LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 13/12

Bible Quotation for today/Jesus Chooses the Twelve Apostles
Luke 06/12-19: "12 At that time Jesus went up a hill to pray and spent the whole night there praying to God. When day came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he named apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter) and his brother Andrew; James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,15 Matthew and Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon (who was called the Patriot), Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became the traitor. When Jesus had come down from the hill with the apostles, he stood on a level place with a large number of his disciples. A large crowd of people was there from all over Judea and from Jerusalem and from the coast cities of Tyre and Sidon; they had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those who were troubled by evil spirits also came and were healed. All the people tried to touch him, for power was going out from him and healing them all.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Silence religious figures/By: Hanin Ghaddar/Now Lebanon/June 12/12
Who will replace Assad/By: Smadar Peri/Ynetnews/June 12/12
Syria caught between two ministers/By Tariq Alhomayed/ Asharq Al-Awsat/June 12/12
Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood: A comparison/By Abdullah Al-Otaibi/Asharq Alawsat/June 12/12
Support the rebels not military intervention/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asdharq Alawsat/June 12/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 12/12
Obama speeds up limited air strike, no-fly zones preparations for Syria
Assad forces renew Homs assault
Bashar Assad's forces launch aerial assault on Syrian opposition strongholds
UN Monitors confirm Syrian helicopters fired on rebel strongholds
Helicopter Gunships Deployed as More Than 100 Dead in Syria
U.S. Exempts India, Six Others, From Iran Sanctions
U.K. makes $166 million UNRWA donation
Mubarak 'Defibrillated Twice after Heart Stops'
Rival Lebanese leaders agree to prevent strife
Lebanon's National Dialogue Rejects Buffer Zone with Syria, Urges Citizens against Turning to Arms to End Disputes
Geagea: Syria, Hezbollah undermine dialogue's expression of unity
Aoun Says Geagea Won't Reject Dialogue Resolutions
Barak: Israel worried Hezbollah could get Syrian weapons
Rival Lebanese leaders agree to halt Syria spillover
Lebanese rivals hold talks on Hezbollah's arms
Lebanon: A book about the "Italian" story of Tyres tomb
New pan-Arab TV satellite channel goes on air
Lebanon’s agricultural exports to Syria rise 17 percent
Lebanon seeks death penalty in killing of Syrian soldier
Syria set to release kidnapped Lebanese citizen
LBC Airs Leaked Minutes of Suleiman's Meetings with Saudi King,
Phalange: National Dialogue Must Pave Way to Restoring State’s Authority in Security Affairs
Jumblat: Strife is the Only Alternative to Dialogue
U.S. Hails National Dialogue, Urges Lebanese Foes to ‘Engage Constructively’
Lebanese Interpreter Arrested as ‘Accomplice’ in Alleged ICC Spying in Libya

Obama speeds up limited air strike, no-fly zones preparations for Syria
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 11, 2012/US President Barack Obama has ordered the US Navy and Air Force to accelerate preparations for a limited air offensive against the Assad regime and the imposition of no-fly zones over Syria, debkafile reports. Their mission will be to knock out Assad’s central regime and military command centers so as to shake regime stability and restrict Syrian army and air force activity for subduing rebel action and wreaking violence on civilian populations.
debkafile’s sources disclose that the US President decided on this step after hearing Russian officials stating repeatedly that “Moscow would support the departure of President Bashar al-Assad if Syrians agreed to it.” This position was interpreted as opening up two paths of action:
1. To go for Assad’s removal by stepping up arms supplies to the rebels and organizing their forces as a professional force able to take on the military units loyal to Assad. This process was already in evidence Friday, June 8, when for the first time a Syrian Free Army (which numbers some 600 men under arms) attacked a Syrian army battalion in Damascus. One of its targets was a bus carrying Russian specialists.
2. To select a group of high army officers who, under the pressure of the limited air offensive, would be ready to ease Assad out of power or stage a military coup to force him and his family to accept exile.
The US operation would be modulated according to the way political and military events unfolded.
Washington is not sure how Moscow would react aside from sharp condemnations or whether Russia would accept a process of regime change in Damascus and its replacement by military rule.
Who will replace Assad?

Who will replace Assad?
Smadar Peri /06.11.12/Ynetnews
Despite a Turkish and American behind-the-scenes effort to prepare Syrian opposition groups for the day after, the question of who will take power in Syria once President Bashar Assad falls remains without an answer.
The 24 organizations that currently comprise the Syrian National Council are split and face disputes, and according to some reports Syrian intelligence agencies managed to infiltrate them with “snitches,” alongside terrorists sent by al-Qaeda.
Op-ed: Condemnations of Assad meaningless as long as China, Russia and Iran think he’s legitimate
This is also the main reason behind the decision not to go ahead with international intervention or initiate a military operation that would topple Bashar Assad’s regime.
The bad experience accumulated in Iraq by the Americans, who appointed opposition leaders living in exile to key posts in Baghdad and dismantled the army and security apparatuses, served as an important lesson for all those involved in preparing the Syrian establishment for the day after Bashar.
The new leader of the rebels’ political arm, Abdel Basset Sida, has been living in Sweden for the past 25 years or so and specializes in research on ancient cultures. He is a founding member of the Syrian National Council and will continue to go from one decision maker to another in Europe and in the Arab world, yet his Kurdish roots will apparently prevent him from becoming Syria’s next leader.
Will colonel succeed Assad?
Meanwhile, the leaders of the rebels inside Syria who initiate the protests and violent clashes against security forces cannot afford to expose their identity. According to reports by foreign diplomats in Damascus, the day after Assad falls rebel leaders will object to appointments imposed from the outside and demand to take up key posts themselves.
Elsewhere, the chances of Colonel Riyad al-Asaad, a senior officer who quit his post as commander of combat unit in the Syrian military and fled to Istanbul where he formed the military wing of Assad’s foes, appear better. At this time, he operates from an office building in Istanbul, travels to Syrian refugee camps along the border, and sends money and arms to the rebels inside Syria.
However, the moment the revolution does takes place, al-Asaad may be surprised to find a group of senior defectors from the army and intelligence establishment rushing into the presidential palace and dividing key posts among its own members.

Syria caught between two ministers
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
Two striking comments about Syria were carried by the international media yesterday, one by the British Foreign Secretary and the other to the German Defense Minister. The statements came at opposite ends of the spectrum; the German one was more severe, while the British one was more realistic.
In an interview with Sky News, the British Foreign Secretary William Hague likened the situation in Syria to that of Bosnia in the 1990s, refusing to rule out the idea of military intervention. He said: “I think we don't know how things are going to develop. Syria is, as I said in the last couple of weeks, on the edge of a collapse or of a sectarian civil war so I don't think we can rule anything out”. He then added that Syria is “looking more like Bosnia in the 1990s, being on the edge of a sectarian conflict in which neighboring villages are attacking and killing each other”. Meanwhile, in an interview with the German newspaper “Die Tageszeitung”, the German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière said that he couldn’t stand it when “coffee shop intellectuals” around the world called for military intervention, without ever having to take responsibility for what this would involve. He added that he was concerned at these “brash” calls for the military, saying that such words from people who do not bear any responsibility raise expectations in places like Syria, and therefore also cause terrible disappointment at the same time.
These are two completely different points of view. The second that of the German Defense Minister discredits those who call for intervention to protect the Syrians from al-Assad’s killing machine, branding them as “coffee shop intellectuals”, whereas the British Foreign Secretary warns that Syria is on the verge of collapse and descent into a civil war, and that it resembles Bosnia in the 1990s.
What about the more than 40,000 people [alleged to have died] in Syria, the spread of a wave of kidnappings, and what about the massacres being committed there day after day? What about Syria as a whole being threatened with collapse, a scenario which would mean the outbreak of a wave of unprecedented sectarian conflict in the region, and then Iran, Hezbollah and the current Iraqi government intervening in Syria’s affairs, the response to which will certainly be an ugly one? After that, what would be the fate of the whole region, not only Syria? These are not the questions of coffee shop intellectuals, or people who do not bear any responsibility; these are questions that must be asked. Is it not the duty of the international community to protect civil peace in any country? To protect civilians from systematic killing? Or is it that this “protection” does not include the Syrians? This is a depressing and frustrating matter, especially when we see comments discrediting calls to protect civilians.
Here let us compare, for example, the stance of the German Defense Minister today to that of the former German Minister of Transport Christian Schwarz-Schilling during the Yugoslavia crisis. Schwarz-Schilling tendered his resignation in 1992, saying that he felt ashamed to belong to a government that was watching the Yugoslavia tragedy unfold without doing anything. He condemned all those who were standing by without intervening, at a time when thousands of people were dying. Were these sentiments the words of a coffee shop intellectual, especially considering that the international community went on to intervene in Yugoslavia, after it had hesitated in a similar manner to what we see today with its stance towards al-Assad’s crimes? Is the international community repeating the Yugoslavia mistakes with Syria today? This is truly regrettable.

Support the rebels not military intervention
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asdharq Alawsat
Henry Kissinger, who was the US Secretary of State over three decades ago, and is still one of the most influential leaders of public opinion there, has opposed calls to intervene [militarily] against the al-Assad regime in Syria. In his article for the Washington Post, Kissinger acknowledges that intervention and overthrowing the regime would be in favor of US strategic interests, in terms of encircling Iran, and consistent with the humanitarian need to stop the regime’s massacres against its own people, but despite this he did not support military intervention to overthrow the regime. His opinion is based on the principle that intervention – legally speaking – is wrong, on the grounds that what is happening in Syria is an internal affair, and that the Syrian people’s desire for a transition towards democracy is not a justification for America to intervene on their behalf. The question of intervention seems to have distorted US policy from its operating framework.
Kissinger also lists several dangers as justifications to refrain from intervention, such as the fact that the US is currently seeking to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so why get involved in Syria at the same time? America previously experimented and supported the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, who later on became a problem for them. Entering a country to overthrow a regime, when the alternative ruling system is largely unknown, is a dangerous adventure. Finally, the American public no longer has an appetite for any form of military intervention.
The importance of what Kissinger wrote, apart from being an echo of similar articles, lies in its timing. In the past few days the Obama administration was expected to announce its policy towards Syria, and we are waiting for the declaration of a policy that supports the Syrian people to overthrow the regime.
In response to what Kissinger said I will not discuss the concept of direct military intervention, because this is not required at this current stage, and it is hoped that the Syrians can be supported to defend themselves against the regime’s brutal forces. We know that support has reached the rebels, in terms of intelligence, financial aid and arms, but it is scarce.
Kissinger is right that it is not the job of the US to intervene in these countries and determine the nature of the ruling system, but he is wrong to regard Syria as a case of intervention under this pretext. Practically speaking the regime – as we know it – ended last year, and the kind of Syrian state that it ruled over for 40 years is no more. We are now talking about a failed regime, one that is semi-overthrown, and a country on the brink of civil war. Thus we expect all international parties concerned to cooperate in the management of the crisis so that it does not widen, and to help the Syrians choose the system that they want. The al-Assad regime itself knows that it is over, and it is trying to make final arrangements before it is buried. It wants to tear the country apart and turn it into another Somalia, whereas the rebels want to preserve the state as a whole. Thus, when we talk about the overthrow of al-Assad, this is not intervening in a stable country to carry out regime change, as Kissinger portrays in his article.
The reality is that all those interfering in Syria now are doing so for one purpose, including Russia, Iran and the Jihadists, and that is because they want to influence the phase after the fall of al-Assad. So why do we leave the Syrian people with an open table for these negative parties, whom the majority of the Syrian people do not agree with?
The regime confirmed its own fate when it chose a military solution, and absolutely refused a political solution. It failed when the demonstrations continued, military divisions began, the Free Syrian Army emerged, and the confrontations spread across the country. Now we see military operations in 70 percent of the country, and this means that the regime has lost its legitimacy and dominance.
We must support the Syrian rebels in order to achieve the following two objectives:
Firstly, in order to establish the authority and legitimacy of the known Syrian opposition, and reduce the chances of other suspicious opposition groups emerging. Do not forget that Iran used al-Qaeda against its Iraqi allies in Iraq, and the Lebanese in Lebanon before that, and it may be behind some of these groups in Syria as well.
The other objective of is to maintain the unity of Syria and pressure the rebels towards a greater degree of harmony, as well as to maintain the country’s institutions including the army and security services, and to ensure the stability of Syria and the region. These goals will serve the international community and the Syrians themselves before that, with all their components.
The other alternative would be the fragmentation of Syria, where everyone would lose out.

Bashar Assad's forces launch aerial assault on Syrian opposition strongholds
By The Associated Press and Jack Khoury | Jun.11, 2012
Birds fly over a destroyed minaret of a mosque at the northern town of Ariha, on the outskirts of Idlib, Syria, Sunday, June 10, 2012. Photo by AP Text size Comments (5) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byThe Associated Press Jack Khoury related tagsSyria Bashar Assad Benjamin Netanyahu related articlesNetanyahu: Assad slaughtering Syrian civilians with the aid of Iran, HezbollahBy Barak Ravid, Reuters and The Associated Press Jun.11,2012 | 5:26 PM | 23 Heavy gunfire in Syria's capital during weekendBy The Associated Press | Jun.11,2012 | 5:26 PM | 4 Syrian troops attacked a rebel-held town in the center of the country with helicopter gunships on Monday and shelled other restive areas across the country, activists said.
The aerial assault targeted the strategic river-crossing town of Rastan that has resisted repeated government offensives for months, they said.
Meanwhile, newly elected head of the Syrian opposition Abdel Basset Sayda responded on Monday to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer of aid to the Syrian people, saying “we are not counting on Israeli assistance and we don’t need it,” adding that there are enough countries that can offer aid. The attack is part of an escalation of violence in recent weeks, despite an internationally-brokered cease-fire that was supposed to go into effect on April 12 but never took hold. "The regime is now using helicopters more after its ground troops suffered major losses," said Rami Abdul-Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. "Dozens of vehicles have been destroyed or damaged" since the end of May, he added.
A Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, recently said that rebels are now using sophisticated anti-tank missiles. Videos posted by activists over the past week have shown many destroyed tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Observatory and the Local Coordination Committees also reported government shelling in the central provinces of Homs and Hama, the southern region of Daraa, the northern province of Aleppo, and suburbs of the capital Damascus and Deir el-Zour in the east.
The Observatory reported the deaths of four civilians and an army defector in shelling in the area of Ashara in Deir el-Zour, and said another eight unidentified bodies had been discovered nearby. It reported three dead in the Hama shelling. According to reports in Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Iran on Wednesday. Russia and Iran are Syrian President Bashar Assad's strongest allies. Moscow and Beijing have vetoed two Security Council resolutions that threatened possible sanctions against Syria. The ministry said in a statement that Russia is not playing the role of advocate for certain Middle East regimes. "We are speaking for the strict observance of the norms and principles of international law in the interest of supporting regional stability and security in the Near and Middle East and North Africa," it said. Syrian activists say the violence has claimed the lives of more than 13,000 people. On Sunday, activists said government shelling killed at least 38 people in the rebellious Homs district in the country's center. It was impossible to independently confirm the death toll. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Sunday that he could not rule out military intervention in Syria, saying the situation there is beginning to resemble the violence that gripped Bosnia in the 1990s.
Hague told Sky News television that time was "clearly running short" to implement international envoy Kofi Annan's cease-fire plan. It was supposed to take effect on April 12 but never took hold.
Hague said Syria was "on the edge of collapse or of a sectarian civil war so I don't think we can rule anything out." On Sunday, Netanyahu said that the Syrian regime is carrying out a massacre of civilians. "We see horrid pictures of children and the elderly," Netanyahu said during the weekly cabinet meeting. Netanyahu said that the massacre is not only carried out by the Syrian government, but is also aided by Iran and Hezbollah, and that "the world must see this axis of evil so everyone would understand in what world we live in."

U.S. Hails National Dialogue, Urges Lebanese Foes to ‘Engage Constructively’
Naharnet/11 June 2012/The United States welcomed on Monday all efforts exerted by Lebanese leaders to strengthen the national unity and stability in the country. “We encourage the participants in the national dialogue to engage constructively,” the U.S. embassy said via twitter. It stressed that the U.S. is committed to promoting Lebanon’s stability, sovereignty and independence. President Michel Suleiman headed all-party talks at the Baabda palace between Lebanese foes to restore calm in Lebanon after several security incidents in the country. However, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea refused to attend the national dialogue as he considered it “useless.”

Rival Lebanese leaders agree to prevent strife
June 12, 2012 01:30 AM By Hussein Dakroub, Hasan Lakkis The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Rival political leaders agreed Monday during their first National Dialogue session in over 18 months to commit themselves to dialogue and political, security and media pacification as well as avoid speeches that fuel sectarian incitement.
Apparently responding to growing local and foreign fears of a spillover of the 15-month-old turmoil in Syria into the country, they also pledged to work to bolster stability and civil peace in order to prevent Lebanon from sliding into sectarian strife.
However, the four-hour meeting chaired by President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace was marred by a heated debate between former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, head of the parliamentary Future bloc, and Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad after the former blamed Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s Hezbollah-controlled government for a series of deadly security incidents in the north and the proliferation of arms across the country, according to sources who attended the Dialogue session.
The spat also erupted after Raad, head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, renewed accusations that Siniora, while prime minister in 2005, had sought to bring in multinational troops to be deployed in south Lebanon, allegedly as a deterrent force against Hezbollah’s armed presence in the region, said the sources. This prompted Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt to intervene in defense of Siniora, rejecting Raad’s accusations, they added.
Sleiman had called for the resumption of National Dialogue, suspended for the past 18 months, in light of deadly sectarian clashes in the northern city of Tripoli that killed at least 25 people in incidents directly linked to the uprising in neighboring Syria.
In a statement issued after their meeting, the leaders from the Hezbollah-led March 8 bloc and the opposition March 14 coalition agreed on the need to control the increasingly tense Lebanese-Syrian border following a series of security incidents, and rejected the idea of a buffer zone between the two countries.
The statement said stability must be maintained along the shared border and that neither a “buffer zone” nor a “base or corridor for the smuggling of arms and gunmen” would be tolerated.
Syria has accused some Lebanese opposition parties of financing rebel forces and smuggling arms to them. For their part, the March 14 parties, which strongly support the Syrian uprising against President Bashar Assad, have repeatedly accused Damascus of violating the border with Lebanon and of launching attacks against Lebanese citizens and Syrian refugees alike. Several Lebanese have been killed or wounded by Syrian gunfire in border incidents.
The March 8 and March 14 leaders agreed to back the Lebanese Army both financially and morally as the guarantor of civil peace and national unity. They also agreed to devote efforts so the army and other legitimate security forces would carry out their duties in “emergency security incidents.”
The leaders affirmed commitment to the Taif Accord that ended the 1975-90 Civil War and promised to continue efforts to implement all its provisions. Any demand for developing or amending the Taif Accord would be considered in consensus among the parties and according to constitutional mechanisms, the statement said.
It added that the leaders agreed to “keep Lebanon away from the policy of regional and international conflicts and spare it the negative repercussions of regional tensions and crises.” The leaders also agreed to continue studying the means to implement decisions agreed upon at previous Dialogue sessions. These decisions include commitment to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the removal of Palestinian arms from outside the refugee camps and the demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian borders.
Monday’s Dialogue session was supposed to discuss a national defense strategy and how to benefit from Hezbollah’s arsenal and resolve the problem of the proliferation of arms in cities and towns outside the jurisdiction of the state as mentioned in Sleiman’s invitations to the leaders who met face-to-face for the first time since November 2010.
But a March 14 source who attended the Dialogue session said that Sleiman had promised the 16 leaders to discuss a defense strategy and the issue of arms at the next session set for June 25.
The source added that the impression inferred by March 14 leaders during the meeting had been that the Mikati government was staying in office. “Since the country is going through difficult circumstances, it is our duty to support [state] institutions,” he said.
The source did not say whether the March 14 parties would set terms for attending the next Dialogue session or demand the implementation of the coalition’s political memo they had presented to Sleiman, which calls, among other things, for the departure of Mikati’s Cabinet and the formation of a new government.
The statement issued by the rival leaders stressed the need for dialogue in order to maintain security and urged citizens not to resort to “arms and violence regardless of the concern they hold.”
It called on all political parties and intellectuals to avoid “fiery political speeches and media rhetoric that fuel sectarian and confessional incitement in order to achieve national unity and protect the country against external threats, particularly the danger posed by the Israeli enemy.”
Mikati said he felt confident of the results of the dialogue, hoping it would eventually lead to the withdrawal of arms from cities.
“If dialogue goes on as it is, it will constitute a major step that will lead us to the removal of arms from a number of Lebanese cities,” the prime minister said in an interview Monday night with new Beirut-based pan-Arab satellite television station Al-Mayadeen.
Participants in the Dialogue meeting described the atmosphere of the talks as positive. “Dialogue was very serious,” Speaker Nabih Berri told reporters following the meeting.
Mikati said that the “conciliatory scene” between the rival Lebanese leaders was “a positive message to the Lebanese abroad and a call on world states to translate their interest and concern [over Lebanon] in order to enable us to confront challenges.”
Siniora, who represented former Prime Minister Saad Hariri ’s Future bloc at the meeting, said: “Today’s Dialogue session was a step.”
Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun told reporters after the meeting: “The atmosphere during the Dialogue was very good. Agreement was reached on everything.”
However, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, a key March 14 figure, boycotted National Dialogue, arguing that the all-party talks were futile and unlikely to address the divisive issue of Hezbollah’s weapons.
Sleiman opened the National Dialogue session, underlining the importance of holding intra-Lebanese dialogue given the upheaval in Syria and the security incidents in north Lebanon.
“We are close to the brink of danger and slide. The situation is alarming. The international community is concerned, while Arab states are worried and have warned their nationals [against traveling to Lebanon],” Sleiman said. He added that his call for National Dialogue has gained a large Lebanese support, in addition to Arab and international backing.
For his part, Siniora, addressing the meeting, said that failure to implement decisions of previous Dialogue sessions would undermine the credibility of National Dialogue.
“One issue was left at the dialogue table to talk about. It is not a defense strategy but the resistance’s arms which led to the proliferation of other arms,” Siniora said. He added that Hezbollah’s arms were being used by pro-Syrian gunmen in Jabal Mohsen against their rivals in Bab al-Tabbaneh in Tripoli.
According to a statement released by Siniora’s office, Raad accused the Future Movement of smuggling arms into Syria, seeking to establish a buffer zone and preventing the Lebanese Army from deploying in the north.
However, Raad’s accusations were rejected by Siniora who said: “We are against any arms outside legitimacy. We are against arms smuggling into Syria, against the smuggling of arms into Lebanon too, and against the smuggling of gunmen. But we will not back off from our political position supporting the Syrian people’s demands.” He added that the Future Movement was not working to establish a buffer zone in the north.

Rival Lebanese leaders agree to halt Syria spillover
BEIRUT | Mon Jun 11, 2012/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Rival Lebanese politicians overcame deep divisions on Monday to agree at their first National Dialogue meeting in over 18 months to give the army financial resources to try to prevent violence in Syria from spilling over the border. The country has seen clashes between supporters and opponents of the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the border region has been used by rebels to smuggle arms into Syria and take refuge from Syrian troops. "(Leaders agreed to) support the army on both the moral and financial levels given that it is the only institution capable of preserving civil peace," said a statement issued by President Michel Suleiman, who called the meeting. Monday's statement said the 17 leaders had agreed on the need to "control the situation along the Lebanese-Syrian border and prevent the creation of a buffer zone in Lebanon or use Lebanon as a route, headquarters, or an area of smuggling arms or armed men". Lebanon's politicians are at odds with each other over the Syrian revolt, with Shi'ite Muslim Hezbollah supporting Assad and others the opposition. Most agree that Syria's crisis has the potential to destabilize Lebanon, which suffered 15 years of civil war. Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri first called for National Dialogue meetings in 2006, to dampen longstanding tensions between political parties. Previous National Dialogue sessions have been boycotted by party members over various domestic disputes, but only the head of the Christian Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, boycotted Monday's meeting, in a protest against Hezbollah holding weapons. The guerrilla group and political force, which is backed by Iran and Syria, is the only one of Lebanon's rival armed groups which did not lay down its arsenal when the civil war ended in 1990. The politicians will meet again on June 25 for the next session of the dialogue.

Lebanese rivals hold talks on Hezbollah's arms
Published June 11, 2012/Associated Press/BEIRUT – Rival Lebanese factions have resumed a national dialogue on defense that could eventually integrate the militant Hezbollah group's arsenal into the Lebanese regular army.Monday's meeting comes amid rising tension in Lebanon between pro- and anti-Syrian groups. Syria's crisis spilled over into Lebanon where nearly two dozen people have been killed over the past weeks. Hezbollah is a close ally of Damascus. The group's stockpile of weapons is a major source of division among Lebanese. Some say the group should disarm while others say the weapons are necessary to defend the country in case of an Israeli attack. The last round of national dialogue was held in November 2010. They broke then after Hezbollah walked out over a tribunal investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Geagea: Syria, Hezbollah undermine dialogue’s expression of unity
June 11, 2012 ظLebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea said on Sunday that the national dialogue session, scheduled to take place on Monday, was not an expression of national unity. “[National dialogue] is not an expression of national unity, therefore we are not taking part in it,” Geagea told Al-Jadeed television station, adding: “The statements of the leaders of Hezbollah are clear in that they do not want to discuss non-state weapons… this is not what can be considered national dialogue since the Syrian regime and Hezbollah are not ready to sit at the dialogue table.” The LF leader also commented on Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s call for establishing “a national constituent assembly.” “Calling for a national constituent assembly is usually made when there is no state or constitution, but for Hezbollah the state and the constitution do not exist, therefore [Nasrallah’s] call is very dangerous.” Earlier in June, Nasrallah called on President Michel Sleiman to form a new, enlarged “national constituent assembly” composed of experts selected by the Lebanese people instead of only hosting a national dialogue session, which was called for by the president to be held on June 11 at the Baabda Presidential Palace. Geagae also warned that Hezbollah will disrupt the upcoming parliamentary elections “because if the March 14 group wins [a majority in the parliament] it will form a new government alongside civil society, which will not be pleasing to Hezbollah.” The LF leader added that he will not present his candidacy for the next parliamentary elections, however in a reference to the presidential elections Geagea remarked that he “would do anything for the sake of our cause.” Geagea also commented on the situation in Tripoli where recent sectarian clashes linked with the crisis in Syria have taken place. “[I call] on the cabinet to convene and send a direct official order to the Lebanese army to intervene in Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh and undertake the withdrawal of all weapons [from the streets].”“If that is done we will all be supportive [of this stance], however the government will not take such a decision since the Syrian regime has decided to veto a similar decision in order to shift the Syrian crisis to the Lebanese scene,” he added. The LF leader also voiced hope that “civil war will not break out,” but warned that he is aware of “a state of deterioration [in the country].” Clashes in Tripoli between Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh left at least 14 people dead and more than 40 people injured last week. The mainly Sunni Bab al-Tabbaneh neighborhood and Jabal Mohsen, a mainly Alawite neighborhood supportive of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have been gripped by frequent fighting. The recent clashes reflect a split in Lebanon's political scene in which opposition parties back the revolt in Syria while the ruling coalition, led by Hezbollah, supports the Damascus regime.-NOW Lebanon

Lebanon seeks death penalty in killing of Syrian soldier
June 11, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Three Lebanese men accused of killing a Syrian solider during a border shootout last year will face the death penalty. Military Investigative Judge Imad al-Zein said in his indictment Monday that a death sentence would be sought against three Lebanese men from the Abu Jabal family in the Aug. 19, 2011 standoff with Syrian border guards in the Bekaa border area of Mashareeh al-Qaa.Zein referred the three to the military court. Judicial sources told The Daily Star the three suspects were arms smugglers and that two of them were brothers.

New pan-Arab TV satellite channel goes on air
By ZEINA KARAM, Associated Press
BEIRUT (AP) — A new pan-Arab TV station that went on the air Monday courts viewers who see mainstream coverage of the political upheaval sweeping the Middle East as biased against the regimes in Syria and Iran and their close ally in Lebanon, the powerful Shiite militant group Hezbollah. The Beirut-based station Al-Mayadeen, Arabic for The Squares, hopes to counter the influence of regional media heavyweights like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, both funded by oil-rich Sunni Gulf Arab countries that have backed the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad. It also promises to support the Palestinian cause and all forms of "resistance" — a term in Mideast parlance usually used to describe Hezbollah and other groups that fight Israel. Al-Mayadeen is headed by Ghassan bin Jiddo, a well-known Tunisian journalist who quit Qatar-based Al-Jazeera last year to protest what he contended was one-sided reporting in favor of the Syrian opposition. Since the Syrian revolt began 15 months ago, some Arabs have accused Al Jazeera of whipping up public opinion against Assad's regime and playing on sectarian tensions. "I am against any media that may deviate to the level of provocation, incitement and sedition," bin Jiddo has said of his resignation from Al-Jazeera. Bin Jiddo has pledged a balanced and professional approach at Al-Mayadeen, but his background has skeptics wondering whether the station will simply be a mouthpiece for Iran and Syria. Bin Jiddo used to lead Al-Jazeera's Beirut operations and was the only journalist who was granted an interview by Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.
"We do not speak in the name of Iran or the Syrian regime, we are a completely independent channel which reflects reality as it is," bin Jiddo said at a press conference in Beirut this week.
There has been much speculation over the source of funding for Al-Mayadeen, which employs about 300 workers. Bin Jiddo has denied it was receiving money from any country, saying it is funded by businessmen whose identities he would not disclose. Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, the two most viewed news stations in the Arab world, are funded respectively by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Syrian regime often refers to the two stations as the "incitement" channels or "death" channels.
The new station will also be competing with scores of other all-news Arab TV news channels, including BBC News Arabic and more recently, Sky News Arabia — all trying to draw viewers at a time of momentous political change in the Arab world. The Arab Spring uprisings that have swept the region since last year have polarized the media, with journalists accusing each other of taking sides. The split has highlighted a growing schism in the region. Sunni-led Gulf Arab countries are at odds with Shiite Iran and its ally Syria, and have called for international military intervention to oust Assad.
Many of Assad's supporters deny that he is facing a genuine popular uprising, saying the revolt is instead a conspiracy fomented by foreign countries seeking to topple the Syrian leader because of his support for anti-Israel groups. Syrian opposition groups say more than 13,000 people have died since the uprising started in March 2001. The revolt, which began as a largely peaceful movement, has morphed into an insurgency. A peace plan brokered by special envoy Kofi Annan has failed to end the violence.
On Monday, activists said dozens were killed as Syrian troops attacked a rebel-held town in central Syria with helicopter gunships and shelled other restive areas across the nation.
The new station led its Syria coverage with statements from both the opposition and Syria's state-run media. In a later program, the channel hosted Anis Nakash, a Lebanese pro-Iranian figure with a controversial past.Bin Jiddo said earlier that the new channel will champion Arab nationalism, primarily the Palestinian cause."We will fight sectarianism and stand against colonialism and foreign intervention," he said. "The station's compass will always be turned to Palestine and the resistance."The channel has attracted journalists from across the Arab world and even beyond. George Galloway, an outspoken former British lawmaker, will host a weekly program called "A Free Word." In the run up to the launch, billboards advertising Al-Mayadeen popped up across Lebanon with the words: "Reality as it is."
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Barak: Israel worried Hezbollah could get Syrian weapons
By JPOST.COM STAFF LAST UPDATED: 06/11/2012/Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday said Israel is closely watching developments in Syria due to the possibility of Damascus transferring advanced and non-conventional weapons to Hezbollah should Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime fall. "The moment the regime there falls, we'll be following these things, but at the end of the day it is very difficult to predict what will happen there," Barak told a group of youths performing national service. One does not need intelligence reports or analyses to see what is going on in Syria, Barak continued, "it is enough to watch television.""The Assad family is slaughtering its people, with the support of the Iranians and Hezbollah and the world is silent," the defense minister added

Lebanon: A book about the "Italian" story of Tyres tomb
Roman monument restored on Cooperation's initiative
(ANSAmed) - BEIRUT, 11 JUNE - From the day in May 1937 when it was discovered, to the day in 1939 when it was taken to the National Museum in Beirut; from the dark days of the civil war, when it was covered in water in the basement of the building hit by shelling, to the day of its rebirth, when its frescoes were brought back to their original splendour thanks to restoration works funded by the Italian Cooperation: this is the amazing story of Tyres' tomb, a tomb originally built nearby the same location in Southern Lebanon during the Roman Empire. The book about the tomb's adventurous story has been presented today by Lebanon's Minister of Culture, Gaby Layoun, and by the Italian Ambassador, Giuseppe Morabito.
The tomb (whose base is 6.30x5.40 mt. and whose maximum height at its highest top is 3.40 mt.) dates back to the Second century AD and used to belong to an aristocratic family that was never identified; the tomb contained approximately twenty skeletons when it was discovered by chance by a shepherd in the Burj el Shemali area. "In Tyres, where Rome left its indelible track, there are still several examples of Roman art; however, this is certainly one of the most spectacular monuments ever found out in Lebanon", Minister Layoun said.
The entire tomb, with its walls are covered in frescoes on Greek and Roman mythology and its locula underneath, was taken to Beirut before World War II by a team led by the English architect Henry Pearson. However, in the 15 years of Lebanon's civil war (1975-1990), the Museum ended up exactly on the "green line" of the front dividing East Beirut from West Beirut and was partially destroyed. The Tyres Tomb, which had been placed in the basement, was covered by water and, subsequently, frescoes were seriously damaged by dampness. In 2009, Lebanon's General Antiquities' Directorate asked the Italian Embassy to help it develop a restoration project, which was approved later the same year and received funds worth EUR 256,000 by the Italian Cooperation. Works were carried out during three stages of two months each under the management of Giorgio Capriotti, with the cooperation of Italian and Lebanese restorers. Restoration works literally "brought back to life" the frescoes, which portray several myths of the afterlife, from Achilles returning Hectors' body to his father Priam; from Pluto kidnapping Proserpina, to Hercules in its 12th labour, with his club and Cerberus on a leash. Restoration works were accompanied by a museographical project by architect Antonio Giammarusti, carried out in the area in front of the tomb's entrance in cooperation with the Museum's curator, Anne-Marie Maila Afeiche, a narration of the monument's story. "Tyres' Tomb art and its story," Ambassador Morabito said," are now here to be admired and respected. Our past is closer to us today and conveys a very important message both to us and to future generations: culture and art are the heritage of the whole human kind." (ANSAmed). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © Copyright ANSA

Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood: A comparison
By Abdullah Al-Otaibi/Asharq Alawsat
Throughout the centuries, history has been characterized by numerous discrepancies and contradictions, especially with regards to human behavior, whether individuals or groups, or states and empires. This behavior stemmed from instinctive motives that transformed over time into more complicated stimulants, taking on tribal, national, religious or sectarian aspects.
Alongside the movements and alterations of history, different means of interpreting and understanding it have come to the fore. These began as elementary approaches designed to maintain a sort of “knowledge balance”, and later on developed into independent sciences. These are the major social sciences that we know today, having branched out from philosophy, and they are still in the process of formation and evolution in line with human development.
Without trying to generalize too much, modern history indicates that movements of political Islam and their discourses are capable intellectually and organizationally of crossing political and sectarian divides with the aim of fulfilling the ultimate goal of securing power.
In the process of preparing for the Islamic revolution in Iran, theorists such as Ali Shariati seemed greatly influenced by some Arab religious reform movements, and we saw a significant degree of interaction between the two currents of political Islam, Sunni and Shiite. Here we can recall the role performed by Navvab Safavi and the influence exchanged between him and the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Ali al-Tantawi's memoirs. Furthermore, Talib al-Refa'ai, founder of the Iraqi Dawa Party, mediated extensively between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Shiite movements of political Islam, as evidenced in the work published by the researcher Dr. Rashid Al-Khayoun. Ruhollah Khomeini was strongly influenced by Abul Ala Maududi, who was also a great inspiration to Sayyed Qutb, as seen in his book "The Islamic Government". Following the Iranian revolution's success, Maududi then sought to be more like al-Khomeini as the exchange of influence continued.
The revolution against the Shah in Iran comprised a variety of liberals, left-wing parties, nationalists and religious groups. Yet following the success of the revolution, Khomeini managed to drive everyone else away and emerge victorious in all political conflicts, installing himself as the Supreme Guide in possession of all executive, legislative and judicial powers. Here it is important to recall what Iranian intellectual Mohsen Dicor said: "the Iranian revolution was not a religious Islamic one, rather it was a national one in which hundreds of people from the liberal current, the national front and the left-wing participated. None of those who participated in it, even the clergymen in the initial days following the revolution, expected to gain the upper hand in power." (Asharq Al-Awsat, 13th February 2009)
The Iranian Supreme Guide smartly used all tools of political struggle at the right historical moment. By prompting people to fear the return of the Shah regime and its remnants, the Guide managed to repress some of his opponents, and likewise he also exploited the successes of his adherent Islamic Republican Party in parliament, whereby he could use it to do anything he wanted. Later on, not only did Khomeini secure the power to draft a new constitution, but he also redrafted the very concept itself. In summary, he managed to ride all waves, slogans and trends until he was ultimately declared the Supreme Guide of the state at the expense of everyone else.
Here a comparison is emerging, for what is happening in Egypt today is similar in many ways to what happened yesterday in Iran. A keen observer would certainly notice that the Muslim Brotherhood are behaving in a similar manner; prompting people to fear the previous regime. Although the Brotherhood had stated earlier that they would not dominate the parliament, they subsequently secured the majority through their Freedom and Justice Party. They even sought to redraft the constitution on their own, yet the state of affairs in Egypt and its contemporary circumstances did not help them fulfill their objective. As a result, once again they tried to ride all available waves including the revolutionary youths, the losing candidates, and the nationalist and ideological trends. At a later stage, they will offer all kinds of interpretations and explanations regarding the concepts and slogans they have used to climb to the top.
The principles of the Iranian revolution, whether currents, concepts or ideas, were all shifted easily to the advantage of the Supreme Guide, and something similar is happening in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood are trying their best to invade the judicial authority and intervene in its affairs by all means possible. They are also seeking to infiltrate the army and win it over. If the news about their recent visits to Turkey to bring the Turkish experiment to Egypt is indeed correct – although the Brotherhood once rejected Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's statements about secularism, then perhaps the most significant thing they want to take from the Turkish experiment is its ability to neutralize the army. The Brotherhood have already begun to court the army by calling for a 400 percent increase in military salaries.
Abulhassan Banisadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in an interview with al-Jazira television, recalled that Khomeini had once asked his clergymen to encourage electoral fraud in their Friday sermons. Having told him that this was unacceptable, Khomeini replied that the people must not have power, this should rest with the Mullahs alone. Khomeini had come to power through the people in all their different guises, but he then turned his back on them. This went on to become the customary approach in Iran, as during the Green Revolution in 2009, Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei said that he "would not give in to the street."
The Shah, at the end of his era, wondered how all the country’s intellectuals, who were educated in Iran and abroad, could really support Khomeini. Was this really possible? Ehsan Naraghi answered him by suggesting that Khomeini had put himself forward as a symbol for all. (Ehsan Naraghi, From Palace to prison: Inside the Iranian Revolution, 1994)
Revolutions require symbols, and Khomeini was just that for the Iranian revolution. All currents were unanimous in their support for him before he managed to eliminate them all from power. In Egypt, however, all the protests and demonstrations lack a political symbol with the charisma of a leader, and a comprehensive vision of the true state of affairs and the future. This confusion has produced a presidential battle a between a former military figure who once served as a minister [Ahmed Shafik], and a Muslim Brotherhood candidate who adopts a religious trend [Mohammed Mursi], even if he calls it a “civil state with an Islamic frame of reference”.
Some historical experiences can repeat themselves one way or another. The existence of similarities, when so close, ultimately gives way to comparisons, and an understanding of the past helps towards exploring the future.
Whoever the presidential winner in Egypt is, he will face great challenges in building the state and relations with the countries of the region and the world. He will have to face difficult situations and take bitter and unpopular decisions.

Silence religious figures
Hanin Ghaddar , June 11, 2012/Now Lebanon
Salafist sheikh Daiyat al-Islam al-Shahhal during an anti-Syrian regime protest in Tripoli. Religious leaders should stop fomenting sectarian anger in Lebanon and Syria. (AFP photo)
It seems Lebanon these days is being led by religious figures. Maybe it is time for men of religion to step aside. Maybe it is time for them to do nothing but pray in closed rooms, where no cameras and microphones can enter. They should not be allowed to speak in public if more than five people are present. It is time for all of them, without exception—in Lebanon and the region—to just shut up, at least until we build our immunity against sectarianism.
On Sunday, gunmen abducted four Syrian Alawites and a Shia man after a Lebanese Sunni was kidnapped in Akkar. Residents of Wadi Khaled blocked roads and burned tires to protest against the abduction of the Lebanese national.
Sunday’s kidnapping is one of a string of recent abductions of Lebanese and Syrians in North Lebanon, which hosts thousands of refugees coming mostly from Sunni towns in Syria, simply because the Syrian regime is shelling Sunni-populated areas.
This tension did not happen overnight and will not disappear swiftly. And instead of calming down the sectarian rhetoric that is only harming both sides, religious institutions are the first to jump on the sectarian bandwagon and ignite anger against the “other.”
This will only escalate.
Sheikh Adnan Arour, a Sunni cleric who fled Syria in the eighties, now wages a sectarian campaign against President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite sect from Saudi Arabia. Despite his decreasing popularity, his aggressive statements against Alawites only trigger more sectarian animosity that is spreading into Lebanon. For example, he said last summer that “the Syrian rebels will chop the Alawites who opposed the revolution and feed their flesh to the dogs.”
Later that summer, Egyptian Sunni preacher Sheikh Mohammad Al Zughbey called on the Syrian people to murder the Assad family and all Alawites on a Saudi satellite TV station because they are "agents of the Jews."
These statements do nothing but harm the revolution and help Assad discredit it by raising Syrian minorities’ fears.
Lebanese clerics are not helping either. Saida-based Salafist Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir said during a protest held in Tripoli last month following the arrest of Shadi al-Mawlawi that “the Sunni sect is being taken for granted... We do not accept being [discriminated] against while others are being privileged.”
Other Sunni clerics in Tripoli are using the same rhetoric, calling on Sunnis in Lebanon to unite against the Alawites and Shia. This rhetoric has spread to the streets, social media and people’s everyday talk.
Whether taking advantage of the Syrian uprising or of Sunni leader Saad Hariri’s absence, these Islamists are adding fuel to the sectarian fire in both countries.
On the other hand, the Shia in Lebanon are being pushed to the front by another religious party, Hezbollah, and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. By supporting Assad against his people without the slightest sympathy for his victims, it looks as if the Lebanese Shia are siding with the Alawites against the Sunnis, which is exactly how Assad wants it.
On the Christians side, Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai has many times expressed his fears of the rise of radical Sunni groups if the regime in Damascus falls. When he should have been reassuring Syrian Christians, all he did was keep them closer to Assad’s regime.
The more these religious figures talk, the worse sectarian tension becomes. If the revolution were left to civil, secular groups, it would have more credibility, and more minorities would have joined as they would have had little to fear. If religious leaders in Lebanon would have stayed above the fray, Lebanon would have avoided recent clashes, and fewer innocent people would have been killed.
Atrocities have been made in the name of religion or God for centuries, and no one seems to have learned the lesson. Religious figures should stop talking politics and interfering in our everyday lives. The Syrian and Lebanese people would be better off without them, and women in both countries would certainly be in a better situation.
If we could silence them, most of our problems would be solved, from political power-sharing to the electoral law. We could have a healthy civil society with a strong civil law, one that all religious institutions oppose.
To break them, we should start a new kind of revolution, one against our religious institutions and leaders; a revolution against ourselves in order for us to become real citizens. The moment we separate our state institutions from the religious ones, we can start building our country. Otherwise, we will keep hearing provocative sectarian rhetoric that will eventually destroy us, yet again.
**Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW Lebanon. She tweets @haningdr