But Elie Wakim and Nada Ghamloush from Lebanon, and Dimitri Stafeev and Olga Zaytseva from Israel, had a problem in common: Belonging to different religions, neither couple could get married in their home country, and had to fly to the Mediterranean island of Cyprus to tie the knot.

In the Middle East, civil marriage doesn’t exist and no religious authority will perform an interfaith wedding. Lebanon and Israel are different in that they recognize civil marriages as long as they’re performed abroad, and the closest venue abroad is Cyprus, 150 miles from Lebanon and 230 miles from Israel.

So this little island, which claims to be the birthplace of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, has made mixed marriages something of an industry. Its municipalities charge around $415 for express processing and $190 for others, while travel agencies in both Lebanon and Israel offer packages including travel, luxury hotel, marriage fees and flowers for the bride.

Last year, by Cyprus government count, 523 couples from Lebanon and 1,533 from Israel were married here.

Wakim, 39, and Ghamloush, 33, met at work, fell in love and decided to marry. Their problem was, he’s a Maronite Christian, she’s a Baha’i. So Cyprus was their best bet.

Their wedding at City Hall in Nicosia, the capital, was quick and unadorned. A photocopier next to the Wedding Room whirred and creaked as municipal workers handled paperwork. The groom slipped outside for a quick smoke in the parking lot.

Then the marriage officer arrived, recited his lines in English, and the couple exchanged vows. It was over in 10 minutes.

They snapped a few photos of themselves on the steps of City Hall, then hurried off to finish the paperwork. They were catching a 40-minute flight back to Beirut that evening.

Many other couples stay on to honeymoon on the island, a sunny, laid-back escape from their high-stress lives back home at the center of the Mideast conflict. One such couple is Dimitri Stafeev and Olga Zaytseva, two 29-year-olds of Russian descent who live in a town near Jerusalem.

He’s Jewish, she’s a Russian Orthodox Christian, so they couldn’t marry in Israel unless one of them converted to the other’s faith. Converting to Judaism is a long process of study and ritual, and can be especially difficult for immigrants from the former Soviet Union who may have grown up with no religious education.

Stafeev and Zaytseva were married this month near the seaside city of Larnaca, in a century-old mansion renovated by the municipality with carpets and antique furniture to serve as a suitably romantic backdrop.

In Israel, the Orthodox rabbis who control marriage and divorce argue that their strict definition of Jewishness – it passes only through the mother – is vital to preserve the unity of a long-persecuted people, and to spare the offspring of mixed marriages from inheriting similar problems when their time comes to marry.

Clerics are just as firm in Lebanon, whose Muslim and Christian populations subdivide into 18 officially recognized religious groups.

“For us, a person who has civil marriage is like a person who is committing adultery,” Father Joseph Abdul-Sater, a Maronite Catholic priest and religious judge, told The Associated Press. “The marriage is the sacrament while civil marriage is a contract, and for that reason it is considered cohabitation.”

Mohammed Dali Balta, a Sunni Muslim judge, said in an interview that if human beings are allowed to write marriage laws, rather than live by religiously sanctified Muslim law, “they can one day legalize marriage between homosexuals.”

The Israeli and Lebanese couples who marry in Cyprus tend to feel bitter and discriminated against, and while they may consider each other enemies, they would probably find much to agree on as far as marriage law is concerned.

“Who is ruling the country? In a way, it’s the religious parties,” said Wakim, 39, the Lebanese groom. “Not separating the church from government from the beginning… this is the biggest problem.”

Ghamloush, his 33-year-old bride, said Lebanon, with so many religious groups, badly needs civil marriage. “Because if you respect your partner, you shouldn’t expect him to change his religion for you.”

Stafeev, who works in construction in Israel, said people’s religion should be their own affair. “Israel is a democratic state,” he said. “Everyone should have the will and the right to do what they want.”

Both Lebanon and Israel have champions for change.

Last year a campaign called “All for Civil Marriage in Lebanon” spread through Facebook and became a movement that is trying to legalize civil marriage for those who have no other option, said Basil Abdullah, a Lebanese civil rights activist.

Political rivalries have stymied the effort, he said, but he was optimistic it would eventually succeed.

In Israel, the marriage issue is a political line in the sand that can threaten governments dependent on religious parties for their parliamentary majorities.

Mixed couples in common-law marriages have won some relief from a 2002 Supreme Court ruling granting them the same rights and benefits as those in religiously sanctioned unions, but they still aren’t recognized by the state as married unless they go abroad and have a civil marriage.

Irit Rosenblum, a civil rights lawyer who campaigns for civil marriage, says for many couples, equal benefits aren’t enough; to be registered by the state as married “is really important mentally for them.”

The first step to a brighter future is crushing Hamas. This cowardly terrorist organization indiscriminately fires rockets into cities and then hides behind human shields when Israel’s military rightfully responds. Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the forming of a radical Islamic Republic that would fly, “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

Unfortunately, many “liberals” are infuriated that Israel is targeting these illiberal and violent theocrats. They mysteriously don’t seem to be concerned that the rights of women and other minorities, including gay people, would be greatly eroded if Hamas lorded over a Palestinian state.

By protesting Israel, these well-intentioned individuals in the West are actually prolonging the pain of the Palestinian people. Israel, obviously, cannot make peace with an entity determined to destroy it. The longer Hamas remains viable, the longer these problems will be protracted. As the weaker party, the Palestinians will almost always be on the losing end. A cease-fire with Hamas does little but provide a band-aid solution that ensures future bloodshed.

The fact is, eliminating Hamas would pave the way for reuniting Gaza and the West Bank under Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Having seen the radical alternative, the Israeli government would be favorably inclined to seek common ground with Abbas – expediting the possibility of a Palestinian state.

If this scenario plays out, Israel should move swiftly to empower Abbas by tearing down all illegal Jewish settlements. Nothing has done more to harm Israel in terms of world opinion and done less to improve its security than these outrageous outposts on Palestinian property. Someone has to tell these deluded settlers that the Messianic dream of a greater Israel is over.

Speaking of fantasies, the Palestinian people are going to have to give up their Jihad – which hasn’t exactly been a success. In 2006, they voted for holy war by electing Hamas – a group which pays the families of suicide bombers $5,000. If you are going to choose terrorism over tourism as your main industry, don’t cry to the world when bombs are dropped on your doorstep.

If the Palestinians face occupation, as they claim, they don’t need “martyrs” – they need leaders who will tell them the truth. In 2004, more than 200,000 Palestinians marched at the funeral of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin, after he was assassinated by Israel.

That’s fine, but where are the massive non-violent demonstrations that don’t call for the demise of Israel? Such protests would do wonders to further their cause and help undo the image of the suicide bomber. The Palestinian people have to understand that there will be no state – nor should there be – until the average Israeli citizen feels peace will not come at the expense of safety. If the Palestinians fail to offer such reassurances, they will remain stateless and mired in deprivation and poverty.

Checking the powerful and entrenched interests that undermine Middle East peace will not be easy. In America we certainly know how a well-organized minority of ideologues can infect the political process. GLBT equality, for example, has been stymied for eight years under the oppressive Bush Administration. We have seen a concerted effort by social conservatives to hurt our families and legislate our marriages – particularly in election years.

And, we saw John McCain place America’s future in jeopardy by selecting the unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate to appease his extreme base. It is still unthinkable that she was nearly a breath away from the Oval Office.

Still, the battle in Gaza is an opportunity to move forward. The Hamas gunmen that Israel is targeting are self-righteous thugs that intimidate moderates who favor peace. Those in Israel who think God commands Jews to have every inch of land – even if it belongs to Palestinian families – are the same types who believe God wants gay pride marchers in Jerusalem to be stoned.

If Israel’s true goal is security and the Palestinians genuinely want to secure a state, then I believe peace can occur and both groups can prosper. But, if negotiating is a way for Israel to stall so they can change facts on the ground through new settlements, or for Palestinians to replenish stocks of lethal rockets, God’s people will continue to turn this disputed land into a hellhole.

While you can never fully separate religion from the region, the “Holy” must be detached from the actual “Land” if peace is ever to be realized. It is time to return the fanatics to their rightful place on the fringe, so good people on both sides of this divide have a chance to live normal and peaceful lives.

According to a McCain spokesperson, someone on the tape read a poem that was notable not for its  synecdoche, but rather due to “hate speech” toward Isreal.   

(Washington) Is there anything new a presidential candidate can say about the absence of peace in the fragile Middle East?

Anything beyond a promise to work at it hard?

Barack Obama is not offering a sure-to-work formula to bring Israel and its Arab neighbors together.

The Democratic candidate for president is speaking of the security needs of Israel and the economic hardships of the Palestinians.

But the bottom line is, and will always be, it is up to the parties and not the American president to make peace.

“It’s unrealistic to expect that a U.S. president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region,” Obama said.

If the Jewish vote, assuming there is such a thing, weren’t valued especially in what could be a tight race, Obama might have left it at that. His Republican opponent, John McCain, isn’t offering anything new yet. He appears to be relying on stating clearly his commitment to Israel and its security.

At least to some observers, Obama appeared to be saying something new in a speech last month to pro-Israel lobbyists at a dinner in Washington.

He spoke in one breath of Jerusalem remaining undivided and Israel’s capital.

It turned out, though, that he wasn’t exactly saying all of Jerusalem should be Israel’s capital.

The Palestinians want at least the part of the city Israeli troops captured from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war, and Obama was not ruling out that possibility.

If the Illinois senator is signaling a change it is his promise to be active from the get-go, insinuating that President Bush sat on his hands too long and opportunities may have been lost.

“What I think can change is the ability of the United States government and a United States president to be actively engaged with the peace process,” Obama said.

It is debatable whether a sleeves-rolled-up Bush could have been any more successful than Bill Clinton was in playing a direct role in trying to drive Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Syria into peace agreements.

On the other hand, President Jimmy Carter kept Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin from quitting the Camp David talks in 1978 and drove them to a treaty the next year.

At this point, Iran appears to be overtaking peacemaking as the primary topic in the region.

“Iran has become the biggest issue for Israelis,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It is making peacemaking harder with its support for rejectionist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and that will be a daunting challenge for any president.”

And Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. negotiator, in a separate interview said “reassuring the Palestinians and the world that he is going to take the Arab-Israeli conflict seriously” is important.

And Miller, author of “A Much Too Promised Land” added that assuring the pro-Israeli community of his commitment to Israel’s security is important as well.

However, Miller said, the more important reassurance is that “while Obama may engage the Iranians he is irrevocably committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”