LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 19/12

Bible Quotation for today
Saint Luke 13/22-30: "Jesus went through one town and village after another, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, ‘Lord, will only a few be saved?’ He said to them, ‘Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, "Lord, open to us", then in reply he will say to you, "I do not know where you come from." Then you will begin to say, "We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets." But he will say, "I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!" There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.".

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The Case for Ramping Up EU Intervention in Syria/By: Magnus Norell and David Pollock /Times of Israel/August 18/12
The Syrian uprising must take the moral high ground/By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq AlawsatAugust 18/12
The next made in Tehran moderate/By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat/August 18/12
Post-revolutionary Arabs/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/August 18/12

US-Israeli deal on Iran? No Israeli strike now if Obama pledged a spring attack
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 18, 2012/The White House this week scrambled to reconnect with Jerusalem after the Obama administration was persuaded that Israel was serious about conducting a fall military operation against Iran’s nuclear program before the Nov. 6 US presidential election - notwithstanding the heavy opposition guns firing against it at home and from Washington. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, assisted by their newly-appointed Home Front Defense Minister, were seen deep in practical preparations for this operation and its repercussions, as well an outbreak of hostilities with Syria and Hizballah.
The White House accordingly got in touch with Netanyahu’s office to find out what America must do to convince Israel to back off.
Wednesday, Aug.15, debkafile revealed exclusively that the Obama and Netanyahu were discussing a one-on-one encounter on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session opening in New York on Sept. 18 in order to resume their military and strategic dialog on the Iranian issue broken off by their polar differences.
debkafile now learns that those discussions have moved forward. Handled by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon for the US president and senior adviser Ron Dermer for the prime minister, they focus essentially on a four-point plan embodying Israel’s requirements for delaying an attack.
1. President Obama will formally inform the two houses of congress in writing that he plans to use military force to prevent Iran from arming itself with a nuclear weapon. He will request their endorsement. Aside from this step’s powerful deterrent weight for persuading Iran’s leaders to give up their pursuit of a nuclear bomb, it would also give the US president the freedom to go to war with Iran when he sees fit, without have to seek congressional endorsement.
2. To underscore his commitment, President Obama would pay a visit to Israel in the weeks leading up to election-day and deliver a speech to the Knesset solemnly pledging to use American military force against the Islamic Republic if Tehran still refuses to give up its nuclear weapon program. He will repeat that pledge before various other public forums.
3, In the coming months up until Spring 2013, the United States will upgrade Israel’s military, intelligence and technological capabilities so that if President Obama (whether he is reelected or replaced by Mitt Romney) decides to back out of this commitment, Israel will by then be in command of the resources necessary for inflicting mortal damage on Iran’s nuclear program with a unilateral strike.
debkafile’s military sources note that an influx of these top-grade US military resources would bridge the gap between American and Israeli ticking clocks for an attack on Iran, and dispel the fear in Jerusalem that delay would give Iran time to bury its key facilities in “zones of immunity” - outside Israel’s reach for serious damage with its present capabilities.
4. If points 1-3 can be covered – and Netanyahu and Barak are convinced the US really means to strike Iran next spring - our Washington and Jerusalem sources report that Jerusalem may be coming around to agreeing to hold back a lone Israeli attack this autumn.
Those sources report that President Obama has not rejected the plan. Donilon was told to keep on talking to Netanyahu and Barak.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah Speech of Friday August 17/12
Now Lebanon/August 17, 2012
The question of Jerusalem for us is a religious question. Today’s main message to the Israeli enemy is that they should not rejoice for what is happening in the Arab world, since it will change nothing in the attitude of the Arab world toward the Palestinian cause. This cause is way above any other considerations for us. Each year in Israel conferences are held to discuss their strategic environment, including the national threats which are assessed and studied in their parliamentary and governmental institutes. This approach sadly is not adopted in the Arab countries
The Israelis are now concerned about a number of developments in their surroundings. The fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the withdrawal of the US Army from Iraq and the fall or imminent fall of the “regimes of Arab moderation” have been a source of concern for them. They are worried that a regional axes might be set up which might threaten their strategic environment.
The Syrian uprising has been a source of hope for the Israelis since it upset regional alignments. Israel is talking up the chances for the future of the Syrian opposition and they are publically expressing their joy at the course of events in Syria. During the previous months, the Israeli political rhetoric has been ratcheted up against Iran and Lebanon. The talk concerning a strike against Iran is not justified since the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful and no one in the world has any evidence against that. Israel’s problem with Iran is that the latter is committed to the Palestinian cause above any political considerations. Iran has never changed its attitude towards Israel and the Palestinian cause. Israel considers Iran to be its main enemy.
Shouldn’t that be a subject for consideration for the Arab countries? All who are inciting against Iran [in the Arab world] are therefore helping the Israeli cause whether they know it or not.
There’s near unanimity among Israeli military leaders that Iran should not be attacked while the political leaders are calling for a strike. The Israelis have always taken their decisions on a cost-benefit analysis. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are lying to their people, since if Iran had been weak or cowardly they would have already attacked it.
Iran is hoping for a strike against it to wage the most destructive war it has always wanted to wage against Israel. That is why there is a debate in Israel about a possible strike against Iran.
Israel thinks that they could destroy [Hezbollah’s] rocket arsenal in a limited air attack. I have however a new thing to tell them. We can tell the Israelis that we have small rockets able to hit limited targets but still change the lives of tens of thousands of Israeli citizens.
The Israelis should know that the cost of an attack [against Hezbollah] will outweigh the cost of the July 2006 War.
A few days ago we witnessed an exceptional Muslim summit in Mecca in Saudi Arabia and a decision was taken to set up a dialogue center for the different Muslim confessions. But for a dialogue to be effective it should be approached seriously. Saudi Arabia should therefore cease to incite against [non-Sunni] believers through their satellite channels.
The summit also addressed in its final statement the Palestinian cause. If this text was translated from Arabic to Hebrew to any Israeli they will take from it that they can act freely in Palestine since the Muslim world is practically non-existent. For us it is nothing new, since we have always considered that the Muslim world is non-existent and that’s why we took up arms and defended our country.
If this Muslim summit was concerned for the future of Jerusalem and Palestine [the Arab countries] would have invited Syria to the meeting. They should also have set up a delegation to visit Syria and Turkey and all countries concerned with the Syrian crisis to call for an end to fighting in the country. In the coming year we will face crucial regional decisions, not only in Syria but also Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel and [elsewhere].
I will now turn to the recent developments in Lebanon. In the last days we have been faced with the repercussions of the incident of the abduction of a Lebanese national in Syria. Claiming that Hassan al-Moqdad was a Hezbollah sniper is stupid.
The talk about the death of the 11 kidnapped Shiite pilgrims was also brought to the forefront in recent days. We have taken the decision to keep silent over this issue so that our words would not be used against us. However, the Lebanese media was after scoops and did not consider the feelings and emotions of the relatives of the 11 abductees.
These media outlets do not fear God.
Let everyone know that what happened in the last days was [not upon the orders] of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. The idea that Hezbollah and Amal are controlling the situation on the ground is not accurate anymore and everyone should step up to their responsibility.
We have joined efforts with Amal to prevent the airport road from being blocked by protesters. The case of the 11 abductees however later turned into a humanitarian crisis and a media show.
If we couldn’t achieve any breakthroughs with Turkey regarding this case can’t we at least deal responsibly with it? We should be merciful toward each other and deal ethically in the media with this issue.

French FM: all 11 pilgrims 'alive and well'
August 18, 2012/he Daily Star /BEIRUT: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Saturday that all 11 Lebanese hostages in Syria are "alive and well."
In a message to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a day after having left Beirut as part of a regional visit, Fabius said he will continue his efforts with his Turkish counterpart “in order to secure the release of the hostages and their return home,” according to a press release from Berri’s office. Interior Minister Marwan Charbel headed to Turkey Saturday for talks with officials aimed at verifying the fate of the 11 Lebanese hostages, which has been shrouded in mystery over the last three days. Concern over their fate escalated Wednesday after Syrian regime airstrikes hit the Aleppo district of Azaz, where the 11 are being held by Syrian rebels. Nothing has been learned about their whereabouts since then. Previously the kidnapped pilgrims had appeared in video footage several times and had been visited by journalists and relatives. Sheikh Abbas Zogheib, who is tasked by the Higher Shiite Council with following up on the issue of the 11 pilgrims, dismissed claims by Abu Ibrahim, the head of the captors, that four of the 11 hostages were killed during the airstrikes. The issue of both Lebanese and Turkish hostages was also discussed Saturday at a meeting between the Turkish ambassador to Beirut and Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour. Following the meeting at the Foreign Ministry in Beirut, Turkish Ambassador to Lebanon Inan Ozyildiz said Ankara continues its efforts regarding the issue of the 11 Lebanese pilgrims kidnapped in Syria in May. He stressed that Turkey was not a party but has chosen to help secure the release of the Lebanese hostages “on humanitarian grounds.”“On the other hand, however, we have two Turkish citizens kidnapped by Lebanese in Lebanon. There is a difference between the two [issues],” he added.
“Turkey has not forgotten the issue of the 11 hostages who have been in Syria for three months,” he said. “But we also want our citizens freed."
Nevertheless, Ozyildiz underlined the need to separate the two issues.
“We should not allow these two issues to negatively affect Lebanese-Turkish relations, which have been developing excellently for years, and we will continue our efforts and try not to let these regional events adversely affect our bilateral ties.”Turkish businessman Aydin Tufan was kidnapped upon arrival in Beirut Wednesday by the Meqdad clan, who also abducted over 20 Syrians, in retaliation for the abduction of one of their members, Hassan Meqdad, in Damascus. Another Turkish citizen, Abdel-Baseet Orsolan, was kidnapped at dawn on Friday, but the Meqdad family has denied involvement in this second abduction. In response to a question, the Turkish envoy said Ankara has no specific demands regarding the release of its kidnapped nationals.
He pointed to a meeting in Mecca recently between Mansour and the Turkish foreign minister who has expressed Ankara’s hope that Lebanese authorities would take the necessary measures for the release of Turkish citizens. Following the meeting Ozyildiz also met with Prime Minister Najib Mikati to discuss the issue.

Syrian Rebels claim Farouk al-Sharaa has defected from Assad's regime and flew to Jordan
Syria's VP flees to Jordan?
Elior Levy Latest Update: 08.18.12/Ynetnews
Rebels claim Farouk al-Sharaa has defected from Assad's regime along with two other top officials, but later retract statement; 'we cannot confirm or deny defection,' they say
A rebel group in Syria reported on Saturday that Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa has defected, but later said it could neither confirm nor deny the leader's arrival in Jordan, suggesting that his attempt to flee has failed. Citing a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a rebel group fighting against President Bashar Assad, Al Arabiya reported on Saturday morning that Sharaa had arrived in Jordan after deserting the embattled regime. The spokesman, Luay al-Miqdad, told the television network that two other high-ranking officers have also defected, but did not specify names.
Sources from the Syrian opposition claimed that Sharaa has been missing for the past two days and that he did not announce his defection until after he arrived in Jordan.
According to Jordanian media outlets, a Western diplomat located in Amman has confirmed Sharaa's arrival. Sharaa is said to have been helped by members of Jordanian tribes in entering the Hashemite Kingdom. Opposition sources told the Almustaqbal newspaper that Sharaa stayed in the Syrian city of Deraa for three days, along with three top military officials. The heavy shelling that targeted the region in recent days was meant to kill the defectors, they said. Sharaa, 74, has been Syria’s vice president since 2006.
Syrian officials were quick to deny the report; Jihad Makdissi, a spokesman for the Syrian foreign ministry, said on his Facebook page that the defection was part of a web of rumors spread by opponents of the Syrian people. State media said the vice president had been working since the start of the uprising to reach a political solution to end the bloodshed, and has never considered leaving the country.
"Farouq al-Sharaa has never thought for a moment about leaving the country," Syrian television quoted a statement from Sharaa's office as saying.
In a follow up message, the FSA suggested that Sharaa's attempt to defect may have been unsuccessful. "This kind of operation, which involves senior officials, warrants a series of complex security procedures that require careful information transfers. Therefore, we cannot confirm or deny… Sharaa's defection," the group said.

UN chief condemns Iran leaders' anti-Israel remarks
Reuters Published: 08.18.12/Ban Ki-Moon slams Iran's supreme leader and president for 'inflammatory' verbal attacks, says he is 'dismayed by the remarks threatening Israel's existence'
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon sharply criticized Iran's supreme leader and president on Friday, describing their latest verbal attacks on Israel as "offensive and inflammatory."
Many thousands of Iranians shouted "Death to America, death to Israel" during state-organized protests on Friday and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told them there was no place for the Jewish state in a future Middle East. "The Secretary-General is dismayed by the remarks threatening Israel's existence attributed over the last two days to the Supreme Leader and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran," the UN press office said. "The Secretary-General condemns these offensive and inflammatory statements.""(Ban) believes that all leaders in the region should use their voices at this time to lower, rather than to escalate, tensions," it said in a statement."In accordance with the United Nations Charter, all members must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."Earlier this week Iranian media reported that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel would one day be returned to the Palestinian nation and would cease to exist. The Iranian remarks came on the heels of a series of media reports suggesting that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear facilities ahead of US presidential elections in November.
Israel, the United States and their allies in Europe and elsewhere believe Iran is developing atomic weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

Post-revolutionary Arabs
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
We have completely misread the post-revolutionary era in our Arab world. A revolution aims to replace one regime with another, not topple the state. A regime is one thing, and a state is something else.
Every revolutionary action is based on [popular] movement, and all such movements have a beginning, whilst everything with a beginning has an end, with the exception of God Almighty.
Therefore every beginning has an end, and each revolution has a starting point and a finale, namely a moment of silence and stability. After this silence and stability, in light of the new regime, there is construction, development and expansion under a state of laws. The crisis that we are experiencing is the escalation of the Arab revolutionary experience, namely the phenomenon of ceaseless revolution. This is a revolution that does not end; a state of revolution that continues forever.
Mankind was not created to revolt forever, and there can be no society that achieves successes in terms of development and reform in all – if any – fields during a period of ceaseless revolution, protest and uprising. This is something that hinders all movement in society and uproots everything, both the good and the bad!
History has taught us that true development comes during times of security, stability, the rule of law, social justice and scientific management, not to mention the presence of an open society, transparency and free media. History has also taught us that a permanent state of chaos, endless protests and open suspicions against the decision-makers and those around them, results in a state of nihilism and absurdity. This results in a state of social decline, not to mention social depression, as well as the near economic bankruptcy of the state.
Tunisia is still suffering from the consequences of the revolution and the chaos of the takfirist powers that want to rule the street via the force of terrorism. Whilst Yemen is still unable to achieve a state of discipline within the military institute, and this is the most dangerous form of chaos, as it is within the military institute.
As for Egypt, it is preparing itself for protests – scheduled for 24 August – calling for the toppling of this regime which came to power via free and fair elections. Regardless of whether we are for or against the Muslim Brotherhood, its candidate won the presidential elections and represents a legitimate power.
Modern history has taught us that whoever comes to power via free and fair elections should not be toppled by demonstrations, but also by free elections.
As for Libya, it continues to pay the price of the bloody armed tribal, ethnic and regional conflict despite the departure of the Gaddafi regime. The guns continue to fire, whilst there are still cases of tribal and regional revenge which may never end. The issue, unfortunately, will be precisely the same for Syria in the post-Assad era. For on the day after the departure of this regime, we will see the beginning of the power struggle and the division of the spoils between more than 12 revolutionary factions, each claiming success for the revolution!
If the revolution was a noble operation, it is even nobler to transform this – via genuine reformative action – into a regime that respects the state, and which protects its prestige and legitimacy in terms of its holy commitment to the law and constitution.

U.N. names Algerian diplomat as Syria envoy; refugee crisis dire
18/08/2012
BEIRUT/UNITED NATIONS, (Reuters) - The United Nations on Friday confirmed that veteran Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi would become the new international mediator on Syria, as the 17-month-old conflict slid deeper into civil war and refugees fled to Turkey in increasing numbers.
President Bashar al-Assad's forces have turned increasingly to air power to hold back lightly armed rebels in the capital Damascus and Aleppo, a northern commercial hub. More than 18,000 people have died and some 170,000 have fled the country as a result of the fighting, according to the U.N.
Brahimi, who hesitated for days to accept a job that France's U.N. envoy Gerard Araud called an "impossible mission," will replace former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is stepping down at the end of the month. "The (U.N.) Secretary-General appreciates Mr. Brahimi's willingness to bring his considerable talents and experience to this crucial task for which he will need, and rightly expects, the strong, clear and unified support of the international community, including the Security Council," U.N. spokesman Eduardo del Buey said.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby back Brahimi's appointment, said del Buey, who added that achieving a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis remained a top priority for the United Nations.
Diplomats said all Security Council members supported Brahimi.
The announcement confirmed what diplomats told Reuters on Thursday.
Brahimi, a Nobel Peace laureate, will have a new title, Joint Special Representative for Syria. Diplomats said the change was to distance him from Annan, who had complained that his Syria peace plan was hampered by a divided Security Council.
U.N. officials told Reuters that Brahimi was expected to arrive in New York next week to meet with Ban and discuss plans for a fresh approach to Syria.
In an interview with France 24 television, Brahimi said he would soon meet with the Security Council.
"We are going to discuss very seriously how they can help," he said. "They are asking me to do this job. If they don't support me, there is no job. They are divided, but surely they can unite on something like this and I hope they will."
Security Council members Russia and China are resisting Western efforts to step up pressure on Assad to quit and are unwilling to give even an amber light for military intervention -- not that the United States and its allies have shown any appetite for overt action in Syria.
Washington, however, has stepped up non-lethal support to the rebels.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a statement said: "My message to Special Envoy Brahimi is simple: The United States stands ready to support you and secure a lasting peace that upholds the legitimate aspirations for a representative government of the people of Syria."
Clinton's message to the Syrian people was "you are not alone," and she said the international community was committed to a Syrian-led political transition and to ensuring those who commit atrocities are held accountable.
DIARRHEA OUTBREAK
Turkey, a key regional supporter of the Syrian rebels, is taking the brunt of a swelling exodus of refugees, with 66,000 Syrians now sheltering there, the Turkish state disaster and emergency authority said.
Some 1,500 arrived from the rebel-held border town of Azaz after Assad's air force bombed it on Wednesday, killing at least 35 people, Turkey's Dogan news agency reported. It said another 1,500 from the devastated town were thought to be on their way.
More than 250 people, including 123 civilians, were killed in Syria on Thursday alone, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based opposition watchdog.
Turkey's state-run Anatolian news agency said 13 of 86 casualties brought from Aleppo and Azaz to a state hospital in the Turkish border province of Kilis had died from their wounds.
More than 170,000 Syrian refugees have been registered in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, the U.N. refugee agency said.
"There has been a further sharp rise in the number of Syrians fleeing to Turkey," spokesman Adrian Edwards of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said in Geneva. Forty percent of those in Turkey had arrived this month, he added.
Humanitarian conditions in Syria have deteriorated as fighting worsens, cutting off civilians from food supplies, health care and other assistance, U.N. agencies say. Sewage-contaminated water has led to a diarrhea outbreak in the countryside around Damascus, with 103 suspected cases.
Some 1.2 million people are uprooted in Syria, many staying in schools or other public buildings, U.N. officials say. U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos, ending a visit to Syria, said on Thursday up to 2.5 million people needed aid there.
UNITING SYRIAN OPPOSITION
A Syrian astronaut who was part of a Soviet space mission a quarter of a century ago condemned on Friday the world's failure to stem violence in Syria and urged Assad's opponents to keep up their struggle.
General Muhammed Ahmed Faris, a military aviator and the first Syrian in space, fled to Turkey 10 days ago, joining the ranks of prominent defectors who have included military generals and former Prime Minister Riyad Hijab.
Hijab, who defected this month, has arrived in Qatar to discuss how to unify opposition efforts to hasten Assad's downfall, his spokesman said.
A Sunni Muslim, Hijab is the most senior civilian official to desert Assad, whose ruling system is dominated by members of his Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam.
Shi'ite Iran, Assad's closest ally, has cast the revolt in Syria as a plot by the United States and its regional allies to destroy an anti-Israel "axis of resistance" linking Tehran, Damascus and Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah movement. "You want a new Middle East? We do too, but in the new Middle East ... there will be no trace of the American presence and the Zionists," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech to mark annual state-organized rallies against Israel.
The war in Syria is fraught with danger for neighboring countries such as Lebanon, where a local Shi'ite clan this week kidnapped more than 20 Syrians to try to secure the release of a kinsman seized by Syrian rebels near Damascus. The gunmen said a Turkish hostage would be the first to die if their relative were killed. Gulf Arab states have told their citizens to leave Lebanon after threats that more hostages would be seized. The last U.N. monitors are due to leave Damascus by August 24, U.N. officials said, after a doomed mission to observe a ceasefire declared by Annan on April 12. It never took hold.
"It is clear that both sides have chosen the path of war, open conflict, and the space for political dialogue and cessation of hostilities and mediation is very, very reduced at this point," deputy U.N. peacekeeping chief Edmond Mulet said.

The next made in Tehran moderate
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
What do politicians do when they cannot do much? Well, it depends on time and place. However, regardless of time and place, most political lame ducks try to snatch a bit of relevance from the teeth of ridicule by playing with words.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remember him?, is no exception.
He has one more year to go before his second and last term as President of the Islamic Republic is up. And, yet, he is already fading into oblivion. Tehran newspapers report his few activities in their inside pages. Controlled by his rivals, the state-owned radio and television hardly mention him. The Khomeinist state is so gripped by the cult of personality built around Ali Khamenei, the mullah known as the “Supreme Guide”, that it allows no one else to shine.
Ahmadinejad is left with little room for manoeuvre. His crime was that he tried, ever so gingerly, to define himself as a leader with a base of his own.
Now all he can do is to play with words. Khamenei describes the “Arab Spring” as “Islamic Awakening” and claims that Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Yemenis, but not Syrians, rose against their respective regimes because they loved him and wished to live under “Walayat al-Faqih”.To counter that, Ahmadinejad has labelled the Arab revolt as “Human Awakening”, hinting that something similar could happen in Iran. Little by little, Ahmadinejad has been shorn of his presidential powers. People he appoints are dismissed on orders from courts ran by Khamenei henchmen. His executive decisions are vetoed by the Islamic Majlis, the ersatz parliament, on orders from the “Supreme Guide”. Khamenei sends his own minions on diplomatic missions without even informing Ahmadinejad. Key decisions on the economy have been transferred to Khamenei’s office. The “Supreme Guide” is also spreading rumours that the very position of the president may be abolished. Increasingly, Ahmadinejad is looking like the little shrinking man of the cartoons. Against such a background, one might wonder who would want to be president of a non-existent republic?
Well, the answer, surprisingly, is: many.
The reason, of course, is that one is never short of ambitious men in any system. Even if a position is not worth a bucket of lukewarm spit, one is sure to find men queuing up to win it.
But why does the system in which the “Supreme Guide” has absolute power, needs a president or even a prime minister. The answer is simple: despotic systems need to keep alive the possibility of change.
In the old times, the potentates would calm down rebellious spirits by rotating the viziers according to the mood of the moment. In modern despotic systems, such as that created by Stalin in Russia, changes in the administrative personnel were used to nurture the myths of “ hawks and doves.” For example, people inside and outside the Soviet Union thought that Malenkov was more “liberal” than Stalin and Khrushchev more lenient than Malenkov. A whole industry of Kremlin-watchers was built around that conceit.
The Khomeinist regime is using a similar tactic.
In 1979, the Carter administration believed that once the pro-American faction led by Mehdi Bazargan was in power all would be well between Tehran and Washington. After all, five of Bazargan’s ministers were US citizens while at least one was a CIA agent.
Once Bazargan was kicked out, Washington found other “moderates”-from the poor adventurer Sadeq Ghotbzadeh to the hapless Abol-Hassan Banisadr. This game has been played for 30 years with Khamenei, as president, then Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami and, eventually, Ahmadinejad, being identified as potential “moderates” before being exposed as poltroons in a political version of the comedia del arte.
Remember, Ahmadinejad was initially cast as a “new generation” leader interested in good management and likely to pursue pragmatic policies.
It is no surprise that the Khomeinist regime is looking for a new “moderate pragmatic” figure to field as the next president. The idea is to fool some Iranians into believing that things might change for the better in a year’s time. At the same time, the Western powers could be hoodwinked into easing their sanctions in the hope of making a deal with the next “moderate” leader in 2013.
The new “moderate” figure is an old one. He is Ali-Akbar Walayati who served as Khomeinist Foreign Minister for 13 years. For the past decade he has been advisor to Khamenei for foreign affairs. The buzz being built around him is that he is a pragmatic who could develop a realistic foreign policy. The fact that some staunchly pro-Israel figures are lobbying for him in Washington is cited as a sign that he rejects Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denying postures. However, Walayati has two problems. The first is that he is subject to an international arrest warrant for his role in the murder in Berlin of four Iranian Kurdish leaders and their interpreter in 1992. This means that he cannot travel to most parts of the world without risking arrest by the Interpol.
Walayati’s second problem is, in fact, not his fault. He is neither a moderate nor a pragmatic because, in a system gone mad on pseudo-revolutionary radicalism, he cannot be either. Even if he wanted, Walayati could never be a moderate or a pragmatic in the mad house built by Khomeini.
And, let me let you on to a bigger secret: even if Khamenei himself wanted to become moderate and pragmatic he would not be able to pull it off. The Khomeinist system cannot be reformed except in the wrong direction, that is to say to make it even more deadly and devious. Under Khomeinism, in Iran any positive change within the regime is but an illusion.
If some useful idiots wish to continue deceiving themselves that is their problem. They will end up missing Ahmadinejad as they ended up missing Banisadr, Rafsanjani and Khatami.

'US military aid would delay Israeli strike'
Yitzhak Benhorin/08.18.12/Ynetnews
Arming Israel with extra military capabilities could allay its leaders' impatience to strike Iran, thus buying time for diplomacy, Obama's former national security adviser says
WASHINGTON - A former national security adviser to President Barack Obama says that the United States should provide Israel with the military aid that would sway its leaders to delay a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Dennis B. Ross, who served as a special assistant to Obama for the Middle East and South Asia from 2009 to 2011, says in an opinion piece published by the New York Times on Friday that by bolstering Israel's military capabilities with "additional bunker-busting bombs, tankers for refueling aircraft and targeting information," the US could allay the Jewish state's impatience to attack the Islamic Republic. The move would "extend the clock" on a possible military operation, thus allowing the White House to exhaust all diplomatic measures that could deem the military option unnecessary. Ross, a veteran diplomat well versed in negotiating with senior Israeli officials, states that while both Israel and the US share the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, they differ in their estimated deadline for military action. "The United States has significantly greater military might than Israel and therefore feels that it can wait substantially longer than Israel before resorting to force," he writes. "Israel is less patient." Civilian nuclear power acceptable
The former State Department and National Security Council official uses his op-ed to lay out a four-point plan meant to "synchronize the American and Israeli clocks" on the military option. The first order of business, he says, is to draft proposal that would allow Iran to maintain nuclear power for civilian purposes only. The proposal would be used as a framework for talks with the Islamic Republic.
The second step in Ross' plan calls for the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (the P5+1) to start devising a strategy for the event that diplomacy fails and force becomes necessary. Ross asserts that neither Israel nor the US can destroy Iran's ability to eventually develop atom weapons, which is why force can only be used in conjuncture with measures that would keep Tehran isolated and under severe economic sanctions that would make it "less able and less willing" to rebuild its nuclear program.
Third, Washington should ask Jerusalem which military capabilities they need to delay a strike. And finally, Ross suggests that the White House should ask Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "what sort of support he would need from the United States if he chose to use force – for example, resupply of weapons, munitions, spare parts, military and diplomatic backing, and help in terms of dealing with unexpected contingencies."
Ross states that in return for Israel's agreement to push the attack until next year, the US should make firm commitments on all accounts.
"Although some may argue that these actions will make a military strike more likely next year, they are almost certainly needed now in order to give Israel’s leaders a reason to wait," he says.

The Syrian uprising must take the moral high ground
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
The emergency Mecca Summit being held by the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC] came to an end yesterday. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, had called for this summit to be held weeks ago, and it has enjoyed a remarkable Arab and Islamic presence. The Syrian crisis topped the summit’s agenda, and perhaps the most important result was the suspension of Syria’s membership, as well as reaching an Islamic consensus condemning the violations being committed by the ruling regime in Syria.
Some people may view these results as being modest, particularly as Syria’s membership to a number of important organizations has already been suspended, including Syria’s membership to the Arab League. Indeed, Syria has been excluded completely from a number of organizations, including numerous committees affiliated to the United Nations. The fact of the matter is that condemnation and membership suspension are very important at this stage in particular. This is because it is now within the capability of the states that oppose the military campaign launched by the Assad regime to tell all the states that support (or are sympathetic) to it that the majority of Arab and Islamic states reject this regime’s survival. How can Assad’s allies in Russia, China and Lebanon, as well as a number of Latin American states, justify their support for the Syrian regime at a time when the majority of the Arab and Islamic world oppose it? Even if they do not care about the statements being issued by the Arab League or the OIC, they cannot ignore the demands of the majority of the international community for Assad’s departure.
The problem is that the Syrian uprising has been transformed – since the first day – into a regional issue, not because the “rebels” wanted this, but because their country has been subject to foreign agendas for decades. It is no secret that the Assad regime is close to Iran, and has been active over the past decades in attempts to destabilize regional security. For this reason, the reports of the capture of Iranian officers in Syria, not to mention the death of members of the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, represents evidence that what is taking place today is a regional war, and that the Syrian rebels are not just fighting Assad’s troops, but also the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)and Hezbollah.
In a military analysis published by the New York Times entitled “Syrian Leader’s Arms Under Strain as Conflict Continues” a number of military experts asserted that the Assad regime is no longer able to confront the guerrilla warfare that is taking place in the streets of Syria’s major cities. The experts stated that the Syrian forces supply lines have been destroyed, and as a result of this the regime has been forced to rely on more conventional weapons such as fighter jets and helicopter gunships, as well as missiles attacks, to strike residential areas.
Perhaps this explains the recent statements issued by defected Syrian Prime Minister, Riad Hijab, that the Assad regime only controls 30 percent of Syrian territory. In addition to this a total of 70,000 soldiers and officers have defected from the Syrian regime. This means that there have been huge human and material losses in the country, particularly as entire neighborhoods in every Syrian city have been destroyed. In addition to this, international agencies have reported that more than 150,000 refugees have fled their homes. The recently defected Homs police chief confirmed that the pro-regime Shabiha militia is following orders issued by IRGC officers.
There is no doubt that the al-Assad regime is no longer able to operate as a legitimate and sovereign state, and even if it is able to survive by relying on foreign assistance, its domestic authority – not to mention the actual territory that it is in control of – is shrinking.
In my opinion, the real fear is not the survival of the Assad regime, for this is a regime that has sealed its own doom after it intimidated and killed its own people. Rather the fear is in the Syrian uprising utilizing the same inhumane methods being practiced by the Assad regime and its Shabiha militia. One particularly horrifying video has come to light depicting field executions taking place, and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and some fighters affiliated to other groups have been accused of being responsible for this. In addition, we have also begun to notice the presence of foreign fighters, albeit a minority, according to some observers monitoring the daily events in Syria. These are truly worrying signs for the unity of the Syrian state, and protecting its social fabric is a priority to ensure that Syria passes through this current crisis.
As for more positive signs, the Syrian opposition forces, in particular a Muslim Brotherhood statement – which was excellent in terms of content and timing – has committed to working to establish a democratic and civil state that will safeguard political and economic rights for all the components of Syrian society. However despite all these pledges, we have yet to feel – until now – any capability from the opposition as a political organization to win the confidence of sectarian components that are apprehensive regarding the post-Assad period.
There can be no doubt that it is morally difficult to ask victims to respect the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, particularly following what the regime and the militias affiliated to it have done in terms of transgressions and the worst forms of humanitarian abuse. However the Syrian uprising, including the members of the military, must respect moral imperatives, as well as international treaties and conventions. If they want to have legitimacy, then they must abide by international law. Take for example the case of the captured Iranians; it is not right for the FSA to threaten to kill them, even if they are criminals, or to bargain with them by making video recordings, even if they are guilty.
One might say that the FSA is not in a position to put these Iranians on trial, or even guarantee their safety, and if this is the case, then they should be surrendered to Turkey or any other state to guarantee this. Following this, the Syrians can put them on trial when they have the means to do so. There is also a need to criticize the action of a minority within the Syrian armed opposition, to ensure that the Syrian uprising avoids sinking to the regime’s level. The Syrian people have proven their courage and sacrifice in their struggle against this unjust regime, however all these sacrifices will have been in vain if the regime prompts the Syrian uprising to be like it; if it forces it to carry out the same abuses that it is carrying out. The strength of the Syrian uprising lies in its humanitarian logic, and the rebels must preserve this.
They must not fulfil the hopes and dreams of the regime, which wants to turn these victims into butchers. They must be careful of the regime’s tricks, and the opportunities they are being offered by the regime’s butchers to discredit the revolution.

Dialogue between Islam’s sects
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, has proposed the establishment of a Riyadh-based center for dialogue between Islamic sects. Will this end the center of conflict and division between Islam’s sects? No, we cannot say this; however establishing this center and initiating dialogue will have significant benefits for all Muslims.
The first benefit of dialogue between Islamic sects is promoting the acceptance of other sects and denominations. This is the crux of the matter, and represents the greatest thing that we could accomplish in this regard, particularly as sectarianism in our region has reached horrifyingly high levels. Differences of opinion between sects are now the result of real events, not ancient differences of opinion which are as old as the religion of Islam itself. Our region, and indeed all members of the Islamic faith, previously experienced long eras of coexistence and peace, where any differences of opinion remained within a specific framework, and everybody co-existed peacefully with one another for long periods of time. However today, thanks to modern technology, it is easy to argue, defame and inflame tensions to the point that sectarian conflict is now a threat to the region as a whole, particularly with Iran’s political ambitions in the region, and the size of the political changes that have taken place around us, whether in Iraq, Lebanon or what is happening in Syria today.
Therefore, a center for dialogue between Islamic sects is needed and welcome, politically, religiously, and socially. The true importance of this is that it is the result of a Saudi call, particularly from the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz. For this call for dialogue between Islamic sects’ means that the land of the Two Holy Mosques was, and indeed remains, far removed from inter-Islamic division, indeed Saudi Arabia is seeking to breach these divides, standing against political sectarianism, which represents the correct approach. Saudi Arabia is the land of the Two Holy Mosques, the Muslim’s qibla [direction faced when Muslim’s pray] and its major role, not to mention its focus since the foundation of the Kingdom by founder King Abdulaziz Bin Abdulrahman Al Saud – may he rest in peace – has been to serve Islam and Muslims in all walks of life. Therefore Saudi Arabia is not a sectarian state, it is a unification project. As for the division between people; this is in the hands of God Almighty. From here, the call made by the Saudi monarch for the establishment of a center for religious dialogue between Islamic sects means that Saudi Arabia rejects sectarianism, and does not use this as a tool for influence or political control. Riyadh has not adopted its position on what is happening in Syria, for example, based on sectarian logic, as some claim, for King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz tried to resolve the situation in Syria on a number of occasions, both with al-Assad the father and al-Assad the son. Whilst King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz also extended his hand to Iran, since the time of Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, and granted Iraq every opportunity during the Saddam Hussein era, during which he famously shook hands with Izzat al-Douri in Lebanon in 2002. This also applies to post-Saddam Iraq under Nuri al-Maliki, and now we see the Saudi monarch returning once more to extend his hand to all sects and denominations, not just states or individuals. The Saudi monarch did not do this for political propaganda purposes, and the evidence of this is that King Abdullah was the first person to launch national dialogue in Saudi Arabia at a time when dialogue was not in vogue in the region. King Abdullah also launched inter-faith dialogue as well. Therefore, this means that the Saudi monarch truly believes in dialogue, and is certainly not using this as political propaganda!
The ball is now in the court of those who use sectarianism; will they allow this opportunity to pass them by, or will they make sure that religion remains far removed from politics? That is the question.

The Case for Ramping Up EU Intervention in Syria
Magnus Norell and David Pollock
Times of Israel
August 17, 2012
If Europe wishes to effect true democracy in the wake of the Assad regime, it must stop playing into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and start aiding the rebels on the ground militarily.
It has been conventional wisdom that the Syrian opposition is deeply divided, making aid and support from the international community very difficult to send. The lack of "one address" with which to coordinate also makes any thoughts of a more robust military intervention even more unlikely. Add to that the continued refusal of Russia and China to support stronger UNSC resolutions and there is no wonder that the carnage in Syria has gone on for nearly 18 months with the world looking on and wringing its hands.
It may be true that there are a multitude of organizations speaking for the opposition. And it's equally true that several of these organizations and groups are at loggerheads with one another. It can sometimes be a trial trying to sort through the plethora of groups and assess who is a true democrat and who is only pretending to be one. That much became clear during a fact-finding trip to Turkey organized by the European Foundation for Democracy (EFD, an NGO based in Brussels) in early July. Five days of meetings with Syrian groups and individuals (in Antakya and Istanbul), encompassing the full ideological and political spectrum, revealed the divisions and splits within the opposition and to a large extent among the people active inside Syria.
But the trip also revealed something else, and far more important: The opposition may be divided to some extent, but it is not divided in the aim of getting rid of Assad. And it is not disorganized, but de-centralized. Discussions during five very intensive days also made it clear that the violence endured by the Syrian population (very few areas of the country have been spared the violence) could have been mitigated by more-robust support from the international community. It also became crystal clear that the oft-mentioned fear in the West of a growing Islamist presence in the opposition is due in no small measure to the fact that no one else is stepping up to the plate. The Islamists (groups aligned with or belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] and more radical Salafist groups) are following age-old tactics and taking advantage of this situation, and in the process managing to sidestep other organizations and groups with no, or very little, Islamist bent.
This trend is perhaps most vividly seen in what for many in the West has become synonymous with the Syrian opposition: the Syrian National Council or SNC. A vast majority of the people we met, regardless of ideological bent, said the same thing: The SNC is solidly infiltrated by the MB and dominated by the brothers. But this conflicts with information coming out of Syria for the past year, underlining the sometimes-deep divisions between the opposition inside Syria and the one organized and based outside, primarily in Turkey. According to our interlocutors, the MB has successfully presented the SNC as the "go-to" group through which to funnel what little aid there is. That this has been achieved under the noses of the EU is certainly due to the fact that the Union has found an address in the SNC, something the skilled operators in the MB have used to strengthen its position. The fact that the Turkish government is close to the MB has made this even easier, and the lack of support from other democratic countries in the West eases the process.
But Islamists are not dominating inside Syria. That much also became clear during our discussions. On the contrary, it was strongly brought home to us that the vast majority of the opposition much preferred the EU, whose democratic structures are the political ideal after Assad. But the lack of support from the West, and continued refusal to help militarily, gives the non-Islamist opposition precious little choice.
Chasing after "one address" has led the EU into to the arms of the MB, and by doing that, the Union has greatly complicated the goal of what a majority of the opposition says it wants, namely a genuinely democratic country with a political and legal structure that mirrors the EU. Instead of putting all the chips in the SNC basket, the international community should diversify and support the many smaller groups that are already doing heroic work in trying to help the Syrians, inside and outside Syria. A decentralized opposition makes for a decentralized response. And there are no problems with finding good people to work with here. Also, the fact that the opposition is decentralized is one very important reason it hasn't been crushed. We in the West, and especially in the EU, should turn this to our advantage and, before it's too late, work on the goodwill we still may retain. The amazing thing is that despite the pitiful support from the EU, the Union is still viewed as the role model for what may come in Syria. The longer we wait, however, the less chance that this will be enough to stop the Islamist trend in Syria and make a truly democratic Syria a possibility.
Fortunately, in the two weeks since we returned from meeting the Syrian opposition in Antakya and Istanbul, several encouraging developments have occurred. Each of these development also poses some new problems – but each of those problems can in turn be remedied, or at least greatly reduced, by judicious outside aid.
First, the EU and the US have stopped insisting -- in their public statements, private meetings, and probably also in their emerging aid plans -- that the SNC is the sole or even primary address for the Syrian opposition. This does not mean abandoning, but rather supplementing, the SNC, with additional, more diverse and hopefully more "inside Syria" groups and individuals.
The problem with this approach, of course, is that it risks further fragmenting an already fractured opposition. On one level, the results are already ironic, with new splinter factions and umbrella organizations sprouting up almost weekly, all in the name of "unifying" the opposition. The solution, however, is simple: Stop even trying to unify the opposition, and instead deal directly with different groups that merit different kinds of outside support. There will be time enough during the post-Assad transition to coordinate and eventually combine them into a functional new government.
Second, on a related front, the previously deeply divided Syrian Kurds have come together, at least for now, in opposition to Assad's regime and in a promise not to support PKK violence against Turkey. Because Syria's three million Kurds now control a highly strategic strip of territory along the border with Turkey, this helps open Aleppo and other key targets to the opposition, while mitigating Turkish security concerns so far.
The problem here, as we heard at some length on our trip, is that Syria's majority Arab opposition and minority Kurds sharply disagree over "federalism" or some form of Kurdish autonomy in a post-Assad Syria. Yet, even this newly salient ethnic divide within the opposition offers an opportunity for creative outside mediation. The EU and the US should seize the opportunity by actively working with Turkey, the Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq, and others to broker a compromise political understanding between the mainstream Syrian opposition and the major Kurdish parties in that country. Not only will this hasten Assad's fall, it will also help avoid serious ethnic conflict after his departure from the scene.
Third, and most sensationally, Assad's regime has suffered major assassinations and defections in the past two weeks. And Kofi Annan has just resigned, removing the final fig leaf for diplomatic dithering. So far, so good.
The problem here, however, is doubly ironic. So dramatic have these events been that some commentators, and probably some EU and US policymakers, have now hastened to call Assad's demise imminent, or at least inevitable – even without any further foreign intervention. So, for example, the latest leak about increased US aid to the opposition apparently refers to an intelligence "finding" that is actually several months old, that does not include any "lethal" aid, and that therefore seems more like another excuse for inaction than a genuine policy improvement. Yet, in the absence of real, stepped-up outside support for the opposition, the fall of the regime will certainly take much more time, cost many more lives, and produce a considerably less moderate, stable, or democratic outcome than would otherwise be the case.
The solution to this problem is the simplest of all: use recent gains by the Syrian opposition as an opportunity to end this crisis, not as a rationale for prolonging it. In other words, move urgently and decisively to ramp up humanitarian, political, and yes, military aid to the opposition. That means especially the "lethal" but defensive anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons they want and need in order to resist the regime's last desperate murderous onslaughts.
The logic of this position leads to one final, perhaps more counterintuitive, point. Outside Syria, everyone has been waiting for the US to take the lead on this issue, particularly on more advanced arms supplies. But inside Syria, as our own systematic surveys and extensive personal conversations have made clear, the Syrian people themselves are looking first and foremost to European countries, like France or Turkey, to save them. Why, then, don't European countries take this initiative, leaving the US to "lead from behind?" It worked in Libya, last spring. Why not in Syria, right now?
**Magnus Norell is an adjunct scholar at The Washington Institute. David Pollock is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, focusing on regional political dynamics and related issues.

Romney: US must stop Iran's genocidal regime
By JPOST.COM STAFF 08/18/2012
US presidential candidate refers to Ahmadinejad's call to wipe out Israel as "a reminder of what is at stake"; Rep. Ros-Lehtinen slams Obama for "wasting precious time," placing Israel's security in jeopardy.
US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that the US "must lead the world in stopping Iran's genocidal regime from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability."
Romney's comments came after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that Israel is a "tumor" that needs to be wiped out. The Republican presidential candidate reiterated remarks he made in a visit to Jerusalem in July, claiming: "We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again.""Ahmadinejad’s latest outrageous remarks are just another reminder of what is at stake," Romney stated. The comments by Ahmadinejad came at a rally marking Al-Quds Day (Jerusalem Day), an annual anti-Zionist event calling for Palestinian liberation.
Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, used Ahmadinejad's statements to reiterate Romney's position that the administration of US President Barack Obama has failed to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions, putting Israel's existence in danger.
Ros-Lehtinen said Friday that Ahmadinejad's "incendiary" comments were just another warning that "a fuse is burning."She stated that the Obama administration had failed in dealing with "rogue regimes," remarking, "I have many serious concerns about this administration's Iran policy. Obama's approach seems to be based on a complete misreading of the intentions of the ayatollahs... by wasting precious time, his policies have placed the security of the State of Israel in jeopardy. It's past time for a change in leadership in the White House."
Congressman Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, also referred to Iran at an election rally in Virginia, saying a Republican administration will pull out all the stops in order to protect America's allies across the world.
"Under president Romney our adversaries will think twice about challenging America and our allies because we believe in peace through strength," Ryan vowed.
The Republican campaign's comments on Iran came amid increased speculation that Israel was planning a unilateral strike against the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities, a move which the Obama administration has intimated they would see as premature.
Washington has repeatedly stated in recent weeks that diplomatic efforts and sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons have not run their course. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey also said last week that a unilateral Israeli strike "could delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
Earlier Friday, US National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor was quoted by AFP as saying that the White House strongly condemns "the latest series of offensive and reprehensible comments by senior Iranian officials that are aimed at Israel. The entire international community should condemn this hateful and divisive rhetoric."

Interior Minister Marwan Charbel is a joke, and the appropriate time for him to resign has long passed.
Now Lebanon/August 17, 2012
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel is a joke, and the appropriate time for him to resign has long passed.
In the midst of a wave of kidnappings that the Internal Security Forces have apparently done absolutely nothing to stop (indeed, the clan claiming responsibility for many of them is holding press conferences with impunity), Lebanon’s police force found it appropriate to confront the real danger plaguing the country: homosexuals.
The National News Agency reported this morning that two consenting adult men were arrested for “committing acts against decency.” It is both shameful and disgusting to see perpetrators of a “crime” with no victims being apprehended while men with guns are allowed to pose for journalists and abduct anyone they please.
For the past few days, the wanton kidnapping spree has made headlines around the world. As Interior Minister, it is Charbel’s job to direct and lead the ISF. Has he ordered a crackdown on kidnappings? Has he promised to help find and free dozens of victims? No. In fact, he has barely addressed the issue.
Asked about the Moqdad clan’s abductions—and avoiding the other groups and individuals involved in operations of their own—Charbel did not even pretend that he will try to impose law and order.
“This is a condemned action. The Moqdad [family’s] action embarrassed everyone and made it look like there was no government in Lebanon,” he told Al-Liwaa newspaper. “They have to calm down a little. They have to be patient and not resort to illegal means because such reactions harm us.”
Calm down a little? Seriously? He barely asked them to stop, let alone threatened to punish them for flagrantly breaking the law.
Sadly, however, we are not surprised. The police arresting homosexuals instead of armed bandits reminds us of how the much-touted “security month” played out. In case you forgot, gun battles in both Tripoli and Beirut prompted Charbel to promise that July would be a triumphant month for the rule of law in Lebanon.
Did the police go to the scene of the aforementioned gun battles to seize arms? No.
They set up checkpoints for around one week to enforce the seatbelt law. They also cracked down on foreign workers in the country who did not have proper papers. Security month was a farce. It accomplished nothing.
Charbel laments the fact that the chaos in the county is embarrassing, yet he does nothing to try to solve the problem. We are not blind to the realities in Lebanon. We admit his hands are likely tied by one party or another giving people who should be in prison political cover. However, this is simply no longer a valid excuse for Charbel shirking his duties. He is, after all, still being paid.
If Charbel had any integrity, he would name and shame those preventing the police from doing their job. If he had any courage, he would order the ISF to act despite the obstacles preventing them from doing so. At the very least, he should finally admit he has failed and step aside.

Politicized U.
Shane Farrell, August 18, 2012
Now Lebanon
A demonstration organized by students in front of the Lebanese University’s main office against politicization of the institution. (Image via Facebook)
An article written by a journalism student at the Lebanese University caused quite a stir on the campus. The student, Rasha al-Amin, wrote in An-Nahar that her school’s Department of Information and Documentation was effectively run by the Amal Movement. From the party’s flag at the front of the department’s office to the corrupt grading system, Amin asserted that the party’s sway there meant that an unbiased education was impossible.
But political influence in the Lebanese University is not limited to the Department of Information and Documentation or the Amal Movement. According to former Education Minister Hassan Mneimneh, different faculties of the Lebanese University, the only public university in the country, have been politicized since the civil war. Generally, he says, the party that controls the area the faculty is located in controls that faculty. Thus, for example, another Department of Information building is said to be controlled by the Kataeb party. The current minister for education, Hassan Diab, was unavailable for comment, but his spokesperson acknowledged that “The campus is strongly influenced by where it is located.”
Mneimneh stressed that the degree of politicization depends on the faculty. “Some, particularly the more scientifically inclined and those with entrance examinations, have managed to maintain their high standard,” he told NOW, “while other faculties that accept large numbers of students without examinations usually have more pronounced political influence.”
Despite this situation, few people spoke out against it before Amin. For her and a group of around a dozen other students who demonstrated in front of the main office of the Lebanese University last month, the school should be devoid of politics. Following the demonstration, they spoke with the head of the university, Adnan as-Sayyed Hussein, who expressed surprise that the Department of Information was so politicized and encouraged the students to continue their activism, Amin said. So far nothing concrete appears to have been done, and Amin plans to continue to make her voice heard by, for example, organizing a seminar in September or October to revisit the issue.
Another student at the Department of Information who asked that her name not be published told NOW that students who are affiliated with Amal get preferential treatment in terms of grading, and professors are more reluctant to mark them absent if they miss classes. Because of the Amal-controlled Student Affairs Office, she added, students who are affiliated with the party are prioritized and get to cut through time-consuming bureaucratic barriers. Also, some days the party regards as special occasions, such as the birthdays of Amal leader Nabih Berri or Amal founder Moussa Sadr, are treated as holidays by the school.
According to Amin, it is not only the students who are fed up with politics penetrating the university; she said she received phone calls from three professors who expressed their support for her activism, saying that they she was doing what they could not.
But Ayad Obed, director of the Department of Information, disputes this. He told NOW that many of the allegations are untrue and that the department operates within Lebanese law. When asked his opinion on the number of Amal flags across campus, he said, “This is Lebanon. There are flags on streets according to political divisions, why not in university?” He stressed, moreover, that a flag doesn’t prevent people from different parties from entering the university.
As for the stir caused by Amin’s piece, Obed said she should have expressed her grievances to the university before going public, adding that “freedom of speech exists at the Lebanese University, which is why people have the right to complain. This does not exist in most universities.”
According to Amin, however, Obed called her a liar and threatened to prevent her from carrying out her exams. In the end, she says, they allowed her to take her finals but threatened to disqualify her results.
Meanwhile, Mneimneh is not optimistic about the Lebanese University becoming less politicized and believes government regulation would not be enough for the institution to revert to neutrality. “Once you consider the continually growing sectarian intolerance in the country, it is unlikely that this will be reformed,” he said.
Bassem Nemeh contributed reporting.
Shane Farrell tweets @shanekfarrell.

Canada Welcomes OIC Decision Suspending Syria
August 16, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“Canada welcomes the decision of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to suspend Syria’s membership. We also congratulate the OIC on its leadership with this important issue.
“The Assad regime continues to prove to the rest of the world that it has no regard for human life. Each day sees a new example of the regime’s callous behaviour.
“Recent reports describe the deaths of 30 people, and the wounding of 150 following an air strike by Syrian forces.
“The regime’s abhorrent behaviour knows no bounds.
“This decision only further emphasizes the growing international isolation of the regime.
“Now is the time for the UN Security Council to join international consensus and put an end to the brutality of the Assad regime. We call on all Security Council members to approve tough, binding economic sanctions without delay.
“Those who shelter the regime from international sanctions will be directly responsible for the prolonged violence and instability throughout the region.”

ICC Calls on U.S. Congress to Protect Christians in Syria
Washington, D.C. (August 17, 2012) – International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that Congressman Gus Bilirakis introduced a resolution on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on August 2 that would protect Christians and other minorities in Syria. The Christian community, caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army, is under attack by Islamist rebel groups and fears that the persecution of religious minorities will increase if President Bashar al-Assad is overthrown.
In response to the escalating persecution of religious minorities in Syria, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) introduced H.Res 763 which condemns the targeting of vulnerable religious minorities and predicates future U.S. policies on the security of these communities. The resolution follows reports indicating that Islamic extremism is on the rise in a civil war that is taking on increasingly stronger sectarian overtones. For example, a recently released video shows masked men, who claim to belong to the Free Syrian Army, holding AK-47s in front of two Al Qaeda flags. “We are now forming suicide cells to make jihad in the name of Allah,” said a speaker in the video.
Religious minority groups have become a primary target of Al Qaeda-linked rebels and other Islamists who are executing attacks in “the name of Allah.” Recent threats and killings of Syria’s Christian minority include:
The murder of a Christian family in the Damascus neighborhood of Bab Tuma on July 23 by rebels belonging to the group Liwa al-Islam (meaning “The Brigade of Islam”).
The flight of thousands of Christians from the city of Qusayr in June after an ultimatum to leave the city was issued by a rebel commander.
The evacuation of 63 Christians from Homs on July 11. Maximos al-Jamal, a Greek Orthodox priest, said rebels had kept the Christians in the city as bargaining chips and that, “Gunmen [had] told the besieged people that if [they] go out of these areas, [they] will die.” According to al-Jamal, thousands of Christians had lived in Homs prior to Syria’s uprising early last year, but today, only 100 Christian civilians remain.
To improve the security of Christians, H.Res 763 calls upon the U.S. Secretary of State to prioritize the safety of vulnerable minorities by ensuring that U.S. policies will promote religious freedom in Syria. Additionally, future aid would be preconditioned on Syria’s fulfillment of its obligation to protect religious minorities and human rights.
“The violence in Syria has affected the entire country, with accusations of torture and extrajudicial killings committed by both the Assad government and rebel forces,” said Rep. Bilirakis. “Members of religious minority communities including Christians, Ezidis, and Mandaeans are caught in the middle of this violence. These communities lack a means to protect themselves and are susceptible to pressure from all sides of the conflict, as well as targeted retaliatory attacks and displacements.”
Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, “While ICC condemns in the strongest terms the Syrian government’s assault on protesters, we are also gravely concerned about the Islamist agenda of the Free Syrian Army and other rebel forces that are increasingly targeting the Christian community. The longer the civil war carries on in Syria, the more jihadists—including those that were fighting with Al Qaeda against U.S. forces in Iraq—will join the opposition against the regime. Islamic extremists are hijacking the Syrian revolution and are quickly gaining control. While there is no easy political solution to the Syrian conflict, it must be a U.S. priority to protect minorities. We call on U.S. policymakers and legislators to support H.Res 763, which condemns the targeting of vulnerable religious groups in Syria and insures that policies will safeguard these communities. Time is of the essence. For the U.S. government to stand by and do nothing is not an option. The future of Syria’s ancient Christian community is at stake.”

Question: "Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin?"
GotQuestions.org
Answer: Many Christians use the cliché “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” However, we must realize that this is an exhortation to us as imperfect human beings. The difference between us and God in regard to loving and hating is vast. Even as Christians, we remain imperfect in our humanity and cannot love perfectly, nor can we hate perfectly (in other words, without malice). But God can do both of these perfectly, because He is God. God can hate without any sinful intent. Therefore, He can hate the sin and the sinner in a perfectly holy way and still be willing to lovingly forgive at the moment of that sinner's repentance and faith (Malachi 1:3; Revelation 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9).
The Bible clearly teaches that God is love. First John 4:8-9 says, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.” Mysterious but true is the fact that God can perfectly love and hate a person at the same time. This means He can love him as someone He created and can redeem, as well as hate him for his unbelief and sinful lifestyle. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot do this; thus, we must remind ourselves to “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
How exactly does that work? We hate sin by refusing to take part in it and by condemning it when we see it. Sin is to be hated, not excused or taken lightly. We love sinners by being faithful in witnessing to them of the forgiveness that is available through Jesus Christ. A true act of love is treating someone with respect and kindness even though he/she knows you do not approve of his lifestyle and/or choices. It is not loving to allow a person to remain stuck in sin. It is not hateful to tell a person he/she is in sin. In fact, the exact opposites are true. We love the sinner by speaking the truth in love. We hate the sin by refusing to condone, ignore, or excuse it.

Are we willing to die to save the past?
by Alexander H. Joffe/Spiked
August 15, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3301/islamists-archaeology
Preserving the past has costs. Much of the world shares the belief that the past has intrinsic value, which is encoded into laws and regulations that imperfectly protect, preserve and study historical and archaeological remains. Contributions, admission fees and taxes pay for the upkeep of monuments from the Parthenon to the Liberty Bell. When highways are constructed they are diverted around historical landmarks, or the landmarks are moved. Archaeological excavations slow construction everywhere. But are we willing to kill or die for the past?
The question is not quite as absurd as it sounds. Syrian rebels and Assad regime loyalists are pillaging archaeological sites. Malian Islamists are systematically demolishing the tombs of Muslim notables in Timbuktu. And there are renewed reports of calls from Egyptian Islamists to demolish the pyramids on religious grounds. The West needs to ponder the question of what can and should be done to defend archaeological and historical sites, if anything.
Unintended consequences abound. The destruction in Timbuktu was the direct result of the poorly thought-out intervention in support of the Libyan rebellion against Muammar Qaddafi. That rebellion and countless weapons have now washed over Africa, sparking among other things the Malian coup that freed Saharan Islamists to wreak havoc on Timbuktu. The Libyan intervention also sparked looting of that country's archaeological sites and museums, and local Islamists have vented their rage on a Second World War British military cemetery as well as other sites.
The same occurred in Iraq and now Egypt and Syria; with repressive rule removed or attenuated, locals have returned to their traditional vocations of mining archaeological sites for saleable goods. Ideological calls to destroy the past have also increased. The Taliban destruction of the giant Buddha statues at Bamiyan, and now the demolitions in Timbuktu, suggest these are not idle threats.
But what practically can be done? The international community through UNESCO has issued calls for Malian Islamists to stop their attacks, and for the ancient city of Aleppo in Syria to be preserved, which have, of course, been ignored. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has called the Malian attacks war crimes. The World Archaeological Congress has issued a strongly worded press release.
These accomplish nothing except to salve the wounded consciences of Western academics and bureaucrats. The United Nations Security Council has threatened sanctions against the Malian Islamists but military intervention in Timbuktu – to rescue its people, monuments or its 700,000 medieval manuscripts – still seems unlikely. In Syria, it seems virtually impossible. But military intervention appears the only means of rescue.
Is such intervention desirable? The recently fashionable doctrine 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) has fallen on hard times, thanks to the enormous costs of intervention in a place like Syria. In Libya, a lite version of R2P was possible only with American airpower, and it still failed to secure Gaddafi's vast supplies of conventional weapons, including portable surface-to-air missiles.
In Libya, as in Iraq, the costs in human lives and the dimming of the political future through empowerment of Islamists have been as predictable as the destruction of archaeological and historical sites. But Western governments and academics remain unwilling to see these as direct consequences of humanitarian (and in the case of Egypt, political) interventions they supported. Ironically, this silence repeats then-US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld's notorious observation, upon being informed about the looting in Baghdad: 'Stuff happens and it's untidy, and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.' In Syria, destruction is a consequence of non-intervention.
Just whose responsibility is it to preserve the past anyway? Archaeologists themselves have always been of two minds. On the one hand, they have argued that the past belongs to all mankind, in the process condemning nationalists who exploit sites, such as the Parthenon, as symbols. On the other hand, out of moralism, anti-imperialist sentiment and to curry favour, they have supported national claims to restore antiquities, such as the Elgin Marbles or Khmer statues from Cambodia, to their countries of origin.
Archaeologists also have an uneven track record of condemning the destruction of antiquities. When the Baghdad Museum was looted during the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US was excoriated for permitting, or committing, an unprecedented cultural crime. When Iraq, China or any other country – where archaeologists wish to retain access – destroys sites, floods valleys to create reservoirs or demolishes historic quarters of cities for Olympic villages, complaints are muted, if they are heard at all. Their standing is as compromised as any government.
But is the past worth killing and dying for, especially if these are the only means of saving it? Bamiyan has shown that willingness to destroy antiquities, in the name of ideology or profit, foreshadows a willingness to destroy people for the same reasons. But any intervention in Mali, even on behalf of its people, will be likened to imperialism and inevitably accused of being (another) 'war against Islam'. Military intervention is obviously inconceivable in a place like Egypt. What leverage remains? Economic sanctions that starve an already desperate population? Political sanctions on Islamist leaders who regard themselves as divinely guided?
The Arab Spring has brought another phase of a twenty-first-century mass archaeological extinction event that is transforming the Old World. But once we go beyond the level of self-satisfying outrage, the choices for action to preserve the past are far from clear. Salvaging fragments in the future may be the only practical and moral options.
*Alex Joffe is an archaeologist and historian. He is currently a Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum.