Pope Benedict: "... al-Aida camp symbolizes right of return..."

in YNETnews, here

"...The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem said Sunday that Pope Benedict XVI, who is scheduled to visit Israel soon, will tour and preach at "the al-Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem, which symbolizes the right of return and holds a message of peace, brotherhood, and justice".... According to prior agreements the stage hosting the pope at al-Aida was intended to be built in a schoolyard, but Ynet has discovered that the Palestinians violated these agreements by constructing it near the separation fence. A demolition warrant was subsequently issued by the Civil Administration, and the stage must be relocated..."

Hezbollah vs. Israel: "... the fall of three spy networks should not be taken lightly ...someone was clearly careless in running the operations .."

Yossi Melman, in Haaretz, here

"... Therefore, Israelis can only rely on what is published in the Lebanese media or Arab news outlets, which base their reports on information obtained from the Lebanese security services. Hezbollah is always a partner, often a senior one, to such investigations. ...

As a relatively small organization, the Mossad strives to obtain high-quality sources in the target country's top echelons. Immediately after the Iranian nuclear program and efforts to thwart it (so far unsuccessful) became the number one target for intelligence-gathering, the fight against terror organizations - first and foremost Hezbollah - has been the main priority. ...

If the Lebanese media reports are correct, the fall of three spy networks should not be taken lightly, especially if the discovery of the first led to the fall of the others. If this is what happened, then someone was clearly careless in running the operations, the basic rule of which is complete compartmentalization between networks and between one agent and another. In such cases, handlers tend to lower their profile and reduce future operations until the storm blows over. 

It also seems Hezbollah has become more alert in the wake of suspicions that the organization was infiltrated. However, in the end, the uncovering of an espionage network or the fall of an agent, with all the regret these entail, are part of the way the game is played. These are the facts of life in clandestine activity."

The Required Pilgrimage to Burial places!

It should become a protocol prerequisite that Foreign dignitaries, ambassadors and envoys be asked to visit the Lincoln Memorial, JFK's tomb in Arlington, and MLK's in Atlanta, ... and America will have to thank Lebanon for this glorious precedent. A polarizing & adventurous Lebanese politician's temporary burial place has become a forced pilgrimage for world leaders and dignitaries on their visits to Lebanon, as a gesture of support to the forces of "moderation" in this comically complex country. Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, representing President Obama, was the last to visit Hariri's temporary grave(they said his final grave awaits "more propitious circumstances"). Needless to remind Washington's officialdom that when Hariri was killed, he was not a PM, and in life as in death, he and his legacy continues to polarize the Lebanese to a breaking point, hardly the feats of the savior of a Union, a young Pacem in Terris awardee or the Civil liberties & rights icon .... !

Israel confuses policy on Syria

The Australian, here

"... The latest mixed messages highlight a pattern from the new Netanyahu Government - Mr Lieberman making frequent comments on foreign policy which seem to represent major changes in Israel's international position. But the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, then makes little or no reference to those pronouncements, leading to suggestions that Mr Lieberman is not clearing his comments before making them..."

Turkey and Syria to hold military exercise on border

Khaleej Times, here

"... NATO-member Turkey shares a border with Syria in its mainly Kurdish south-east, the focus of a 25-year conflict between Turkey and the separatist Kurdish rebel group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)..."

"...US troop withdrawal seems to have made the Maliki government feel free to "get on with" its true agenda..."

SST, here

"Iraq: Let's not "kid" ourselves, the Maliki government appears to be reverting to Shia sectarian "protectionism" as its basic policy. Success in creating security and governmental "reach" in Iraq has been based on inclusion of Sunni Arab groups (tribes, parties, etc) in the country's polity. The US did that and dragged the Maliki along behind it in the drection of that policy. Did money play a part in that? Of course it did. Does anyone "here" live without money? Well, neither can the Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Now the Shia dominated government there is showing signs of seeking to "put down" the Sunni Arabs. The predictable response has been for those Sunni Arabs to begin once again to support the Sunni extremist enemies of the Shia. This phenomenon has little to do with the impending US troop withdrawal except that this future seems to have made the Maliki government feel free to "get on with" its true agenda. This problem is something that can be dealt with if the US exerts itself and stops "kidding itself" about the nature of the Maliki government and the limits of national unity in Iraq.

Afghanistan: The announced Obama policy set the goals as essentially negative actions intended to confound and disrupt America's enemies. Covert action, limited SOF commando strikes, political support for our friends, some measure of basic infrastructure aid (roads, etc), these would be the kind of tools in such an effort. In spite of the announcement of these reasonable goals and implied actions, there continues to be a constant drum beat of talk, leaks, panel discussions in which people both within and without the administration insist that the real policy is a full blown COIN campaign in which the United States will commit itself to an effort to create a society in Afghanistan so attractive that rural Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc. will support a unifying national government against Islamic zealots who do not believe in the legitmiacy of national governments at all. Such an effort would be hugely expensive and would last for decades. Well, which is it, Obama Administration, which is it?

These two visions of the future are not compatible."

Ahmadinejad to Stephanopoulos: "The right to determine their fate by the Palestinians should be respected by all of them."

'This Week' on ABC, here

STEPHANOPOULOS: "If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?"

 AHMADINEJAD: "Whatever decision they take is fine with us.  We are not going to determine anything.  Whatever decision they take, we will support that.  We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well:  the U.S. administration, European governments.  The right to determine their fate by the Palestinians should be respected by all of them."

"... While urging free and fair elections in Lebanon, the Obama administration is treading carefully"

AP, here

"... While urging free and fair elections, the Obama administration is treading carefully. The Bush administration encouraged the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and then saw the radical Hamas movement win handily and badly damage efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Reflecting that concern, Clinton met during her brief stay with just one senior official, President Suleiman. U.S. officials say her meeting with Suleiman only is because the U.S. doesn't want to be seen as taking sides in the elections. Suleiman is considered a consensus leader and neutral in the political struggle..." After the visit, Clinton, still hoping not to be seen as taking sides, visited the shrine of rafic hariri accompanied by his son....

What if Israel strikes Iran?

Jim Hoagland at the WaPo, here

"...So even after the Iran review is completed, don't expect it to deal forthrightly (or perhaps at all) with this core question: Can Obama's hopes for Middle East peace and fruitful negotiations with Iran survive an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear program, perhaps as early as the first half of 2010?

Asked whether Israeli warplanes had the range to fly around Arab-controlled airspace to hit Iran, a European official replied: "You might think not, unless you noticed the emphasis being put on Israel's in-air refueling capacity in its recent military exercises. In any event, Arab air defenses have never been a problem for Israel..............."The nightmare scenario for Obama is that Israel launches an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities that is largely unsuccessful but that provokes an Iranian missile retaliation against Israel and all-out guerrilla campaigns by Hamas and Hezbollah. Could any U.S. president, however angry, turn his back on Israel in that situation? What would happen to the U.S. mediation efforts Obama promised King Abdullah II of Jordan in their White House meeting last week?......"

Lieberman: Israel will not attack Iran - even if sanctions fail

Haaretz, here

"...Israel will not attack Iran even if the international sanctions against Tehran fail to convince President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give up his country's nuclear program, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Austrian daily Kleine Zeitung.In an interview published this weekend, Lieberman was asked whether Israel planned to strike Iran as a last resort.
"We are not talking about a military attack. Israel cannot resolve militarily the entire world's problem. I propose that the United States, as the largest power in the world, take responsibility for resolving the Iranian question," Lieberman told the paper.

The paper also asked Lieberman if Israel would be willing to negotiate with Hamas. "This is impossible. How can the government of Israel talk with someone who says daily he wants to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews?"

Washington's Take: "Michel Sleiman wants a 'stalemate' in Lebanon's Elections ..."

1. Elections 2009. The view from Washington is that while the Administration wants March 14 to win, they think Michel Sleiman wants a stalemate, with independent candidates holding the balance. The best informed US officials have noted the absence of violence, so far. They believe that is because both sides expect to win. Should either side [especially the Opposition] feels it is going to lose, Washington Officialdom believes that violence will erupt prior to the election.

2. There also has developed something of a split between the US and France with regard to Lebanon. With Chirac gone, the "tilt" towards Hariri has gone as well. US officials say the French would like to see the "balance" created by Doha to be continued and enhanced. They, however, are quietly pleased with themselves that they have been able to keep the tilt towards the government despite the change in Administrations in Washington.

3. Israel. Not much importance is given to Bibi Natenyahu's call for the Arabs to accept a Jewish state. It's like his latest idea that nothing can be done on the Palestinian issue until Iran is solved. It's Bibi being too clever by half. He will back down on both, especially if, as expected in Washington, the Administration will play it just a little bit tough.

4. Lieberman, is a very important player [unless and until he is indicted]. He is a member of the inner Cabinet of 5 (considering the full Cabinet has over 30 members, the largest in Israeli history). Barak is also one of the five and the Administration consider it to be an excellent political pairing with Bibi for a US audience.

5. Syria. Inside the beltway, people in the know believe that both, Bibi and Bashar are playing games. Each wants to use the prospect of progress to gain advantage with the US: Bashar to unravel the sanctions & isolation regimen, and Bibi avoids pressure on the Palestinian front.(...)

Saudi Officials' Fears: Al-Qaeda Planning to Attack Saudi Arabia from Yemen

YemenPost, here

"...The FinancialTimes newspaper wrote that Saudi Arabian officials fear that Al-Qaeda is planning to attack their country from Yemen that they could not do that from inside. Al-Qaeda has changed its name to 'Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula' to bring together the extremist Saudis those ran away from their country and the armed Yemenis the newspaper reported. A list of 83 wanted people two of which are Yemenis made public by Saudi Arabia as a result for a video that was published by Al-Qaeda threatening to attack Saudi Arabia..."

White House source: "...a lot underway right now with Saudi Arabia -- and things are "sensitive."

In TWN, here

"...This weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Israel and Iraq. There are as yet unsubstantiated rumors that she may drop in on some other countries as well -- but we do know that State Department Special Advisor for The Gulf and Southwest Asia Dennis Ross will be in Saudi Arabia on Monday and Presidential special envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell will be in Saudi Arabia this next week as well. All of this is happening while we are holding this US-Saudi policy forum in Washington, DC.

Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States Adel Al-Jubeir has been called back to the Saudi Kingdom yesterday to advise the King in the meeting with Dennis Ross and other as yet unannounced officials.

Other members of the Obama national security team are traveling as well -- to points not announced, but my guess is that we have a large chunk of our national security and diplomatic representatives focused on affairs in the region this weekend and next week.

So, big stuff is up.

A source in the White House has shared with me that there is a lot underway right now with Saudi Arabia -- and things are "sensitive." I have no idea what is sensitive -- but I do know that the US-Saudi relationship lies at the nexus of many key issues in the region -- from the solvency of King Abdullah's Arab Peace Initiative given trends in Israel and Palestine, to potential opportunities with Syria, to dealing with Iran's transnational meddling in the affairs inside other countries in the region, to Iraq's stability, and perhaps most vital at the moment -- to figuring out a stabilization scheme for Pakistan and Afghanistan, where Saudi Arabia has significant influence..."

Engaging Syria: Pearls of wisdom from ... Shencker & co.

The American Foreign Policy Council
invites you to attend a briefing on

How To Engage Syria:
Policy Options For The New Administration

Tuesday, April 28, 2009
12:00 pm to 1:30 pm
Room HVC-200, Capitol Visitor Center
__________________________
Featuring:
David Schenker
Director,
Program on Arab Politics Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Tony Badran
Research Fellow,
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Matthew RJ Brodsky
Legacy Heritage Fellow, American Foreign Policy Council
Mona Yacoubian
Special Advisor, Muslim World Initiative
United States Institute of Peace

"... Mr. Obama cannot allow himself to be intimidated by Mr. Netanyahu, nor can he wink if the Israeli air force bombs Iran's nuclear facilities..."

CSM, here

"... The fallout from Israel's strike on Osirak was serious but limited. But a preemptive strike on Iranian soil would border on catastrophic. Consider:.... the Strait of Hormuz, ...Hezbollah, .... a tsunami of anti-Semitism ..... further evidence of a US-Israeli global war on Islam. Islamist fighters from Marrakesh, Marseille, London, Cairo, Karachi, and Tehran would enlist overnight by the thousands and march to Iraq and Afghanistan to wage jihad against the American troops there....

Netanyahu is no fool. He is keenly aware of these global implications. He knows that a unilateral Israeli strike would not only accelerate Iran's nuclear ambitions but also legitimize them. He also knows that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map is bombast. It is the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who commands the armed forces and national security apparatus, not the populist president.....

What's worrying is that Netanyahu had a record of bad judgment in his previous term as prime minister from 1996 to 1999. Not without cause did The Economist run a cover photo of "Bibi" in October 1997 under the headline "Israel's Serial Bungler." It described his governance of the Jewish state as a "calamity" for the peace process.

Iran has no need to nuke Israel. Its ruling clerics, whom Netanyahu described as a "messianic apocalyptic cult," believe time, history, and Allah are on their side. They believe the Jewish state, starting across the border in Lebanon, can be nibbled to death over the next century just as the Arabs did to the Crusader kingdoms 600 years ago.

It should surprise to no one that Iran's mullahs want nuclear weapons. They live in a nuclear neighborhood: Pakistan, India, Russia, China, and Israel, which is estimated to have 200 nuclear bombs ready to use if it were attacked. The ayatollahs also remember Mr. Hussein's 1991 folly of going to war with the US without nuclear weapons.

Obama needs to do Netanyahu a favor and tell the Israelis: "No first strike." Keep the F-15s and F-16s at home. A messianic vision such as Mr. Ahmadinejad's is rife in much of the Islamic world. Bellicose rhetoric most often serves as an excuse for inaction. It does not denote suicidal inclinations on the part of Iran's more pragmatic leaders."

"... Mitchell's Palestinian and Israeli interlocutors are busy preparing sugar-coated traps and distractions..."

Daniel Levy, in PFP, here via MOA

On the Israel interlocutor side, here are the main traps Mitchell should look out for:

1) The ‘Say the Magic Words' Game. Thus far, Netanyahu is refusing to explicitly endorse the two-state formula. This is being nicely set up to become a rather large red herring, whereby diplomatic attention becomes focused on teasing out a linguistic formula to claim that Israel's premier is indeed a "two-stater." ..

2) It's not the economy, stupid. Netanyahu advocates focusing first on what he calls "economic peace" -- developing the Palestinian economy as a prerequisite for two states. ..... However, by now the secret may be out that developing the Palestinian economy in order to make the Palestinians a peace-loving people, while maintaining the Israeli occupation and the settlements, is precisely what's been tried for the last 15 years -- with dismal results. The Palestinians won't be bought off; ...

3) "You go first; no you go first." If Netanyahu is smart (as I consider him to be), then he is likely to spot a tantalizing diversionary opportunity in the Arab Peace Initiative. That plan, ...calls for recognition, security, and normal relations between all the Arab states and Israel in exchange for a comprehensive agreement between Israel and its immediate neighbors, based on land-for-peace, two-states, and U.N. resolutions.....The lurking danger would lie be if Netanyahu attempts to break the initiative down into gradual, sequential, bite-size mini-steps that each side would be expected to take..... a recipe for an endless, fruitless, and oxygen-sucking debate on the sequencing -- "you go first; no you go first" -- reminiscent of an Alphonse and Gaston routine, minus the exaggerated politeness.

On to the Palestinians, who talk a good game and often sound eminently reasonable, but are equally infatuated with distraction promotion. ...

1) Cheering on a fight. Judging by reports from Friday's meetings, the focus in Ramallah right now seems to be egging on a fight between Israel and America. ..... Often, the PLO leadership seems interested in spectacle for its own sake rather than real results. Bottom line: the U.S.-Israeli spat is a distraction.

2) Cross-dressing on preconditions. ...Preconditions were a mistake when applied to the Palestinians, and will be equally mistaken if applied to the Israelis. (And in fact, this is much more about domestic Palestinian politics than Israel-Palestinian affairs and it's being used by Fatah in its struggle with Hamas.) Most troubling, this approach could hamper an especially urgent issue: reopening Gaza and allowing a regular flow of goods and materials, including those desperately needed for reconstruction following Israel's Operation Cast Lead.

3) Nostalgia for Bush and Annapolis. Palestinian leaders never had very many good things to say about the Bush administration, so it's ironic that they are advocating a return and adherence to the Roadmap and the Annapolis process. Again, don't be fooled. The latter is little more than a pushback against the Israeli government's apparent rejection of Annapolis as explicitly stated by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Plus, as with so much of the Bush legacy in the Middle East, Annapolis was a failure and structurally flawed, relying on bilateral negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships with no U.S. presence, and making Palestinian performance a prerequisite for ending the occupation.

Just as there have been policy reviews and significant course corrections on Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, the Mitchell team should apply the same principle of a rethink on the Israeli-Arab track. The United States should not be maneuvered back to the flawed Annapolis design, whether in response to a Palestinian bear hug or an Israeli pushback.....The Mitchell team would do well to avoid the distractions and traps on offer, whether from Israelis or Palestinians, and take its time in devising an American plan that delivers on the American interest in resolving the conflict. It's time for the United States to step up."

Nonviolence (says Turki al Faisal)? Israel prefers the Hamas!

....a useful response to anyone (read Al Faisal) who thinks that things in Israel/Palestine would be different "if only the Palestinians were more like Gandhi,  Noam Sheizaf  in PromisedLand, here via Mondoweiss.

"What we tend to forget is that the current violence is a relatively new phenomena. Since 1967 and for the first 20 years of occupation, the West Bank was fairly quiet. I remember, as a kid, how we traveled there during weekends, went shopping and sightseeing. Yes, the PLO carried on the armed fight, but this was done mostly from other countries – Jordan, later on Lebanon, and finally Tunisia.

But guess what – this nonviolent struggle never made Israel even think about abandoning the land it conquered or hand the Palestinians any civil and political rights. In fact, these were the years in which the colonization of land became an official government policy. Israel agreed to a Palestinian autonomy as part of the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, but never really considered keeping its promise . . .

My bottom line is this: in Bil’in, like in the first three decades of the occupation, Israel proved that it didn’t really care what kind of a fight the Palestinians are putting up, or what they ask for. This has  nothing to do with “abandoning terrorism”, like Netanyahu – and all Israeli PMs before him, except for one – keep on saying. For all we care the Palestinians can convert to Buddhism or join the Likud. We just don’t want to go back to the ‘67 borders. That’s why, when they throw stones or wave flags, as they do in the video above, we open fire...."

Turki al Faisal to Obama on Syria: "Go ahead and talk. You don't need a midwife to bring you together."

In the Ithaca Journal, here

"... He said Bush's presidency was marked by a cool but controlled hostility, especially in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 bombings, in which many of the hijackers were identified as Saudi.

"Bush had turned his back to peace in the Middle East and almost abandoned all that Clinton had done. The Crown Prince sent him a letter stating that we were coming to a crossroads and either we go together in the road that we choose or we go our separate ways," he said.

Eventually, they came together and established what Prince Turki described as a preferable institutional dialogue, rather than being subject to the "whim and will" of two heads of state.

He said this more diffused approach has served well as the two nations tackle sensitive subjects like Palestine, Lebanon, Iran "and all the other hot spots."

US wants Iran hostage suit tossed out?

AP, here

"...The Obama administration has asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit against Iran filed by Americans held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago. In court papers filed Tuesday night without any announcement, the Justice Department argued that the agreement to release the hostages, known as the Algiers Accords, precluded lawsuits against Iran.

The hostages argue that Iran supported their confinement and abuse, with visits from government officials, stays in government prisons and buildings and threats of trial in Iranian courts. The lawsuit says current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of their interrogators..."

Difficult Issues Remain in Lebanon-Syria Relations

WPR, here

"... little substantial progress on these stubborn issues until after Lebanon's June 7 general elections ...The Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition, which includes predominantly Shiite and some Christian factions, has called for a unity government with the minority holding veto power regardless of who wins. On the other hand, March 14, which represents the Sunni majority as well as some Christan and Druze factions, has threatened to boycott a government that has Hezbollah at its helm -- reaffirming concerns that last year's Doha agreement securing the present unity government only achieved a fragile truce. 

The stakes are high in an election that could either lead toward national reconciliation or deepen sectarian divisions..."