Rome, 17 Nov. (AKI) – Pope Benedict on Monday urged national unity in conflict-scarred Lebanon. During an audience with Lebanon’s new ambassador …

By Nicholas Kimbrell, BEIRUT: Although Syrian-Lebanese relations appear to be improving, they have been complicated by the sparring between the Syrian government and members of Lebanon's ruling March 14 alliance over allegations about the funding of a militant Islamist group, analysts told The Daily Star Monday. Prior to President Michel Sleiman's landmark visit to Syria in mid-August, the two countries had agreed to establish diplomatic relations.  In October, Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh met with his Syrian counterpart Walid Moallem in Damascus to cement the formalization of ties. Interior Minster Ziyad Baroud traveled to Damascus last week, returning with a bilateral security agreement, and Information Minster Tarek Mitri was received in Damascus Sunday for a joint meeting of the Arab Information Committee.  Speaking from Damascus, Mitri called the Syrian-Lebanese relationship "strong," adding that the relationship was based on "mutual respect and common interests."

He noted that Sleiman's visit had paved the way for recent improvements in ties after "passing through a difficult phase."  However, residual tensions and recent accusations have led some to question the extent to which the Syrian-Lebanese relationship has improved.  Comments by Syrian President Bashar Assad in September warning of the growing extremist threat in Tripoli, followed by the deployment of 10,000 Syrian troops to the Lebanese border, stoked fears in Lebanon of a potential incursion in the North.  More recently, Syrian State Television aired a collection of "confessions" from members of the militant Islamist group, Fatah al-Islam, in which certain members claimed to have received funding from March 14 leader Saad Hariri and his Future Movement.

The Mustaqbal daily, a Hariri-owned paper, fired back Saturday with separate testimonies blaming Syria for sponsoring the group, which waged a fierce war against the Lebanese army in and around the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp during the summer of 2007. The battle left hundreds dead, including 168 soldiers, dozens of civilians and over 200 militants.

Malek el Khazen, November 2008 - Let us ask ourselves this first question: How did the Republicans fail? or did the Republicans really fail? Let me rephrase this question to what was different that made the Democrats win? The answer seems easy and yes it is logical, and the same process was applied in France, in Zimbabwe and many other countries during election within these last 2 years. What has made the difference in all of these elections are what we will call in this article the silent citizens but not so silent anymore. They are the new registered voters. There is also another variable that all of these candidates were successful enough in convincing their citizens on the ASSUMPTION of CHANGE, HOPE, TRUST and EXPERIENCE.

Why do I use Assumption? It is important to note that both Democrats and Republicans are well incorporated within the American political system. So whoever is the candidate representing this party is automatically part of the current system and he will have to follow the same procedure to decide and implement laws and lobbying that all of his predecessors has followed. So if these candidates are already part of the system we can ask ourselves how it will be change? from what?? In fact the Executive power in the US is not the only one that is in power, but you still have the Legislative and Judicial powers. And within the Executive power the same structure is set. Which is in other words the Capitalism system and inner circle, ie. Elitism representing 1% of the US population that controls Washington. So they may be change but it would be minimal and we should not expect any kind of change that was mentioned during the campaign.

We have mentioned Elitism representing 1% of the US citizen are the class that drive policies and prioritize issues. In fact, these elite groups control most of the money and the biggest corporations in the US. In result, it is very difficult to fight them. Most importantly these groups are the one that funds presidential campaign. President elect Obama was successful in creating an Assumption that his campaign was funded by people, regular citizens like me and you. But this is not the complete truth. Out of his 426.9 million 50% and more was funded by the same Elite groups and corporation that has funded previous campaign whether Democrats or Republicans. So it is very hard for me to believe that he will start fighting them. It is important to note he had a lot of individual contributions too but the perception that he has created where it seems he had only personal contribution from regular citizen is incorrect. This perception had a lot of positive for his campaign since it has increased in the mind of the US voters that he is an outsider of the system which is not true.But has benefited him and gained support from the new voters.

توقع عضو تكتل التغيير والاصلاح النائب فريد الخازن ان يحصل بعض التغيير، أقله في الاسلوب ومقاربة الملفات في السياسة الاميركية في حال فوز باراك اوباما في الانتخابات الرئاسية الاميركية، معتبرا ان الامور ستظهر بعد استكمال الادارة بأشخاصها وملفاتها.

كلام الخازن جاء في حديث صحفي عن الانتخابات الاميركية وموقعها في الميزان اللبناني فقال: بالنسبة الى المرشح ماكين وعلى رغم تشديده على ان السياسة الخارجية او السياسة بشكل عام ستكون مختلفة عن سياسة بوش، الا ان رئيس الجمهورية الجديد سيكون أسيرا ولو بشكل او بآخر للسياسات السابقة ولا سيما السياسات التي ادت الى فشل في عدد من الملفات سواء في منطقة الشرق الاوسط او في افغانستان وتحديدا موضوع محاربة الارهاب. اما المرشح الآخر ويبدو انه سيفوز اي اوباما فعلا هناك امكانية في التغيير اقله في الاسلوب ومقاربة الملفات وهناك صدقية اكبر لأنه مرشح جديد ورئيس جديد يأتي من حزب آخر.  
وفي موضوع الازمة المالية الكبيرة اعتبر ان هناك ثقة اكبر بإمكانية التصدي للمشكلة اذا اتى اوباما وهذا رأي صدر في الولايات المتحدة واوروبا وعدد كبير من الدول. اما الموضوع اللبناني فهو جزء من موضوع اوسع وهو السياسة الخارجية الاميركية في منطقة الشرق الاوسط وطبعا نتأثر بهذا الامر ولكن برأيي هناك مبالغة في الكلام بأن الامور ستنقلب رأسا على عقب او سيكون هناك تغييرات جذرية في المنطقة سواء اتى هذا المرشح او ذاك. واعتبر ان مقاربة اوباما والاسلوب والمستشارين كلها مسائل سيكون فيها تغيير لكن في بعض الملفات الاساسية مثل النزاع العربي الاسرائيلي او الفلسطيني - الاسرائيلي تحديدا الوضع سيئ الى درجة انه قد يستحيل إحداث التغيير الايجابي للوصول الى حل وهو دولة فلسطينية قابلة للحياة لأن الموضوع هنا مرتبط بالموقف الاسرائيلي خصوصا اذا ما اتى الى السلطة بنيامين نتانياهو.  
 
وخلص الى القول انه ما من شك بأن هناك بعض التغيير لكن لا ارى امكانية حدوث تغيير جذري.  
وعما يُطرح عن ان اوباما سيكون رئيس الانفتاح على ايران وسوريا في مكان ما اشار الى ان هناك مقاربة مختلفة لكن الى اي مدى ستؤتي بثمار، هذا موضوع ليس واضحا وهنا اريد ان اقول بأن شخصية وشخص وزير الخارجية والمستشارين الاساسيين في السياسة الخارجية لأوباما هذه مسألة مهمة، وهذا الامر غير واضح حتى الآن، لكن من دون شك ستكون هناك مقاربة مختلفة للمواضيع المأزومة في العلاقات الاميركية - الايرانية والاميركية - السورية، وفي ما يخص لبنان هناك مسائل حسمت في الموضوع اللبناني ومن دون شك لن تعود عقارب الساعة الى الوراء في المواضيع الاساسية المرتبطة بالمواضيع السيادية وغيرها.