LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 22/2012
Bible Quotation for today/Jesus Goes to the Temple
Luke 19/45-48: "Then Jesus went into the Temple and began to drive out the
merchants, saying to them, It is written in the Scriptures that God said, My
Temple will be a house of prayer. But you have turned it into a hideout for
thieves! Every day Jesus taught in the Temple. The chief priests, the teachers
of the Law, and the leaders of the people wanted to kill him, but they could not
find a way to do it, because all the people kept listening to him, not wanting
to miss a single word.
Latest analysis,
editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
It may be best to talk to Iran
before launching a strike/By Akiva Eldar /Haaretz/February
21/12
From Syria to Morocco…lessons to consider/By Osman
Mirghani/February
21/12
National waste of time/Naharnet/February
21/12
Serious and respectable
neutrality/Hazem Saghiyeh/February 21/12
The Lebanonization of the Syrian opposition/By: Hanin
Ghaddar/February
21/12
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 21/12
Obama to try and talk Netanyahu out of Iran strike after his advisers failed
Israel to U.S.: Disagreement over attack on nuclear sites
serves Iranian interests
Israel must listen to U.S. warnings against Iran attack
White House: Netanyahu, Obama to meet in Washington on
March 5
Americans consider Iran to be U.S.'s greatest enemy, poll
shows
Israel could strike Iran's nuclear facilities, but it
won't be easy
Iranian warships dock at Syrian port after crossing Suez
Canal
Report: U.S. officials say Israel would need at least 100
planes to strike Iran
Iran threatens to cut oil to more EU states
McCain Calls for Military Aid to Syria Opposition
Red Cross negotiates Syria humanitarian ceasefire with
Assad regime
Syrians sense war in Damascus while Assad tries to score
points
A week after New Delhi attacks, India tries to play down
Iran link
STL Amends Some its Rules of Procedure and Evidence
Bellemare thanks
Lebanese for support before STL resignation
Phalange: Solution to Govt. Crisis Must Respect President,
Premier
Mufti Qabbani Meets Hizbullah Delegation: Lebanon Must Be
Fortified against Regional Unrest
Audit Bureau Refers Red Diesel Report to General
Prosecution
Moussawi Slams Syria ‘Humanitarian Corridors,’ Calls for
Dialogue in Lebanon
Grand Mufti meets with Hezbollah delegation
Jumblatt calls Syria’s planned referendum “heresy”
Moussawi: Lebanon’s interest is not in inciting strife in
Syria
Chamoun: We want a cabinet not waiting for ‘Syrian orders’
No life or death sentence reductions under new law: Ghanem
Radar speed traps fail to curb fatalities: NGOs
Lebanon to remain on copyright watch list
Obama to try and talk Netanyahu out of Iran strike after his advisers failed
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 20, 2012/After a high-ranking US delegation
headed by White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon failed in three days
of tough talks (Feb.18-20) to dissuade Israeli leaders to back off plans for a
military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites, the White House invited Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for talks with President Barak Obama on March 5. He
will try and break the stalemate which ended his advisers’ talks with Netanyahu,
Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz.
The defense minister, addressing his Independence Party later Monday praised
Israel’s security relations with the US as very good and very important for a
strong Israel. The dialogue between the two governments, he said, is marked by
openness, mutual respect, understanding and attentiveness. At the same time,
Barak hinted at discord by adding, “Both are sovereign nations which are
ultimately responsible for their decisions in relation to themselves and their
future.”
debkafile reported earlier Monday, Feb. 20:
White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon faced an acrimonious Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in two hours of stormy conversation in Jerusalem
Sunday, Feb. 19, according to updates reaching senior US sources in Washington.
The main bones of contention were Iran’s continuing enrichment of uranium and
its ongoing relocation of production to underground sites.
Israeli officials declined to give out any information on the conversation. Some
even refused to confirm it took place.
According to debkafile’s sources, Netanyahu accused the Obama administration of
drawing Iran into resuming nuclear negotiations with world powers by an
assurance that Tehran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium up to 5
percent in any quantity, provided it promised not to build an Iranian nuclear
weapon. The prime minister charged that this permit contravened US
administration guarantees to Israel on the nuclear issue and, moreover left
Tehran free to upgrade its current 20 percent enrichment level to 90 percent
weapons grade. This Israel cannot tolerate, said Netanyahu, so leaving its
military option on the ready.
He warned the US National Security Adviser that no evidence whatsoever confirms
Washington’s claim that Tehran intends suspending enrichment and other nuclear
advances when negotiations begin. Quite the contrary: Even before the date was
set, Iran started working at top speed to build up its bargaining chips by
laying down major advances in its nuclear program as undisputed facts.
Tehran now claims to have progressed to self-reliance in the production of 20
percent-enriched uranium, the basis for the weapons grade fuel, in unlimited
quantity. Once the talks are underway, Netanyahu maintained, there would be no
stopping the Iranians without stalling the negotiating process. Going by past
experience, Tehran would use dialogue as an extra fulcrum for its impetus toward
weapon production without interruption.
Monday, Donilon and his delegation meet Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
The mission of this high-powered US delegation in Israel takes place to the
accompanied of a resumed US media campaign for discouraging Israeli military
action against Iran’s nuclear installations.
Sunday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, offered
this opinion to CNN: “Israel has the capability to strike Iran and delay the
Iranians probably for a couple of years. But some of the targets are probably
beyond their reach.”
Monday’s New York Times carried an assessment by “American defense officials and
military analysts close to the Pentagon” under the caption, “Iran Raid Seen as a
Huge Task for Israel Jets.” debkafile’s military sources report the main
argument, dredged up from the past and long refuted, is that Israeli Air Force
bombers cannot cover the distance to Iran without in-flight refueling.
That array of “analysts” apparently missed the CNN interview and therefore
contradicted the assessment of America’s own top general that “Israel has the
capability to strike Iran…”
Reality has meanwhile moved on. Four events in the last 24 hours no doubt
figured large in the US delegation’s talks with Israeli leaders:
1. Monday, the IAEA sent to Tehran its second team of monitors this month for
another attempt to gain access to nuclear facilities hitherto barred by the
Iranians. The inspectors will also demand permission to interview scientists
which according to a list drawn up at the agency’s Vienna headquarters hold key
positions in their nuclear program.
2. The Russian Chief of Chaff Gen. Nikolai Makarov estimated that the attack on
Iran would be “coordinated” by several governments and “a decision would be made
by the summer.”
3. Moscow recalled Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kutznetsov from the Syrian
port of Tartus to its home base at Severomorsk on the Kola Peninsula.
4. Turkey is beinding over backward to assure Iran that data collected by the US
missile shield radar stationed at its Kurecik air base will not shared with
Israel. It is especially anxious not to annoy Tehran after foreign minister Ali
Akbar Salehi announced that the resumed nuclear talks with the five Permanent
Security Council members and German (P5+1) would be held in Istanbul.
However, the Iranians certainly know exactly what is going on after watching the
recent joint US-Israeli radar test which demonstrated that Israel is fully
integrated in the missile shield radar network and that the US radar station in
the Israeli Negev interfaces with its station in Turkey and Israel’s Arrow
missile Green Pine radar.
When he visited Ankara last week, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
assured his Turkish hosts that “Intelligence data collected within the missile
defense system will not be shared with third countries. It will be shared with
the allies within our alliance.”
His statement was quite accurate – except for the fact that the radar stations
collecting the intelligence data are not controlled by NATO but by US military
teams, both of which, including the Turkish-based radar, are integrated and
coordinated with Israeli radar and missile interceptors.
It
may be best to talk to Iran before launching a strike
By Akiva Eldar /Haaretz
For dialogue with Tehran to succeed, the insolent tone and threatening language
of the Israeli government spokespeople and their neoconservative friends in the
United States must be toned down.
The convoy of senior American officials who are making weekly pilgrimages to
Jerusalem, in an attempt to stop the Israel Air Force from attacking Iran, is no
doubt chalking up plenty of flight hours for the U.S. Air Force. But the
secretary of defense, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the national
security adviser and even President Barack Obama himself will not succeed in
convincing Israel’s leadership that sanctions alone will suffice to stop the
Iranian nuclear project.
Who knows better than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that there are
principles in whose name nations are prepared to ignore the whole world, and for
which nations will even pay with their best interests? The prime minister
assumes, and justifiably so, that the chance that Tehran will submit to
sanctions without conditions is about the same as the chance that economic
pressure will convince the Likud central committee to divide Jerusalem. And
that’s about the same as an Iranian admission that Israel is allowed to have an
atomic bomb (as per foreign sources) along with Pakistan and India (and that
the large Islamic republic is a pariah and/or crazy).
But fresh sanctions are certainly having an effect on the Iranian leadership −
and how! Its support for its protege, Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is
mowing down the Sunnis in his country, has augmented Shiite Iran’s isolation and
undermined its regional standing. These pressures are the reason behind the
statement by Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi that his country is prepared to
renew talks with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council as well as Germany. Even our friend Dennis Ross, who recently left the
team of senior advisers to President Obama and has returned to the
Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, stated in recent days
that the time is ripe for diplomatic initiatives in the Iranian arena.
The question is not whether to talk to the Iranians before shooting at them: The
question is what to talk about, who does the talking, and how should it be done.
For example, what would we do if Tehran announces that it is prepared to put an
end to its nuclear plans and to open up its facilities for all to see, on
condition that Israel signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and opens its
facilities to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency? If Iran
were to forgo its nuclear program and all the Arab states were to follow suit,
the international community would ask, rightfully, why does Israel need a bomb?
Whom does it have to deter? Either no country can have weapons of mass
destruction, or all of them can. Sooner or later, Israel will have to agree to
regional demilitarization.
In an article in The New York Times earlier this month, former American
diplomats William Luers and Thomas Pickering recommended to Obama that he open
diplomatic channels with Tehran, in the way that former President Nixon breached
the diplomatic embargo on China. They proposed that Obama appoint a special
envoy who enjoys the trust of the Iranians, to hold secret talks in an effort to
prevent a conflagration. The president should equip his emissary with guarantees
that military action would not be taken, and that public pressure on Iran would
be lessened during any such contacts.
For the dialogue with Tehran to succeed, the insolent tone and threatening
language of the Israeli government spokespeople and their neoconservative
friends in the United States must be toned down.
The word “respect” appears in every speech by the Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad. In his speech a week ago to mark the anniversary of his country’s
revolution, he stated that the door was open to negotiations “in a framework of
justice and respect.”
Doron Pely, who has spent many years researching the mechanism of the Islamic
sulha (a means for resolving disputes), has drawn my attention to the decisive
importance of the concept of respect in Islamic culture. He says that
particularly in terms of the ancient Persian nation, respect is the main
component in resolving disputes, particularly those with the West, and above all
with Israel.
The sanctions, like the assassination of Iranian scientists, and like military
activities in Iranian skies, can defer the development of a bomb for some years
but they will not wipe it out. The best scientists have not been able to invent
a weapon against national-religious respect. It is possible that ultimately
there will be no choice but to shoot. But when missiles fall on us, we must know
that we asked our friends to do their best to use all other options against the
Iranians. Including speaking to them with respect and wisdom.
Israel must listen to U.S. warnings against Iran attack
Haaretz Editorial/Haaretz
Does Iran truly intend to use nuclear technology for military purposes, or do
its leaders recognize that the international response to such a development
could jeopardize its very survival? Fear of Iran’s nuclear program is pushing
Israel into a dangerous corner. The state could find itself in a conflict of
interest, or even on a collision course with the American administration just
when it needs U.S. support more than ever before. It’s enough to hear the
warning of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey,
that a strike on Iran could be harmful to Israel, and to see the stepped-up pace
of visits here by senior U.S. officials to realize just how anxious Washington
is about the prospect of Jerusalem deciding to bomb Iran. The United States in
particular, or the West in general, cannot be accused of ignoring the Iranian
threat. The burden of sanctions imposed on Iran, together with Washington’s
frequent declarations that the military option is still on the table,
demonstrate the administration’s concern over Tehran’s nuclear program. The big
question for the United States is not only about the effect of an Israeli attack
against Iran on American interests in the region, but also about the efficacy of
such a strike and concern about its potentially disastrous implications for
Israel. Israel and the United States are in agreement on both the dimension of
the threat and the understanding that Iran has not yet decided to obtain nuclear
weapons. Not enough attention has been paid to the big question − why that
decision has not been made − and there is no consensus on the answer.
Does Iran truly intend to use nuclear technology for military purposes, or do
its leaders recognize that the international response to such a development
could jeopardize its very survival?
Dempsey believes, correctly, that Iran is a “rational actor” that considers the
political implications of its actions. He concludes from this that the sanctions
must be given a chance before trapping the region and the world in a war the
final outcome of which is unknowable. One can disagree with the American
assessment that the sanctions are already having an effect, and one can find
data that prove the opposite. But the fact that even in Israel there is
disagreement on the issue indicates that there’s a chance the sanctions could
prove effective. Israel, which succeeded in enlisting the Western countries to
take action against Iran, must listen to the warnings coming out of Washington
and refrain, for now, from unilateral measures.
Israel to U.S.: Disagreement over attack on nuclear sites serves Iranian
interests
By Barak Ravid/Haaretz /Netanyahu, Barak, senior officials make their
displeasure known to national security adviser during visit to Israel. Israel
has protested to the United States over recent comments by senior American
officials critical of any Israeli attack on Iran, saying this criticism "served
Iran's interests." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud
Barak and other senior officials made their displeasure known to Tom Donilon,
U.S. national security adviser who has been in Israel this week. A senior
Israeli official said Netanyahu and Barak told Donilon of their dissatisfaction
with the interview given by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs
of staff, to CNN on Sunday. Dempsey said "I don't think a wise thing at this
moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran," and a strike "would
be destabilizing" and "not prudent." Dempsey said the United States has so far
not been able to persuade Israel not to attack Iran. "I wouldn't suggest that
we've persuaded them that our view is the correct view," he said. The Israeli
officials also objected to a number of briefings senior American officials gave
American correspondents, who wrote in recent weeks about a possible Israeli
attack in Iran. The story that angered Netanyahu most was an NBC broadcast two
weeks ago saying Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities with Jericho
missiles, commando forces and F-151 jets.
"We made it clear to Donilon that all those statements and briefings only served
the Iranians," a senior Israeli official said. "The Iranians see there's
controversy between the United States and Israel, and that the Americans object
to a military act. That reduces the pressure on them." Donilon also met a team
of Israeli experts from the ministries and intelligence agencies, headed by
National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror, who coordinates the Iranian portfolio.
He also met Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and
Military Intelligence head Aviv Kochavi. All the officials told Donilon that the
pressure and sanctions on Iran must be increased, especially to avoid having to
use military force. "We made it clear that if we don't increase the pressure on
the Iranians now, we might be in a situation in which the question how Iran
obtained nuclear weapons would become an issue for commentators and historians,"
the official said. The talks between Israel and the United States on the Iranian
nuclear issue will continue on Thursday, when U.S. National Director of
Intelligence James Clapper comes to Israel for talks with intelligence and
defense establishment heads. The White House said on Monday that Donilon invited
Netanyahu to a meeting with President Barack Obama on March 5.
Report: U.S. officials say Israel would need at least 100 planes to strike Iran
By Haaretz /New York Times quotes U.S. defense and military officials as saying
that should Israel choose to attack Iran, it would be a highly complex
operation. Israel will need to use at least 100 planes and fly more than 1,000
miles above unfriendly airspace should it decide to attack Iran, the New York
Times reported on Monday, citing the assessment of U.S. defense officials close
to the Pentagon.
According to the report, American military analysts and defense officials
believe that an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be a highly
complex operation, and say that it would be very different from Israel's
"surgical" strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and would also differ from
the strike that Israel is believed to have carried out in Syria in 2007.
"All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that
easy,” the report quoted Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the
Air Force’s top intelligence official.
Andrew R. Hoehn, a former Pentagon official, was also quoted as saying, "I don’t
think you’ll find anyone who’ll say, ‘Here’s how it’s going to be done — handful
of planes, over an evening, in and out.'"
Meanwhile, the report also cited comments by former CIA director Michael Hayden,
who said that Israel is not capable of carrying out airstrikes that would
seriously set back Iran's nuclear program, partly due to the distance the
aircraft would have to travel. According to the report, U.S. military analysts
believe that Israel will have a serious problem reaching Iran's four major
nuclear sites – the urnainum enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the
heavy water reactor near Arak, and the uranium conversion plant near Isfahan.
Israel has three possible routes to those facilities – north over Turkey, south
over Saudi Arabia, or a central route across Jordan and Iraq. U.S. defense
analysts believe that the route over Iraq would be preferable, since Iraq
effectively has no air defenses and the U.S. is no longer defending Iraq's
airspace. According to officials, should Jordan allow Israel to fly over its
territory, the next issue for Israel is that the range of its fighter jets falls
short of the 2,000-mile round trip.
For this reason, officials say, Israel would need to use airborne refueling
planes, called tankers, and then those tankers would need to be protected by
more fighter planes, which significantly increases the number of planes needed
for the operation. Another problem U.S. officials see is penetrating Iran's
Natanz facility, which is believed to be buried under 30 feet of concrete, and
the Fordo facility, which is built inside a mountain. Israel has American-made
GBU-28 5,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs that could damage such targets, but it
is not known how far down they could go, the report said
The vision of a new Arab president
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
Moncef Marzouki, the new President of Tunisia and an Arab intellectual who came
to power without ever really expecting this to happen, wrote a few days ago
about good governance, roughly eight weeks after assuming the presidency. He
addressed the problem of democracy in the Arab world, concluding that the theory
of good governance can never be consecrated without a commensurately mature
society. This brings us back to the never-ending argument over whether a culture
of democracy should be the starting point, or whether a democratic ruler alone
is the horse to lead the nation towards democracy.
Marzouki believes that one of the main problems for Arabs when it comes to
democracy is that it is an imported system, since the Arabs failed throughout
their history to invent or apply a similar system. Accordingly, we must attempt
to “resettle” Western democracy and plant it in the Arab soil. Marzouki argues:
“The problem is that for most Arabs, the resettlement of democracy simply means
applying a ready-made recipe comprising of its four main ingredients; individual
freedom, public freedoms, an independent judiciary and free elections. Through
this mechanism some people expect to have a stable political system that ensures
good governance”.
Now Marzouki, with his two contradictory characters - the intellectual critic
and president - can view his world from the top. Is it possible that the ballot
box can reflect the peoples’ desires? Is the state, as he advocates it, capable
of achieving social justice? Is the freedom of expression in mass media and
parliament capable of meeting the demands of the majority?
It is remarkable that only two months after becoming the President of Tunisia,
Marzouki seems to be despairing. He believes that the elected state does not
have all the tools of power to foster democracy, for it is not in control of the
media, the market, the army or the intelligence services. Accordingly, democracy
through its three branches –legislative, judicial and executive – is still not
enough. Of course, we are all aware that if an elected state controls the media
and the economy, it will likely transform into a tyrannical regime. The problem
lies in public awareness and its ability to manage the delicate balance between
the forces of society. Enlightenment is both the problem and the solution. An
effective media apparatus and a free economy both need a conscious society to
flourish. The tools of freedom are less successful in culturally undeveloped
societies – such as the Arab communities – and they themselves can turn into
despotic authorities that in fact curb civil liberties. Without granting
immunity to freedom, democracy becomes meaningless and would most likely turn
into a dictatorship of the ignorant majority.
This is Egypt’s current problem and Tunisia’s to a lesser extent. Lawmakers and
representatives of the state are calling for more restrictions. The media, on
the other hand, supposedly the voice of freedom, is pursuing those who violate
already existing restrictions. Due to these difficult early beginnings, an
intellectual in a “newly democratic” Arab community may reach a moment where he
in fact laments the former tyrannical regime. This is a conclusion reached by
Marzouki himself, who is one of the most prominent Arab advocates of democracy.
According to Marzouki, “what is even worse is that such a debate will remind
people that they only protested against tyranny when they lost hope in its
ability to achieve their aspirations for development and social justice. They
might protest again tomorrow against democracy for the same reason.” The
solution is largely cultural; elections alone will not suffice. Yet it seems
that some intellectuals, not only the masses, are ignorant of the meaning of
democracy, which means that the battle ahead of us is a long one.
From Syria to Morocco…lessons to consider
By Osman Mirghani/Asharq Alawsat
Despite the vast distance between them and the different circumstances involved,
there is a lot that calls for comparison between the experiences of Morocco and
Syria, when it comes to dealing with demands for change and the implications of
the Arab Spring. Certain events coincided in both countries and led to varying
results in terms of lessons, morals and highly significant consequences. Early
last year, when the Arab Spring was still in its prime, Moroccan King Mohammed
VI and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad both addressed their people’s popular
demands for reform and change. The two speeches were worlds apart in terms of
form and content, and ended up being worlds apart in terms of the final results.
The King of Morocco interpreted the developments well and understood the message
coming from the protest movements that shook the entire region. Hence, he opted
to issue bold decisions and effect major changes to the internal reform process,
which had been initiated during his late father's tenure and continued during
his own. Thus, his first speech after the outbreak of events - and precisely in
March 2011 - was dedicated to announcing a constitutional revision aiming to
advance the reform and democracy process, widen of the scope of freedoms, and
strengthen the mechanisms to protect human rights.
In contrast, the first speech given by Syria's President in parliament on March
29th 2011, following the eruption of the Syrian revolution, was ambiguous and
tense. During his address, al-Assad mocked the Arab Spring revolutions and
dismissed them as a new fad. He even deemed what was happening in Syria to be a
conspiracy and form of sedition, calling on his citizens to nip it in the bud;
this being a "national, moral and religious duty" as he put it. At that time,
the gulf separating the perspectives of these two young leaders, who rose to
power at practically the same time, seemed vast, especially when it came to
their handling of popular demands and aspirations. This gulf has been further
exacerbated by the ongoing developments in both countries from the beginning of
last year until this day.
As fate would have it, both leaders were destined to address their own people
once again three months after their first speeches. And for the second time, the
difference between the two was immense and the gulf wide. On June 17th 2011,
King Mohammed VI addressed the Moroccans and announced a series of
constitutional amendments introduced by an entrusted committee and described at
the time as historic. He called upon his people to vote on those amendments in a
referendum to be held a few weeks later, in preparation for parliamentary
elections.
Three days after the Moroccan monarch's address, Bashar al-Assad spoke to the
Syrians from the University of Damascus. Once again, his speech was a mixture of
threats and empty promises. Words about national dialogue and pledged
constitutional amendments were mingled with threats towards the protesters
demanding reform and change. They were described as saboteurs involved in a
conspiracy to destabilize the country. The speech included promises, but it did
not offer a clear road map for the implementation of the pledged reforms which
the Syrians have been hearing about for many years, ever since Bashar al-Assad
succeeded his father as president. Over the past decade, the Syrians haven't
seen any tangible progress on the ground. Contrary to that, al-Assad's talk
about dialogue and reform soon vanished in the midst of other sections of his
speech, which underscored the regime's refusal to understand the street's
message and its intention to confront the popular uprising and repress it
through military force and security oppression.
It was obvious that while the Syrian regime was focusing on the security
solution as a chief element in resolving the crisis, Morocco was set on
continuing along the road of reform and translating promises into action. A
referendum was conducted on the constitutional amendments and parliamentary
elections were held. This was tantamount to a revolution in the Moroccan ballot
box. Abdelilah Benkirane, Secretary General of the Justice and Development
Party, was placed at the head of a coalition government incorporating parties
from both ends of the political spectrum as well as those in the center. This
government reflects the political pluralism and diversity across the country.
Through a process of gradual reform, Morocco saved a lot of time and overcame
the agony we are now witnessing in many other countries. Furthermore, Morocco
has been much faster than the Arab Spring countries in terms of implementing
constitutional amendments and holding parliamentary elections. For example,
Egypt and Tunisia are still experiencing the throes of their revolutions and
have a long way to go before drafting new constitutions and holding elections in
accordance with them. It is true that Tunisia held its parliamentary elections
last October, before Morocco, but it is still making the preparations that will
lead to the drafting of a new constitution, thereby paving the way for new
elections and another constitutional stage. As for Egypt, it has gone through a
great deal of pain ever since the outbreak of its revolution; it is still
waiting for presidential elections and the constitutional battle is expected to
be far from easy or smooth.
If we go further in our comparison, we would find that Yemen has been more
unfortunate because its revolution drowned in military confrontations and
political bartering. It eventually ended in a vague formula where people do not
know whether the regime has been actually toppled, or whether the president is
on vacation after which he will return to the political scene as leader of his
party and director of the country's affairs.
Libya, on the other hand, has given us a glaring example of the sheer
indifference that authoritarian regimes feel toward their people. Gaddafi
immersed his country in pools of blood and confrontations, which eventually led
to foreign intervention. Hence, Libya shall need a long time to recover and
rebuild what the war has destroyed and the rule of Colonel Gaddafi has left
behind. The horrific part is that the Libyan experience, in terms of many
aspects, seems to be the closest to what is happening in Syria, especially with
the regime's persistence in carrying out more killings and acts of torture, and
its insistence upon trying to suppress the popular uprising regardless of the
price and results.
The Moroccan experience may have been unjustly assessed because it did not
receive the attention it deserves. This is because the bloody events of other
revolutions and uprisings dominated the political scene and news headlines.
However, Morocco's experience provides an important lesson, namely that reform
satisfying people's demands and aspirations is possible. However, such reforms
should be enacted before the bloodbaths and atrocities of repression, which
ultimately close the windows of dialogue and destroy the chances of a peaceful
transition. The problem with some leaders is that they do not like to listen,
and if they ever do, they do not understand the message of their people.
STL Amends Some its Rules of Procedure and Evidence
by Naharnet /The judges of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon have approved some
amendments to the tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence, said the STL in a
statement on Monday.
There were a limited number of changes, which clarified the existing rules
especially in relation to victims, it added. The changes allow the Prosecution,
Defense and the Victims’ Participation Unit to make submissions on requests from
victims wishing to participate in the proceedings, it stated. Submissions are
limited to legal issues to protect the confidentiality of victims’ applications.
In addition, the pre-trial judge has been given the authority in deciding on the
grouping of victims wishing to participate in the proceedings. “This decision
cannot be appealed,” said the statement. Another change makes it easier for
victims who participate in the proceedings to also appear as witnesses before
the tribunal. “The Judges also decided that the Prosecution must immediately
inform the head of the Defense Office Francois Roux about the arrest of a
suspect or an accused,” said the statement.
This will strengthen the rights of the Defense, it explained.
Bellemare in Farewell Letter: Historic Days ahead for
Justice, People of Lebanon
by Naharnet /Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare on Monday
addressed a farewell letter to the Lebanese people on the occasion of the end of
his tenure, stressing that he did his job “objectively” and noting that
“historic days lie ahead for justice and the People of Lebanon.” Bellemare will
leave office at the end of this month. In November 2007 he was assigned by U.N.
chief Ban Ki-Moon as the commissioner for the United Nations International
Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) into the 2005 assassination of
ex-PM Rafik Hariri, replacing Serge Brammertz of Belgium.
At the same time, the U.N. secretary-general designated Bellemare as the
prosecutor of the STL, an appointment he took up on March 1, 2009.
Prime Minister Najib Miqati revealed on Tuesday that Bellemare had informed him
during his recent trip to Lebanon that he will submit a new revised indictment
before leaving office end of February.
Media reports had said that Bellemare was expected to issue a new indictment
before he leaves his post in March. His successor has not yet been named.
Below is the full text of Bellemare’s farewell letter: “As I approach the end of
my tenure as Prosecutor of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, I want to bid
farewell to the People of Lebanon.
It has been an honor and a privilege to serve both as the last Commissioner of
the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission, and as
the founding Prosecutor of the Tribunal. I want to thank you for your support
and trust in carrying out these profoundly important mandates. And for the
journey of progress we have travelled together.
During my tenure, I often felt that the fight against impunity would be a long
and difficult journey. Nonetheless, I continued to be passionate about the
mission and about Lebanon. The People of Lebanon deserve no less. They deserve a
society free of impunity, a society based on a culture of accountability. Is
there a greater mission than one built on the desire of a people for truth and
justice?
It is encouraging to see that this legitimate desire for justice and
accountability is now gaining greater momentum. Today our fight against impunity
is shared even more broadly. We have already accomplished a lot together in this
respect. While much still remains to be done, I am confident that the
foundations are firm. I am leaving with reluctance, but with the sense of having
done the right thing, objectively, passionately and, with professionalism and
respect.
These have been the most intense years of my professional life. Those who
advised me when I was considering whether or not to accept this challenge were
right when they said that if I declined the opportunity, I would regret it for
the rest of my life. While it has been anything but easy, it has been immensely
fulfilling both personally and professionally. It should come as no surprise
that my decision not to seek reappointment for a second term was indeed a very
difficult one. As my professional involvement with the People of Lebanon comes
to an end, I would like to leave you with a message of hope. Historic days lie
ahead for justice and the People of Lebanon. But Justice does not happen
overnight. In this respect, the Lebanese people, and especially the victims,
have been patient. For this, I want to thank all of you. I would also like to
thank the Lebanese Authorities for their continued cooperation and assistance. I
am proud to be leaving behind a strong and committed team of professionals, who
have joined the Office of the Prosecutor because they believe in the cause of
justice for Lebanon. They have worked long and hard, often under very difficult
circumstances, and they, too, have all my gratitude.
With your support, they will continue their mission.
Daniel A. Bellemare
Leidschendam, 20 February 2012”
Grand Mufti meets with Hezbollah delegation
February 20, 2012 /Grand Mufti of the Lebanese Republic Sheikh Mohammad Rashid
Qabbani (C) meets with a Hezbollah delegation on Monday. (NOW Lebanon) Grand
Mufti of the Lebanese Republic Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani on Monday met with
a delegation from Hezbollah, a press release issued from the mufti’s office
reported. The Mufti reiterated his call for dialogue and reinforcing the unity
between Muslims and the Lebanese people in general.-NOW Lebanon
Jumblatt calls Syria’s planned referendum “heresy”
February 20, 2012 /Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt slammed
the Syrian regime’s decision to hold a referendum for a new constitution that
would end almost 50 years of single party rule, and called it a
“heresy.”“History and political science books will tell about the heresy of a
referendum for the so-called new draft constitution [mixed] with the smell of
corpses and the dust of the rubble in Homs and other villages in Syria,”
Jumblatt wrote in his weekly article in the PSP newspaper Al-Anbaa. He also said
that “hundreds of [ignoble] parties similar to the Baath Party will be formed in
a bid to keep complete control of the state and its institutions.” He also said
that countries supporting the Syrian government are clinging to the regime at
the expense of Syria’s unity. “[Russia] can provide a solution to the [Syrian]
crisis [by hosting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in exile] in the far reaches
of Siberia - in respect for the feeling of the Russian citizens - or in the
middle of Baluchistan.”“I think Al-Qaeda leaders would repent when they hear the
Syrian regime’s experience in terrorism,” he added.The PSP leader also said that
“the Western countries are hiding behind the Russian veto, and are shyly
demanding the implementation of reforms under the pretext of the Syrian
opposition’s divisions so that they can avoid supporting or acknowledging it.”
Jumblatt also reiterated his call for the Syrian Druze to join the uprising and
“refuse to confront the Syrian people.”“The future is for the free people in
Syria, and your natural position is to stand by them,” he added. “No matter what
the plots are, the Syrian people will eventually triumph.”Assad called a
February 26 referendum on a draft constitution that could end nearly five
decades of rule for his Baath Party. Opposition groups promptly rejected the new
charter and urged voters to boycott the poll. The UN says more than 6,000 people
have been killed in the crackdown on Syrian protesters who have been
demonstrating against the Baath regime since March 2011. Lebanon’s political
scene is split between supporters of Assad’s regime, led by Hezbollah, and the
pro-Western March 14 camp.-NOW Lebanon
Chamoun: We want a cabinet not waiting for ‘Syrian orders’
February 19, 2012 /National Liberal Party leader MP Dori Chamoun said in remarks
published on Sunday that he wants a cabinet in Lebanon that “does not wait for
Syrian orders.”“We want a cabinet that really represents Lebanon and that does
not wait for orders from Syria,” Chamoun told An-Nahar newspaper. He also said
“preparations are underway to topple the cabinet,” adding that the cabinet “will
be overthrown by its own components because of the [problems] they have among
each other.” Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s cabinet is mainly dominated by
ministers affiliated with the Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition. -NOW Lebanon
Moussawi: Lebanon’s interest is not in inciting strife in
Syria
February 20, 2012 /Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Nawwaf Moussawi said on
Monday that Lebanon’s interest does not lie in inciting strife in Syria.
“Lebanon’s interest lies in standing by our [Syrian] brothers and helping them
bridge their divide, not in inciting strife,” the National News Agency quoted
the Hezbollah MP as saying. Moussawi also said that some groups “sponsored” by
Lebanese political parties were smuggling weapons “to [cause] a sectarian war in
Syria.” “We ally with [those who form] the resistance [against Israel] and we
disagree with [those] who are against it.”He also called on March 14 to abandon
the “illusion of victory that is displayed in their speeches,” and to look into
how to protect Lebanon from threats. Syria has witnessed anti-regime protests
since mid-March. The United Nations estimates that more than 6,000 people have
been killed in the regime’s crackdown on dissent. Lebanon’s political
scene is split between supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime,
led by Hezbollah, and the March 14 pro-Western camp.-NOW Lebanon
The Lebanonization of the Syrian opposition
Hanin Ghaddar, February 20, 2012 /Now Lebanon
When the Syrian National Council was formed, the Syrian people protesting
against the regime hailed it and gave it all the legitimacy it needed to claim
itself as the representative of the Syrian uprising. They called Friday, October
7, 2011 “The Friday of the Syrian National Council” and asked the international
community to endorse it.
Today, we sense bitterness from Syrian activists whenever the SNC is mentioned.
These activists—mainly those who are active on the ground, whether through the
Local Coordination Committees or the Free Syrian Army—feel that the SNC is
becoming a body that is obsessed with power rather than helping people inside
Syria. That is why, they believe, this council hasn’t received the international
recognition it has been promised.
In this context, Arab countries are encouraging the Syrian opposition to unite
before they formally recognize the SNC as a government-in-waiting. Rafik
Abdesslem, Foreign Minister of Tunisia, which is hosting a meeting on Syria next
week, said on Friday that there is a move toward supporting dialogue among the
different Syrian factions so that a national consensus is reached. “Then we
would have no objection to recognizing the SNC... I don't think this position is
specific to Tunisia, but one that includes Arab countries and many countries,"
he said at a news conference.
This week will be crucial in this regard. If the SNC shows genuine effort toward
uniting all opposition, inside and outside Syria, under its umbrella, then a
real move toward its recognition will come about in Tunisia later this week.
Of course, one must take into consideration that any opposition in Syria was
banished for 40 years. Organizing and reaching agreement on many critical issues
is a challenging process that should not be rushed or expected to reach a mature
stage in a matter of a few months. However, the dire humanitarian situation of
the people inside Syria should be enough for the SNC members to put their
personal differences aside and focus on the revolution and its demands.
For example, the fact that they extended the presidency of Burhan Ghalyoun
again, garnering intense media scrutiny, sends a negative message to the people
demonstrating in the streets, calling for democratic rule and at least expecting
it when it comes to their representative body.
The SNC was formed because of an international demand for an alternative rule in
Syria in the event of the regime’s fall. Originally, the SNC's job was to act on
the demands of the street, and they have been making a lot of fiery statements
about democracy, freedom and independence. Yet they suffer from serious
problems: they are fragmented, they are still not united over crucial issues
such as foreign intervention, they have no strategy, and they seem removed from
the pain and suffering of the people inside Syria.
For us Lebanese, this is déjà vu. We experienced the same disillusionment with
the March 14 political camp, which represented the street during the anti-Syrian
Independence Intifada in 2005. Because of their lack of strategy, ongoing
fragmentation and their complete ignorance of the people’s needs, they have lost
the Lebanese street. Because of the gap between the leaders’ statements and what
they can actually do, the people lost hope after watching their 2005 uprising
hijacked.
Within March 14, the gap between the street and its leaders is getting wider and
wider every day. The politicians have lost credibility, and they can only still
make fiery statements and get media attention because their main issues,
Hezbollah’s arms and the meddling of the Syrian regime in Lebanese affairs, are
still unresolved. After the Syrian uprising is over, there will be nothing for
them to complain about. The same goes for the SNC. Without a clear and unified
strategy, when President Bashar al-Assad is gone, they will be left with no
credibility on the ground.
The Syrian National Council is suffering from March 14 syndrome. The obsession
with power and media attention ruined their ability to stand up for the people,
who are the main reason the revolution still has momentum. Exactly like March
14, the SNC still cannot agree on what kind of state they want after Assad
leaves power. Minorities need guarantees. Alawites, like the Shia in Lebanon,
need guarantees. The secularists need guarantees. Without these guarantees and
without a clear strategy for a new Syria, and a new Lebanon, both March 14 and
the SNC will be struggling to regain trust from the people in the street. The
real problem is not our fear for them; it is our fear of whoever will fill the
gap. **Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW Lebanon.
Serious and respectable neutrality
Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon
February 20, 2012
Voices recently emerged in Lebanon calling for neutrality vis-à-vis the Syrian
crisis and its complications. However, neutrality here is no more than a call
for supporting the Damascus regime in Arab and international forums as well as
along the border and on the inside by making it easier to hunt down and hand
over Syrian refugees and by keeping silent on the violation of the border by the
Syrian army.
In other words, the requested neutrality is to abide by the same policy and to
take it even further by enacting punishment against those who harbor a different
opinion on the Syrian crisis. The “partisans of this kind of neutrality” seem to
be required to accept – and even participate in – military, security and
intelligence operations that serve the Baath regime. According to this logic, it
is also required that those who support the uprising do not express do not voice
their opinion publicly. Nevertheless, these tacky words, which cannot be taken
seriously, and this phony tradeoff serve a single purpose, i.e. reminding us
that neutrality is objective. Supporters of the Syrian regime claim to have
discovered today that Lebanon’s situation is sensitive, fragile and cannot bear
major expressions of partiality. However, this realization was stated seriously
and with a greater deal of seriousness and honesty decades ago. At the time, the
environment that traditionally supported “Lebanon’s Arabism” responded to such
calls merely by accusing those making them of treason and questioning their
motives. Yes, Lebanon is always in a sensitive and fragile situation. Its people
seldom agree on anything, and its geographical situation exposes it to the
importation of crises from any neighborhood, hence to an explosive situation.
According to this balanced vision, supporters of the Syrian regime are free to
keep their opinion to themselves or to say it out loud, and the same holds true
for those who support the uprising. However, if the same standard is to be
applied, those who wish to uphold the principle of animosity against Israel and
those who do not see any use in armed clashes with it may also keep their
opinions to themselves or say them out loud. At the end of the day, the
important thing is to agree on avoiding weapons, armament and the provision of
military and logistical services to any warring factions in the region, as this
would eventually lead the country into self-destruction. This is the neutrality
based on the famous Austrian formula, which is the only one that deserves to be
referred to as serious and respectable. This article is a translation of the
original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday February 20, 2012
New opinion: National waste of time
February 20, 2012
President Michel Sleiman feels he is overcoming the impasse by calling for the
resumption of a national dialogue to discuss the issue of who should and
shouldn’t carry the guns in Lebanon. (presidency.gov.lb)
President Michel Sleiman may feel he is overcoming the impasse by calling for
the resumption of a national dialogue to discuss the issue of who should and
shouldn’t carry the guns in Lebanon.
He has, after all, quite rightly identified that “there are three dimensions” to
the matter: those weapons in the Palestinian camps held by the various factions,
those held by all political parties in Lebanon’s towns and cities, and finally
Hezbollah’s massive arsenal, most of which is in the south of the country and
trained on Israel. The latter has been given a veneer of legitimacy by being
earmarked for inclusion in the oft-discussed national defense strategy, a
process that seeks to find ways “to benefit from Hezbollah’s arms, when to use
them and for what purpose.”
Who is Sleiman trying to kid? The national defense strategy is a chimera, a
function that allows the Party of God to maintain its weapons while appearing to
side with reason and debate. Does he honestly believe that Hezbollah would put
its weapons at the disposal of the state when they are the very stick that
allows it to beat the state whenever it feels like it?
In the wake of the 2000 Israeli withdrawal, there had been suggestions that the
party’s military know-how—personnel and materiel—could be absorbed under the
army’s command. But that was before Hezbollah showed its true thuggish colors on
the streets of Beirut in May 2008. That was before we realized it was just
another militia, albeit one that was better armed than most Arab countries.
There is no longer a need for a Resistance, and we must remove the myth and the
paranoia surrounding calls for its disarmament. Ask the person in the street if
Lebanon needs a private army to biff the Israelis and many will say yes simply
because there is a perception that without it the country would be swept away by
the combined tsunami of Israel’s military ambitions and the long-standing dream
of annexing Lebanon into a bigger Zionist empire. Others will see the
Hezbollah’s disarmament as a bid to disembowel Shia dignity.
Both are knee-jerk reactions. There is no evidence of Israeli expansionist
desires, save for the bogus “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a work that has
been debunked but which many in Lebanon cling to as proof that they live on the
edge of the abyss, while the threat of military action is actually higher as
long as Hezbollah remains armed, belligerent and threatening Israel’s northern
border. As for it being a slap in the face to the Shia, well this is clearly
nonsense. Those who see Hezbollah’s weapons as an expression of confessional
pride should remember that no sect should be above the state. Period.
A third, more moderate, school would argue that having an armed militia running
the show is not a perfect arrangement, but until the army is strong enough to
defend Lebanon’s borders, there is no alternative. It is a position that many
feel comfortable with because it does not fully endorse Hezbollah and at the
same time makes an implicit call to strengthen the army.
The reality is that they are simply kicking the proverbial can further down the
road. There will never be a concerted move to strengthen the army as long as
Hezbollah holds the reins of power in Lebanon. The party has never accepted
American offers of military aid for all the usual reasons, and now the Americans
are reluctant to give aid to a country run by what it sees, rightly or wrongly,
as a terror group. The only recent offer of aid has been from Iran, the country
that finances Hezbollah, which it sees as an extension of its armed forces. So
not much progress will be made there, one feels.
To quote Prime Minister Najib Mikati in 2006, Hezbollah’s armed wing is a
cancer, one that inhibits Lebanon’s progress as a genuine state with functioning
institutions and which will one day metastasize and plunge the country or the
region into war.
With the war drums beating over Iran, it may already be too late.