Tony Bey at Across the Bay gives a brief flashback on an earlier attempt by Moscow to sell a certain kind of missiles to Syria back in 2005:

The Israelis interfered with Putin in 2005 to stop the sale of these systems in particular. While Russia did indeed refrain from selling the S-300 and the Iskander, they ended up selling the Syrians the Strelets missile system, which consisted of vehicle-mounted Iglas, but did not include the man-portable platform, over the protests of the US and Israel.

Bey continues by linking the arm deal to Hizbullah:

As such, the concerns that the Syrians would pass man-portable (or even vehicle-mounted) anti-aircraft systems, such as the shoulder-fired Igla, remain valid. That Syria is still seeking these systems only highlights the likely intent to pass them along to Hezbollah.

Antoun Issa’s analyses the Russian-Syrian arm deal focus on the current situations of both countries; the re-emerging Russian power and the Syrian speculation of an upcoming war in the region:

The Russians have long been hostile to US plans for missile bases in former Soviet satellite idle and permit itself to be encircled.
At a time when tensions between Russia and the US are at their highest level since the Cold War, Assad is hoping Moscow will tighten its alliance with Syria by rewarding Damascus with missile bases akin to the US' planned bases in Poland.
Assad's keenness to expand his country's military involvement with Russia highlights the deep insecurity felt in Damascus in the event of a possible war with Israel, or between Israel and Iran.

Mustapha at Beirut Spring questions the arms deal's motive by presenting two questions that he finds linkable:

Question #1: If you were the Russian president and you want to find a way for punishing the US and Israel for training the Georgian army without stepping too much on Washington’s toes, what would you do?
Question #2: If you were the Syrian President negotiating with Israel from a position of weakness, what can you do to gain leverage?
If you find that two questions above point logically to each other, you’d understand why Israel and the US are nervous about a renewed proxy cold war in the Middle East…

Firas Maksad reacts to the Israeli statement that includes all Lebanese citizens are now targets of war by arguing that not all Lebanese are pro-Hizbullah nor its policies. He predicts that such actions by Israel can only leave this segment of Lebanese with no other choice by to back up Hizbullah if such threat are to be implied:

These are the more than 1 million Lebanese who in the 2005 Cedar Revolution peacefully took to the streets to directly challenge Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. They are the same people who supported the government earlier this year when it confronted Hezbollah by deciding to dismantle the organization’s countrywide communications infrastructure and remove the pro-Hezbollah security chief of Beirut’s airport…

…Israel will not defeat Hezbollah by adopting failed strategies that force Lebanese society into embracing the militant group as its only viable means of defense. By lumping all of Lebanese society into the same category with Hezbollah and threatening collective punishment, this is exactly what Israel’s latest Cabinet decision will do. It will leave the Lebanese with no choice but to grudgingly stand behind Hezbollah, just as they were forced to do last month when Israel repatriated Samir Kuntar and other Lebanese prisoners to the militant group instead of to the Lebanese state.

Now Lebanon quotes Ali Hassan Khalil's reaction to the news of the Israeli threat:

MP of the Development and Liberation bloc Ali Hassan Khalil said on Saturday that Lebanon has a “strong national unity cabinet facing a politically and militarily frustrated Israel.”
In a ceremony at Odeisseh Southern village, Khalil added, “Now that Lebanon has become strong in its resistance and victories it cannot be afraid of Israel.”

Zentor at In the Middle of the East posts his argument that such a relation between both countries will re-establish Syria’s international status and even regain control over Lebanese soil:

It seems that, for the first time since its independence in 1943, Lebanon might soon have an embassy of one of its two neighbours installed in Beirut. Syria finally seems to have entered the 21st century and renounced its claims on Lebanon as a part of ‘Bilad ash-Sham’. Bashar wants to ride the Sarkozy-initiated wave and recapture Syria’s international status and will open a Syrian embassy. It is reportedly to be installed in the building (or what’s left of it) that used to house the US embassy until that was blown up in a spectacular action of Islamic Jihad during the civil war in 1983, which killed numerous CIA operatives from all over the Middle East who had gathered there for a meeting. That leaves one neighbour without diplomatic relations - and they are not likely to be established anytime soon either…

Tajaddod Youth’s blog reports on the memorandum handed to the President prior to his visit by the pro-government party 14 March. This memo reflects the party’s visions and recommendations on establishing the Syrian- Lebanese ties:

The Memorandum lists the seven key steps that are needed to put the Lebanese-Syrian relations on the right track: ending all ties to armed groups in Lebanon, refraining from any act that would jeopardize Lebanon’s stability and security; border demarcation; diplomatic relations; release of Lebanese detainees in Syrian jails; revising the Lebanese-Syrian “Fraternity, Cooperation and Coordination Treaty” and all subsequent bilateral conventions.

Bilad ash-Sham’s blogger writes in his post that he is unsatisfied with the President's response to Tripoli's bomb incident that coincided with the visit:

While Lebanese were dying in Tripoli yesterday, your good President was taking his orders from Damascus. He was smiling, and happy. Did he rush back upon hearing the news of terrorism in Lebanon? Did he postpone his meetings, his coffee, his lunches and dinners? No. This is how your leaders care for you, ya lubneniun [oh Lebanese].

Now Lebanon posted an exclusive article backed by a Syrian source that breaks down key elements of the visit's accomplishments and announcements:

Syrian sources participating in the summit on Wednesday between Lebanese President Michel Sleiman and his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, said that the meeting lasted three hours, and the atmosphere was excellent and amicable…
…The Syrian sources told NOW Lebanon that Wednesday’s discussions covered exchanging ambassadors, border demarcation, the Lebanese missing and detained in Syrian prisons and reviewing past treaties and accords between the two countries.
They added that the topics were discussed in a transparent way, in a comfortable and clear atmosphere, and the presidents spoke of their desire to return the relations between both countries to normal.

Meanwhile, LEBANESE TAG blog withheld from posting any analysis or speculations about the visit at this point and posted a few photos only.

yaman's amateur ramblings, a Syrian student in the U.S., remarks on the Obama campaign's failure to reach out to Muslim and Arab-American voters:

After 8 years of the Bush administration, Muslim and Arab Americans, like others, have been counting on a breath of fresh air to come their way so that they might feel safe and welcome in their own homes once more. When Barack Obama announced that he was committed to change, many felt for the first time that it was possible to hope for something less bleak than the legacy that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had left behind. Unfortunately the Obama campaign has shown over and over again that it is more interested in playing along with an irresponsible media and its electoral antics, than it is in building solidarity between Americans from all communities and walks of life. If Obama wants to be the candidate of change, he has to exemplify that change throughout his campaign, not only through promises to be fulfilled after the elections.

The blogger concludes by giving his own suggestions on how Obama's campaign could better reach out to this demographic:

If Obama wants to reach out to the Muslim American community, he needs to do it by standing by them in the face of these and similar smear campaigns which are succeeding in making everything Muslim, and everything Arab, “untouchable” when it comes to politics and campaigning in the United States. He needs to take their concerns about immigration, Department of Homeland Security harassment, and foreign policy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine seriously. If he does this, it will mean more to Muslim and Arab Americans than the invention of token campaign jobs which look good on paper but might not achieve much–after all, even George Bush appointed an advisor to the White House to represent the Muslim community during his term, but hardly anybody from the Muslim or Arab American communities would call that the kind of “change” they were looking for.

From Morocco, Myrtus asks tough questions:

Why is it that everything even remotely Muslim surrounding Obama always ends up in a controversy?

Is it simply because the Obama campaign is spineless or is the Right just too powerful?

Israel Matzav speculates on how Asbahi was hired in the first place:

But there are two other possibilities as to why this happened. One is that Barack Hussein Obama and his campaign see nothing wrong with employing people who are connected to terrorists. After all, as Ed points out, Obama himself spent a lot more time sitting on the same board with William Ayers than Asbahi did with Said.

The second possibility is that the type of Muslim who isn't a terrorist sympathizer - the Noni Darwish's, the Ayan Hirsi Ali's, the Wafa Sultan's - wouldn't work for the Obama campaign and wouldn't attract many Muslim voters.

Neither possibility bodes well for an Obama presidency or for the future of the United States.

KABOBfest's Will, remarking on a story about Gazans buying Obama t-shirts illegally, had this to say about Asbahi's resignation:

This came right when the campaign excised more Arab-Islamic controversy potential. Its volunteer Muslim Outreach Coordinator, Chicago attorney Mazen Asbahi, resigned after 9 days to avoid any unwanted attention to his past associations with groups and individuals some believe to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, it's probably all bull. But the standard is higher is when you're an Arab or Muslim. And it's even higher when 12% of Americans think the candidate is Muslim.

* This article also appears on Voices without Votes.

Bloggers had a strong reaction to Olmert's resignation. Israel Matzav liveblogged the story as it broke. An excerpt from a post during Olmert's speech reads:

He made mistakes during his career and he is sorry for them. But the picture in front of the public is not real. He has elementary right to presumption of innocence and he should not have to seek it by force. He understands that police and prosecution have to do their job and he's not above the law but not below it either.

Commenting on the post, Orde says:

The impression I get (which is worth a grain of salt, because I'm over here and out of the loop), is that Livni's not that much better when it comes to “the peace process” or the whole extremists vs. the moderates approach. Wrong? right? Why would Olmert leaving change anything at all when it came to the peace process if Livni's approach is the same? What's the up side of this?

To that, NormanF responds:

Orde… I doubt it. Ehud Olmert has done a great deal of damage in his two years in office and will no doubt try to inflict more upon the country in order to get “a legacy.” That being said no one in Israel is sorry to see him go. He's been the most corrupt and incompetent Prime Minister Israel has ever had. What a singular distinction! By the way, the press conference was all about HIM.

Israeli blogger The Muqata is ambivalent:

8:10 PM, July 30, 2008: Olmert announces that he will leave office in 2 months!
What a disappointment….well, maybe not.
After a 14 minute surprise press conference, first Olmert drags it on saying how wonderful the government is, how everything in Israel is grand, how the police have been hounding him over investigations in which de did nothing wrong, and he has answers for everything.
Instead of outright resigning, he is only stepping down after the Kadima primaries.

Olah Chadasha responds in a comment, saying:

He believes he has improved the situation in Israel??? What world does this maniac live in??? He created a stagnant government that hasn't done a damn thing in 2.5 years, brought Israel's its toughest military defeat in recent history and then pissed on it with a disgusting prisoner exchange, allowed Sderot and its surrounding areas to be held hostage as Olmert fishes for “peace” and his place in history, etc., etc., ad nauseam. This man is truly delusional. The disgusting part is he probably believes every drop of dung he throws at us.
-OC

Israeli blogger Forecast Highs is looking toward the future, and reflects that in a blog post entitled “Mrs. Clean is from Mars, Mr. Security is from Venus”, explaining that the real issue is who will replace Olmert:

While the real battle between Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz to replace Ehud Olmert as Kadima chairperson and prime minister is taking place amongst the 30,000 Kadima members and not the wider public, the two frontrunners have retained the services of skilled campaign consultants to convince both the party membership and the general public that their candidate is worthy of Israel’s top job.

Syrian blogger Maysaloon shares his opinion:

I don't expect Kadima to survive once Olmert is ousted from power. The ill omen of Ariel Sharon's stroke almost at the very start crippled Kadima whilst Olmert, a manager more than a leader, has been disastrous for Israel. If Sharon awoke now from his coma he would probably ask to be put back into it if he sees the state that Israel is now in.

The prisoners' exchange, arranged between Hezbolla and Israel, has raised a lot of controversy in mainstream media and on the blogsphere as well. Some called the deal as a victory for Hezbollah and Iran, while some saw it as another failure for the US and Israel in the region.

Syrian blogger Mohammad Online (Ar), from Damascus, informs his readers that on July 17, 2008, and during an interview held with Samir Kuntar by MANAR TV, Kuntar said that there is an Egyptian prisoner still held in Israeli jails and that no one tried to free him except for Hezbollah. Commenting on the peace deal which exists between Egypt and Israel, the blogger asks:

فما فائدة هذا السلام إن كان لا يستطيع ذاك السلام العظيم أضعف الإيمان تحرير أسير من دولة هناك سلام معها

What’s peace for if this grand peace cannot liberate a prisoner of the country that signs a peace agreement with Israel?”

Jabhat el Tahsis (Ar) from Egypt, posts more information about the Egyptian prisoner:

أسير المصري اسمه إياد أبو حسن ..موجود في السجون الإسرائيلية منذ عشرين عاما و لا أحد يسأل عليه أو يطالب به .. و حسب سمير القنطار بأن المقاومة بذلت جهدا كبيرا لتحريره في هذه الصفقة لكن لإعتبارات سياسية ( منها الإتفاقية و العلاقات السياسية المصرية الإسرائيلية ) حالت دون الموافقة على ذلك من قبل الإسرائيليين .. في الصفقة الماضية و الحالية هذه الدول العربية طلبت من اسرائيل عدم إدراج أبنائها في صفقات حزب الله كي لا يصبح حسن نصرالله قائدا للعرب جميعا ..كما يقولون ..

The Egyptian prisoner's name is Eyad Abu Hasan.. he has been in Israeli prisons for 20 years and no one is asking for his release. According to Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese resistance has put a lot of effort to free him in the prisoners' exchange deal but that political considerations, such as the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, prevented the prisoner's release. It is because countries like Jordan and Egypt has called for not including their citizens in such deals with Hezbollah out of fear that Nasrallah would then become a national hero for all Arabs, as they claim.

Back to the Syrian blogsphere and more reactions to the prisoner swap. Blogger Ayman Haykal (Ar), a Syrian blogger in the US, asks his readers if Kuntar truly smashed a four-year-old girl's head:

لا أخفي إعجابي بنجاح حزب الله في استعادة الأسرى ورفات الشهداء من إسرائيل. لكن سؤالاً واحداً يقضّ مضجعي: هل صحيح أن سميراً هشّم رأس طفلة بعقب بندقية؟

I must say that I admire Hezbollah's success in returning the prisoners and the martyr's bodies, but there is one thing that still bothers me: Is it true that Samir smashed the girl's head with a rifle?

Another Syrian blogger in the US, Abu Kareem, reflects on people elevating Samir Kuntar to hero status:

I wanted to stay out of this debate altogether but the way Kuntar is being treated like a celebrity has left me more than a little queasy. I am annoyed with the way many Arabs have reflexively accepted his promotion to icon of the resistance and are willing to gloss over the facts that have brought him to his iconic status.

For Abu Kareem:

The real resistance heroes in my book are the Hizbullah fighters who fiercely and valiantly battled the Israeli army forcing its exit in 2000, or the youngsters of the intifada who battled fire with rocks and slingshots.

Hizbullah did not liberate the South by staging operations against civilian targets in Israel; they did it by making life hell for the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) in the South.

And last but not least, Razan, a Syrian blogger based in Beirut, Lebanon, posts few pictures from the celebration in Southern Beirut at the arrival of the Lebanese prisoners liberated by Hezbollah.