Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 22/12
Asharq Al-Awsat talks to Jesuit priest, Father Paolo Dall’Oglio expelled from Syria
Syria air defenses down Turkish military plane over Latakia
Report: Assad's inner circle plans defection if Syria unrest boils over
Annan: Iran should be part of Syria solution
Syria says 25 dead in massacre, Turkish plane missing
Pilot defection raises ante in Syria
All-women armed battalion forms in Homs
Syria rebels divided, at times violent
Russia warns against issuing ultimatums to Iran
Media demonize Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
Positive vibes at 'historic' meeting between March 14 Christians, Rai
March 14 Christians Claim Bridging Differences with al-Rahi
Lebanon sheikh warns of toy gun that allegedly insults prophet's wife
Sleiman meets European ministers, says National Dialogue on track
Libya wraps up probe into Sadr case
Clashes between two Haret Hreik families leave three wounded
Victims of Tripoli clashes sue Rifaat Eid for murder, terrorism
Abductee escapes kidnappers in east Lebanon
Aoun from Zahle: Alternatives in Syria Do Not Believe in Democracy
Report: No Military Decision to Boost Security Measures in Ain el-Hilweh
Saudi Denies Asking Citizens to Leave Lebanon by End of June

Syria air defenses down Turkish military plane over Latakia
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 22, 2012, The Turkish military reported Friday, June 22, that radar and radio contact was lost with a Turkish air force F-4 plane after it took off from Erhac Airport in the eastern province of Malatya while flying over the sea opposite the Turkish-Syrian border. The incident took place not far from the Syrian port of Latakia.
debkafile’s military sources report that Syrian anti air defenses shot the plane down in an ambush calculated to retaliate for the defection of the Syrian Air Force pilot Col. Hassan Maray al-Hamadeh to Jordan a day earlier with his MiG-21 warplane. Officials in Damascus are certain his defection was organized by US and Turkish intelligence.
DamPress and other Syrian news agencies reported at 16:00 local time Friday that two military aircraft infiltrated Syrian airspace over Latakia and broke the sound barrier while flying low in threatening formation. One was hit by Syrian anti-air fire and the second escaped. DamPress speculates that the intruders were either Turkish or Israeli. The Turkish press reported later that a search operation rescued the two pilots of the downed aircraft from the sea. The plane has not been found. Since Thursday, Syria’s entire air fleet has been grounded while its spy agencies screen flight personnel for more potential defectors.

March 14 Christians Claim Bridging Differences with al-Rahi
Naharnet/22 June 2012/The misunderstanding between some March 14 Christian officials and Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi has ended and talks between the two sides will continue, a delegation that visited the head of the church in Bkirki announced on Friday. “If there has been any summer cloud with Bkirki, then it has dissipated,” Phalange leader Amin Gemayel said after holding talks with al-Rahi along with the delegation that included MPs Butros Harb, Strida Geagea and Dori Shamoun, and former lawmakers Nayla Moawad, Fares Soaid, who is also the March 14 general-secretariat coordinator, and Camile Ziade.
Bishops Samir Mazloum and Boulos Sayyah also attended the meeting. Without detailing al-Rahi’s remarks on Hizbullah’s arsenal and the situation in Syria, Gemayel said his statements “could be built upon.”
While stressing the price that the Lebanese paid during the Syrian hegemony on Lebanon, the Phalange leader rejected any Lebanese interference in Syria’s internal affairs.
But said: “Neutrality does not mean remaining neutral in our principles or the Syrian actions in Lebanon.” He was referring to several security incidents on the Lebanese-Syrian border.“The meeting was very friendly and positive and we hope that it would set the stage for a new period during which we would meet on new principles that protect Lebanon,” he told reporters.
“It was necessary for us to agree on the principles and the meeting was fruitful in that regard,” the former president added.
Relations between al-Rahi and the opposition’s Christians deteriorated after the patriarch made several controversial statements on the Syrian revolution and Hizbullah’s arms.March 14 is a staunch supporter of the uprising in the neighboring country and calls for integrating Hizbullah’s arsenal in the state.“A misunderstanding took place between us and him in the past over statements he made,” said Harb, adding “today’s meeting will mark a new phase of relations.”Soaid, in his part, told reporters that there was no personal dispute between the opposition and the patriarch. He stressed, however, that March 14 has a clear stance from the local and regional developments.“The main reason for our visit today is that the country and the region are going through a delicate phase that could have repercussions on Lebanon,” the former MP said. “So it’s everyone’s responsibility to reach common grounds,” he added.  Geagea also said that al-Rahi heard all the delegation’s concerns which among others want to see the seat of the church above all conflicts and confrontations. The March 14 Christian officials are preparing a document that sets their stance from the controversial issues, the members of the delegation announced after they handed the patriarch a memo on their vision on the role of Bkirki and the future of Christians in Lebanon and the region. They said discussions with the head of the Maronite church will continue.
“There are some basic principles that we are not allowed to give up and we will meet Patriarch al-Rahi but away from the media spotlight,” said Moawad.

Positive vibes at 'historic' meeting between March 14 Christians, Rai
June 22, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel said Friday the meeting between Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai and senior Christian figures in the March 14 coalition paves the way for constructive dialogue, while Lebanese Forces MP Strida Geagea described it as a historic gathering. “Today the meeting was serious and very friendly and we hope that it will be the foundation of a new phase in which we achieve a consensus on the principles needed to protect Lebanon,” Gemayel told reporters after stepping out of the meeting before its conclusion.
He added that Friday’s gathering, which is widely seen as an ice-breaker following months of tension between the two sides, would open the door to a “constructive and friendly” dialogue among Christians, and described the rift between Bkirki and March 14 as a passing summer cloud.“We should all be in agreement on the means to extricate the country from its present quagmire,” Gemayel said. “We spoke about the issue of Hezbollah’s arms, as well as what is needed for national unity and sovereignty. As we know, national unity is threatened by the presence of Hezbollah’s arms.”
Relations between Rai and March 14 leaders have frayed since the patriarch made controversial statements on the popular uprisings sweeping the Arab world and defended Hezbollah’s arms.
In an interview with Reuters earlier this year, Rai warned that violence and bloodshed are turning the Arab Spring into a winter, and that the violence threatened Christians and Muslims alike across the Middle East. In response to Rai, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that he was opposed any patriarch who defends the Syrian regime and that such action endangers Christians in the region.
Although Geagea did not attend the meeting, his wife, MP Strida Geagea, did. She said the meeting was a historic one and welcomed the patriarch’s receptivity to the March 14 members’ points of view.
“This is a historic meeting and I was very surprised at how open [Rai] was,” Geagea told reporters.
“Amid the critical political phase the region is going through, the seat of the patriarchate in Bkirki should be above all conflicts and disputes,” she said.
Geagea also said that the delegation will be preparing a memorandum setting forth the stances of Christians regarding events in the region and Lebanon and that the document would be presented to Rai.
MP Butros Harb also spoke to reporters and said the meeting “turned the page of confusion and misunderstanding” between Bkirki and March 14 Christians.
“An atmosphere of honesty, objectivity, love and understanding prevailed at the gathering,” Harb said, adding that the event was a step in the interest of Christians in Lebanon.

When the dictator dies a footnote
June 21, 2012/By: Michael Young /The Daily Star
Did it really matter on Wednesday whether Hosni Mubarak was clinically dead, completely dead, or alive and dying in a suite at a military hospital in Maadi? The death of a dictator is a dramatic moment in the life of a country, and usually one of great duplicity.
Take the death of Syrian President Hafez Assad in June 2000. There were, of course, the requisite street weepers lamenting the departure of the all-embracing father. And yet the burial ceremonies were devoid of sentiment, of any genuine sense of loss. Thirty years of Baathist grayness bequeathed a mourning period of comparable grayness, interrupted by a brief yearning that the son might bring Syria color. But the pampered children of tyrants are usually tyrants themselves, and Bashar Assad has not disappointed in that regard.
Assad’s death reminded us of that of Joseph Stalin. Behind the frenzied sobbing was an unstated frisson of rebirth. When he died in 1953, the Soviet leader left behind a terrible feeling of emptiness, for having filled so much of the nation’s space during three decades of rule. But then many realized that it was not about space, but about oxygen – the oxygen that Stalin had sucked up from his own society; and with his death the population breathed more easily again.
Moammar Gadhafi was the rare Arab autocrat (Iraq’s Nuri al-Said was another) who did not die in his bed – an exception confirming the rule. The revenge he faced was terrible, but it was also unsatisfying. For societies wishing to transcend dictatorship, the ritual slaughter of the leader makes the deconstruction of the previous order much more difficult. How useful it would have been to see Gadhafi before a tribunal, disclosing the myriad networks and methods that kept him on top for so long, exposing those who had facilitated his dominance. Instead, Libyans were offered the sight of a decomposing corpse.
And yet Egypt’s version of authoritarianism was surprisingly subtle. For decades we imagined that Hosni Mubarak was the pharaoh. He was, but over and around him were the timeless mechanisms of the Egyptian state, there to serve the leader, but also to reject him when his hubris threatened to undermine the edifice as a whole.
Mubarak’s desire to hand over to his son Gamal was never going to succeed. Egyptians did not overthrow a dynasty in 1952 to bring another back in the second decade of the 21st century. When the people turned their rage on Mubarak in January 2011, the military considered its options. At stake were the armed forces’ vast interests in Egypt’s economy, but also their annual dividend from the United States. The president tried to maneuver and linger in office, but he failed. The generals gave him a shove and eventually put him on trial, allowing him to be sentenced. But they also had his sons and a bevy of intelligence chiefs declared innocent, avoiding too broad a discrediting of the political system they had so diligently upheld.
Dynastic succession is a way of cheating death, and one of the strange realities of absolute leaders is how tense is their relationship with death. For a long time Arab societies never mentioned death and illness when referring to their leaders. Gadhafi was obsessed with his health, and reportedly pursued eternal youth through various potions; Assad hid the fact that he was dying until the day he expired; Mubarak was no better, even as he increasingly resembled a wax doll in the months before stepping down; and senility was not enough to persuade Tunisia’s President Habib Bourghuiba to retire, until he was ousted by Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, part of whose legitimacy was initially based on the fact that he was young and spry.
A fundamental aspect of supreme power is the concealment of death. Death is the vulnerability that despots cannot afford to emphasize because it renders them human, and there has to be something supra-human in the imposition of absolute authority over the lives of others.
That is why the profoundest innovation of the Arab uprisings in the past year is that they have obliged despots to confront the reality of their own mortality. Gadhafi provoked a civil war whose logical finale was always going to be either his triumph or his physical elimination. Bashar Assad is marching in the same direction. From the moment Mubarak left the presidency, but opted to remain in Egypt, he knew that his demise would become a public concern, and therefore escape his control. Ben Ali and Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh may have fled in time, but the revitalizing nectar of power is no longer theirs.
Mubarak doesn’t seem to matter any more. As the Egyptian armed forces impose their writ, prompting mass protests from those who fear that the gains of 2011 are being reversed, the old man has become a footnote. Democracy requires much more than this to take hold, but one facet of a more democratic Egypt – or a Syria, Libya and Yemen – is when the death of a leader does not compel society to suddenly stop in its tracks in anticipation of an indefinite future.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Asharq Al-Awsat talks to Jesuit priest, Father Paolo Dall’Oglio expelled from Syria
22/06/2012/By Layal Abou Rahhal
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – Father Paolo Dall’Oglio was transferred from Damascus to Beirut after being expelled from Syria by the al-Assad regime. The Jesuit Priest had overseen the ancient Deir Mar Musa desert monastery in Syria for over 30 years; however his ongoing criticism of the violence being carried out by the al-Assad regime resulted in Damascus expelling him from the country. Father Dall’Oglio most recently invited the friends of young opposition filmmaker Bassel Shahade – who was killed in Homs in May by the al-Assad regime – to take part in a memorial prayer service at Deir Mar Musa, something that angered the al-Assad regime. The Catholic priest now finds himself secluded in a Jesuit monastery in Beirut, preparing for a trip to Iraqi Kurdistan, where he will head a new monastic mission concerned with promoting interfaith dialogue, after his time in Syria came to an abrupt end thanks to his outspoken views on the Syrian crisis.
In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Jesuit Father Paolo Dall’Oglio spoke about the situation in Syria and his time there. He revealed that “I am very sad, I may have left Syria…but my spirit remains there.” He added “the Syrian regime pressured the Church to expel me, and then took the initiative to quickly apply this decision and withdraw me from Syria.”
Speaking about the situation in Syria prior to the revolution, Father Dall’Oglio asserted that “the people of Syria lived under a pseudo-peace for dozens of years, where the prions were full and the torture rooms were in use and fear was rife. People were afraid to talk about the government, even in private.” He added “despite this, the people did not become accustomed to seeing blood in the streets or experience the prospect of not returning to their homes at night in safety, and this is what has been lost today in Syria in light of the revolution, civil war and general state of lawlessness.”
The Jesuit priest also stressed that “the Syrian people today are calling for freedom and democracy and dignity”, but added that “objective geo-political reasons relating to Syria make this prospect unlikely.”
He also spoke sadly about the “ongoing civil war in Syria, and the Sunni – Shiite conflict, as well as the international community failing to shoulder its responsibilities towards Syria” confirming that “Israel’s interests are also being served by what is happening, and all of this contributes to the whole-sale slaughter of the Syrian people.”
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat in Arabic, Father Paolo Dall’Oglio asked “what can we do in response to all this?”, answering “we must continue our civil and media work until God answers our prayers.”
As for the al-Assad regime’s claims that what is happening is not a popular uprising but the action of “armed gangs”, the Jesuit priest stressed that “this is a lie that would be laughable if its results were not so disastrous from a human rights standpoint. I personally know the Syrian youth; they are not committing violence or carrying arms, they are taking to the streets unarmed to call for freedom, but they are being viewed as enemies of the regime because they want to replace the bad with the good!” He also warned that “the longer the civil war goes on, the more intolerance, ignorance and lawlessness will occur on the scene.”Father Dall’Oglio’s recent visit to the city of al-Qusair in Homs further angered the al-Assad regime, prompting Damascus to step up its efforts to deport him from the country. As for why he visited the city, the priest revealed “I went to look for some people who have been detained and missing for months” adding “they had been returned to their homes.” He confirmed that al-Qusair had witnessed “sectarian violence”, but stressed that the majority of Syrian people reject “sectarian logic” with regards to the revolution.
The Jesuit priest also confirmed that “some Christians have joined the fighting and are fighting with the Free Syrian Army [FSA]” stressing that what is happening in Syria is a “civil war”
As for how many Christians are taking part in the revolution, Father Dall’Oglio stressed “the majority of Syrians are staying in their homes for fear of the violence taking place in the streets, and that includes the Christians.” He asked “who are the heroes that will take to the streets under fire, for this requires strong belief, whilst the Christians are used to being second-class citizens and supporters of the regime, so where will they get the determination to take to the streets?”
Father Dall’Oglio also expressed his sadness that the Church has “unfortunately, been used for decades as cover for the Syrian regime” adding that the leaders of the Church have “over the past decades, become used to supporting the regime, as it provides them with comfortable cover for their religious practices.”
He stressed “I am not blaming anyone, but I feel sorry for the people who are lying to themselves out of fear of spectres” adding “I pray for everybody who has been harmed or wronged, I ask for blessings for them and pray for change so that they can enjoy human life and dignity.”

Syria: Why “benign neglect” is wrong?
22/06/2012
By Amir Taheri/Asharq AlAwsat
Over the past few week a new group has joined the chorus of apologists for President Bashar al-Assad. It consists of Israeli and/or pro-Israel commentators in the West, especially the United States.
To be fair, almost all agree that the Assad regime is one of the most vicious produced by Arab despots in modern times.
And, yet, they insist that Western democracies have no interest in helping anti-Assad forces win power.
What they propose is a new version of “benign neglect”: Western democracies should sit back and wait for the struggle in Syria to run its course.
The party of “benign neglect” offers four arguments why Western democracies, and the US in particular, have no interest in regime change in Syria.
The first is that Assad’s demise would bring to power another regime hostile to Western interests.
The problem with this argument is that Syria already has a regime that is hostile to Western values and interests. Without comprehensive support from the Islamic Republic in Tehran and the neo-Cold War regime in Moscow, Assad would not last very long.
There was a time that the Syrian regime enjoyed a measure of independence that enabled it to maintain working relations with the West and Arab nations. That independence no longer exists. Anyone going through the Iranian media would quickly conclude that Syria’s strategic options are now determined in Tehran, not in Damascus.
The second argument is that if Assad falls his place could be taken by Islamists who would start persecuting Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities, especially the 1.8 million-strong Christian community.
There is, however, no evidence to back that assertion.
Syrian Christians are as active in the struggle for freedom as other communities. Furthermore, the popular uprising has developed its own leadership alongside and beyond traditional Islamist networks that had fought the Assad regime for decades. The experience of other “Arab Spring” countries shows that, at this moment in time, no Islamist party is capable of imposing a new dictatorship.
The third argument is that the Assad regime has served Israel’s security interests for decades and that a new regime in Damascus, especially if dominated by Islamists, might pose a threat to the Jewish state.
That argument is equally open to question.
To start with, none of the wars Israel fought against Arab neighbours was initiated by an Islamist regime. All were provoked by secular regimes dominated by the military. Even the two mini-wars in Lebanon and Gaza were not started by Hezbollah and Hamas, two Islamist groups, but by Israel. The three-decades long guerrilla war waged by Palestinians against Israel before the Oslo accord was conducted by leftist, often anti-religion, groups led by people like Yasser Arafat and George Habash.
Israel will never achieve its dream “security” unless it persuades its neighbours to accept it as part of their geopolitical habitat. Only regimes backed by their people could contemplate such an acceptance.
The whole thing looks even more problematic when we remember that the Assad regime is now beholden to Tehran where the leadership speaks of “wiping Israel off the map.”
In any case, claiming that the continued carnage of civilians in Syria is good for Israel could hardly be regarded as a compliment to the Jewish state.
The fourth argument is based on the respectable, but seldom respected, principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries.
That principle would make sense in the case of countries where the government is not at war against its own people.
In Syria’s case, foreign intervention is already taking place.
There is no evidence that Iranian troops are directly involved in the current fighting in Syria. But there is ample evidence that hundreds of Iranian military “advisors” are present in Syria to provide training in the use of materiel and help with command and control systems. Iran may have also despatched some of its Lebanese Hezbollah units to fight alongside pro-Assad elements in Syria.
More importantly, perhaps, Russia has just sent a naval task force to Tartus with plans to station hundreds of marines on Syrian soil in the name of protecting Russian citizens.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is evidence that fighters from several Arab countries, notably Iraq, may be involved in support of anti-Assad units.
None of these arguments are new.
What ties them together is the belief held by all imperial powers that their interests in the distant chunks of the empire are best served by minorities. Rome raised its legions from among Frankish and Germanic tribes on the fringes of the empire. The Ottomans recruited from among Alawite and Druze communities while letting Armenians and Jews handle their commerce. The British in India built armies with recruits from among Muslim and Sikh minorities, especially in Punjab and the Northwest Frontier. In Algeria, the French favoured the Kabyle, as troops and NCOs.
Today, however, the US and other Western democracies cannot operate as old imperial powers. They cannot claim that majority rule is good for them but bad for others. Why should Syrians be denied what Americans and Western Europeans regard as a human right?
To sit back and watch the massacre in Syria is morally wrong and politically absurd. Even in terms of Realpolitik it is self-defeating.

Is the Syrian regime emulating the Russians in Chechnya?
By Huda al Husseini/Asharq Alawsat
There are western concerns regarding what is continuing to transpire in the Arab world; however this is also accompanied by an insistence of not getting embroiled or shouldering the responsibilities regarding these issues. This is a hot potato that nobody wants to handle, whilst everything else is nothing more than empty statements.
During a closed-door meeting in London to discuss the Arab situation, this sense of abandonment was loud and clear. It was stated that the Arab world is full of unacceptable systems and weak societies, while Arab society is not able to put forward any leaders capable of dealing with the challenges of the 21st century as alternatives to these regimes. This is why when we look at Libya or Tunisia or Yemen or Egypt today we find that the situation on the ground is bad, if not worse than under the previous regime. Therefore we are facing a situation in which all the questions that led to the “Arab Spring” remain unanswered, or indeed have become even more complex. The most prominent example of this can be seen in the frustration of the Arab world’s educated youth who are now potentially facing an even worse situation following the Arab Spring!
Before discussing the situation in Egypt, those attending the closed-door meeting in London contemplated the situation in Syria. The analysis was as follows: anything that happens in Syria will be bad. The ongoing fighting in Syria will have a negatively impact the future of the country, namely a long legacy of mutual reprisals. There are also internal divisions within Syria, with some claiming that the Sunnis want to dominate rule, but there is no unified Sunni force.
But what is the alternative?
This is either for Bashar al-Assad to remain in power or for the Muslim Brotherhood – with Turkish support – to come to power or for chaos and violence in Syria to prevail, along with a legacy of deepening national divisions.
The negotiators believe that the only party capable of intervening in Syria is Turkey, because its intervention would not be viewed as “western” interference in Syria affairs, and would therefore be accepted. However the West would have preferred the intervention of a pre-Erdogan Turkey, whereas the intervention of Turkey today could lead to an even greater problem.
At this point, I asked: isn’t it true that the current situation is bad and is only getting worse?
The answer: “Yes, this is true; nobody is able to forcibly overthrow al-Assad in the near-future. The more realistic result would be a long-term conflict with al-Assad remaining in power, or a long-term conflict under unclear conditions where different factions are fighting over power.”
One of those who attended the London meeting informed me that there is presently Iranian and Hezbollah intervention in Syria; they are helping the al-Assad regime and even, in some cases, leading the killing against the revolutions, however the legacy of brutality in Syria will remain in place regardless of the result. He added “we have restarted old Syrian reprisals that will define the shape and nature of Syria for the forthcoming generation.”
As for Russia, a participant in the London meeting informed me that “the Russians are claiming that they have invested in this regime, and that they will not allow it to be toppled. Another major issue is that the US wants this regime to be ousted.” He added “I would not be able to understand Russia if I did not have past experiences with Iran. It is clear that it is not in Russia’s interests for Iran to become a nuclear power, however because Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that a nuclear Iran will be an even bigger problem for the US and Europe, he is protecting the Iranians. In fact, he is more hostile to America than concerned about Russia’s national interests.”
“If we look at Russia’s interests, it is clear that it is not in their interests to have a nuclear power as a neighbor, particularly if this state is a radical Islamic one. Moscow has reached an understanding with Tehran that Iran will not seek to incite the Muslim minority in southern Russia, and in return the Russians will protect the Iranian regime.”
“This is an excellent arrangement so long as Iran is not a nuclear power, however when Iran becomes a nuclear power, then the rules of the game will have changed, therefore the Russians are playing a very dangerous game, however experience has taught us that Putin is irresponsible.”
The Muslims in the former Soviet Union states are Sunnis, so why aren’t their fears that the some of the Arab states will incite them? The answer: because it does not serve the Arabs to do so, for these Arabs are concerned with the spread of Islamic teachings and madrassas which occasionally produces so-called terrorists, whereas these Arab governments are against terrorism. For its part, the Iranian government has supported terrorist organizations across the world.
I then asked: we have heard that the Russians have advised the Syrians to follow Moscow’s policy in Chechnya, when they burned the capital Grozny to the ground, namely the scorched earth policy. Is this true?
The answer: I do not believe that the Syrians need Russian advice; they have their own expertise and the advice of Iran and Hezbollah to fall back on. It is possible that they took the Russians advice, but we do not have any confirmed information on this, however we do have confirmed and solid information about the role being played by Iran and Hezbollah in Syria.
Another participant in the London meeting expressed his view that there will be a turning point during which Russia will be prepared to countenance the ouster of Bashar al-Assad, on the condition that he is replaced by an alternative figure who will preserve the regime, adding perhaps they will accept the preservation of the regime, but without the figurehead of Bashar al-Assad.
However is such a solution a good one? The answer: no solution in Syria will be a good one and satisfy all parties.
I then asked: what about the prospect of military intervention? Another figure who participated in the London meeting answered: if you were in the same position as America or Europe, you wouldn’t want to intervene either, but if you were Turkey you would have done so already. Look, intervention in Libya was easy; however the results of this intervention are questionable. If the West intervened in Syria, then their fighter jets will be hit, as the Syrians possess anti-aircraft weaponry, whilst it will also be very difficult to intervene in a manner that meets with the approval of Western public opinion, as well as the acceptance of the Syrian people. He added “from here, it is easy to understand the Western or American thinking regarding non-intervention, particularly as how does such intervention serve western interests? Is this to stop the killing? If a new figure comes to power, he will immediately kill his opponents…we will see a river of reprisals.”
The participants played down the chances of other neighboring countries becoming embroiled in the bloody Syrian quagmire, however they acknowledged that if the regime collapses in Syria “this will have a negative impact on Jordan, for two reasons: firstly, Jordan will be surrounded by radical Islamist regimes. Secondly, al-Assad’s ouster will demonstrate that even if the army is loyal to the regime, there is no way to avoid regime change in the end, and the radical Islamists in Jordan will be therefore empowered by what happened in Syria.”
However Egypt remains one of the most important Arab states, and the participants at the London meeting stressed that one of two things will most likely occur in Egypt. Egypt will either fall under the joint-control of the “Muslim Brotherhood” and the army, or the army will try – via the rulings of the high court – to take over command and control of the state, and at this point the Muslim Brotherhood will take to the streets and there will be division and conflict between the army and the Brotherhood. The participants stressed that the most important thing for Egypt is for there to be a pluralistic system, particularly as the people who launched the revolution have been defeated and failed to achieve anything, whilst in the absence to such a system, Egypt will be unable to deal with the challenges of the modern world. This would also represent an economic disaster, not just because one of the primary lifelines of the Egyptian economy is tourism, which has collapsed and will not soon recover, but also because there can be no economic reform and military development under such conditions, namely when the Brotherhood are working to Islamize Egyptian society at a grass-roots level, and this is the complete opposite of what Egypt needs, particularly if we are talking about real economic reform and development.
If Ahmed Shafiq is announced as the next president of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will take to the street, for the court has given them ample reason: namely granting Shafiq the right to stand for election and dissolving parliament. Whilst if Mursi should emerge victorious, then the Brotherhood will, no doubt, accept the dissolution of parliament.
However will the Egyptian army accept living under the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood? One participant at the London meeting said this will depend on the agreement that the army comes to with the Brotherhood, in the sense of reaching an agreement where the Brotherhood agrees not to touch the special economic privileges enjoyed by the Egyptian military institute – and includes two billion dollars [in military aid] from Washington – in return the army would allow the Brotherhood to Islamize Egyptian society. He added that “the Brotherhood could live with such an agreement.”
However, isn’t there a danger that with the Islamization of Egyptian society the Brotherhood will become stronger than the army? The participants ruled this out, but stressed that “this state of affairs will not alleviate the impact of the economic disaster. They [the Brotherhood] said that with the Arab Spring they want to adopt the Turkish [secular] model. However in Turkey, the military was the major protector of the secularist model, and this does not apply to the situation in the Arab world.”
This closed-door meeting in London did not provide us with a glimmer of hope for the future, but rater indicated that we can expect two-generations worth of crises to sweep the Arab world.

Report: Assad's inner circle plans defection if Syria unrest boils over
Senior regime officials have reportedly established contact with opposition groups and Western governments, while secretly moving funds into foreign bank accounts.
By Haaretz | Jun.22, 2012/Supporters of Syrian defector Colonel Hassan Hamada demonstrate outside the Syrian embassy in Amman on June 21, 2012. Photo by Reuters Text size Comments (0) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byHaaretz related tagsSyria Bashar Assad Arab Spring Senior Syrian government officials are quietly preparing plans to defect to the country's opposition in the event that a 15-month uprising in the country manages to destabilize the regime of President Bashar Assad, the British newspaper Daily Telegraph reported on Thursday.
“We are seeing members of Bashar Assad’s inner circle make plans to leave,” an unnamed senior U.S. official told the newspaper.
According to the report, members of the regime have also established contact with representatives of Western governments and begun moving large sums of money into foreign bank accounts in Lebanon and China. The report also quoted a senior member of the Syrian opposition, also unnamed, who confirmed that opposition groups were seeking American assistance in encouraging the defection of members of the regime. “I know for sure there are some high-ranking officers who are waiting for the right chance to defect," said the opposition member. “We have names of people in the presidential palace. There are rumors that there is one who is really close to the president and we are expecting to see him out of the country soon.”
On Thursday, a colonel in the Syrian air force, Hassan Merei al-Hamade, defected to Jordan. The colonel, a pilot, was sent on a mission to attack the southern Syrian city of Daraa, but instead landed his MiG 21 fighter jet in Jordan, where he was granted political asylum.
According to the Telegraph, three other pilots on the mission also considered defecting, but ultimately decided against it, fearing that they would be turned away by Jordanian authorities.
The Syrian air force is considered particularly loyal to the Assad regime, and defections from within its ranks could indicate that cracks are emerging within the military.