| Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
April 7, 2000
MIDDLE EAST: QUEST FOR PEACE CONTINUES ON ALL FRONTS
With Israel's support on Tuesday for the deployment of UN forces in South Lebanon as Israel ends its occupation there and the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks in Washington on Thursday, Middle East watchers this week focused on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's efforts to bring peace to Israel's borders. The Israeli press, left and right, criticized Mr. Barak's actions on the Palestinian track, with a nationalist paper taking issue with his "policy of interim agreements" with the Palestinians, and a liberal analyst bristling at his "congratulatory words" to Hebron settlers. On the Syria track, some judged that Israel has already made "enough concessions." In the Arab world, the media expressed pessimism about achieving any real progress on any of the tracks and worried about Israel's strategy to quit South Lebanon. Not surprisingly, Israel's welcoming of UN forces in South Lebanon in the wake of its troop withdrawal drew editorial fire in several Arab capitals. Writers in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan accused UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of conspiring with Israel "to offer an international cover" for an incomplete withdrawal that claims to be the full implementation of UNSCR 425. Lebanese papers charged that an amendment to UNSCR 425 and 426 is being "cooked up" behind the scenes and that Mr. Annan is acting "under direct American supervision." These were other highlights:
SOUTH LEBANON WITHDRAWAL: Papers of varying political stripes throughout the Arab world as well as in Israel warned of the risks of a unilateral Israeli troop withdrawal. Although Lebanese papers welcomed, in varying degrees, President Lahoud's memo to the UN expressing Lebanon's concerns about the withdrawal and a follow-on UN troop presence, the predominant tone there--as well as in Syrian papers--was that Israel is inveigling the UN into protecting what Israel "itself failed to protect." "Israel wants UN troops to confront the resistance," Beirut's pro-Syria As-Safir held. An Israeli paper argued against the wisdom of Israel's having even a minimum presence in Lebanon after the withdrawal, saying, "If there is some Lebanon left to liberate (even if it is only seven outposts), (Hezbollah) will go on fighting."
SYRIA TRACK: While Israeli and Egyptian papers deemed that "the embers" of an Israeli-Syrian deal are still "burning beneath the surface," Syrian papers vowed that Damascus "will never give in to Israeli demands" on borders and water. Contending that Prime Minister Barak may resume talks with Syria at some point, Israeli papers insisted that he "must clarify unequivocally that this time...they will not resume 'from the point where they left off'...namely, from the June 4 lines, but from a point that addresses Israel's interests."
PALESTINIAN TRACK: The Palestinian press struck a somber note on the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks at Bolling Air Force Base, with one paper judging that things were going "from bad to worse" in terms of Israeli acceptance of the Palestinian viewpoint. Pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam posited that Israel would condition its acceptance of Palestinian statehood on "the Palestinians' relinquishing their right to return and their right to Jerusalem."
EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 30 reports from 14 countries, March 28-April 7. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "Comprehensive Agreement Preferred Over Present Staged Withdrawal"
Nationalist Hatzofe editorialized (4/7): "As long as a comprehensive agreement on all contested issues--from the depth of the withdrawal to the PLO's demand for a renewed division of Jerusalem--the continuation of the (policy of) 'interim agreements' does not make any sense.... Will Barak wake up from his slumber this time or will he continue his failed course that will eventually only serve the PLO?.... It is high time for Ehud Barak...to heed the advice of those urging him to stop the creeping withdrawal immediately...and to start the final status talks. Only following a comprehensive agreement will Israel be able to pull back to permanent borders that will separate it from the Palestinian Authority. Anyway, this is what common sense dictates, especially when there doesn't seem to be another prospect than freezing the pullout until a comprehensive agreement with the PLO is reached."
"Ten Meters That Could Have Changed The World"
Senior columnist Hemmi Shalev commented in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/7): "Because of ten meters of real estate...the Israeli-Syrian negotiations have broken down and all the creative diplomatic minds have not been able to find a solution so far.... The prevailing view in Jerusalem is that the Israeli-Syrian deal is dead, but embers are burning beneath the surface. Close Barak associates are pushing for a reassessment, and willing voices can be heard in Damascus. Even though this cannot be ascertained, the Geneva theater of the absurd has likely engendered a feeling of uneasiness on both sides. Anyway, this is a historic miss, an event that will provide future observers with an instructive chapter in a new edition of (Barbara Tuchman's) 'March of Folly.'"
"If You're Gonna Withdraw, Withdraw"
Strategic analyst Mark Heller wrote in the independent Jerusalem Post (4/7): "Even among those who advocate unilateral withdrawal, some are saying that in the absence of an agreement, Israel should hold on to (seven) outposts (straddling the international border) until it is safe to evacuate them. In other words, not a complete withdrawal, just a large-scale but partial withdrawal dictated by tactical considerations.... The government of Ehud Barak has decided to liquidate the security zone, but if tactical considerations drive it to hold on to these outposts, there still won't be a real withdrawal, only another 'sort of' withdrawal, with...inconclusive results.... If there is some Lebanon left to liberate (even if it is only seven outposts), (Hezbollah) will go on fighting, with the support of the rest of the country.... So do the dubious tactical benefits of seven outposts really justify eroding the credibility of (Israel's) deterrent?"
"Barak's Peace With Hebron Settlers"
Liberal analyst Haim Hanegbi wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/6): "The colony of Jewish settlers in Hebron is a malediction, but our prime minister felt it was this particular blasphemous group which deserved his kind and congratulatory words. His publicly expressed support for that band speaks volumes about the nature of the peace Barak wishes to impose on us. This is
a befitting 'confidence-building measure' toward the same settlers who waged an unceasing war against Hebron's Arabs a Torah law and a way of life.... Needless to say, he who makes peace with the Hebron settlers cannot make peace with Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese or even Israelis."
"Israel Has Given Enough"
Conservative analyst Avraham Tal wrote in independent Haaretz (4/6): "Israel has already made concessions that until ten years ago seemed absolutely unthinkable.... Assad is certain that just as he attained 98 percent of his demands so, too, will he get the remaining 2 percent.... Ehud Barak must clarify unequivocally that this time, the negotiations will not resume, if they resume at all, 'from the point where they left off'...namely, from the June 4 lines, but from a point that addresses Israel's interests."
WEST BANK: "Bad To Worse"
Independent, moderate Al-Quds editorialized (4/5): "All indicators do not give any reason for optimism regarding the future of the peace process and the hopes that were built following the victory of Barak in the Israeli elections. In fact, the peace process has reached the same deadlock that it faced during Netanyahu's reign. So, is there any possibility of seeing a strong breakthrough and activation of the peace process? Such a breakthrough can never happen unless we see a real change in the Israel government position, which is unlikely under current conditions."
"Palestinian Statehood"
Hani Al-Masri opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (4/4): "Israel will not recognize the Palestinian state without getting something in return. This fact has become evident during the secret and open talks at Bolling Air Force Base. Israel wants a Palestinian state without borders and will only give this state one or two passages within its authority. Furthermore, according to Israel, this state shall be established on most of the Gaza Strip and on 50 percent of the West Bank. Israel will also try to condition its recognition of the Palestinian state to the Palestinians' relinquishing their right to return and their right to Jerusalem, the refugees and 40 percent of the West Bank."
LEBANON: "Palestinian Presence Has Nothing To Do With Implementing 425"
Emile Lahoud's presidential memo to the UN Middle East Peace Coordinator Terje Roed-Larsen was welcomed in varying degrees in the Lebanese press. An editorial by Yaser Hariri in Ad-Diyar stated (4/7): "There are three issues in President Lahoud's memo: 1) It questions Israel's intentions behind its decision to implement UNSCR 425 at this point in time.... 2) It focuses on the UN guarantees for Lebanon. The current situation gives Lebanon every right to demand guarantees that would prohibit future Israeli attacks. 3) It considers the Resistance the real reason behind Israel's resolve to implement UNSCR 425.... As for the issue of the armed Palestinian presence in the camps...there should be a distinction between the illegitimate presence of Palestinian arms in the camps, and the Palestinians' legitimate right to return to their homeland."
"Lahoud's Questions And Annan's Options"
An editorial by Awni Al-Kaki in pro-Syria Ash-Sharq said (4/6): "President Lahoud knew how to express the Lebanese National Position, and his studied response to Annan's letter scored a goal in the UN net.... Lahoud's questions reflected the real problem, and the answers will really
prove whether the UN is credible or not.... We believe that Annan was not acting in his capacity as the UN secretary general.... Perhaps the United States did not facilitate his mission,...but the least he could do was to be impartial.... Annan seems really influenced by the double standard policy practiced by the United States."
"Israel Trying To Amend UNSCR 425"
Regarding Israeli Foreign Minister Levy's meeting with UN Secretary General Annan, moderate papers (4/5) stuck with the facts while pro-Syrian papers included commentary. Pro-Syria As-Safir opened its reporting with the commentary that "Israel has succeeded in convincing the world that it's serious about implementing UN Resolution 425.... But Israel is trying to amend UN Resolution 425 and, perhaps, replace it with a new resolution.... Israel wants UN troops to confront the resistance."
"Israel Forges Maps Of Its Border With Lebanon"
An editorial by George Hajj in Sunni mainstream Al-Liwa held (4/5): "It seems that the Security Council will soon meet to discuss implementation of UNSCR's 425 and 426, and the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.... The scenario for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal involving an international cover-up was prepared in Tel Aviv and approved in Washington before the Geneva summit was held, for use as a pressure tactic against Syria.... Annan played a successful role under direct American supervision.... There is great anxiety that Israel might blast UNSCR 425 by interpreting it in its own way, i.e., by forging maps of its international border with Lebanon."
"The Game Is Back With The Security Council"
An editorial by Rafiq Khuri in centrist Al-Anwar held (4/5): "On the outside, it looks as if Israel is planning to implement UNSCR 425. On the inside, however, it appears that some kind of amendment to the international resolutions is being cooked up.... The State Department spokesman said, 'I don't know to what extent UNSCR 425 might or might not be suitable and what additional steps might be taken.'... Beirut should be clear about its fears and demands.... Beirut should make a real effort to prohibit any amendment being prepared for UNSCR 426."
SYRIA: "An Israeli Trap"
An unsigned editorial in government-owned Tishreen read (4/6): "Kofi Annan's meeting with David Levy to discuss deployment of UN forces in South Lebanon in the wake of the so-called Israeli withdrawal, has raised many legitimate questions. The UN forces that already exist in South Lebanon have failed to repel the daily Israeli assaults against Lebanese villages since 1978. Why should the UN get involved with an obvious Israeli game? Why shouldn't the UN take any actions to implement scores of resolutions issued by the Security Council on South Lebanon, the Golan, and Jerusalem? What is the purpose of offering an international cover for Israel's game of deception? Linking Israel's withdrawal with security guarantees will not be welcomed as Israeli leaders are implementing a vicious scheme to separate the Lebanese and Syrian tracks and to change South Lebanon into a minefield. Israel seeks to blackmail Syria and Lebanon in order to protect the settlements that it itself failed to protect. Solving the crisis is feasible through the implementation of the Security Council resolutions. The UN should support its resolutions and should not fall into the Israeli trap set for it in the quicksand of South Lebanon."
"Peace Among Mines"
Fayez Sayegh, director general of the Syrian Arab News Agency, wrote (4/l5): "Suddenly we heard Israel talking about its withdrawal from south Lebanon and about its desire to bring European troops to guarantee its security there in the future. Israeli officials suddenly talk about implementing one of the Security Council resolutions, ignoring the rest, or even blocking them. This would expose Israel's 'peaceful' intentions.... One who seeks peace and stability
should comply with UN resolutions without guarantees, since the implementation of such resolutions is the guarantee of peace."
"Right Is To Prevail"
Bashar Saati, commentator for the government-owned Syria Times, observed (4/3): "President
Mubarak declared in Washington that Syria will not give up any part of its land. He called on Israel to fully withdraw to the June 4th line. He explained that Barak's demand to spread control over Tabaraya Lake contradicts the situation prevailing on June 4, 1967 when Syrian forces were directly stationed at the lake. Israel's intentions to fully control the water resources in the Golan and Tabaraya Lake are well known. These grave intentions disabled the Geneva summit, which tried to reactivate peace talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.... Syria will never give in to Israeli demands which seek to deprive the Golan people of their rights and water."
EGYPT: "Resumption Of Syrian-Israel Talks Remains Possible"
Columnist Salah Eldin Hafez contended in pro-government daily Al Ahram (4/5): "We believe that the resumption of the Syrian-Israeli talks remains possible, not only because of Clinton's overwhelming wish to resolve the issue before he leaves the White House, but also because Syria and Israel want to reach an acceptable solution.... President Mubarak clearly indicated the Syrian position...which seeks peace but insists on complete recovery of its land.... This frankness worried Israelis and Americans since they thought Egypt would pressure Syria.... Although Syria has waited a long time to regain its full rights, hoping for a change in the balance of powers inside Israel, and in the international and regional arenas toward a comprehensive and just peace...time is not in Syria's favor. Assad's regime is currently racing with time to re-arrange the Syrian domestic and regional situation.... However, Israel is also suffering difficulties. Time is pressing hard against Israeli society and Barak's government. The political situation in Israel is in crisis as well.... If Barak strikes a deal with Syria...Shaas will withdraw from the coalition...and the government will fall. Since Barak realizes this, he resorts to maneuvering...and blackmailing Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians. If this game fails, he passes the ball to Syria and Lebanon."
JORDAN: "Further Than Withdrawal"
Columnist Mohammad Kawash asked in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (4/6): "Why is the UN getting involved now and giving legitimacy to Israel's plan that exceeds the purpose of withdrawal? We are going to be happy with Israel's withdrawal and the Arabs everywhere will celebrate the liberation of the Lebanese territories. Yet we wonder where international legitimacy and the United Nations have been throughout the time that the Lebanese south was occupied and why Israel was given the option to choose the timing. We also wonder why the United Nations had not pressured Israel into implementing all the Security Council resolution. This issue poses a huge question mark over the role of the United Nations, the representative of international law. The UN gave up its role to the United States a long time ago. It gave Washington a free hand in implementing the sanctions on Iraq, imposing the unjust siege and prolonging it in the name of international law and has not yet remembered its
duty towards the people of Iraq except as much as America allows. We understand the fears of the Lebanese authorities from Israeli intentions."
"The Ball Is Now In The American Court"
Some commentaries focused on President Clinton's remarks "placing the ball in the Syrian court." Columnist Nicola Naser wrote on the op-ed page of independent, mass-appeal,
Arabic-language Al-Arab Al-Yawm (4/3): "The U.S. president's deviation from the U.S. policy of not publicly declaring bias in favor of any party in the Arab-Israeli peace process during the negotiations shows only the United States' incapability to force Israel to abide peace requirement and evasion from its responsibilities towards the peace process.. This surprising position adopted by the U.S. President represents an unjustifiable pressure against Damascus.... By adopting this position, Clinton has placed the integrity and credibility of the role that his administration is playing between Syria and Israel under suspicion. This is a risk whose consequences do not only affect the U.S. credibility but also the entire Arab-Israeli peace process."
"Land For Peace"
Center-left, influential Arabic-language Al-Dustur (4/1) editorialized: "The United States has placed itself in a position that the Arabs did not want for the United States. By adopting the Israeli anti-peace stand, the United States is adopting a position that destroys international law resolution and adheres to the game of the tracks.. The Arabs are demanding that the United States acts wisely and realistically and not fall for the Israeli maneuvers. Washington chose to sponsor the peace process right from the start and we do not believe there is a way for this peace to be established other than how it was started in Madrid and the land for peace motto."
KUWAIT: "Syria Is In No Hurry"
Independent Al-Seyassah ran this comment by Ali Jaber (4/4): "President Assad went to Geneva with many issues to discuss with Clinton, but in regard to the peace process, there was nothing new to discuss. To Assad, peace is a strategic option and the principle of 'land for peace' is an issue that all have agreed on. Therefore, President Clinton must meet with Barak to convince and pressure him to accept the rules for peace if he is sincere in reaching peace in the region. The president and the people of Syria are not in a hurry to achieve peace. They know well their borders and territories."
"Arab Problems Started, Not Ended, With Peace Agreements With Israel"
Mohammad Al-Siddiqi commented in independent Al-Rai Al-A'am (4/3), "Many Arabs believed that by signing a peace agreement with Israel their problems would be over and the Arab world would live in peace and prosperity. But the fact is that our problems have started by signing peace agreements with them. Peace with Israel is the start for a painful and destructive era. Israel wants to take, not to give, while Arabs are still dreaming of regaining their territories. Facts indicate that what was taken by force, can be only regained by force."
OMAN: "Israel Must Know That The Way To Peace Is To Withdraw From Arab Lands"
The government-owned Arabic-language Oman opined (4/2), "[Egyptian President] Mubarak confirmed during his visit to Washington that a complete Israeli withdrawal from all Syrian lands is inevitable.... The time has now come for Israel to know that occupation does not endow the occupier with rights, and that the way to peace is necessarily through a withdrawal from the Arab lands occupied in 1967. On the other hand, Israel's statements about its withdrawal from
South Lebanon, whether or not this accompanies an agreement with Syria and Lebanon, are nothing more than mere tactics. The application of UN Security Council Resolutions (425 and 426) related to South Lebanon necessitate a complete withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces to the international borders of Israel and Lebanon, with no adjustments or any maintainance of advanced positions in Lebanese territory.... Any departures from full withdrawal will mean that the withdrawal has not been complete, and the occupation is still existing. Therefore, the Lebanese people will have the right to fight this occupation with whatever means possible. The
path to peace is clear and defined, but the problem is in the intentions and present calculations."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Cohen's Tears For Barak's Disappointment"
Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina ran this editorial (4/6) on Defense Secretary Cohen's current visit to the region: "Cohen shed tears about (i.e., showed sympathy towards) the position of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, because of his (Barak's) disappointment at the failure of the (Geneva) summit, because of delays in the peace process, and because he (Barak) wished that Damascus would respond positively to Israel's demands.... We ask here, why this attack on Syria? Syria wants to liberate its occupied territories by peaceful means. Peace became a strategic option for Syria after the Madrid (peace) conference. Is the U.S.' role now limited to requesting that Damascus surrender to the demands of the Israelis, who believe that such pressure and intimidation will yield fruit and will force Damascus to surrender to (Israeli) demands and conditions?"
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Arabs Should Lock All Doors To Normalization"
Dubai-based and business-oriented Arabic-language Al-Bayan (3/28) editorialized: "Syria has confirmed that it will not accept to be treated as a weak or defeated nation. It has proven, through its solid position, that all the Zionist propaganda repeated by international media outlets to shake its role has no room in its calculations in seeking just and comprehensive peace. The most important lesson from the summit is the need to develop a strong Arab position to back the Arab negotiator.... What is required is an Arab position that locks all doors to any normalization, instead linking any Arab-Israeli relations to the achievement of a real and serious peace."
"U.S. Has Only Israel's Interest At Heart"
Semi-official Arabic-language Al-Ittihad held (3/30), "President Clinton represented Israeli Premier Barak very well in the American-Syrian summit in Geneva. By announcing that the ball is now in Assad's court, he implied that Israel has done what it should and has met its requirements regarding a just and comprehensive peace.... The U.S. has imposed itself as the sole mediator for settling this dispute for no reason but maintaining its interests and those of Israel in the Middle East. The United States has succeeded in unilaterally handling the keys of the settlement through pressures or temptations for parties to the conflict. In practice, pressures and maneuvers were directed at the Arabs, while the temptations were for Israel.... Arab diplomacy must knock on the doors of other superpowers instead of always crossing the American gate."
EUROPE
RUSSIA: "An Isolationist Notes: Does Russia Need The Middle East?"
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (4/6) published this article by Vladimir Pashkov, "With the Cold War allegedly over and the United States not our potential enemy anymore, shouldn't we
consider easing up on the Middle East? More than that, the United States is our strategic partner, or so it was stated during a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Moscow recently. So maybe we should leave the Middle East and the settlement problem there for the United States and the Western Europeans to decide. Since the age of global confrontation is gone and the United States is our strategic partner, there, admittedly, is no reason to expect it to pose a threat from the Middle East."
BRITAIN: "Truth In Anger"
According to the conservative Times' editorial (4/6): "Every so often in the complex maneuvers between Israel and its Arab neighbors, a ray of clarity penetrates the murk. Syria's denunciation of a possible UN involvement in monitoring Israel's promised unilateral withdrawal in July from southern Lebanon is a case in point.... If President Assad were as serious about peace as President Clinton fervently hopes, he would want no such confrontation (in southern Lebanon). What Syria's hostile reaction to impartial UN monitoring confirms, therefore, is that Israel's unilateral withdrawal does not suit Mr. Assad at all. For different reasons, Beirut and Damascus are determined to keep the Lebanon and Golan Heights questions inextricably linked. Ehud Barak's promised withdrawal is a poisoned chalice for Lebanon. Its own peace talks with Israel have been stalled since 1994 in deference to Syria. And it fears, not without cause, that once Israel's pullout had dissociated the two issues, Lebanon would be shunted to a siding in the Middle East peace process--postponing any prospect of seeing the back of its turbulent Palestinian refugee settlements."
"For Mr. Assad, Israel's presence in southern Lebanon is a bargaining counter that he does not want removed from the bilateral negotiating table. The best way to keep it in play is to stoke Hezbollah's firepower and militancy --as, for its own reasons, Iran has been doing in recent months. A United Nations presence would make any mischief-making in southern Lebanon by Syrian troops much more difficult to hide. Syria wants Israel's withdrawal to be seen as a failure--better still, as a feint intended only to fool the Western world.... Failure would also give Mr. Assad an alibi for stalling on the main negotiations with Israel. If he has dashed Mr. Clinton's hopes for progress, this is largely because peace could loosen his grip on power. He uses a state of war to justify martial law, a police state and exorbitant defense spending aimed not so much at military efficiency but at keeping the army loyal not just to him but to his son as dynastic successor."
GERMANY: "Israeli Troop Withdrawal: Small Steps"
Wolfgang Guenter Lerch noted in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (4/6): "Israel is beginning with the first logistic steps for a withdrawal of its troops from southern Lebanon. The existing 'security zone' has become useless.... By July, the Israelis will have left this zone. The majority of Israelis also backs this move. It is a gesture of goodwill towards the Lebanese government. However, there will be new difficulties with Syria, since the talks about a return of the Golan Heights can no longer be linked to the withdrawal from southern Lebanon. For Israel, the withdrawal from the security zone will also be at test of whether Lebanon and its Syrian protective power is able to control and pacify this area...that is controlled by the Hezbollah. Breakthroughs cannot be expected in the Middle East, at best small steps. This is why Israel's Premier Barak offered the Palestinians the return of another ten percent of the West Bank if an accord on a framework agreement on the Final Status can be achieved by May."
FRANCE: "Lebanon Within A Stones Throw From The Kibbutz"
Christophe Boltanski from Mizgav An in left-of-center Liberation (4/6): "Since 1984, the Israeli army has occupied the Lebanese territory in what is called a 'security zone'.... Not for long, in July at the latest, may be even at the end of May, it will have left the country of the Cedar. How far will she withdraw? Nobody knows. She would have liked to nibble some land in order to keep control of the crests. But Ehud Barak promised to evacuate up to the last square meter. The Labor prime minister does not want to give Hezbollah a good reason to continue its attacks after the withdrawal of his troops. He also knows that he will not get the support of the international community if he keeps one foot in Lebanon, no matter how small."
"For The Pride Of Hafez El-Assad"
Claude Lorieux from Damascus in right-of-center Le Figaro (4/6): "Hafez el-Assad's prestige would suffer less from a failure of the peace process than Bill Clinton would, as his term is ending, or Ehud Barak, who has been elected for his promise to bring peace to the frontiers of Israel. This is the opinion which prevails in Damascus, among the Syrian and foreign circles.... Assad had problems accepting the frustrating return trip to Geneva and the manner in which Bill Clinton blamed him for the disappointment of the peace party.... The sphinx of Damascus will never accept a wobbly peace by giving up part of the national territory."
##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Office of Research Media Reaction
Telephone: (202) 619-6511
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
