Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 29/12
Turkey's UNIFIL contingent cautious following threats
Families of Tal Kalakh victims, Islamist inmates protest
Saniora: We'll Return to Dialogue once Nasrallah Agrees to Discussing Hizbullah's Arms
Lebanese Army warns against foreign attempts to recruit spies
Demo outside U.S. Embassy over Lebanese jailed in France
Syria jihadists accuse U.S. of keeping Assad in power
A Jordanian-Palestinian confederation aired by Netanyahu, Abdullah
Suleiman: Transitional Parliament an Option if No New Law Before Polls
3 Syria-based Diplomats Left Damascus Via Beirut Airport
Abou Faour Says to Send Response to Syrian Envoy's Accusations
U.N.: 170,637 Syrian Refugees in Lebanon
Hotel has yet to receive request to host Lebanese MPs
Government In Lebanon sets offshore drilling tender in motion
Prospects for National Dialogue in Lebanon is uncertain
Lebanon's Sunni Mufti, Qabbani reverses call for Islamic Council polls
Politicians call Tripoli mayor’s bluff
Salafist sheikh says regrets picking Hezbollah lawyer
Lebanese Shiite Hostage families urged to trust in authorities
Assad fate key obstacle to diplomacy
Spate of crimes across country targets Syrians
Ahmadinejad fires only female minister
Israeli PM: We'll protect ourselves from Syrian threat
Makdissi most likely in al-Assad regime hands - Source
Al-Assad duped us into sectarian war – Alawite cleric
Syria opposition leader rejects Moscow invitation
Iran starts navy drills in Strait of Hormuz: IRNA
Cabinet resignations deal setback for Egypt's Mursi

Question: "What sort of New Year’s Resolution should a Christian make?"
GotQuestions.org/Answer: The practice of making New Year’s resolutions goes back over 3,000 years to the ancient Babylonians. There is just something about the start of a new year that gives us the feeling of a fresh start and a new beginning. In reality, there is no difference between December 31 and January 1. Nothing mystical occurs at midnight on December 31. The Bible does not speak for or against the concept of New Year’s resolutions. However, if a Christian determines to make a New Year’s resolution, what kind of resolution should he or she make?
Common New Year’s resolutions are commitments to quit smoking, to stop drinking, to manage money more wisely, and to spend more time with family. By far, the most common New Year’s resolution is to lose weight, in conjunction with exercising more and eating more healthily. These are all good goals to set. However, 1 Timothy 4:8 instructs us to keep exercise in perspective: “For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.” The vast majority of New Year’s resolutions, even among Christians, are in relation to physical things. This should not be.
Many Christians make New Year’s resolutions to pray more, to read the Bible every day, and to attend church more regularly. These are fantastic goals. However, these New Year’s resolutions fail just as often as the non-spiritual resolutions, because there is no power in a New Year’s resolution. Resolving to start or stop doing a certain activity has no value unless you have the proper motivation for stopping or starting that activity. For example, why do you want to read the Bible every day? Is it to honor God and grow spiritually, or is it because you have just heard that it is a good thing to do? Why do you want to lose weight? Is it to honor God with your body, or is it for vanity, to honor yourself?
Philippians 4:13 tells us, “I can do everything through Him who gives me strength.” John 15:5 declares, “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” If God is the center of your New Year’s resolution, it has chance for success, depending on your commitment to it. If it is God’s will for something to be fulfilled, He will enable you to fulfill it. If a resolution is not God honoring and/or is not in agreement in God’s Word, we will not receive God’s help in fulfilling the resolution.
So, what sort of New Year’s resolution should a Christian make? Here are some suggestions: (1) pray to the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5) in regards to what resolutions, if any, He would have you make; (2) pray for wisdom as to how to fulfill the goals God gives you; (3) rely on God’s strength to help you; (4) find an accountability partner who will help you and encourage you; (5) don’t become discouraged with occasional failures; instead, allow them to motivate you further; (6) don’t become proud or vain, but give God the glory. Psalm 37:5-6 says, “Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.”

Suleiman: Transitional Parliament an Option if No New Law Before Polls
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman called on Friday for holding the elections based on the winner-takes-all system if parliament failed to agree on a new draft-law but said the legislature could be later dissolved and polls held if a new law was adopted. “Everyone is doubting whether the parliament would represent the Lebanese fairly,” he told al-Joumhouria newspaper.
He suggested “holding the elections for a transitional parliament pending an agreement on a new electoral draft-law.”
“Then a new legislature could be elected based on the new law in order to be honest with ourselves and the people,” Suleiman said.
The cabinet has approved a bill that divides Lebanon into 13 electoral districts and is based on proportionality. But the opposition March 14 coalition has rejected it.
Furthermore, discussions on an electoral draft-law stopped in October when the opposition boycotted all parliamentary activity after blaming the government for the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau chief Wissam al-Hasan. In his remarks to al-Joumhouria on the 2013 elections, Suleiman said he will ensure that the polls are held on time no matter which law is adopted.
“I prefer a system based on proportional representation but if the Lebanese don't agree with me I will go ahead with a consensual decision among them,” he said.
The president also rejected extending the parliament's mandate, denying reports that Paris had made such a proposal.
“Is it believable for a country such as France to make such suggestions?” he wondered.

Mustaqbal bloc head MP Fouad Saniora: We'll Return to Dialogue once Nasrallah Agrees to Discussing Hizbullah's Arms
Naharnet/Mustaqbal bloc head MP Fouad Saniora stressed on Friday that the March 14-led opposition had presented “serious and acceptable” proposals over the national dialogue “contrary to what the other camp is claiming.”He said: “The March 14 camp will return to the national dialogue once Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah announces his readiness to discuss incorporating his party's arms in the Lebanese state.”
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea had declared in an open letter to President Michel Suleiman on Thursday: “Those preventing us from returning to the all-party talks are the same powers that you are making us sit alongside at the dialogue table.”Saniora reiterated the opposition's demand for the resignation of the government and the formation of a neutral salvation one “that can confront the current extraordinary reality in Lebanon.”
The rejection of this proposal is a sign of some sides' insistence on maintaining their unilateral approach to running the country, he remarked.
“The current government is that of Hizbullah and the Syrian regime. It is working on achieving the party's local and regional interests, as well as protecting the regime in Syria,” added the MP.
The March 14 camp had announced its boycott of government-related work, including the national dialogue, in light of the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau head Brigadier General Wissam al-Hasan on October 19. It blamed the Syrian regime of being behind the crime and the government of covering up for the criminals.
The Phalange Party announced earlier this week however that it would not boycott the upcoming national dialogue session, set for January 7, explaining that it would not want to "boycott" President Michel Suleiman who called for the talks.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the Deviant Group
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
This is serious news, and a sign that the forthcoming days will be very difficult. I am talking about the Emirati security authorities’ announcement of the arrest of a terrorist cell belonging to the so-called “Deviant Group” [Al Qaeda], which was planning to carry out terrorist operations in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, as well as other “sisterly” states. What is remarkable in this news is that the UAE revealed that the arrest of this terrorist cell had taken place in coordination with Saudi Arabia.
We say that this Emirati – Saudi coordination is remarkable because the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] summit in Bahrain has just approved an amended joint security agreement between GCC states. As I wrote yesterday, there must be joint coordination between Gulf States, and at the highest levels; this is vital for Gulf security. Whilst this Emirati announcement has today confirmed the importance of such cooperation. The arrest of this terrorist cell tells us that the threat of terrorism has not ended in our region, particularly the Gulf, and that cooperation and coordination is imperative. The Emirati announcement read “in coordination with special security apparatus in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a terrorist cell from the deviant group, comprising citizens from both countries, has been arrested. The cell was planning on carrying out actions that infringe on the national security of both countries and sisterly nations.”
In Saudi Arabia the expression “Deviant Group” is usually reserved for the Al Qaeda organization, which means that we are facing a long night ahead with regards to this terrorist group. Therefore the Arab Spring did not – as many both inside and outside the region believe – mark the end of Al Qaeda, amidst claims that Arab governments were playing up the size and role of this terrorist organization. The facts are in front of us, whether we are talking about the UAE’s announcement of the arrest of this terrorist cell, or what has been announced in Tunisia and Morocco, and indeed what is happening in Libya and Yemen. This reality tells us that Al Qaeda is present and active and seeking to maximize its terrorist crimes, not in Syria – as some claim – but behind our backs. For the real Al Qaeda in Syria is none other than al-Assad and his regime!
Therefore, the UAE announcement regarding the arrest of this terrorist cell highlights a number of important points. Firstly, there is the importance of Gulf coordination, because the security of the Gulf is one. Secondly, so long as we do not genuinely confront all the issues that facilitate extremism -whether we are talking about financial support, incitement or the ease of issuing fatwas – with rhetoric and action, we will have no hope in successfully combatting terrorism. All of the security work that has been conducted against terrorism is excellent, however the ideological battle is not at the requisite level, and there is still a lot that must be done in this regard. The third issue, which is no less important, can be summed up in the following question: if Saudi Arabia has been able, in an amazing manner, to obstruct all Al Qaeda’s sources of funding, whilst the UAE, for its part, does not tolerate extremism in any form, then who financed this terrorist cell? Where did this cell obtain the equipment that was in its possession, according to the information published in the official UAE statement?
It is important for the public to be aware of this information, for just as we say that there is negligence in the ideological war against Al Qaeda, there are also certain parties that have never stopped funding Al Qaeda. The objective of this is clear, namely to harm the security of the entire Arab Gulf. Therefore there can be no doubt that exposing those who are financing Al Qaeda represents an important part of combatting extremism in our region.

Al-Assad duped us into sectarian war – Alawite cleric
Asharq Al-Awsat
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, an opposition Alawite religious cleric who recently fled to the Turkish town of Antakya revealed that “the Alawite community is living in a state of great fear, after we have become aware that the collapse of the al-Assad regime is imminent, which will place us at the mercy of fierce reprisals from the Sunni majority.”
He added “many Alawite families have already fled their homes in Damascus and returned to their villages in the Lattakia countryside.”
The cleric also revealed that he, along with a number of other Alawite activists, have worked hard to convince many Alawite youth not to join Syria’s military reserves or heed military summons, calling on the Alawite community “not be become embroiled in killing their Syrian brothers.”
He added “the regime has embroiled us in a sectarian war against the Sunnis, and if the Alawites had participated in the revolution since the beginning the regime would have been toppled, whilst the Alawite community would have no reason to fear. However after all this bloodshed, it is very difficult.”
The cleric, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals from the al-Assad regime, also called on the Sunni community “to extend their hand to the remaining Alawite community following the ouster of the regime so that we can make peace and build a free, just and democratic Syria.”
As for the role played by religious figures – on both sides – regarding what is happening in Syria, and whether they are taking any positive action to end this, he said “it is very difficult for us to play any role so long as the regime remains” adding “we may play a role after its ouster to put an end to the expected violence.”
The cleric also criticized the Syrian opposition and its organizations, including the Syrian National Council and Syrian National Coalition, saying “the opposition has failed to put forward practical steps to reassure the Alawite community and convince them to abandon the al-Assad family. On the contrary, they have done nothing but talk and rely on unpopular Alawite figures.”
Commenting on the relationship between the al-Assad regime and the Alawite community, the Alawite cleric acknowledged that this was very close, adding “the heads of the security apparatus acquire their legitimacy from Alawite religious clerics with the objective of covering up their corruption, and we find that every security officer is accompanied by a religious cleric.” However he also stressed that this is not a systematic policy of the al-Assad regime or Alawite sect, denying that there was any “[formal] alliance between the Alawite religious establishment and al-Assad family.”
He added “the Alawites do not have a priestly class in the Christian manner or a Fatwa committee along the Islamic line. [Alawite] religious clerics are part of the people who have underdone Alawite education.”
The religious cleric also related a story about an Alawite youth that accurately portrays the Alawite community’s state of fear and desperation. He revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the “youth broke into a religious shrine where the Alawite community prays…and he completely destroyed the shrine” adding “he took this action after a number of rockets hit his village, fired from an outlying village controlled by the armed Syrian opposition.” The Alawite cleric stressed that “the youth realized that shrines and saints cannot protect the Alawite community from the existential threat it is facing.”

Makdissi most likely in al-Assad regime hands - Source
By Mohammed Nassar
Dubai, Asharq Al-Awsat – Has he defected or been sacked? Is he in hiding or has he been kidnapped? Nothing is certain, but what is clear is that former Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi suddenly disappeared, under mysterious circumstances, and nothing has been seen or heard from him in more than one month.
Both Britain and Washington have denied knowing Makdissi’s whereabouts, whilst rumors about Makdissi’s fate abound in Lebanon. As for the al-Assad regime, it has remained silent, insisting that Makdissi is on “administrative leave”. So what is the fate of Jihad Makdissi? Asharq Al-Awsat has obtained important details regarding Makdissi’s movements over his final days and weeks in Syria prior to his disappearance.
A source close to Makdissi informed Asharq Al-Awsat that the former Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman had been preparing to “flee the sinking ship” for weeks prior to his reported defection. He revealed that Makdissi initially arranged for his family to travel to Lebanon, and then following this he would travel to the country every week where he would spend three days with his family before returning to Syria. He added that Makdissi last entered Lebanese territory on Friday 30 of November. He said “Jihad Makdissi would telephone me regularly every time he arrived in Lebanon, which was on a weekly basis” adding “our last contact was on Thursday [29 November], and that was the final journey that Makdissi took from Damascus to Lebanon.”
The source, who resides in Beirut and who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, added that he was surprised to hear the conflicting reports on 2 December that Makdissi had variously been sacked or defected. He revealed that he immediately tried to contact Makdissi to find out what was happening but that there was no answer on the former Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman’s Syrian-registered mobile phone. He added that just one hour later, this phone line had been disconnected.
The source said “I was extremely surprised when I learned of this news. From my close relationship with him, I know that he never delays answering or returning messages for more than one hour.”
He added “Jihad can’t bear to be cut off from the world for more than two hours, and in my view this means that he is under house arrest.”
The source confirmed that Makdissi did not travel to Britain, basing this on “the fact that he did not go to the British embassy to obtain a visa, whilst he also does not hold British nationality, contrary to reports.”
He also stressed that the name “Jihad Makdissi” did not appear on any passenger lists of flights travelling to Britain, whilst the British authorities have also denied his presence there.
The source asserted that even if Makdissi has defected – although he doubts this – London would not be his preferred destination. He said “Jihad has many enemies in London amongst the Syrian community, particularly as he was responsible for photographing the Syrian demonstrators who protested in front of the Syrian embassy in London, transferring these photos to the Syrian security apparatus which sought to blackmail all those who had taken part in the protests.” For its part, Britain’s The Guardian newspaper claimed that “Makdissi is co-operation with US intelligence officials who helped him flee to Washington almost one month ago” adding “this has now been confirmed”. The report claimed that Makdissi has undergone “almost a month of debriefings, which have helped intelligence officials build a picture of decision-making in the inner sanctum of the embattled regime.”
The source, who is close to Makdissi, revealed that he was in close contact with him over the past months, and that he encouraged him to “flee the sinking ship”. He said that Makdissi had reassured him that “God willing, everything will be alright.” He informed Asharq Al-Awsat that Makdissi had spoken about leaving the Syrian Foreign Ministry for full-time academia prior to his disappearance, asserting that this may have been an indication that Makdissi was looking for any way out of Syria. He added that Makdissi eventually confided in him that he was looking to leave Syria “because the Syrian situation is moving in a vicious circle, and it has become impossible for the two sides to resolve this, whilst the future of Syria is in the grip of the unknown.”
The Beirut-based source described Makdissi as being “very astute” adding “he has a security awareness in his personal character, and he is very close to al-Assad and is considered one of the inner circle…however it seems that he was coordinating with more than one side to move away from the scene, and this made it easy to uncover his movements.”
The source asked “if Makdissi had defected from the regime, would the Syrian regime dare to announce that he is on three months administrative leave, knowing that he could emerge at any time and deny this? However the talk that he is on leave – according to newspapers affiliated to the Syrian government – indicates beyond reasonable doubt that he is in the hands of the regime or one of its allies in Lebanon.”
The source stressed that in his view “Makdissi is in the hands of the regime, until proven otherwise.”
He also confirmed that “the controversial statement that was read by Jihad Makdissi concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria, which confirmed that Damascus is indeed in possession of such arms, was word-for-word what was issued to him by the Foreign Ministry and he did not improvise a single word.”
For its part, another source, close to the Makdissi family, expressed fears that the former Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman “is behind held by the Syrian regime or is a guest of one of its allies in Lebanon”

Arab Spring: Heading for reactionary backlash?
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
Some commentators have designated 2012 as the Arab version of 1848 in Europe. The idea is that the movement labelled the “Arab Spring” resembles the revolutionary upheaval of 1848 that led to regime change in several European nations.
If 2012 is the Arab 1848, might 2013 turn out to be the 1852 of Arabs? In 1852 the European nations that had experienced revolution were struck by coups d’etat that established autocratic reactionary regimes.
Though useful at times, historic comparisons can also be misleading.
Leaving aside the particular case of Syria, the events that led to change in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, were not the fruit of revolutionary action in its classical definition. What we saw was popular revolts largely confined to major cities and led by spontaneously created groups with no coherent revolutionary agenda. Although organised forces, notably Islamist and leftist outfits, later joined the uprising they did not succeed in seizing leadership. If some of those outfits ended up with the lion’s share of power they did so thanks to elections supervised by the ancien regime‘s military, and largely ignored by the mass of the electorate.
In those countries regimes fell for a variety of reasons.
Ben Ali’s regime in Tunisia fell victim of its own success in the field of economy and education plus its failure to curb corruption and open the political space. Tunisia had become an emerging nation with a robust economy and a well-educated middle class. What it lacked was the political freedom corresponding to its socio-economic level of development.
The Tunisia of 2010 resembled South Korea in the 1970s where a new socio-economic reality had outgrown the framework of a police state trying to contain it. In South Korea, the military and their corrupt police state had to go. Tunisia experienced a similar development. In both cases, the military decided they could not fight for a moribund regime.
In Egypt, by 2010, the contradictions of the Nasserist model prevented the regime from devising a coherent strategy.
Politically, President Mubarak suffered from split personality.
On the one hand he headed a regime created by force and largely sustained by violence for decades. On the other, he postured as an elected president in a democratic system. As a result he could not employ the resources of either personality to contain the crisis. I might also add that Mubarak, whom I have known since the 1970s, would never have thought of hanging on to power by massacring his people as Bashar al-Assad is doing in Syria.
In Yemen, the events that led to the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh were prompted by rivalries rooted in sectarian and tribal animosities not by any revolutionary agenda.
In every case, the so-called Arab Spring has produced changes within the regimes in place rather than revolutionary regime change.
Well, will 2013 become the Arab version of 1851 in Europe?
On the surface the safest answer would be a qualified yes. As already noted, in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, Islamist parties with reactionary agendas now dominate the government, often in objective though uneasy alliance with the military and police. In every case the military may well seize control, using social disorder and/or economic decline as an excuse.
Nevertheless, I don’t think Arabs are heading towards an 1852.
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen are politically too fragile and economically too vulnerable to sustain a radical Islamist agenda.
In Iran that became possible because the Shah left behind a strong economy with one of the highest foreign currency reserves in the world. Oil revenues helped cover the follies of mullahs and their associates. More importantly, Iranian armed forces had never been political and, unlike their Arab, Turkish and Pakistani counterparts, had no tradition of seeking let alone exercising power.
Libya, of course, is a case apart. There, we have witnessed systemic collapse and the disintegration of the few state structures left behind by Gaddafi. Libya’s problem is not who exercises power but how the structures of power are erected.
Also a case apart is Syria. What started as a revolt for freedom has been transformed into a civil war and a humanitarian disaster. Every day that passes the possibility of a negotiated transition becomes more remote. The country could split across ethnic and sectarian lines. It could also morph into a stateless zone, a Somalia on the Mediterranean.
Only one thing is certain: the Assad regime is doomed.
In all of the Arab Spring countries the challenge is to create and/or recreate new state structures without which whoever is in nominal control will not be able to govern in any meaningful manner.
Those who depict President Mohamed Mursi as a new Pharaoh transgress the boundaries of exaggeration. Egypt today will not tolerate even the ghost of a Pharaoh and Mursi does not enjoy the ghost of pharaohnic power.
If Arab Spring countries are not heading for an 1852 it is partly because, unlike the European nations of the mid-19th century, they lack the structures that could enable new autocrats to impose control and exercise power. Khairat al-Shater, supposed to be the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s evil genius, might dream of imposing a new dictatorship in the name of religion. Having seen things from the inside, Mursi knows that such a dream would be shattered by reality. In Arab Spring countries people power has asserted itself. The power game can no longer be confined to the military, the security services, the Islamist outfits and the business clans associated with them.
People power is the elephant that has to be brought into the china shop without shattering everything in its path. Some Arab leaders understand this and, each in their own way, are trying to find ways to accommodate this new reality. As we enter 2013 a measure of cautious optimism may be in order.

Egyptian Cleric Threatens Christian Copts with Genocide
December 28, 2012 | Raymond Ibrahim/Published by Gatestone Institute
Islamic leaders continue to portray the popular protests against President Morsi and his recently passed Sharia-heavy constitution as products of Egypt’s Christians. Recently, Muslim Brotherhood leader Safwat Hegazy said in an open rally, as captured on video:
A message to the church of Egypt, from an Egyptian Muslim: I tell the church — by Allah, and again, by Allah — if you conspire and unite with the remnants [opposition] to bring Morsi down, that will be another matter…. our red line is the legitimacy of Dr. Muhammad Morsi. Whoever splashes water on it, we will splash blood on him.”
Dr. Wagdi Ghoneim
More recently, Dr. Wagdi Ghoneim — who earlier praised Allah for the death of the late Coptic Pope Shenouda, cursing him to hell and damnation on video — made another video, entitled, “A Notice and Warning to the Crusaders in Egypt,” a reference to the nation’s Copts, which he began by saying, “You are playing with fire in Egypt, I swear, the first people to be burned by the fire are you [Copts].” The video was made in the context of the Tahrir protests against Morsi: Islamic leaders, such as Hegazy and Ghoneim, seek to portray the Copts as dominant elements in those protests; according to them, no real Muslim would participate. Ghoneim even went on to say that most of the people at the protests were Copts, “and we know you hid your [wrist] crosses by lowering your sleeves.”
The heart of Ghoneim’s message was genocidal: “The day Egyptians — and I don’t even mean the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafis, regular Egyptians — feel that you are against them, you will be wiped off the face of the earth. I’m warning you now: do not play with fire!”
Along with trying to incite Egypt’s Muslims against the Copts, and threatening them with annihilation, Ghoneim made other telling assertions, including:
Addressing the Christians of Egypt as “Crusaders,” once again showing Islam’s simplistic, black-and-white vision, which clumps all Christians — of all nations, past and present, regardless of historical context and denomination — as one, in accordance with an Islamic tradition that states “All infidels are one religion.”
Comparing Christian Copts to animals: “Respect yourselves and live with us and we will protect you… Why?… because Allah has forbidden me to be cruel to animals. I’m not trying to compare you to animals … but if I am not cruel to animals or plants, shall I be cruel to a soul created by Allah? You are an infidel in Allah’s sight — and it is for him to judge you. However, when you live in my country, it is forbidden for me to be unjust to you — but that doesn’t mean we are equal. No, oh no.”
Telling Copts: “I want to remind you that Egypt is a Muslim country…. if you don’t like the Muslim Sharia, you have eight countries that have a Cross on their flag [in Europe], so go to them. However, if you want to stay here in Egypt with us, know your place and be respectful. You already have all your rights — by Allah, even more than Muslims… No one investigates your homes, no one investigates your churches. In fact, in the past, the Islamic groups used to fake their IDs and put Christian names on them when they would go out for [jihadi] operations, so that when the police would catch them, they would see they are Christians and be left alone.” Ghoneim misses the irony of what he says: Police know that Egyptian Christians are not going to engage in terror; Egyptian Muslims are suspect.
Saying, in mocking tones, towards the end: “What do you think — that America will protect you? Let’s be very clear, America will not protect you. If so, it would have protected the Christians of Iraq when they were being butchered!” — a reference to the fact that, after the U.S. ousted Saddam Hussein, half of Iraq’s Christian population has either been butchered or fled the nation, and all under U.S. auspices.
Claiming that the Copts are only four million while the Muslims are 85 million — even as Coptic Orthodox Church registries maintain that there are more than 15 million Copts, and most outside analysts say 10 million, in Egypt— and adding that Morsi was only being nice by saying, as he did during one of his speeches: “There are no minorities in Egypt.” Ghoneim fails to explain, if Copts are so few — four million compared to 85 million — how could they be so influential, and flood the Tahrir protests with such large numbers?
Mocking new Coptic Pope Tawadros—not surprising considering his great hate for the former Pope—by claiming that the new Pope urged Copts to protest; that the new Pope wants to see Morsi and Sharia law fall, and by adding, “Is it not enough that you have all those monasteries?”

A Jordanian-Palestinian confederation aired by Netanyahu, Abdullah
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 27, 2012/Aspects of a possible confederation between a Palestinian West Bank state and the Hashemite Kingdom – not Syria - were the subject of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent conversation with Jordan’s King Abdullah in Amman, debkafile’s sources reveal. Nothing was decided and the two leaders agreed to hold further discussions in the coming days.
This idea has become a focal talking point in Amman, Washington and Palestinian centers.
Netanyahu brought some pointed questions to the highly confidential one-on-one at the Hashemite palace: He asked the king how much responsibility would Jordan undertake in controlling West Bank security and intelligence activity? What were his plans for extending such control from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip? And how would Jordan’s intentions fit into the security arrangements demanded by Israel in both territories as part of any accord with the Palestinians?
According to US and Jordanian sources au fait with these ideas, the current goal for the next stage of Israel-Palestinian negotiations in the coming months would be a long-term interim accord. It would leave the core disputes on permanent borders, Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees and the future of Israel’s settlements in Judea and Samaria to a later round of negotiations at some unspecified time in the future.
The establishment of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation would sidestep the difficulties of reciprocal recognition - a Palestinian state by Israel and Israel by the Palestinians as the national state of the Jewish people. Jordan has recognized Israel and the two nations maintain full diplomatic relations. The confederation’s ruling body as such would be able to recognize Israel without requiring a public Palestinian declaration of acceptance. Equally, Israel would be saved from having to formally accept Palestinian statehood and could simply greet the new joint entity and extend an assurance of cooperation that in practice would be implemented through Jordan or any Muslim Arab element taking part in the move.
In early December, the Palestinian Authority’s Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) secretly advised certain Palestinian leaders “to be prepared for a new confederation project with Jordan and other parties in the international community.”
He did not name those parties. debkafile’s sources reveal that he was referring to Egypt, Turkey and Qatar – in other words, the members of the pro-American Sunni-led bloc American diplomats established in Cairo last month in the course of Israel’s Pillar of Defense operation in Gaza and the negotiations that led to an Israel-Hamas ceasefire.
American sources said at the time that Washington was not averse to additional Gulf nations including Saudi Arabia adding their weight to the initiative for a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation and was willing, if it took off, to consider granting the endeavor security guarantees and economic assistance.
Asked why the project had not figured in Israeli political discourse, those sources accused the Israeli media of generating an election campaign climate that hostilely depicted Netanyahu and his party as extreme right-wing nationalists who consistently refused to talk peace with the Palestinians. Showing the prime minister as quietly preparing to return to the peace track after forming his next government, assuming he wins the Jan. 22 poll, would spoil their show. Netanyahu himself prefers to stay aloof from his accusers.
According to Arab sources involved in the new initiative, it gained traction from the UN General Assembly’s Nov. 29 upgrade of the Palestinians to non-member observer status. On the strength of this upgrade, the Palestinian Authority is claiming the status of a government representing an independent state and therefore eligible to join Jordan as a confederation partner.
Such a setup may have room for Hamas which too would be saved from having to recognize the state of Israel.
For the first time in their decade-long rocket offensive against their Israeli neighbors, the Gaza Strip's Hamas rulers are scrupulously upholding the ceasefire deal they struck with Israel. The Netanyahu government has reciprocated by substantially easing restrictions on the territory. And now, after six years, Israel will this week allow building materials to cross through into the territory, including cement and gravel, withheld until now lest they were used to build smuggling tunnels for supplying terrorist organizations with war materiel. Public transport, including buses and trucks, will also soon be running through the crossings and, for the first time, too, a large group of Gazans was allowed to attend this year’s Christmas ceremonies in the West Bank town of Bethlehem.
Netanyahu appears to have decided that the chances of another outbreak of hostile operations from the Gaza Strip have receded. Indeed, there is a good chance that Hamas may find the confederation project the West Bank’s Fatah rulers are about to pursue with Jordan attractive, and let itself be led to join by Egypt and Qatar.
There are more straws in the wind attesting to the confederation project being on the move. The US-based Palestinian professor and journalist, Daoud Kuttab, writing in The Atlantic on Dec. 27, reported that King Abdullah’s closest advisers include partisans of the confederation notion – i.e. Jordan’s restoration to its pre-1967 rule of the West Bank.
Kuttab goes back in history to quote the late Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad), the terrorist leader Israel eliminated in Tunis in January, 1991, as saying: “What the Palestinians wanted was five minute of independence and then they would happily agree to a confederation with Jordan. “
Interestingly, this phrase is increasingly cited by Arab and Western media.
Furthermore, US and Arab sources disclose that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has deeply committed himself to the step. They say this commitment was partly manifested by his consent to drop Ankara’s boycott on cooperation with Israel in the framework of NATO and that more evidence of revived US-Turkish-Israeli cooperation is still to come.
Dec. 23, debkafile reported exclusively that Israel and the Palestinians had agreed to resume peace negotiations in March, as soon as Netanyahu, who is generally expected to win the January election, has assembled his new government.
The Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem made haste Thursday to deny reports that he planned to invite opposition leader and former foreign minister Tzipi Livni to join the next cabinet in her old job as lead negotiator in talks with the Palestinians. According to our sources, Netanyahu has reserved that role for himself.

Prospects for National Dialogue uncertain
December 28, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman’s call for National Dialogue appeared to hang in midair Thursday after the March 14 parties reiterated their demand for the government’s resignation and the formation of a neutral Cabinet as a prerequisite to attend any talks with their March 8 rivals. Although the opposition’s negative response to Sleiman’s call has cast a pall of gloom over the new Dialogue session set for Jan. 7, Baabda Palace sources said the session was still planned as scheduled. “The Dialogue session will be held as scheduled on Jan. 7 despite the March 14 response to the president’s call,” a Baabda Palace source told The Daily Star. The source pointed out that in his latest invitation to the rival political factions to attend the Dialogue session, Sleiman signaled his readiness to discuss all divisive issues, including the possibility of forming a new Cabinet, a key demand of the March 14 coalition. Responding to the president’s call, March 14 politicians renewed their demand for the government’s resignation as a condition for attending any Dialogue session with the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that political assassinations and attempts on the lives of March 14 politicians prevented the opposition from attending the all-party talks at Baabda Palace.
“The alternative [to Dialogue] is the resignation of the current Cabinet and adherence to constitutional procedures which will definitely lead to the formation of a new Cabinet to supervise the elections,” Geagea said in an open letter to Sleiman. Geagea and Batroun MP Butros Harb escaped attempts on their lives earlier this year. However, a political source said the March 14 demand for the government’s resignation was not meant as “an alternative to Dialogue, but as a precondition” to attend the all-party talks. Addressing a Cabinet meeting he chaired at Baabda Palace Thursday, Sleiman stressed that Dialogue was the hope for the Lebanese to resolve the current political crisis. “Dialogue was also the basis of all agreements that have been reached, from the National Covenant agreement to the Taif and Doha accords,” he said.
Sleiman also called for the parliamentary elections, scheduled for early June next year, to be held on time. He said efforts should be intensified to approve a new electoral law. “All these matters require that everyone comes to the Dialogue table,” he added.
Sleiman renewed his call for Dialogue after meeting Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai in Bkirki Tuesday to congratulate him on Christmas. “I hope that all Dialogue parties will come on Jan. 7. If they don’t come, let them offer me alternatives,” he said. In his open letter to the president, Geagea scoffed at March 8’s argument that the country would fall into a power vacuum should the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati resign before an agreement is reached by the rival factions on a new Cabinet. He accused the March 8 parties of “political and security blackmail” and foiling National Dialogue. “After 25 attempts of political assassinations and bombings, the Dialogue table is almost vacant of March 14 representatives. Who will talk to whom? “ said Geagea, speaking during a news conference. “The March 14 parties have always called for a serious and constructive Dialogue based on what had been agreed before. Dialogue should be held without a gun being pointed at the head of the March 14 parties, unlike what is happening today,” he said. The LF leader accused the March 8 parties of using National Dialogue to impose their illegitimate arms and secure the political gains they failed to obtain through “intimidation and assassinations.” Recalling statements by Hezbollah officials that the party’s arms are not a subject for discussion at National Dialogue, Geagea said in his letter to Sleiman: “We renew our full commitment to a national but genuine dialogue. But at the same time, we reject intimidation, blackmail and participation in a process of political hypocrisy which is merely a distraction for you, for us and for the Lebanese.” Beirut MP Ammar Houri also restated the March 14 stance on National Dialogue. “No dialogue before the government’s resignation and the formation of a neutral salvation Cabinet to oversee the [2013 parliamentary] elections,” Houri told The Daily Star.
Houri, a member of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s parliamentary Future bloc, also called for the implementation of decisions of previous Dialogue sessions such as the parties’ commitment to the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian borders and the withdrawal of arms and gunmen from outside Palestinian refugee camps.
Following the Oct. 19 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, who headed the police’s Information Branch, the March 14 coalition has called for the government’s resignation and the formation of “a neutral salvation Cabinet” to oversee the 2013 elections. The coalition has boycotted the government and all Cabinet-related meetings in Parliament as well as National Dialogue sessions as part of its tactics to force the government to resign.
In his letter to Sleiman, Geagea also rejected March 8 accusations that the opposition was trying to prevent the adoption of a new electoral law on the basis of which the 2013 elections would be held.
He said the March 14 parties were ready to end their boycott of Parliament to discuss and approve a new electoral law to replace the 1960 legislation.
“We are fully ready to break our boycott and go to Parliament to attend a session devoted to approving a new electoral law that can ensure a true representation for which you and we are working to achieve,” Geagea added. He said the March 14 parties have proposed dividing Lebanon into 50 small electoral districts to replace the 1960 law which is based on the qada and a winner-takes-all system. Speaker Nabih Berri Thursday called members of a parliamentary subcommittee tasked with studying a new electoral law to meet in Parliament on Jan. 8. His decision came three days after the March 14 coalition agreed to resume talks with their March 8 rivals on a new electoral law after accepting the speaker’s proposal for the subcommittee’s March 14 members, facing security threats, to stay at a hotel near Parliament and under Army protection until the body finishes its work.
Formed in early October, the subcommittee, which includes MPs from the March 8 and March 14 parties, was tasked with studying the type of the electoral system and the distribution of electoral districts in the absence of Cabinet members or representatives. Meanwhile, former President Amin Gemayel voiced in remarks published Thursday his support for Sleiman’s call for Dialogue, saying he would attend the Jan. 7 session.
“Our stance is clear. We will attend the upcoming [National] Dialogue session,” Gemayel, leader of the Kataeb (Phalange) Party, told As-Safir newspaper. “But if major political parties decide not to attend the session, we will leave it to the president to take the appropriate decision [on whether to go ahead with the session or postpone it],” Gemayel added. Gemayel said the decision by the Kataeb, a member of the March 14 alliance, to attend Dialogue in the event it takes place was out of respect for Sleiman and the post of president.

Hotel has yet to receive request to host MPs
December 28, 2012/By Wassim Mroueh/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The agreement hammered out by Speaker Nabih Berrri to resume meetings of the electoral law subcommittee hinges on security measures that would allow March 14 committee members to stay at a hotel near Parliament under the protection of the Lebanese Army. But the hotel said Thursday that it had yet to receive an official request to host the March 14 lawmakers who are to resume work early next year.
“No one has contacted us over the matter. We heard about it on TV and we see people [journalists] taking photos of the hotel,” said a member of the management at Etoile Suites, who requested to remain anonymous.
Berri called Thursday on the subcommittee to hold a meeting at Parliament on Jan. 8.
A source familiar with the arrangements confirmed media reports that the lawmakers would stay at Etoile Suites, which is near Parliament, adding that the request had not been made because of security concerns.
In March 2006, heads of parliamentary blocs from the March 14 coalition stayed at the hotel, while they were attending National Dialogue sessions in Parliament launched by Berri.
Asked whether the hotel would still receive regular guests during the expected stay of MPs, the manager said that this would depend on how many suites are needed and the length of the stay.
“We have to see what their demand will be and whether this suits us. We won’t accept it if they book five suites for example and ask us to close the entire hotel,” he explained. “We are not obliged to accept this if it does not meet our interest.”The Etoile Suites manager said that the 21-suite-hotel currently has an occupancy ranging between 70 and 75 percent, and that the average cost for one night at the hotel exceeds $200.
For Future Movement official and Minyeh MP Ahmad Fatfat, a member of the subcommittee, it wouldn’t be the first time that he will stay at a hotel due to security concerns.
“I stayed at the Grand Serail for a year and a half,” he said, referring to the period when he was a minister in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. “We are staying now at our homes [for security reasons], which is not that different,” Fatfat explained. The MP said his family would not be with him at the hotel, adding that the March 14 coalition did not demand that the hotel be emptied of its guests during the MPs’ stay.
“We haven’t set such a condition. It’s okay with me, as long as the hotel is under the protection of the Lebanese Army,” he said.
Fatfat said that his March 14 coalition has demanded, however, that the committee holds intensive meetings within one week to finish its job. Following the October assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, March 14 began a boycott of the subcommittee over security concerns. Formed in October, the subcommittee was tasked with working with different parliamentary blocs to reach an agreement on the type of the electoral system and the size of districts in a draft electoral law which the government presented to Parliament. The subcommittee, comprising MPs from rival blocs, was supposed to finish its work within three weeks but hasn’t met since October. Earlier this week, the March 14 coalition announced it would end its boycott after Berri proposed that March 14 members of the subcommittee who feel threatened could stay at a hotel near Parliament under the protection of the Army.

Qabbani reverses call for Islamic Council polls
December 28, 2012 /By Nafez Kawas/The Daily Star/BEIRUT: Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani Thursday reversed a controversial call to hold elections for the Higher Islamic Council at the end of this year. The mufti issued a statement in which he announced that he canceled his prior “decision ... of Nov. 25, 2012, to call on electoral bodies to elect a new Higher Islamic Council on Dec. 30, 2012.”
Prime Minister Najib Mikati met with Qabbani later in the day, and suggested holding elections in the next three months.“The proposal is to hold elections within a maximum period of two or three months, with members of the current Higher Islamic Council remaining in office until elections are held in order to avoid a vacuum,” Mikati told reporters after a visit to Qabbani’s home. The term of the Higher Islamic Council expires at the end of the year.
“I discussed this proposal with the mufti and he asked for until ... [Friday] morning to make a final decision on the matter,” Mikati added. Mikati said that despite talks with leaders about the elections, he had not discussed the details of the plan he pitched to Qabbani with anyone else. “Yesterday I discussed the issue [of the Higher Islamic Council] with former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and we almost reached a solution and we [Mikati and former prime ministers] will take a united stance on the matter in light of talks which I held and will continue today with former prime ministers,” Mikati explained.
Twenty-one members from the 32-member council who are close to the Future Movement challenged Qabbani’s initial call for elections before the Shura Council. They argued it violated the decree that regulates the administration of Dar al-Fatwa. Last week, the Shura Council suspended Qabbani’s call for the polls, saying it violated regulations. Efforts to reform Dar al-Fatwa have led to a cooling of ties between the Future Movement and Qabbani. The prime minister denied abandoning the mufti: “If I had abandoned his eminence, I wouldn’t have visited him today. I repeat that I will not abandon him ... and I fully respect him.”
Sources familiar with the issue told The Daily Star that Qabbani would inform Mikati about his opinion about the proposal early next year.

Salafist sheikh says regrets picking Hezbollah lawyer
December 27, 2012/The Daily Star/BEIRUT: Lebanese militant Muslim preacher Omar Bakri, who is being retried on terrorist charges, says he regrets having appointed Hezbollah MP Nawar Sahli as his lawyer, and says attempts to replace him have so far failed. “His constant work and absence as well as refusal to allow a new lawyer [to represent me] have made me regret having appointed him as my attorney,” said Omar Bakri, in a statement Thursday. Bakri, a controversial preacher with joint Lebanese-Syrian nationality, was arrested on Nov. 14, 2010 in Tripoli, north Lebanon, after a court sentenced him and 21 other people to life in prison for carrying out “terrorist acts.”However, a decision to re-try Bakri was taken after his arrest rendered the trial in absentia void. He was released on bail on Nov. 22 after appointing the Hezbollah politician as his lawyer. Bakri, who while in the U.K. had headed the now disbanded al-Muhajiroun radical Islamist group, says he was arrested in Lebanon for political reasons because he opposed the polices of Britain and the United States in the region and Muslim countries. In his statement Thursday, Bakri complained that his case was dragging on longer than he had expected. He also hinted that his open stances against Syrian President Bashar Assad might be behind delays in his case. “I hope the procrastination [by Sahli] and disruption in the case are not due to my stances in support of the Syrian people and against the Assad gang,” said Bakri . Lebanon’s Hezbollah has been known for its stout support of Assad. The Sheikh said he was trying to appoint Mohammad Hafza, who hails from Tripoli, as his new lawyer but claimed that Sahli was not formally relinquishing his right to defend the Muslim preacher. “My new lawyer has been trying to get a written authorization from Sahli for months to take over the case or take part in my defense but to no avail,” said Bakri. Bakri left the U.K. for Lebanon in 2005 after being barred by the British government from returning to the country because his presence was not "conducive to public good."

Hostage families urged to trust in authorities
December 28, 2012/The Daily Star/BEIRUT: The Higher Islamic Shiite Council called Thursday on relatives of the Lebanese pilgrims held hostage in Syria to exercise more patience and place their trust in the relevant authorities working to secure the return of their loved ones, the National News Agency reported. “We recognize the rightful demands of the families but they should have patience and await the results of ongoing efforts to free the hostages,” a statement by the Shiite body said, the state-run agency reported. The statement came following a meeting between the council’s vice president, Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, and Sheikh Abbas Zogheib, who was tasked by the body to follow up on the case of the nine remaining hostages. “More efforts will be exerted to secure the release of the hostages and the families should stay away from any negative actions or movements that may further complicate the case,” the statement said. The relatives of the hostages have held a series of street protests in recent days, voicing their frustration with authorities over the lack of progress in securing the release of their loved ones. They have also threatened to take escalatory steps against Turkish interests, in a bid to pressure Ankara to do more to help free the nine men. Turkey in response urged its citizens against travel to Lebanon.
President Michel Sleiman has urged the families not to take their anger out on Turkey, as “the Turks were not the ones who kidnapped their relatives.” He has also called on Turkish authorities to help resolve the issue. Sleiman said during a Cabinet session Thursday that the “ongoing abduction of Lebanese in Syria does not serve the kidnappers’ cause.”

Politicians call Tripoli mayor’s bluff
December 28, 2012/By Van Meguerditchian/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Nader Ghazal announced this week that he would step down as Tripoli’s mayor next month in protest over the corruption that has plagued the municipality.
But politicians from the March 14 and March 8 camps say that Ghazal, who has yet to formally submit his resignation to the city’s government, will likely stay.
In the 24-member municipal council of Tripoli, threats and counter-threats of resignations from members have been bandied about over the past two years, propelled by internal disputes and competition.
Earlier this year, a group of at least 10 members said they were ready to resign and dissolve the council. Although no one has resigned so far, the disagreements between the council members and Ghazal have paralyzed the body’s work in the city, which has witnessed renewed waves of violence in some of its neighborhoods.
Ghazal was elected as a consensus candidate after the 2010 municipal elections as part of an agreement among the Future Movement, former Prime Minister Omar Karami, Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya, and city MPs Mohammad Safadi and Najib Mikati. “This was the first time that there was an agreement on Tripoli’s mayor ever in the history of the city,” said Ghazal. He said he accepted their nomination after receiving a number of assurances from Tripoli’s political figures that he would lead a cohesive council.
“It turns out that this wasn’t the case. It turns out that it was another game to distribute seats between Mikati and the Future Movement,” Ghazal told The Daily Star.
Ghazal’s decision to resign comes seven months before the municipality’s council is set to vote to renew or withdraw its vote of confidence in him.
Ghazal, a former member of AlJamaa al-Islamiya and an engineer, said he could no longer remain silent in the face of the obstacles put by the council’s members in the way of improving the municipality’s work in Lebanon’s second-largest city.
“Every party wants to get its share of the municipality’s resources to use them for electoral gains,” he added.
The accusations are not one-sided. A number of council members have repeatedly accused Ghazal of monopolizing decision-making within the municipality, and relations between the Future Movement and political figures in Tripoli have deteriorated since the collapse of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s government in 2011.
These members primarily include officials backed by Mikati, or by Future Movement official and Tripoli MP Samir Jisr. But politicians from across the political divide are expressing hope that Ghazal will reconsider his decision to resign, if only because it would be difficult to choose a new candidate.
“There are four candidates who want to replace Ghazal but it is very difficult to find a consensus candidate like him,” Future Movement official Mustafa Alloush said.
According to Alloush, Ghazal’s decision to step down from the municipality is an attempt to pressure politicians to resolve the disputes in the council.
“The problems in the council are due to some members’ ambitions to become mayor and administrative disputes, but Ghazal’s decision to resign is not final,” said Alloush, a former council member and a Tripoli MP. “He is trying to resolve the issues of the council by prompting politicians to intervene and pressure the council members.
“The Future Movement is concerned with the work of the council, and we are open to any suggestions by Ghazal that would help resolve the council’s disputes,” Alloush added.
If Ghazal submits his resignation next month, the municipality would likely become another arena of competition between Mikati and Hariri, since the city’s mayor is traditionally Sunni.
Despite that possibility, Interior Ministry Marwan Charbel told The Daily Star that if Ghazal resigns, there will be no political vacuum as municipal laws require the council members to meet with the governor of north Lebanon to elect a new mayor.
“Ghazal’s decision to resign is due to political problems within the council and if he needs to go forward with it, the council can elect a new mayor,” Charbel said.
A Tripoli official close to the council predicted that north Lebanon Governor Nassif Qaloush would refuse the resignation, and would take the initiative to run the affairs of the council himself.
The official also said finding another consensus figure would be difficult, adding that Mikati would seek to avoid a direct confrontation with Hariri.
“Electing a pro-Mikati mayor would be another serious political blow to Hariri, and Mikati does not want that,” he said.
Khaldoun Sharif, an aide to Mikati, declined to comment on Ghazal’s decision to resign, because it had yet to be submitted formally: “Perhaps he won’t resign, so we shouldn’t be hasty and comment on it [now].”
Ghazal is expected to hold a news conference next month to explain the reasons for his decision to step down.
“I will submit a detailed report of my work as mayor of Tripoli and all the obstacles that were placed against my work.”
“The opposition against me in the council is because I stood against corruption,” he said.