing to Israel, given the grave threat which many Israeli military and political leaders have said the settlements pose to Israel's security, to the very possibility of a two-state solution to its conflict with the Palestinians, and to Israel's ability to remain a democratic Jewish state.   For the last eight years, we've had a president who recklessly squandered American prestige.   He had no credibility to broker an Israeli-Arab accommodation.   He made little more than token efforts to do so, when not trumpeting his outright opposition to negotiations with Syria, despite the unanimous advice of Israel's intelligence and military brass, and its political leadership.  An American president who has regained the confidence of the Arab and Muslim worlds is quite simply a strategic asset to Israel.   American pressure over settlements is an investment in Israel's future, a gift to the Zionist project.   

Nor does pressure need to be applied simultaneously and in equal doses to satisfy some artificial notion of even-handedness.   As Larry Derfner points out in the Jerusalem Post, "The Palestinian Authority has been cracking down on Hamas for a long while, it kept the West Bank miraculously quiet during Operation Cast Lead, it's enforcing the law in city after city... If the PA wasn't giving us peace and we were giving it land - we'd be right to demand that Obama put all the pressure on the Palestinians and none on us.  But the fact is that Abbas and the PA are giving us about as much peace as they're capable of, while we aren't planning on giving them an inch; instead, we're thinking only about how much more conquered land Obama will let us build on."

You've said that President Obama's "notion that we have to pressure Israel to show our bona fides to the Arabs is to buy into their distorted version of history."   You've accused the president of ignoring the history of Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.   But such criticisms stand reality on its head.   Obama understands all too well why past peace efforts have failed.  His new way is designed to overcome the errors and missteps of the past.  By adopting a regional approach, he is more likely to gain wide Arab backing for historic Palestinian compromises on Jerusalem and refugees, issues which resonate throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.   By enlisting the help of Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, he stands a better chance of bringing about a unified Fatah-Hamas Palestinian government that will hew to the international and Arab consensus:  a government that will have both the will and the wherewithal to honor its commitments under a peace accord with Israel. 

Obama recognizes that the US cannot help forge peace between Israelis and Palestinians while allowing Syria and Iran to continue to stoke Hezbollah and Hamas extremism. While Bush added fuel to the fires of Arab and Muslim radicalism, Obama is cutting off their oxygen supply, sapping Hezbollah's political power and reinforcing the impetus towards pragmatism in Hamas.  Obama is finally ending the practice, perfected under Bush, of saying one thing--whether about settlements or the president's commitment to help negotiate an accord--and then doing something else. 

You hold up President Bush's "enunciation of the need for a Palestinian state, the road map, Israel's disengagement from Gaza in 2005, and the Annapolis process in 2007" as having "provided opportunities for progress toward peace if the Palestinians were truly interested."  You highlight what "Israel has done in recent years to advance peace:  Israel's offer of a Palestinian state at Camp David in 2000, its unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, also in 2000, and its disengagement from Gaza were all steps upon which there could have been building toward peace."  Instead, you conclude, "the Palestinians responded with rejection, suicide bombs and kidnappings, extremist politics and rockets."

But this Manichean narrative of righteous Israelis and evil Palestinians - the stock-in-trade of right-wing hasbarah - is a cartoon version of what went wrong, ignoring true causes and effects.  Annapolis did not fail because the Palestinians refused to accept another "generous Israeli offer," but because President Bush did nothing to help the parties bridge the gaps, failing to apply diplomatic tools to encourage their agreement to a US-proposed compromise, as President Carter successfully did with Egypt and Israel.   Similarly, Bush did nothing to hold either party accountable for their commitments under the Road Map, even after promising to "ride herd" on both as he left the company of Sharon and Abbas at Aqaba. 

Continue reading...

As published in the Jerusalem Report, May 18, 2009

With the maiden visit of newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington set for May 18, signs of an immanent clash between U.S. President Barack Obama and the hardline Israeli leader abound.

While both leaders will look to find common ground, papering over differences with diplomatic formulas, the rift may be unavoidable. The impending tension recalls previous encounters between Likud leaders and U.S. presidents from both parties.  This time the tremors will center not only on the Palestinian fault line, but also on Iran.

Netanyahu views the development of an Iranian uranium enrichment capacity as an existential threat to Israel that must be squelched. He is certain that Obama's "dialogue" with Iran is bound to fail, rendering inevitable an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites. An Israeli attack will be preceded by more punishing economic penalties on Iran of the kind mooted lately on Capitol Hill, and backed by AIPAC, the hawkish pro-Israel lobby. But sanctions-on-steroids are unlikely to blunt Iran's quest to join the nuclear club, serving only to clear away the final hurdles blocking a final push for preemptive Israeli military action.

Obama's way represents nothing less than a revolution in the Middle East: not the stillborn new Middle East the Bush Administration imagined could be midwifed by the force of American and Israeli arms, but a new order that will arise from the centripetal forces unleashed by a political earthquake. How does Obama hope to set in motion this tectonic realignment? Reading the tea leaves, one can divine an unfolding pattern whose contours will only be more fully revealed when Obama delivers a major speech to the Arab and Muslim worlds in Egypt on June 4, following meetings with Netanyahu, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.  

Continue reading...

A roundup of matters of mild importance... 

1,000 people turned out for the funeral of Seattle's famed "Tuba Man."

Google is preparing to release voice-recognition software for its iPhone application.

Michael Jackson has abdicated his molestation palace.

A resort in Queensland, Australia will be hosting a month-long "Anything Goes" nudity party in March. Resort owner Tony Fox: "Tough economic times call for stiff measures".

Archaeologists in Syria have uncovered the ruins of a Christian church that dates back 1,500 years.

Topps plans to release a series of Barack Obama trading cards.

Fidel Castro is still alive.

Nigeria's adorable little attempt at aerospace engineering didn't work out. A+ for effort though; maybe all they need is some encouragement and they will be able to tackle their various pressing terrestrial matters. 

In what seems to be becoming a weekly occurance, the U.S. military went into Pakistan and killed a bunch of people.

The oft-discussed $100 laptops will be made available in Europe on Monday.

Thieves in Russia have stolen a 200-year-old church, brick-by-brick.

Canadian officials have relieved a convicted felon of a five-year prison sentence because he was literally too fat to fit into the various prison accomodations. Must be all that poutine.

Kanye West was arrested and subsequently cleared of wrongdoing in England.

The new Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, opens today.

• Thousands of crybaby Syrians gathered in Damascus to whine about U.S. soldiers entering their country and killing people.
• In what could be a hint of things to come in other countries that refuse to dabble in treif, Pakistan is overrun with wild boars.
• The New York Times ran a hard-hitting report on how to rid one's house of ghosts and other supernatural undesirables.
• Microsoft has gone Ol' Yeller on Windows Vista.
• The suicide rate among U.S. soldiers is rising, but remains lower than that of the civilian population.
• The Philadelphia Phillies beat the Tampa Bay Rays, 4-3, last night to clinch the franchise's second World Series title in its 125-year existence.

 

It's difficult to put all the pieces together, and it is tempting to fall into one of several made-to-order narratives. Which might, in fact be true - but that doesn't mean that they are complete.First, the basics. American troops attacked a farmhouse 8 kilometers inside Syria, killing 7 or 8 people, one of whom was Abu Ghadiya, a senior figure in Al Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. intelligence sources have said that there was information that Abu Ghadiya was planning an attack inside Iraq, and that while women and children were present, none were injured. Syrian sources say that women and children were among the dead, killed when U.S. Special Forces opened fire on the building form outside.

This attack in Syria follows recent attacks into Pakistan that were apparently similarly based on actionable intelligence. (In other words, the Bush administration is acting rather in the manner that Barack Obama has suggested. John McCain has called Obama "naïve" and worse for saying out loud that he would consider such cross-border raids; the Bush administration appears less reticent. But that particular irony is a tangent I do not want to pursue at the moment.) Although there has been no comment from either the White House or the State Department about the most recent raid, officials quoted in several sources say that it reflects the administrations broad interpretation of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter which provides the right of individual or collective self-defense to member states. This is the same provision that Israel has repeatedly cited to justify its own military actions including its attack on Something Mysterious in Syria last September; it has also been used by Turkish troops pursuing Kurdish militants in their sanctuaries in northern Iraq. President Bush hinted at the scope of the theory in his speech to the U.N. this past month: "As sovereign states, we have an obligation to govern responsibly . . . We have an obligation to prevent our territory from being used as a sanctuary for terrorism and proliferation and human trafficking and organized crime."

It is important to note that this is not the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attack, it is a theory of "self-defense" that according to administration sources justifies attacks on insurgents in other nations if they threaten "the forces, allies, or interests of the United States" according to U.S. officials. The word "interest," of course, makes the scope of this theory essentially infinite.The immediate reactions from Syria and Iran were predictable: the Syrian Foreign Minister called the raid an act of "terrorist aggression" and warned darkly "if they do it again, we will defend our territories."

The Iraqi government spokesman tried to have it both ways, condemning the attack on the grounds that the Iraqi constitution prohibits the use of its territory to attack neighboring countries - a fairly clear reference to the increasingly hostile negotiations between the Bush administration and the Maliki government over the terms of an agreement to permit U.S. troops to remain in Iraq - and also called on Syria to improve border security.

There are several easy America-centered narratives.

One is that the intelligence was specific enough and the target important enough that other consequences were simply pushed aside. Another is a conspiracy theory about attempts by the White House to influence the election. And a third has Bush either taking advantage of the opportunity to act between now and January or, alternatively, ensuring that Al Qaeda and others do not assume that the U.S. is so distracted by the election its aftermath that they can act with impunity. (If you really want to get paranoid, there is also the Somalia Theory: that Bush is deliberately creating a disaster for his successor to inherit.)All perfectly plausible. But there is still an element of weirdness in the story. As recently as last month, Secretary of State Rice was saying nice things about the progress Syria was making in securing its borders, although she said that there remained much work to be done. The EU has been working to ease Syria's isolation.

The U.S., for all our complaints about them, have been sending suspected terrorists to Syria to be tortured - er, questioned - for years, and may be continuing to do so. This month Syria opened official relations with an independent Lebanon. In other words, there were several reasons to think that relations between Damascus and Washington were beginning to thaw, which I have argued repeatedly would be a very good thing, if only to give Assad some alternative to an alliance with Teheran. So the timing is a little odd.

That can be explained, perhaps, by the unpredictable fact of actionable intelligence becoming available, but then there is the weirdness of the very moderate Syrian reaction. Bluster aside, the Syrian response has been . . . to close the American School in Damascus. Despite talks of "next time we will defend our territories" there are no reports of troop movements to the Iraqi border, unlike the movement of 10,000 Syrian troops to the Lebanese border in September. There was no talk of siccing Hezbollah on Israel; there was no mention of Israel, period. What's going on in Damascus?

Here's some possibly relevant background. In February of this year, Imad Mughniyah, a senior Hezbollah official, was mysteriously assassinated in Syria; one might plausibly assume that the Syrian government was involved. In September of this year, a car bomb in Damascus near the office of security killed 17 people. Assad may be deciding he has had just about enough of Iran's mujahadeen, and Al Qaeda, too. It's worth reminding ourselves that Syria has a secular government dominated by members of a minority Allawite sect and a predominantly Sunni population. Radical Islam is not likely to sit well with Assad's Baathist regime (any more than it sat well with Saddam Hussein).

More context. Israel is about to have elections, as is the United States. In the U.S., the neoconservatives are on their way out, but John "we are all Georgians" McCain - the only person in the U.S. or Iraq who does not accept the idea of a withdrawal of U.S. forces - is not much of an improvement. In Israel, in the person of Bibi Netanyahu, the Bush-era neocon Weltgeist could be on its way back in. (This is not an idle analogy: Richard Perle and Douglas Feith worked for Netanyahu's government during the 1990s, producing the famous 1996 working paper describing a grand strategic vision that included a U.S. attack to get rid of Saddam Hussein; that kind of talk doesn't play well over here any more, but Netanyahu - who got 90% of his primary financing from outside Israel -- is still living the dream).

In 2006, during the Lebanon War, neocons in the Bush administration were urging Israel to attack Syria directly. The Olmert government dismissed the idea as crazy, but a Netanyahu government might be a danger to itself and others. (There was a very odd moment during that conflict in which an Israeli government spokesman explained a troop build-up as aimed at Syria, which caused the Syrian military to go on high alert, but that appears to have been a comedy of errors; the Israeli spokesman preferred to make a provocative and potentially destabilizing statement rather than admit that the high command had lost control over the situation.)

And never mind attacking Syria; if Israel launches a pre-emptive attack on Iran, what are Syria's choices for a course of action? The Israeli elections may present Assad with an opportunity, or a threat.There is also the likelihood that the Americans may not be in the neighborhood much longer. The Iraqi government has proposed amendments to the agreement with the U.S. that would call for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq - regardless of conditions on the ground - no later than 2011, and include an acceleration clause that would permit total withdrawal on 12 months' notice at Iraq's request.

The U.S. has threatened to cut off all support and all operations of any kind inside Iraq on January 1 if the original draft of the agreement is not signed. But one way or another, it looks likely that the U.S. military role in Iraq will at a minimum be very greatly curtailed in the near future: even a McCain administration cannot get away with forcing a continued presence against the will of the elected government, at least not for long. At that point we would be confronted with the preposterous situation of Iraq appealing to the U.N. to impose sanctions on the U.S.

So here's a thought. Is it possible that Assad is tired of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda both, and maybe even of being tied to Iran? Is it possible that the reason Syrian reaction to the raid is so relatively muted is that they didn't really object, and may even have known about the raid in advance? This would be interesting as all get-out, if it's true. If this is true, it needs to be pursued. From the U.S. perspective nothing is more important than turning Syria away from Iran. Particularly as the Kurds in northern Iraq appear to be becoming increasingly aggressive, Syria is going to be a key player in post-U.S. arrangements.

From Israel's perspective the case is even starker. Nothing serves Israel's interests more right now than giving Syria a good reason to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. It is also possible that Assad has an eye on the elections and does not want to do anything to strengthen Netanyahu and McCain, because he is hoping for administrations he can talk to. Assad is a pure pragmatist with no ties to religious extremists and serious economic needs. He is also notoriously difficult to deal with, but that's what our diplomats get paid for (sorry, guys.) High level talks without preconditions with Syria this Winter? A consummation devoutly to be wished.

An American official confirmed on Monday that the U.S. military had conducted a raid into Syria, killing at least eight. Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem called the attack a "criminal and terrorist aggression." The U.S. raid has been denounced as a violation of international law by the Syrian, Lebanese and Qatari governments, as well as The Arab League.

 

The same American official who confirmed the raid claims that the soldiers' objective was to capture or kill Abu Ghadiya, a prominent organizer of anti-American fighters around the Syrian-Iraqi border who has been suspected of possible links to al-Qaeda. The same official also claims that Ghadiya was killed during the campaign, and called the invasion, "successful."

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]

• The Washington Times writes that Israel is trapped between 3 pro-Iran entities, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas: "Now the chances for a Palestinian settlement remain stuck at minus zero. Extremists have displaced pragmatists. Moderation doesn't pay in today's Middle East; violence does. And the Bush administration's campaign for democratic reform in the region has petered out."
• Mideast dirty politics all interconnected, writes The Jerusalem Post.
  
• From The NY Times: In war-fragmented Lebanon, the national army offers stability.
• If Judaism, Christianity and Islam were not monotheistic, would there be less conflict? Boston Globe columnist James Carroll asks: would there be no wars?
• On the ground in Tehran, Newsweek Senior Editor Michael Hirsh's diary is free of guns and full of Islamic bling.
• Salon.com writes of the Israeli Consulate/Maxim publicity event: "Israel is like the cool uncle who slips you beers and copies of Playboy before you're of age! Israel totally gets the hot babes in bikinis thing! In fact, Israel has hot babes in bikinis!"

Russia's one of the four members of the "Quartet" tasked with monitoring the Arab-Israeli conflict, and by most accounts it's been just as tendentious toward Israel as the other three (the U.S., E.U. and Great Britain).  And yet, and yet...
 

The MiG-31, considered one of the best fighters in the world, can carry guided missiles with a range of more than 200 kilometres (125 miles) and is capable of striking 24 different targets simultaneously, Yediot Aharonot said.

[...] 

A Russian newspaper reported on Tuesday that Russia has begun delivering five MiG-31E interceptors to Syria as part of an agreement reached this year, and that Moscow also plans to sell Damascus its MiG-29M/M2 dual role fighters.

This marks the seventh assassination of a prominent anti-Assad figure in Lebanon in the last two years. Will we have to reach the double digits before nattering fools like Nancy Pelosi and Matt Yglesias realize that the Allawite regime is beyond criminal and beyond cozying up to? 

Lawmaker Walid Eido was killed Wednesday as the government began putting together a U.N.-ordered international tribunal to try suspects in the killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut two years ago -- a move strongly opposed by Syria and its allies in Lebanon.

 

Israeli children play atop a destroyed Syrian tank during the Six Day War. Courtesy of Slate. 

Justin Raimondo believes, with emphatic certainty, that "Iran is no threat to Israel, and that there is no danger of Iran dropping nukes on Tel Aviv." Likewise he says that "Iran, with or without nuclear weapons, represents no threat to America." Far be it from me to take Mr. Raimondo seriously when he says such things – his contributions to last week's exchange were studded with so many hateful condemnations, bizarre declarations, and quarter-baked ideas that doing so would require me to empty my brain of everything I've learned about both the Middle East and foreign policy. But these two platitudes do serve as a good jumping-off point for discussing the true nature of the Iranian threat, which is, I believe, why the editors of Jewcy asked me to contribute to this debate.

Iran is indeed a threat to both the United States and to Israel – but the threat does not come in the cartoonish form of Mr. Raimondo's fevered imagination, with Iranian bombers nuking Tel Aviv and Iranian ICBM's rocketing their way toward New York. Those scenarios are red herrings intended to make Raimondo's task of turning America and Israel into the world's leading belligerents much easier.

The actual threat posed by a nuclear Iran involves the manner in which such a development would upset the balance of power in the Middle East, which no doubt for Mr. Raimondo is a boring subject as it does not provide ready opportunities for Israel Lobby hysteria and mushroom cloud fantasies. To understand the consequences of a nuclear Iran, we have to look to the recent history of Middle East power arrangements.

Before the American-Israeli alliance was solidified in the late 1960's and early 1970's, the Middle East -- especially the eastern Mediterranean half of it -- was home to regular warfare. This bloodshed arose from the conviction among the Arab nations that they could destroy Israel, which they tried to do repeatedly: in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Even though some of the Arab countries were allied with the Soviet Union, Israel repulsed the invaders, and in the latter two wars even captured territory from the attacking armies. In doing so Israel created for itself a reputation as the most militarily competent country in its half of the region.

And then, as Martin Kramer explains, "the United States began to look at Israel as a potential strategic ally. Israel appeared to be the strongest, most reliable and most cost-effective bulwark against Soviet penetration of the Middle East. It could defeat any combination of Soviet clients on its own and, in so doing, humiliate the Soviet Union and drive thinking Arabs out of the Soviet camp."

In contrast to the benefits that Israel's victories provided the United States in its maneuverings against the Soviets, the 1973 war did create something of a crisis for America, in the form of the Arab oil embargo. Having suffered a gasoline shortage at home, American strategists decided to attempt to impose peace in the region by showing so much support for Israel that the Arab states would henceforth refuse to challenge it. And this strategy has been a resounding success: Since 1973 there have been no more wars between Israel and Arab countries. This security arrangement even ended up prying Egypt away from the Soviets and into an alliance, later joined by Jordan, with America.

What does all of this have to do with Iran today? It has to do with the Islamic Republic's prospects for success in its endeavor to undermine this American-enforced security architecture. Iran is trying to destabilize the Middle East by creating its own set of alliances and clients that it hopes will rival America's. This is why it funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories; has cultivated an alliance with Syria that seeks to engulf Lebanon and allow Hezbollah free reign there; and provides weapons, money, and leadership to insurgents in Iraq.

Iran's intentions are clear: it wants America out of the Middle East, so that it can control the Persian Gulf and manipulate the rest of the region through its alliances and proxies. Are these goals going to be easier or harder to accomplish with the benefit of nuclear deterrence? The answer is obvious, and it is the real reason why preventing a nuclear Iran is both in the American and Israeli interest. The short-term stakes, though, are higher for Israel (and Lebanon, for that matter). A nuclear Iran allied with Hezbollah to the north and Hamas and Islamic Jihad to the Southwest and East would dramatically embolden Israel's enemies, suppress foreign investment and tourism in Israel, and over time would cause the economic and psychological attrition of the Jewish state -- with no bombing runs over Tel Aviv necessary.

And so the true disappointment of Israel's war against Hezbollah last summer was its failure to act as a competent American client by dominating the part of the region it is responsible for keeping quiet. The war against Hezbollah was a particularly important conflict for Israel to win, because Hezbollah is more than just another disruptive presence in the Levant -- it is a vanguard force in the Iranian arsenal that is attempting to make American involvement in the region as costly as possible. It is one of the means by which Iran can summon a counterattack should the U.S. or Israel strike its nuclear facilities, and it is the primary asset of the Syrian-Iranian project to co-opt Lebanon, defeat the American-allied nascent democracy there, and bring uncontested Iranian power to Israel's northern border.

In one of his many dumb asides, Raimondo says that people who favor preventing Iran, by force if necessary, from acquiring nuclear weapons "don't have any compunction about throwing the entire region into chaos." This is probably the most wrong-headed of his many ridiculous assertions. Western acquiescence to a nuclear Iran would do perhaps more than anything else to throw the Middle East into chaos. It would shatter the balance of power that has governed the region, however shakily, for nearly forty years. Second-tier powers, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, would be sent scrambling for their own nuclear weapons and new alliances, and the United States would almost certainly be forced from the region. Raise your hand if you're in favor of handing over control of the U.S. economy to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

According to Haaretz: 

The Bush administration has given Israel permission to discuss the future of the Golan Heights, security arrangements and Israeli-Syrian peace accords if it agrees to talks with Syria.

However, Washington has stipulated that Israel must not agree to any negotiations, even indirectly, on the United States' position, or on the future of Lebanon.

Furthermore, Israel must not make promises to Syria regarding U.S. policy. According to the new position, Washington will deal directly with Syria on these matters.

Cue sniggers from Matt Yglesias: "[I]f I were an Israeli and I woke up to read in my morning paper...that my government was getting "permission" from the United States to conduct diplomacy with an adjacent country I might worry that something had gone awry in the US-Israeli special friendship." 

Is it not clear from the last two paragraphs in the above extract that "permission" is actually a warning to Israel not to presume to negotiate with the imprimatur of the United States?  Why might that be?  Because Bashar al-Assad is still suborning jihadists in Iraq and thus responsible for the death of countless American soliders; because he still must answer for the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005 and Pierre Gemayel in 2006; and because Washington has rightly declared solidarity with the Siniora government, which is now being targeted for destruction by both Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.

Cheap points can be scored on almost any day of the week against a Tweedledum/Tweedledee arrangement that supposedly exists between the U.S. and Israel. But it's worth keeping in mind that the Israeli government turned against the war in Iraq long before the American public did; and that when it comes to protecting joint U.S.-Iraqi interests in the Middle East, well, there's a new "special relationship," both more exigent and more threatened, that has assumed centerstage.

Condoleeza Rice in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt today for day one of the Iraq Conference. It was the first time an envoy from the United States has met with a Syrian official in two years.

Liz Cheney sets Madame Speaker right on the "road to peace" that leads to Damascus:

Three days after the first round of elections, on June 2, 2005, Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir, an outspoken opponent of Syria, was murdered by a car bomb. In response, hundreds of Lebanese journalists gathered in Martyr's Square and held aloft black pens inscribed with Kassir's name as they chanted, "We will not kneel." One of those in attendance said, "When you read Kassir's work, you will know who killed him." His last column criticized the Syrian regime for imprisoning a group of civil activists.

Three weeks later, the day after the March 14 forces announced their electoral victory, the Lebanese intellectual and anti-Syrian leader George Hawi was assassinated by a car bomb. Lebanese journalist Michael Young wrote that Hawi's killing was a clear message to the March 14 forces: The risks to you of ending Syria's occupation will be high.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the United Nations issued a report concluding that it was unlikely that Hariri's assassination could have been carried out without Syria's knowledge. That same day, Gibran Tueni, editor in chief of An Nahar newspaper, another influential opponent of Syria, was killed by a car bomb. Tueni, who had been among the first at the scene after Samir Kassir's murder, knew he was risking death by vocally opposing Syrian oppression. He did it anyway.

Last November, the 34-year-old minister of industry, Pierre Gemayel, became the latest victim. An outspoken anti-Syrian member of the cabinet, Gemayel was killed when his motorcade was rammed by gunmen who then shot him in the head at point-blank range. Gemayel's murder was seen as a clear message to the March 14 forces inside the Lebanese government: We will kill you to prevent you from acting against Syria's wishes.

Heating up: Spring Break Damascus '07The Washington Post is correct to say that "Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish," and Mike is correct to find that foolishness worrisome. Pelosi ought to worry about it, too, because not only is it counterproductive and foolish, it's also very possibly felonious, according to this editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. (But why would the Speaker of the House know a bit of trivia like that?)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

What's more worrisome -- at least to me -- than Pelosi's politics is her IQ. She's a twit. How did she think she'd possibly pull something like this off? Imagine Newt Gingrich trying to establish peace with Saddam Hussein in 1998, fresh off Clinton's aerial bombardment campaign of Iraq. Can you picture it clearly? How about the probable reaction of les bien-pensants?

The Washington Post editorial board gets it right:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Apologies to the Snakes: Walid JumblattThe moody Druze dishes on MEMRI TV. For a kitsch Leninist, he's pretty funny:

Walid Jumblatt: We are facing someone [Iran] who has an army, money, and a political plan for the Arab Islamic Middle East, and one of its frontline bases is Hassan Nasrallah and Hizbullah in Lebanon. When we consider their ideological writings, such as the books by Hazem Saghiyeh and Naim Al-Qassem, we realize that we and they cannot meet half way.

Interviewer: It is impossible to meet half way with this plan?

Walid Jumblatt: Yes, because this is a plan of abolishment.

Interviewer: Abolishment of whom?

Walid Jumblatt: It is a plan to establish a Hizbullah state in Lebanon, at the expense of pluralism, of the Taif Agreement, of free economy, and of the free press.

[…]

[Hizbullah] said its weapons were “sacred weapons,” and we disagreed. Now they are talking about "divine weapons." A truck [with Hizbullah weapons] was driving around Beirut – and it was confiscated in Al-Hazmiya. [Hizbullah] said it was loaded with "divine weapons," and demanded their return. With all due respect to Hassan Nasrallah and the others, we participated, unfortunately, in the civil war in the past, and we know that the range of 60 mm mortars is 500 meters at most. It is meant for urban warfare, not for Haifa, "beyond Haifa," or "beyond beyond Haifa." It is meant for urban warfare.

[...]

We see their rallies. These are not rallies of sorrow and grief for the days of Karbala. There is a kind of activity that is legitimate to express grief over Hussein, but when you see how they salute with their fists... It reminds me of the films by director Leni Riefenstahl, who used to film Adolf Hitler's rallies. Adolf Hitler, no more no less... When Hassan Nasrallah speaks, he speaks to himself. He doesn't speak to the public, but to himself...

Interviewer: How come?

Walid Jumblatt: Who is he addressing? Let's forget about Hassan Nasrallah for a moment. There is nothing more dangerous than mass rallies, because anybody might forget himself there.

Interviewer: Including you?

Walid Jumblatt: Yes, including me. Nothing is more dangerous.

Interviewer: Do you regret what you said on February 14, 2007?

Walid Jumblatt: No, but the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty against Animals contacted me, and said that they reject the comparison of snakes, whales, and wild beasts to Bashar Al-Assad. I apologize to that society. But I don't regret anything else I said.

 

Access to weasel: Bashar al-AssadMy favorite Recommendation so far from the absolute snoozer that is the Iraq Study Group Report:

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements
of that negotiated peace should be:
• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution
1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for
Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into politi-
cal assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik
Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use
of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons
and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Is-
rael’s problem with Hezbollah.)
• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah
for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force
soldiers.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the
democratically elected government of Lebanon. 

• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting
through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian
groups.
• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an ac-
knowledgment of Israel’s right to exist.
• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq. 

I doubt if Saddam Hussein himself came riding back to Baghdad on a shimmering white steed with the sword of Saladin in one hand and the head of the Giaour in the other, Syria would comply with any of the above. Even if the moon were full, too.

One really must admire the "realism" on display here:  We're told to cozy up to one of the worst regimes in the region -- where roving death squads are still out on nightly patrol and where only George Galloway feels safe to hang his hat on vacation -- and we expect it to toe the line on international law when it has signaled not the least desire to do so.  Bashar al-Assad's assassination of prominent Lebanese figures has happened at a time where, if the ISG were to be believed, no neighboring country can brook a "destabilized" or chaotic Iraq and yet destabilized and chaotic Iraq has been all the while.  Why should we expect Damascus to change its game if we approach as supplicants, not zero-tolerance policemen?

(Also, whoever copyedited this mess should have been fired: The construction "Greater Syria" has different connotation east of Suez than it does in Washington.) 

If you wanted to paint a picture of bumbling Stalinist incompetence in assassinating a foreign politician, you might do worse than follow Syria's playbook. This is from Lebanese blog Blacksmiths of Lebanon:

Al Seyassah daily learned from authoritative sources in Beirut, that one of the editors of the Syrian National News Agency (SANA) placed a phone call to a pro-Syrian Lebanese newspaper at 3:05 pm on Tuesday. The caller inquired about the details of the assassination of Lebanese Minister for Industry Pierre Gemayel, raising eyebrows at the Lebanese newpaper. The timing of phone call was 55 minutes before the assassination was carried out.

Unfortunately, the news source is in Arabic only. But who doubts that Bashar really is that stupid anymore? Rather than put him in the dock as the international gangster he is, we should send him to Vienna for institutional psychoanalysis. His instinct for self-destruction beats all clinical records.