Blogging Lebanon since 2005

The Economist thinks that Assad got away with it:

Syria’s leaders, long shunned by fellow Arabs as well as Westerners, seem suddenly back in fashion… President Bashar Assad’s relations with the governments of neighbouring Turkey and Iraq have warmed. He has strengthened Syria’s long-standing alliance with Iran, yet seems also to have reconciled with the region’s rival heavyweight, Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah greeted him in person last week at the airport of Riyadh, the Saudi capital, on his arrival for an Arab summit whose next venue is to be Syria. Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign-affairs head, had soothing words for Mr Assad on a recent visit. This week, defying President Bush’s ban on high-level contacts, two American congressional delegations, one led by Nancy Pelosi, the top-ranking Democrat, took the road to Damascus.

Mr Assad may even get back into the swim of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, from which he has been largely excluded, thanks in part to his backing of Hamas’s exiled leader, Khaled Meshal, whose haven is Damascus. The resuscitated Arab League peace plan of 2002 includes a demand that Syria be given back the Golan Heights in return for peace with Israel. And there is talk within the newly-formed Arab Quartet of moderate states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) that Syria should be included, partly to detach it from its ally, Iran.

The Maronite bishops have decided to put an end to Aoun’s habit of putting words in their mouth..

When the Patriarch warned against a chapter 7 resolution last month, M.P. Michel Aoun suddenly had a new, convenient soundbite: The Patriarch is on our side!

However, when the Patriarch made that infamous interview with a Kuwaiti newspaper in which he accused Aoun of Opportunism, the FPM’s website immediately denied that the Patriarch had made such an interview, citing ‘a chat between Mr. Sfeir and journalists’ (The Patriarch didn’t deny that interview but labeled it: “inaccurate”).

Aoun kept taking the Patriarch for granted. A few days ago, Aoun “Predicted” that the presidential elections might not happen on time, and today, the Tayyar’s website featured what they called “the Patriarch’s strong opposition to the international tribunal under chapter 7″

So imagine Aoun’s embarrassment after the Maronite bishops took the following stance after their monthly meeting today:(source Naharnet)

The Council of Maronite Bishops on Wednesday urged parliament to practice its constitutional and national role.
It also said that presidential elections should be held on time and considered any attempt to prevent quorum an anti-constitutional measure.
The statement issued after the Bishops’ monthly meeting stressed on the importance of implementing U.N. Security Council Resolutions concerning Lebanon, including the creation of an international tribunal to try suspects in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s assassination and related crimes.

Who killed Hariri? Ghosts, if you ask Joshua Landis.

Perhaps the American Speaker knows what she’s doing after all..

Frankly, when I heard that Nancy Pelosi is coming to Syria (to the objection of the White House), I felt my heart sink; Bashar was going to receive the highest-ranking American in two years, and his apologists are already celebrating the “collapse of Syria’s isolation”.

Are we going to be sold out? There are signs that perhaps not. Two things indicate that Pelosi’s position will be more nuanced than paranoid Lebanese fear.

First, madame speaker is traveling with Tom Lantos, a democratic Representative well known for his Hardline stances on Syria. If anything, he will help her understand the nature of the Syrian regime and reduce her rose-tainted vision on Syria.

Second, the symbolism in her itinerary.

The first thing Pelosi did after landing in Beirut (which she visited before Damascus), is visit Hariri’s grave. She then visited Majority Leader Saad Hariri, then P.M Seniora, in that order. If she weren’t Pelosi herself, you’d be sure Assad would have cancelled the meeting with her by now.

Pelosi’s message is clear: We are going to speak with Assad. But we’re still committed to Lebanon.

The success of the Arab summit will depend on whether or not the Arab masses believe that Saudi Arabia is becoming less friendly with America.

The Arabs Are Coming

Let’s say you’re Saudi Arabia and you’re stuck with a strategic regional rival, Iran, whose President keeps blaring anti-western rhetoric that the Arabs just love to hear. How do you confront such a rampant threat?

How about restoring Arabism from the freezer to frame this conflict as one between Arabs and non Arabs (read Persians), mixing in some make-believe anti-Americanism to bring back the hardliners from Iran’s lap into the fold, while discretely reshaping the Arab project into a more moderate and progressive project to placate western countries?

Don’t bother worrying about what seems like an American/Saudi rift. In fact, the louder the noise, the merrier.

Emile Lahoud insists that Lebanese PM Seniora will attend the Arab summit as a ‘guest’. The Saudis don’t agree

Don’t let those pesky Arabs bully you

The Baabda palace issued a statement that the Arab League summit was for “kings, heads of state and princes” and that anyone else is only considered as a “guest.”

Perhaps Mr. Lahhoud, who will be traveling abroad the MEA, should pick up a copy of the free “Al-Hayat” newspapers available on board. The newspaper, which is a Saudi Government media outlet, published today the agenda of the coming Arab summit. Here’s the wording on Lebanon:

Translation:
The summit will discuss providing political and economic support to the Lebanese Government to keep national unity and the security and stability of Lebanon and its sovereignty over all its territory.

It’s obvious who the host thinks the unwelcome guest is.

Something deep in my gut is not comfortable with the latest Iranian British row.

I was having a mental exercise the other day. I was trying to figure out how the U.S would ever pull off a war on Iran with all the troubles it’s having at home with Iraq.

One of the ‘creative’ scenarios I thought of was this: The British would provoke the Iranians, the Iranians would over-react, Britain would then declare war and the US would have to “return the favor to our allies”. A great excuse: “We can’t leave our friends in this alone. They stood by us when we needed them most”

It’s not as far-fetched as you might imagine. Just think of this: Britain has been the most hardline country when it comes to Iran in the last few weeks. From reports in its press about impending American air-Strikes on Iran to hardline comments made by the British ambassador to the Security Council about the futility of giving Iran second chances.

By seizing 15 UK royal marines for “suspicious acts“, Iranians are effectively trying to get back at the Brits. Remember, we’re talking about a country that went to war over a tiny Island at the other end of the world. The Brits are not happy. They are “Demanding” the release of the marines, you could actually smell the “or-else” in between the lines.

More worrying are the large scale Israeli-American missile defence exercises for what analysts said would be in the event of a war with Iran. America won’t launch a war with Iran before warning the Israelis, and it seems they did.

The British media already seems very mobilized. Could this incident be the beginning of World War III? Let’s hope not..

Thomas Friedman suggested that the King of Saudi Arabia should declare the next Arab peace initiative from the Israeli parliament.

A wild speculations from an out-of-touch western journalist? Perhaps. It would have been more so if the writer weren’t Thomas Friedman, the journalist to whom King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, rather weirdly, first announced his Peace Plan back in 2002.

Tom Friedman’s articles are regularly translated into Arabic in Al-Sharq Al Awsat and Al-Arabiya, (with few exceptions like this anti-Saudi article) both Saudi establishment media outlets. So Friedman, more than any other western journalist, is supposed to have the Saudi “ear”.

Still, it is unclear whether today’s article was a leak to prepare the public or simply unsolicited advice (more likely). What did he say?

Friedman starts by saying that Saudi Arabia has become “the new Egypt”, the new leader in the Arab world, and praises the kingdom for its assertive diplomacy and its king’s “integrity”. Then he goes straight to the beef:

What the moribund Israeli-Palestinian talks need most today is an emotional breakthrough. Another Arab declaration, just reaffirming the Abdullah initiative, won’t cut it. If King Abdullah wants to lead — and he has the integrity and credibility to do so — he needs to fly from the Riyadh summit to Jerusalem and deliver the offer personally to the Israeli people

Then Friedman goes to the nuts and bolts of his “humble suggestion”:

the Saudi king [should] make four stops. His first stop should be to Al Aksa Mosque in East Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam. There, he, the custodian of Mecca and Medina, could reaffirm the Muslim claim to Arab East Jerusalem by praying at Al Aksa.
[..]
From there, he could travel to Ramallah and address the Palestinian parliament, making clear that the Abdullah initiative aims to give Palestinians the leverage to offer Israel peace with the whole Arab world in return for full withdrawal
[..]
From there, King Abdullah could helicopter to Yad Vashem, the memorial to the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust. A visit there would seal the deal with Israelis and affirm that the Muslim world rejects the Holocaust denialism of Iran. Then he could go to the Israeli parliament and formally deliver his peace initiative.”

Alright, I guess he is just an out-of-touch Western journalist.