LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 27/12

Bible Quotation for today/

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
What Morsi's Win Means for Egypt/Council on Foreign Relations/June 26/12
Morsi's Victory in Egypt: Early Implications for America and the Broader Middle East/Robert Satloff/Washington Institute/June 26/12
Egypt: Fasten your seatbelts/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 26/12
A historic but uncertain day/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/June 26/12
No to Arab fighters in Syria/By Dr. Hamad Al-Majid/Asharq Alawsat/June 26/12
Coptic Solidarity Hosts Policy Conference on Egypt//PRNewswire/June 26/12

Land dispute involving church reignites in Lassa
June 26, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A land dispute reignited in the Jbeil town of Lassa Monday, as local residents tried to resume construction on disputed property in violation of a decision by Mount Lebanon’s general prosecutor.
Andre Bassil, the lawyer of Jounieh’s Maronite diocese, which maintains it owns the land, told the Central News Agency that locals gathered around the lot and a number of vehicles began to lay asphalt.
“Security forces intervened, assisted by the Army, but were only able to prevent the violation after a long time,” he said. Last summer, locals from predominantly Shiite Lassa accosted a delegation from the Maronite Patriarchate, accompanied by topographical professionals, who were surveying Lot 42 belonging to Jounieh’s Maronite diocese, in line with a judicial order. The delegation’s visit came following news that illegal structures were being built on the diocese’s property, and residents prevented the delegation from carrying out its work. A TV crew was also assaulted several days earlier. Father Chamoun Aoun, who is in charge of the Maronite diocese’s endowment in Lassa, accused the town’s mayor, Issam Miqdad, of ordering the workers to resume construction on the land. “The mayor, who is responsible for respecting the law, is violating the lands of the church,” Aoun told a local TV, calling on officials to take relevant measures to put an end to the alleged violations committed by Miqdad. “They began work on the lot 20 days ago, so we filed a lawsuit and the general prosecutor gave his instructions and informed security forces which in turn informed the municipality,” he said, adding that he was surprised by Miqdad’s decision. Mount Lebanon General Prosecutor Dany Sharabey ordered that work be stopped on the land until a judicial decision resolves the dispute. Bassil expressed regret that the judiciary’s decision was not respected, adding that the Maronite diocese has presented documents to the judiciary to prove its ownership.

Sleiman to pitch defense strategy at July Dialogue
June 26, 2012/By Wassim Mroueh, Nafez Kawas The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Political leaders called on the government during a National Dialogue session Monday to set up a mechanism for disarming Palestinian groups outside refugee camps and agreed to discuss a platform for a national defense strategy to be presented by President Michel Sleiman in July. In a statement issued after a nearly four-hour session convened by Sleiman at Baabda Palace, attendees “called on the government to continue implementing the decisions of the National Pact written in Taif and Dialogue decisions related to the Palestinians.” Attendees called on the government to establish a mechanism to enact the decisions and to form committees to address the socio-economic needs of Palestinian refugees in cooperation with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency and to remove arms outside refugee camps.
They also stressed the need to commit to the statement issued after the previous Dialogue session on June 11, which called for avoiding divisive speeches and rhetoric that fuels sectarian strife, supporting the Army, distancing Lebanon from international and regional conflicts and preventing it from being a base or corridor for the smuggling of arms and gunmen.
The 14 leaders and politicians attending the session agreed to tackle a proposal to be presented by Sleiman in the upcoming Dialogue session on July 24 as a platform for launching discussions on a national defense strategy.
“There is a paper which was forwarded to the president by groups that are not represented in National Dialogue ... it has a number of items that caught the attention of the president and will be a platform to start discussing a defense strategy,” a source close to Baabda Palace who attended the session told The Daily Star.
The source said that all participants in the session presented their opinion on the national defense strategy, adding that the atmosphere was calm.
During the session, Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora called for implementing decisions agreed upon during previous sessions and for resolving “the problem of Hezbollah’s arms.”
The head of the Future parliamentary bloc called for laying down “a road map and a schedule that leads to putting these arms exclusively under the authority of the Lebanese state.”
He also urged the formation of a national salvation government, whose ministers would belong to neither the March 8 nor the March 14 camps, with the aim of restoring confidence in the government among the Lebanese. The Cabinet, he said, must address mounting socio-economic, security, national and administrative problems, draft an election law for the 2013 parliamentary elections and supervise the polls and distance Lebanon from regional and international conflicts. When some leaders raised the issue of the continued occupation of Shebaa Farms, Siniora said that Israel, the Syrian regime and some Lebanese groups worked against a solution leading to its liberation in order to exploit the issue whenever it suits their interests.
He said that an agreement to demarcate the territory’s borders, reached during previous Dialogue sessions, was not implemented.
A Future Movement source told The Daily Star that postponing the upcoming session until July 24 is aimed at buying time for the March 8 coalition.
“The country will be in vacation, there will be no new political initiatives until July 24,” he said.He said that all Dialogue participants are waiting for the paper to be presented by Sleiman before taking a stance.
Beirut MP Jean Ogassapian, who took part in the talks, told The Daily Star that the session was calm, but said all groups stuck to their stances regarding the national defense strategy.
Ogassapian said it was clear that Hezbollah is not ready to hand over its arms to the state and the party maintains that the resistance is still necessary, as Israel still has hostile intentions toward Lebanon.
Despite the claims by politicians that the session was calm, sources told The Daily Star that a heated argument broke out between Siniora and Raad over Hezbollah’s arms, when the former premier argued that weapons were no longer useful following the liberation of the bulk of south Lebanon in May 2000. Speaker Nabih Berri intervened, saying that the resistance’s arms are still necessary because Israel is still seeking to steal Lebanon’s offshore oil wealth. Unlike the previous session, Deputy-Speaker Farid Makari, who is outside the country, did not attend the session and Finance Minister Mohammad Safadi was unable to attend for a second time due to illness. Sejaan Qazzi, the second deputy-head of the Kataeb (Phalange) Party, said that the dialogue session was successful in form and content.
“In form, the dialogue was calm,” he told The Daily Star. “As for content, for the first time, Hezbollah agrees to discuss its arms, something it has rejected since 2006 ... it started to justify [Monday] why it clings to its arms.” – With additional reporting by Hasan Lakkis

Unknown Gunmen Attack al-Jadeed TV with Gunfire, Firebombs
Naharnet/ 25 June 2012/Unknown gunmen on Monday attacked al-Jadeed television’s headquarters in the Beirut neighborhood of Wata el-Msaytbeh, opening fire on the building, hurling Molotov bombs and setting fire to tires.“Masked attackers assaulted the employees and burned tires after trying to storm the building,” al-Jadeed news director Mariam al-Bassam told MTV. “Four masked gunmen opened fire outside al-Jadeed's building and hurled Molotov bombs that caused a fire in the building's entrance,” reported LBC television. The Internal Security Forces’ Intelligence Bureau managed to arrest one of the attackers, identifying him as Wissam Alaeddine. “According to preliminary investigations, Wissam Alaeddine, who has been arrested for attacking al-Jadeed television, has a criminal record,” al-Jadeed reported. Al-Jadeed said Speaker Nabih Berri telephoned the channel, condemning the attack and stressing that Alaeddine is not a member of AMAL Movement. Speaking to reporters outside al-Jadeed’s building, Interior Minister Marwan Charbel said “Wissam Alaeddine has a criminal record and he has recently been engaged in a spat with army intelligence agents.” Charbel vowed to arrest the rest of the attackers.For his part, Information Minister Walid al-Daouq condemned the attack during a telephone interview with al-Jadeed, calling on the judiciary to take the relevant measures.

Is Syria giving Scuds to Hezbollah?
June 26, 2012/By Nicholas Blanford /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Is Hezbollah set to acquire Scud ballistic missiles as a consequence of the worsening security situation in Syria?
According to recent Israeli media reports, Israel’s military officials are fretting that the turmoil in Syria and the slowly improving capabilities of the armed opposition could compel the Syrian authorities to place some of its ballistic missile arsenal under Hezbollah’s protection. The speculation has swirled with a video clip uploaded to YouTube on June 14 showing a convoy of military vehicles, including four Scud transporters carrying missiles, driving along a road purportedly in the area of Damascus.
The allegations that Hezbollah may have acquired control of Scud missiles first surfaced in April 2010, although there were conflicting reports as to whether any missiles had actually entered Lebanon.
But the escalating violence in Syria has renewed interest in the fate of Syria’s stockpile of ballistic missiles, as well as its suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.
A unit of Free Syrian Army rebels earlier this month briefly seized a military base near Al-Ghantou in the Homs province. Video footage taken by the fighters showed several SA-2 anti-aircraft missiles on their launchers out in the open. A subsequent counterattack by regular Syrian troops forced the rebels to withdraw, but the inference was clear: Syrian military bases – and the weapons contained within – are no longer necessarily secure from the reach of the armed opposition.
The FSA may have little need for advanced long-range air defense systems or ballistic missiles, but the potential vulnerability of some military bases appears to have compelled the Syrian authorities to begin making contingency plans. According to diplomatic sources, increased activity has been detected at Syrian military facilities where Scud missiles are stored, including the movement of rockets, the construction of new underground bunkers and the expansion of existing facilities.
The diplomatic sources assess that the activity is a sign that the Assad regime is attempting to safeguard its ballistic missiles to prevent them falling into the hands of the armed opposition.
The hills either side of the highway linking Damascus to Homs contain numerous underground military bases. Some of them, such as those near Adra, Dumayr, and between Al-Qastal and An-Nasriyah, are suspected missile storage and launch sites. The protected entrances to the underground tunnels are clearly visible on satellite images carried by the Google Earth portal. Another underground facility appears to be under construction 10 kilometers southwest of Al-Qastal with at least six new tunnel entrances.
Israel says it regards Hezbollah’s acquisition of Scuds – along with advanced air defense systems – as a “red line” which would require a military response.
Nonetheless, it is uncertain whether Israel would risk triggering a new war with Hezbollah for the sake of attempting to knock out a handful of Scud missiles, assuming the Israelis can locate the storage sites in the first place or catch the Scud convoys on the move.
In some respects, Israel has been facing this quandary since 2000 when Hezbollah first began acquiring rockets larger than the extended range 122mm Katyushas it used in the 1990s during the Israeli occupation of the south. First, it was the Iranian Fajr family of rockets which increased Hezbollah’s reach from about 30 to 70 kilometers. Around 2002, Hezbollah received Zelzal-1 and Zelzal-2 610mm rockets, the latter having a range of 189 kilometers.
With the arrival in Lebanon of each new and larger rocket system, the Israelis had to assess whether to do something about it. Attacking suspected storage sites containing the missiles may have dented Hezbollah’s offensive options, but it also could have triggered a war that neither side wanted. That was the “balance of terror” that helped maintain a tense calm along the Lebanon-Israel border between 2000 and 2006.
The “balance of terror” is fundamentally the same today as before 2006, although the stakes are considerably higher. Today, Hezbollah has M600 guided ballistic missiles which, although of shorter range than Scuds, could still take down targets in Tel Aviv.
If Hezbollah is spotted attempting to smuggle Scud missiles into Lebanon, would the Israelis act on their “red line” principle and launch airstrikes to destroy them?
Such a step could be the catalyst for the long-awaited “next round” between
these enemies, one that assuredly would be devastating for Lebanon but would also wreak the greatest level of destruction on the Israeli home front since 1948.
Hezbollah’s leadership regularly boasts that nowhere in Israel is beyond the reach of its rocket arsenal, which certainly would be true if it has acquired Scud-D missiles. The Scud-D has a range of 700 kilometers which means Hezbollah could launch one from Lebanon’s northern border and hit a target in southern Israel.
Still, it is not entirely clear whether Hezbollah would seek to add Scuds to its inventory. Smuggling 12.5-meter-long Scud-Ds and their even larger dedicated Transporter-Erector-Launcher vehicles into Lebanon is a formidable logistical undertaking, even for Hezbollah which has had three decades to perfect its skills in clandestine cross-border arms transfers.
Furthermore, unlike Hezbollah’s arsenal of solid-fueled artillery rockets which can be quickly set up and fired, Scuds are liquid-fueled which entails a complicated and lengthy launch preparation procedure leaving the batteries vulnerable to being spotted and attacked by Israeli aircraft in a time of war.
Even the advantage of the Scud’s range may be a case of overkill for Hezbollah when one considers that there are few strategic targets south of Tel Aviv that might justify the tiresome logistics of employing the missiles in the first place.
Israel appears to have assessed that although Hezbollah has acquired control over some Scuds, it does not intend to deploy them in Lebanon until the outbreak of a war so as to avoid a pre-emptive strike.
However, wartime is exactly when the cross-border convoys would be at their most vulnerable with Lebanese skies awash with Israeli jets and pilotless drones hunting for targets. Perhaps, in fact, Hezbollah never intended to bring the Scuds (assuming for a moment they want them in the first place) into Lebanon anyway.
One way of overcoming the risks of a cross-border arms transfer and the logistical difficulties in building secret camouflaged underground bunkers in Lebanon large enough to house the missiles and their TELS is to launch them from inside Syria. There are several areas just inside Syria’s border with Lebanon which provide secure and easy access for Hezbollah (at least before the uprising against Assad’s rule) where small discrete launch sites could be constructed for possible use under Hezbollah’s command and control during a war with Israel.

Gunmen menace Beirut streets
June 26, 2012 02:09 AM The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Masked men closed several Beirut roads with burning tires late Monday after the arrest of a suspect in an earlier attack on Al-Jadeed television station in which a group of gunmen set fire to its entrance and shot at the building. Groups of men clashed with the Army and destroyed cars and set tires on fire on Bshara al-Khoury Avenue near Downtown Beirut, with dark smoke rising into the night sky and the sounds of gunshots echoing across the heart of the capital.
The gunmen were said to be protesting the arrest of Wissam Alaaeddine, who was apprehended in the attack on the premises of Al-Jadeed TV.
The political affiliation of Alaaeddine was not immediately known, although several political groups, including the Amal Movement denied any connection to him.
Gunmen in a car fired shots at the Concorde Center in Verdun, which houses the Al-Akhbar newspaper, Al-Jadeed reported.
Angry men also closed roads with burning tires in the Beirut neighborhoods of Ring, Hawd al-Wilaya, Aisha Bakkar and Hamra, witnessess said.
Also, the Army made a series of arrests in the Bshara Khoury and Verdun areas Monday night, according to media reports.
Security footage from Al-Jadeed TV in Moseitbeh showed several masked men entering the area outside Al-Jadeed with tires and fuel canisters.
Liquid was poured over the cement entrance area and around the tires and set ablaze in a massive fireball that schorched some of the attackers.
The station reported that the attackers also fired shots at the building, damaging its interior.
Security footage from the station showed one of the likely attackers fleeing down the street with one of his feet on fire. Alaaeddine was apprehended after the incident by the guards of the Progressive Socialist Party Headquarters nearby.
The station’s coverage showed Alaaeddine being roughed up by people outside Al-Jadeed before being handed over to the Internal Security Forces and Army Information Branch.
President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Speaker Nabih Berri and politicians from across the spectrum contacted Al-Jadeed to voice their concern over the attack.
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, who announced this week that the Lebanese Army and police are set to begin in July a monthlong crackdown across Lebanon with the aim of arresting people with outstanding warrants and bolstering security, condemned the attack on Al-Jadeed, saying the perpetrators would not enjoy political cover. “This street where the station is was never protected by security forces; they didn’t give importance to the fact that there is a station of significance on the street,” Maryam al-Bassam Fadlallah, director of news programs at New TV, said in an interview with a local television station.
New TV hosted an interview Sunday with controversial Sidon Shekih Ahmad Assir, who made threats against Berri and Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah which many considered sectarian attacks. Assir’s remarks prompted the channel to apologize for the interview being aired.
Lebanon has witnessed a string of security incidents in recent months, including fighting in the Beirut neighborhood of Tariq al-Jdeideh and gunbattles in the northern city of Tripoli. Fighting has also broken out at two of the country’s Palestinian refugee camps.
Concerns have been mounting that Lebanon could see a spillover of violence from neighboring Syria, which has been reeling from 15-month uprising against President Bashar Assad’s government.

Rival Lebanese leaders praise Mursi’s win
June 26, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese leaders on both sides of the political divide Monday welcomed the election of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammad Mursi as Egypt’s first Islamist president and praised the country’s democratic path.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri cabled congratulations to Mursi on his victory, wishing him the best of luck. He praised “Egypt’s democratic path and its central role in both the Arab and Muslim worlds, at the forefront of which is the central issue of Palestine.”
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, leader of the opposition Future Movement, telephoned Mursi to congratulate him on his election.
In a cable to President-elect Mursi, Hariri expressed hope that his tenure would consecrate the values of freedom and sectarian coexistence in the Arab world’s most populous country. He said Mursi’s election culminated “the struggles of a genuine people who had offered the dearest sacrifices to their country and their Arab nation.”
“This qualitative democratic move in Egypt, God willing, will be a shining landmark in the history of Egypt and all the Arabs,” said Hariri, who is currently in Saudi Arabia.
“I extend, in my name and in the name of your brothers in the Future Movement in Lebanon, warmest congratulations on this occasion. We, as well as all who love Egypt, look forward for your tenure to consecrate the values of justice, freedom, dignity and coexistence,” the former prime minister added.
Hariri also expressed hope that Mursi’s presidency would fulfill the Egyptian people’s hopes for national unity and social and political stability.
Mursi, one of the leaders of the powerful Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, was declared the winner Sunday in a divisive runoff with Ahmad Shafiq, the last premier to serve under ousted President Hosni Mubarak.
Mursi, Egypt’s first president since the uprising that toppled Mubarak last year, won 51.73 percent of the vote. In his victory speech, Mursi pledged that under his leadership Egypt would be inclusive, and he courted secular and Christian voters. “I will be a president for all Egyptians,” he said.
“The speech you gave following the announcement of your victory in the presidential elections not only included messages of trust and confidence for all segments of the Egyptian people, but also reflected the level of responsibility that you possess to confront daunting challenges,” Hariri said.
In a clear reference to the 15-month-old popular upheaval against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Hariri said that he found in Mursi’s election “a good start for a noble march which, we implore God Almighty to be crowned with similar successes in brotherly countries that are following in the footsteps of the great Egyptian people.”
Hariri’s Future Movement and its allies in the opposition March 14 coalition staunchly support the uprising in Syria demanding Assad’s ouster.
Hezbollah, whose relations were strained with Egypt under Mubarak, blessed what it called the “historic election achievement” of the Egyptian people with Mursi’s election.
Referring to public street protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and other squares demanding democracy, Hezbollah said in a statement that Mursi’s election came as “a qualitative and fateful step on the road to achieving the noble objectives of this blessed revolution.”
Congratulating Mursi over the “dear confidence” granted to him by the Egyptian people, Hezbollah implored God to help the president-elect shoulder “this great responsibility in this sensitive stage in the history of Egypt and the region ... and to bring Egypt back to its advanced Arab and Muslim position in defending the nation’s issues and shaping the region’s future and destiny.”
For his part, Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt said Mursi’s election indicated that Egypt was gradually heading toward protecting the achievements of the revolution that toppled Mubarak.
“Egypt is gradually heading toward consolidating the achievements of the historic revolution that led to the uprooting of dictatorship and suppression and opened the way for a new political stage,” Jumblatt said in his weekly article to be published in the PSP’s weekly newspaper Al-Anbaa Tuesday.
“Those who raise question marks over the victory of President Mohammad Mursi as president of Egypt cannot demand democracy but reject its results if they did conform with the interests of this or that party. Democracy, like freedom, is indivisible,” Jumblatt said.
Jumblatt said Mursi will be facing “very big challenges at the political level in order to strengthen the foundations of the nascent democratic system, expand the basis of political participation and allay the concerns of groups which are apprehensive of this victory.”
“Also, at the economic level, [Mursi will have to] fight poverty, illiteracy and attain human power and social development for this great people,” Jumblatt added.
Former President Amin Gemayel, leader of the Kataeb Party, congratulated Mursi on his election. “We wish you a term full of achievements to serve the Egyptian people and the great state of Egypt following the revolution carried out by the people for the sake of freedom, democracy, equality and social welfare,” Gemayel said in a cable to Mursi.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, Hariri’s ally, also cabled congratulations to Mursi on his election.
“We offer our heartfelt congratulations to President Mohammad Mursi and hope that the circumstances will allow him to achieve what he had stressed in his stances in consolidating democracy in Egypt, the rule of law and equality and protecting cultural, religious and political plurality,” Geagea said in his telegram.
He added that Mursi was known for having fought a long struggle from the time he was a political prisoner until his election to Egypt’s presidency.
Geagea wished Mursi success during his tenure in boosting Egypt’s leading role in the Middle East region and in maintaining its support for Lebanon’s independence, sovereignty and the rule of law.
Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, deputy head of the Higher Shiite Council, congratulated Mursi on his election as “president of all Egyptians so that he can embrace all the components of the Egyptian people who are demanding the turning of the election page and the opening of a new page of cooperation.”
Qabalan spoke during a meeting with the new Egyptian consul at the Egyptian Embassy in Beirut Sharif al-Bahrawi and the former Consul Ahmad Helmi. He wished the Egyptian people stability and for Egypt to regain its role in “steering the Arab ship.”
“A strong and stable Egypt is a guarantee for all the Arab and Muslim peoples,” Qabalan said.

The European Union calls for electoral reform in Lebanon
June 26, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The European Union stressed the importance of electoral reform in Lebanon, as it issued its first policy paper on its human rights and democracy work around the world as part of a yearly report Monday. In a section on Lebanon, the report highlighted the body’s push for electoral reform in the country. Two million euros have been allocated for the project, and the report emphasized the EU’s work toward adopting policy changes from the 2009 elections. Judicial and prison reform remained primary areas of focus for the EU, according to the report, with the body noting its support for changing the “de facto moratorium on the death penalty into its full abolition,” and for changing the “deplorable situation in Lebanese prisons.” It noted how the EU’s reports on torture in the country have helped protect human rights defenders. The EU also supports a draft National Action Plan for Human Rights that Parliament could adopt soon. Lebanon is a major recipient of foreign funds to prop up its infrastructure, governance and change public attitudes toward human rights. In addition to the EU, the United Nations, the United States and Iran are major suppliers of aid to a variety of sectors throughout the country. The public policy report is intended to be an account of the EU’s outlook on world affairs and an explanation of its lobbying efforts throughout the world. It comes in conjunction with a proposal for an appointment of an EU Special Representative on Human Rights. “The EU will continue to promote freedom of expression, opinion, assembly and association, both online and offline; democracy cannot exist without these rights,” the report states. Women’s empowerment and children’s rights promotion will be a priority for the EU, the report says. The paper also says it will continue its long-standing campaign against the death penalty, which it considers a “serious violation of human rights and human dignity.”Those rights will continue to be a center of the EU’s relations with other nations, but will be “carefully designed for the circumstances of each country,” the report says. “Human rights are one of my top priorities and a silver thread that runs through everything that we do in external relations,” Vice President of the European Commission Catherine Ashton said after the new policy’s adoption.

Morsi's Victory in Egypt: Early Implications for America and the Broader Middle East
Robert Satloff /Council on Foreign Relations/June 25, 2012
While the authority of Egypt's new president may be circumscribed, it is a mistake to underestimate his ability to influence political change at home and abroad. Before any further embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood leader, the Obama administration needs clarity on how Morsi's policies are likely to affect critical U.S. interests.
For both Middle Easterners and Americans, Muhammad Morsi's victory in Egypt's presidential election is a watershed moment. Eighty-four years after an obscure schoolteacher founded the Muslim Brotherhood, and nearly sixty years since the Egyptian army overthrew the king and established a republic, Morsi's success raises the prospect of Islamist governance in the most powerful and populous Arab state. For the United States, Morsi's election, coupled with Usama bin Laden's killing a year ago, underscores a shift from the threat of violent Islamist extremism to a new, more complex challenge posed by the empowerment of a currently nonviolent but no less ambitious form of Islamist radicalism.
Strangely, this is not how "conventional wisdom" sees Morsi's victory. The New York Times, for example, described his election as only a "symbolic triumph." That is because the military men who are hanging on to power in Egypt -- the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) -- stripped the presidency of considerable executive authority when they issued a "constitutional declaration" last week, arranged for the dissolution of the Islamist-controlled parliament by judicial authorities a few days earlier, and created a situation in which they retain control over both the process of writing a new constitution and the timing and rules for new parliamentary elections.
It would be a grave error, however, to fixate on the obstacles the army has put in the way of the Islamists without appreciating the latter's remarkable ability to fill any political vacuum they are permitted to fill -- first, by stepping into Tahrir Square to inherit a revolution waged by secularists, second, by trouncing all comers in winning three-quarters of the seats in parliamentary elections, and third, by taking the presidency. At every point in the past seventeen months, when Egypt's Islamists have faced a political challenge, they have triumphed. Betting against them now, merely because the SCAF has neatly executed a rearguard holding action, is probably unwise. And depending on how the SCAF plays the cards left in its hand, the obstacles it has thrown in the path of Islamist monopolization of power may not be tools to derail the Brotherhood's ambitions, but instead gambits to negotiate the best deal possible and retain military prerogatives in an Islamist-controlled state.
ON THE REGIONAL STAGE
It is difficult to exaggerate the regional implications of a Morsi victory. The key is not that Egypt will begin to flex its muscles in Middle Eastern politics -- quite the contrary. With domestic politics sure to be roiled for at least the balance of 2012, Cairo will continue to be the nonplayer on the Arab, African, Mediterranean, and peace-process stages that it has been for quite some time. But the potent imagery of Brotherhood victory is likely to transcend that gritty reality. Even with Morsi's powers hollowed out by military fiat, and even with the drama of his victory whittled down by the nearly weeklong wait for confirmation, the example of Ikhwan political success will be a powerful intoxicant for some, and a poison to others.
While confirmation of Morsi's victory may spare Egypt a potentially violent faceoff between Islamists and the military, the shockwaves will be felt across the Middle East. This ranges from the wilderness of Sinai, where more-violent Islamists will push the Ikhwani leader toward confrontation with Israel; to the suburbs of Aleppo and Damascus, where the Morsi example will be a fillip to Islamists fighting Alawite rule; to the capitals of numerous Arab states, especially the monarchies, where survivalist leaders mortified by the prospect that Islamist revolutions could trump their claims of religious legitimacy will double-down on their velvet-glove/iron-fist strategies to fend off the fervor for change.
Reactions will differ by country. Wealthy Gulf states, more fearful of the Brotherhood's populist message than welcoming of its Islamist content, will offer aid to Egypt, but only enough to keep the country hungry without starving. Jordan, caught between an Egyptian Islamist rock and a Syrian jihadist hard place, will move closer to Washington and Israel. For its part, Israel will cling to the SCAF, with whom it has more intimate contact and better relations today than at any point in years. In other words, everyone will play for time.
IMPLICATIONS FOR WASHINGTON
The Obama administration is clearly not distraught at the idea of a Morsi presidency. Fearful of the mass violence that could have broken out at the announcement of an Ahmed Shafiq victory, the White House no doubt heaved a sigh of relief when the winner was declared. Even when it had the chance -- before the second round of presidential voting -- to signal its concern that a Morsi victory could negatively impact U.S. interests in terms of regional security or civil liberties, the administration chose not to do so. Instead, it limited itself to anodyne statements about "building a democracy that reflects [Egypt's] values and traditions" -- whatever that means, given the country's 5,000-year history of Pharaonic and autocratic rule.
Indeed, only when it no longer mattered -- after the Morsi victory announcement -- did the White House issue an official statement specifically underscoring the importance of "respecting the rights of all Egyptian citizens -- including women and religious minorities such as Coptic Christians," and noting that it is "essential" for Egypt to maintain its role as "a pillar of regional peace, security and stability." Those are powerful words that might have resonated with key constituencies if issued earlier. Assuming that the election was reasonably clean, that same message -- delivered publicly and personally by the vice president or the secretary of state before the election -- could have affected the outcome.
Morsi's victory may have averted a domestic Egyptian crisis in the near term, easing the burden for a U.S. administration that already faces at least two other urgent Middle East crises (the collapsing nuclear negotiations with Iran and a Syrian-Turkish flare-up that might suck Washington into the anti-Assad war it is avoiding at all costs), but its longer-term implications are potentially dire. Even with his powers circumscribed, Morsi will have considerable sway over three key national decisions: first, whether Egypt's new government addresses its urgent economic problems by acceding to populist demands for "social justice" or international and business-oriented demands for investment-focused market reforms; second, whether it prioritizes the Islamization of public space as a way to reward supporters and counteract the bitter pill of economic austerity; and third, whether an emboldened Brotherhood will export its political success to the West Bank, Jordan, Syria, or elsewhere as part of an effort to invigorate Egypt's dormant regional role. It is difficult to imagine a Morsi-led Egypt adopting policies that align with U.S. interests on all three of these questions; indeed, he may well pursue problematic policies on each of them.
Figuring out Morsi's direction on these issues -- and gauging his reaction to costs Washington should consider imposing in the event he chooses a confrontational course -- is a top U.S. priority. Morsi's early calming words notwithstanding, President Obama should refrain from giving further stamps of approval until the incoming leader and the government he will head clarify their approach on these core issues. In policy terms alone, it makes little sense to embrace Morsi before then, never mind the political downside of scheduling an early Washington visit for a doctrinaire leader who extols Hamas, promises to "revise" the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, founded the Committee to Fight the Zionist Project in Sharqiyah, and drafted the Brotherhood's anti-women, anti-Coptic election platform just five years ago.
Such clarity will also offer a clue to an even more fundamental question. A decade ago, bin Laden offered a model of Islamist governance -- austere, Manichean, and bloodthirsty -- that the Muslim masses rejected not for its ideological goal of creating an Islamic state, but for its sadistic, inhumane tactics, especially regarding innocent Muslims who were either targets or incidental victims of bin Laden's butchery. The Brotherhood's model of Islamist governance is undoubtedly different from bin Laden's, but is it a difference in means, ends, or both? Before that model goes viral across the Middle East -- with what many Middle Easterners view as Washington's blessing, no less -- the Obama administration should fashion a series of policy dilemmas for Egypt's new president and his colleagues to clarify answers to that key question. Given the blood and treasure expended to prevent the spread of al-Qaeda's message, failure to secure clarity on this critical issue could spell disaster for America's remaining partners in the Middle East.
**Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.

Putin told Israel he is not obligated to Syria's Assad, senior officials say
Russia has to date expressed support for the Assad regime, despite the bloodbath the regime is conducting against his citizens.
By Jonathan Lis | Jun.26, 2012 /Haaretz
Russian President Vladimir Putin told senior Israeli officials on Monday that while he was not obligated to Syrian President Bashar Assad, he urged the West to think carefully before trying to remove him, a senior Israeli diplomatic sources said on Monday.
"We asked Putin for Russia to work more actively to preserve stability in Syria, to prevent biological and chemical weapons from falling into the hands of Hezbollah or other terror groups," the source said. "Putin said that he is not obligated to Assad, but that Russia and Syria have strategic relations."
Russia has to date expressed support for the Assad regime, despite the bloodbath the regime is conducting against his citizens.
During his meeting with President Shimon Peres, Putin discussed the possibility that a Western state would act to bring down the Assad regime in Syria.
"From my experience, one must think about the consequences of an act before doing it," Putin was quoted as saying. "Look what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. With regard to Syria, one must think carefully whether the opposition that will rise to power will be what the West wants it to be, or whether it will end up being totally the opposite." Peres reportedly presented Putin with a proposal to put Syria under the control of the Arab League and the United Nations for two years, until democratic elections could be held there. "Assad stopped being an alternative when he started firing at his children," Peres said. "None of us can tolerate coffins filled with the bodies of children. That's beyond politics." With regard to Iran, the senior diplomatic source said Jerusalem had "asked Russia to be more passive and continue to honor the UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. We asked that Russia maintain a united front with the West, and not demonstrate relative moderation toward Iran."
All told, Israeli officials were satisfied by the talks with Putin, saying the sense was that common ground could be reached on the Iranian nuclear issue.
"There was a feeling that Putin and [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu found a common language," a diplomatic source said. "There was an open conversation between the two on the Iranian issue. Putin gave us the feeling that there's what to talk about, and not that each side was coming just to clarify its stance." While there didn't seem to have been any agreements reached on Iran's nuclear program or Russia's support for the Assad regime, "If there had been a substantive disagreement during the talks, neither side would have concealed it," said a source familiar with the content of the talks.
"During the meeting there were in-depth, detailed talks on the Iranian issue. Netanyahu and Putin agreed that the discourse between them should continue via an open and continuous line. During the meeting there was also a mechanism created for the two sides' teams to advance the discussions on the issue." Earlier, during the reception ceremony for Putin at the President's Residence, which included an Israel Defense Forces honor guard, Peres said he was confident Russia would aid in the effort to hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions. "I know Russia rejects Iranian development of weapons of mass destruction," said Peres. "It's important that this effect not let up. Nuclear weapons in Iranian hands are a threat to the security and stability of Iran's neighbors, and essentially the entire world.
"Iran has made explicit threats against the State of Israel," Peres added. "We cannot accept nuclear weapons being in the hands of those who threaten to destroy us."
Putin responded by saying: "The region in which Israel sits greatly influences the feelings of the entire international community. Russia has a national interest in assuring peace and tranquillity for Israel."

Israel goes all out for Russia's Putin, who arrives 90 minutes late
Perhaps he was tired, but Putin looked rather apathetic during the dinner later at the President's Residence.
By Eli Shvidler | Jun.26, 2012/Haaretz
As the city of Netanya prepared for his arrival, the entire upper echelons of Israel's government were summoned to greet Russian President Vladimir Putin with the greatest possible splendor and warmth. All were waiting for Putin to come and dedicate the Red Army Monument, a tribute to the Russian soldiers who fell in battle against the Nazis. Putin was 90 minutes late, which was not exceptional; he was also late once for a meeting with the queen of England. The three planes bringing the rest of his official delegation, which numbered some 350 people, arrived on time. The Israel Defense Forces orchestra, meanwhile, was practicing a surprisingly accurate rendition of the Russian national anthem. Netanya municipal workers scurried about, putting the finishing touches on everything. Nonetheless, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman still ended up sitting through the ceremony on a chair torn in several places. Minutes before the ceremony began, the two foreign ministers entered one after another from the side. Lieberman looked satisfied. That was hardly surprising; after all, his ministry had borne the bulk of the responsibility for the Russian president's visit, and the foreign minister could finally put behind him the embarrassment of 17 months ago, when a strike by workers in his ministry forced former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to cancel his visit here.
Following Lieberman was Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, wearing a sour face. That's no surprise, either; Putin chose to make Israel his first stop on his Middle East visit over Lavrov's vehement objections. "Filthy Arabist," mumbled a member of the Russian-Israeli press when Lavrov entered.
During his address, President Shimon Peres, as expected, praised the Russian people and the Red Army for their role in saving the Jewish people from obliteration by the Nazis. He even tried a few sentences in Russian, which was amusing and seemed to please Putin. Peres, naturally, managed to squeeze mentions of Iran and Syria into his short speech.
Putin, a deft president in his third term, expressed his fondness for the Jewish people and gratitude for the role Jewish soldiers played in defeating the Nazis. But he chose to save the hot diplomatic topics for lunch with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Not everyone was pleased with Putin's visit, not just because of his support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, but because of his strong-arm tactics against the Russian opposition. Unlike the Israeli media, the Russian websites made headlines out of a demonstration by some 50 protesters who tried unsuccessfully to interfere with the ceremony and block the road in front of Putin's entourage.
The afternoon was an entirely different story, with pageantry replaced by pragmatic discussions between Putin, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and national security adviser Yaakov Amidror. It was soon leaked that that it had been one of the most positive, constructive Israeli conversations ever held with Russia's leader.
Perhaps he was tired, but Putin looked rather apathetic during the dinner later at the President's Residence. While he smiled at the greeting in Russian delivered by a little girl, it was clear that what he had come to hear in Jerusalem he had already heard earlier, and the dinner was merely a protocol obligation

No to Arab fighters in Syria
By Dr. Hamad Al-Majid/Asharq Alawsat
Those who support the participation of Arab militants in the fight to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria are convinced by the reported presence of Iranians and Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese in battles against the Free Syrian Army (FSA). However, this is only one side of the equation. In terms of the FSA and the Syrian opposition, the participation of Arab and Muslim fighters in their battles would do more harm than good. The Syrian regime’s media already rejoices, along with the Iranian regime, whenever it obtains evidence of Arab fighters’ involvement in clashes with Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Whenever we talk about the participation of Arab volunteer fighters in Syria, and before that in Iraq, we automatically recall the Afghan scenario, which was damaged extensively by the call for an Afghan jihad. The fighting conditions there provided a fertile environment for the bacteria of extremism to grow, and some Arab fighters then returned to their countries carrying this bacteria, spreading extremist ideologies and damaging a number of Muslim states as a result. Indeed, many are still reeling as a result of this fever, which consists of two main components: destruction and takfir [denouncing others as infidels].
Al-Qaeda rapidly grew in Afghanistan after terrorism’s “big bang”; the September 11th attacks of 2001. Whether directly or indirectly, this event led to the occupation of Iraq and Somalia, the growing insecurity in a number of Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia, and the incarceration of thousands of young people in prisons for many years, infected by a bacteria transmitted to them by fighters returning from Afghanistan. This is not to mention the great damage inflicted upon Islamic Dawa and charity work, whereby countless worthy causes suffered from misappropriated funds and donations, exploited by those infected with extremism. Likewise, let us not forget that some Arab fighters participated in conflicts between jihadist Afghan movements who are responsible for the destruction of their own country.
As a result of the Afghanistan experience, the idea of Arabs going to fight in Iraq during the US occupation was initially met by many with apathy and coldness, whilst others warned against it. Nevertheless, some preachers considered it a duty to rid the Iraqis of their occupiers, and soon Arab fighters travelled there, with catastrophic results. Some contributed to fuelling sectarianism by blowing up a number of Shiite shrines in response to Shia extremists, who had blown up number of Sunni mosques. Indeed, some of the Arab fighters in Iraq were so infused with extremism that they were reprimanded by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number one man.
Thus it is not strange of surprising that we find the same coldness these days towards the idea of Arab fighters participating in battles to overthrow the al-Assad regime. Some news sources have reported the recent infiltration of Arab fighters into a Syrian town populated by the Alawite sect, seeking to blow up a marketplace in retaliation for Bashar al-Assad’s actions. Incidents such as these, if proven, will be a critical blow for the FSA, for it relies on noble means in its fight against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and we do not want to see a repeat of the Afghan scenario.
The problem here is that these Arab fighters, whilst I appreciate their enthusiasm to get rid of this bloodthirsty, fascist regime, do not care about the repeated calls from the FSA and the Syrian opposition, who remind us that their shortages are not in terms of manpower, but rather in terms of funding and weaponry, just as the Afghan mujahedeen factions used to say. Nevertheless, some Arab fighters are travelling to Syria in order to take part, without being aware of the problems that their participation is causing.

A historic but uncertain day
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat /Now Egypt has a democratically elected president for the first time in 6,000 years!
The Egyptian people, whether rich or poor, strong or weak, laborers or villagers, businessmen or unemployed youths, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates and Salafis or liberalists and Marxists, politicized or non-politicized, have all experienced days of tension, concern, fear and anticipation before the result of the presidential election. The Freedom and Justice Party's chosen candidate Dr. Mohamed Mursi became President of Egypt and its people, with a slim majority over his rival Lieutenant General Ahmed Shafik. Because the new president will rule the country with a slim majority, not a vast or overwhelming support base, he will have to work to reassure those who supported his opponent before he focuses on his own adherers. The upcoming president is not in a fortunate position; he is not a “winner” in the true sense of the word. Rather, he has been sentenced by fate and the ballot box to rule a country in extremely difficult, complicated and tense circumstances, and he will have a high ceiling of demands and social expectations to deal with amidst the worst economic conditions Egypt has ever seen. The new president of Egypt has a suicidal task ahead. He will have to undertake the impossible mission of satisfying all currents. Will the new president behave like a statesman who considers himself the president of all the Egyptians? Or will he behave like the leader of a specific current, team, category or era, coming to enact revenge upon those who opposed him? The more the new president is open to the majority of currents, and the more he tries to alleviate their apprehensions, fears, and their political, social and religious obsessions, the more Egypt will enjoy stability. The greatest fear is that the political street is heating up with the aim of forcing through a different political arrangement, the price of which the patient Egyptian people will have to pay.

Egypt: Fasten your seatbelts!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat,
Egypt, and indeed the entire region, has entered a new and dangerous stage, the consequences of which God only knows, after Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamed Mursi, was announced as the country’s next president. Anybody who believes or imagines that we are witnessing a cinematic movie that will inevitably have a happy ending is mistaken, whilst all those who believe that this is a purely Egyptian affair are not just mistaken, but are negligent as well.
We must be aware that Egypt today is truly at a crossroads, and much will depend on which direction it takes, both domestically as well as across the Arab region. For the Egyptians, the battle has just begun: will the Egypt of tomorrow be like Turkey, namely a struggle between the Brotherhood and the military? If this occurs, we must not expect the end result in Egypt to be along the lines of the situation in Turkey. The Turkish model required a long time, whilst the Islamists in Turkey are different, and there are no Erdogan-like features in Egypt today. In fact, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood rejected Erdogan’s advice regarding the necessity of establishing a secularist state in Egypt! Will Egypt today be along the lines of Pakistan, namely with the Islamists on one side and the military on the other, and then add the judiciary to this? This has been a bad model until now, and it contains no glimmers of hope.
As for the other model- which is even worse - the Khomeinist revolution in Iran, which engulfed all the political powers and Iranian social currents that supported it? Some might say that the military will serve as the guarantors of Egypt, in addition to the strong judiciary present in the country. This is true, however we must remember that Egypt’s president is now a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, in other words the Brotherhood are ruling Egypt. This is the reality of the situation, and so much will depend on this, politically, economically, socially, religiously, and culturally, not just in Egypt, but throughout the entire Arab region. Anybody who says that the Brotherhood are the reality today, and therefore we must deal with them and not criticize them, and other such talk, is wrong. This is because, first and foremost, anybody who wants to be involved in politics must remember that criticism is permissible.
The other issue, which is most important, particularly to those who want to demonstrate pretend realism today, is that we must recall that the consequences of the Khomeinist experience are still affecting the region nearly 4 decades after the Khomeinist revolution, and the implications of this are clear in Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen. This is not to mention the exorbitant cost of the Khomeinist experience on the security of the Arab Gulf as a whole. We must also recall that in the five decades following the 1952 military coup in Egypt, the consequences of the Nasserite experience affected the Arab region as a whole, not just Egypt alone. This resulted in brutal wars, the collapse of Arab regimes by military coup, as well as political Islamist coups which were no less dangerous than the military variety. What is important to recall here is that the Nasserite experience set our region back by around 50 years, whilst also resulting in huge losses, underdevelopment and backwardness in most Arab states under military rule. This is not a pessimistic reading of the situation, but a message to those who have buried their heads in the sand for a long time, to be wary and fasten their seatbelts for we now face a reality that many did not believe would ever happen, however in spite of this, it came to pass and will no doubt have huge consequences!

What Morsi's Win Means for Egypt
Council on Foreign Relations
Interviewee: Robert M. Danin, Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org
June 25, 2012
Following the announcement June 24 that Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi had been elected Egypt's president, Morsi said he was quitting the Brotherhood and inviting other parties into his government in the interests of a united country. But Robert M. Danin, a Middle East expert for CFR, is skeptical about Morsi's bid to rule a united Egypt. "I don't think Egyptians are buying it," says Danin. "The real test will come with the policies that he promulgates, and to whom he really turns." Danin says that the United States, with declining influence in Egypt, should proceed cautiously despite the fact that U.S. interests are at stake. The United States should "recognize that this is a long term process, and so we should proceed judiciously. This is a game of chess, and each move has to be calculated very seriously," Danin says.
Who is Morsi? He has a doctorate from the University of Southern California; he taught in the United States for a while, yet he comes back and is an Islamist. What kind of a person is he?
By all accounts, he appears to have been a functionary within the Muslim Brotherhood. He was not the first choice of the party; he was the default candidate when Brotherhood leader Khairat al-Shater was barred from running. We're still learning a good deal about Morsi, but one thing we've seen both in Egyptian history and in the Arab uprisings is that it's a mistake to assume that because someone has spent time in the West that that has necessarily made the person pro-Western. The leading theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, lived in the United States himself, and it was that experience in the United States that actually made him quite hostile to the United States and to the West, which he saw as decadent and repulsive. We made the mistake with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and with others in assuming that because they lived in the West [Britain], they have adopted Western values. We're now learning that that's not the case at all.
In Morsi's first speech after his announced victory, he said he would resign from the Muslim Brotherhood and would include a wide number of different parties in his cabinet. He also held out a hand of friendship to the Coptic Christians, who were worried about him, as well as to women. What did we learn from this?
He is trying to assuage the majority of Egyptians who are leery of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's true that in the runoff, Morsi appears to have won 52 percent of the vote, but interpreting what that means is a challenge. To be sure, this election runoff was a very difficult choice for most Egyptians: Do we vote for, in essence, the old regime candidate, Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak's last prime minister, and essentially roll back the entire revolution, or do we vote for the Muslim Brotherhood, which for many represents something anathema to what they seek? There is no real liberal or progressive alternative between those two choices, and Morsi's popularity ratings and the Muslim Brotherhood's popularity ratings are extremely low in Egypt. By resigning from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Freedom and Justice Party yesterday, Morsi's trying to signal that this will be an inclusive government, that it will not be a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government. But I don't think Egyptians are buying it. It was an important symbolic gesture, but the real test will come with the policies that he promulgates, and to whom he really turns.
Morsi also said that he wants to be sworn in as president before the parliament, but there is no sitting parliament now, since it was abolished by the Supreme Court before the election results were announced. Will this cause an early confrontation with the military?
We have a power play at work here between the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been elected both to a majority in the parliament and now to the presidency, and the military, which has sought to roll back many of the gains and contain the Muslim Brotherhood's advances. As you rightly point out, the parliament has been dissolved, the constitutional process has been halted, [and] an interim constitution has been imposed by the military. So you have a standoff, to a certain extent. The election took place June 16 and 17. The results were expected last Thursday [June 21], and then they didn't happen. What happened in that intervening period? We don't know exactly, but most people believe that there were intensive negotiations between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood over how to move forward.
What did the military want? Before the presidential results were announced, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) announced that they were stripping the presidency of much of its powers. And the Supreme Court ruled that the parliamentary elections, which had been dominated by the Brotherhood, were illegal.
This is not necessarily a case of good guys versus bad guys; this is a case of different bases of power vying for the way forward that preserves their interests.
The military had a real dilemma. There were three choices before them. They could have gone ahead with the election results and allowed Morsi to be named president. They could have somehow engineered it so Shafiq, who also claimed to have won, was named the president. Or they could have annulled the whole election. Either of the last two choices would have likely led to a serious confrontation and violence, so they chose the most stable path. But the military has gutted the presidency of so much of its power that there is a question of how will Egypt move forward, given that it has a denuded president, is in a state of emergency, and has a military that holds many of the cards. A real dilemma for Egypt today is you have a legal system being adjudicated by either the military or a judiciary that is full of Mubarak-era appointees. Forging a way forward is the real challenge. This is not necessarily a case of good guys versus bad guys; this is a case of different bases of power vying for the way forward that preserves their interests.
The forces that led the revolution have largely been marginalized. Those liberal forces in Egypt have been sidelined. The supreme irony is you really have two institutions, both of which are actually holdovers from the Mubarak era: the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither of them is really responsible for the revolution. But both of them are seeking to channel and reap the benefits of the revolution even though they both stood on the sidelines.
President Obama telephoned both Morsi and Shafiq after the results were announced. He urged Morsi to include a broad political cross-section in his new government, which Morsi says he is trying to do. Should the United States be worried about this situation, and what should it do about it?
The United States has much to be concerned about in Egypt. This is home to three-quarters of the Arab world. In many ways, what is happens in Egypt will have a huge impact on the rest of the region. The United States has security interests there and [interests] in ensuring that there's regional stability. But the United States' influence is limited.
What happened to the liberals who led the uprising in January 2011?
The forces that led the revolution have largely been marginalized. Those liberal forces in Egypt have been sidelined. The supreme irony is you really have two institutions, both of which are actually holdovers from the Mubarak era: the military and the Muslim Brotherhood.
It's unusual that the president called both the victor as well as the defeated candidate in an election, but the signal it sends is that the United States wants a peaceful transition. The United States has also been very deeply engaged with the military, encouraging them to complete the transition and hand over power to a civilian rule. But the United States can't dictate to the military. Both the military and the Muslim Brotherhood want to have a good relationship with the United States, so the United States should proceed cautiously, should not rush to try to direct events there. We should also recognize that this is a long-term process, and so we should proceed judiciously. This is a game of chess, and each move has to be calculated very seriously.
In Israel, there was a conciliatory statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying he wanted to work with the new Egyptian government. Are the Israelis worried?
The whole region is worried. The Israelis are worried and the Saudis and other Gulf states are also worried. The only party that probably is not worried right now is Iran, not because Iran believes that there is about to become a new Egyptian-Iranian alliance--there are too many things that divide the Egyptians from the Iranians. But to the extent that there's instability in Egypt, to the extent that the strong ties to the United States and the West that have existed are likely to diminish and this is not going to be as pro-Western a regime as it was, that is welcome to the Iranians. But the rest of the region is very concerned about Egypt's future, about what kind of rule the Muslim Brotherhood will impose. They're concerned about stability. We've just crossed one very important threshold. They've had the first democratic elections in Egyptian history for the president, and a peaceful transfer of power. That's the good news. The bad news is that many of the institutions of democracy are badly bruised, if not in tatters--the parliament, the constitution, the civilian rule over the military.
Are we looking to an early confrontation between the military and Morsi, or can they glide over the differences right now over the parliament?
Both sides have an interest in working together, and neither side has an interest in confrontation. On the one hand, the Muslim Brotherhood's power is very limited in material terms. They don't have tanks, they don't have the control over all the institutions of power that the military has, but they do have a certain degree of public legitimacy. In contrast, the military has a lot of raw power, but it is also suspect, and the demonstrators that have taken to the streets want the military to hand over power.
So both sides have cards to play, and that's why ultimately what appears to have happened is both sides recognized the benefits of working together rather that confronting one another. But they are competitors, and there will be challenges. The key will be for this to remain peaceful and to ultimately build legitimate institutions, because to the extent that that process does not work, the other default institution is Tahrir Square. That is where politics will be played out if they're not successfully played out between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Putin to Israel: Iran won't get a nuclear bomb. No need for an Israeli strike
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 25, 2012/The high point of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s noteworthy 90-minute talk with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem Monday, June 25, was Putin’s firm assertion that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. This is disclosed exclusively by debkafile’s Jerusalem and Moscow sources.
He also dismissed reports that the third round in Moscow of six-power talks with Iran (June 18-19) led nowhere, stressing they were serious and substantial. The next round taking place in Istanbul on July for technical discussions is, according to the Russian president, of prime importance. For the first time, he explained, the nuclear negotiations with Iran will get down to the core issues and would therefore of greater significance than the “Ashton-Jalili” sessions.
(He was referring to European foreign executive Catherine Ashton who chairs the negotiations and Saeed Jalili, senior Iranian negotiator.)
Putin corrected the general impression that Russia has confined itself to the role of passive bystander in the bargaining with Iran: Quite the reverse, he said: Moscow has been proactively working for accord behind the scenes and its “input” to the process “is considerable.”
Although the word “intelligence” was not mentioned, it was clearly intimated by the Russian visitor when he said, “We [Russians] know more about what is going on with regard to Iran’s (nuclear) capabilities than the Americans.”It was Putin’s way to scoff at Israel for investing so much time and strategic assets in endless wrangling over how to handle the Iranian threat with American security, military and intelligence chiefs, when the Netanyahu government would be better served by sparing a fraction of that time for talking to Moscow.
In conclusion, he stressed to Netanyahu that it was unnecessary for Israel to use military force against Iran’s nuclear program. Israel knows exactly how much Russia has done to prevent Iran building a nuclear weapon,” he said. “A nuclear weapon in Iranian hands would be contrary to Russian interests, and so it will not get one,” he stressed.
More exclusive details of the Putin-Netanyahu conversation will be disclosed in the coming issue of DEBKA-Net-Weekly out next Friday.
Read debkafile's previous article on other issues broached in the Putn-Nentayahu dialogue

Coptic Solidarity Hosts Policy Conference on Egypt
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coptic-solidarity-hosts-policy-conference-on-egypt-160316685.html
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Coptic Solidarity will be holding a Policy Education Day at the U.S. Capitol building on June 28, 2012, only days after the major upheaval created by the election of an Islamist, who ran on a Shari'a implementation agenda, to be President of Egypt. The Policy Day is now even more important in light of the high level of uncertainty that the new president and his party will protect human and minority rights.
The focus of the Policy Day is "U.S. National Security and Advancing Human and Minority Rights in Egypt: Is there a policy connection?" with a special focus on policy imperatives, and U.S. foreign policy responses to the rise of extremism in the Middle East.
In addition to remarks by several Members of Congress, a number of prominent politicians, academics, human rights experts, and policymakers will share their views. Speakers include: Lord David Alton, Member of the UK House of Lords; Jim Karygiannis, MP, Canadian House of Commons; Commissioner Katrina Lantos Swett, Chair of the USCIRF; Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute; Fred Grandy, Vice President of the Center for Security Policy; Walid Phares, Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the U.S. Congress; Emilie Kao Esq., previously at the Office of International Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State; Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Fr. Filopater, a leader of the Maspero Youth Movement, Egypt; and Tawfik Hamid, Chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
The Coptic Solidarity Third Annual Conference will continue (*) on June 29, 2012, with additional speakers, including both academic and advocacy experts, focusing on the status of religious freedom in the Middle East, the U.S. approach to religious freedom in the Middle East, and the situation of minorities under Islamic rule. Speakers include: Ann Buwalda Esq., Director, Jubilee Campaign; Tina Ramirez, Director of International and Government Relations, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Gary Lane, Sr. International Correspondent, CBN; Carl A. Moeller, CEO, Open Doors; Raymond Ibrahim, Middle East and Islam specialist; Michele A. Clark, Christian Solidarity International; Faith McDonnell, The Institute on Religion and Democracy; Jordan Sekulow, Director at the American Center for Law & Justice; Emanuel Ogebe, Managing Partner USN Law Group. Also taking part in the Conference are Coptic activists and representatives of Middle Eastern communities, Arab and Muslim Liberals, and NGOs.
Coptic Solidarity is an organization seeking to help minorities, particularly the Copts, of Egypt and support those working for democracy, freedom, and the protection of the fundamental rights of all Egyptian citizens. The international organization has headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area in the U.S., with key branches currently in Paris (for Europe) and Cairo. The organization believes that the international community plays a key role in helping ensure the protection and upholding of the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.
(*) The Policy Education Day (June 28) will be held at the Capitol Visitors Center, HVC 201.
The Coptic Solidarity Conference will be held at the Dulles Airport Marriott Hotel.
To attend the conference, please go to the Coptic Solidarity for free registration at http://www.copticsolidarity.org/register-now
For further information please call Cynthia Farahat at: 1 202 695 0506
http://www.copticsolidarity.org/conference
SOURCE Coptic Solidarity
Back to top
RELATED LINKS
http://www.copticsolidarity.org/conference
Source: PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1fRBO)

Egypt president-elect starts consultations on team
CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's new president-elect, Islamist Mohammed Mursi, moved into the office once occupied by ousted leader Hosni Mubarak and started consultations Monday on forming his team and a new government, an aide said.
Mursi was declared on Sunday the winner of Egypt's first free presidential election in its modern history, following a tight race with Mubarak's last Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq.
The campaign had deeply polarized the country, pitting a former regime official and former military man— feared to be a continuation of Mubarak's autocratic rule but viewed by some as an agent of stability— against an Islamist.
Many supported Mursi as a representative of the uprising that toppled the old regime and a chance to challenge the military. But Mursi was equally feared among youth groups behind the uprising, which campaigned for a secular democratic state, and among many of the country's Christian minority. Almost half of the voters boycotted the runoff vote last weekend.
The victory of Mursi, the first civilian president to take over the country's top job, is a stunning achievement for the Islamist group that remained for most of its eight decades a shadowy organization targeted by successive regimes. He pledged he will be a "president for all Egyptians."
Now, Mursi faces a daunting struggle for power with the country's still-dominant military rulers who took over after Mubarak's ouster in the uprising.
Just days before a winner was announced, the ruling generals made a series of decisions that gave them sweeping powers, undercutting the authorities of the president, including passing the state budget __ and granted military police broad powers to detain civilians.
The generals, who promised to transfer power to an elected leader by July 1, say the moves were designed to fill a power vacuum and to ensure that no one person monopolizes decision-making until a new constitution is drafted.
Two days before the runoff, a decision by a top Egyptian court packed with former regime appointees also dissolved the country's first freely elected parliament, dominated by Islamists, including Mursi's Muslim Brotherhood. This left the military council also in charge of legislating duties.
With the parliament dissolved, it is not clear where Mursi will be sworn in. Authorities say he could be sworn before the country's highest court, but his group and supporters are pressing for the parliament to be reinstated, arguing that the court decision only disputed a third of the house's seats.
Thousands of Mursi supporters, backed by some liberal and secular youth groups who were behind the uprising, vowed to press on with their protest in Cairo's Tahrir Square to pressure the ruling generals to rescind their decrees and reinstate the parliament.
Tens of thousands had spent the night in Tahrir in joyous celebration of Mursi's win. By Monday morning, few had stayed in the square, which after nearly a week of a sit-ins, was reopened for traffic but a protesters' tent camp remained in place. Brotherhood officials said the protests will continue until the military responds to their demands.
On Sunday, President Barack Obama telephoned the U.S.-educated Mursi to congratulate him on his victory and offer continued support for Egypt's transition to democracy. The White House said Mursi expressed appreciation for Obama's call and "welcomed U.S. support for Egypt's transition."
Ali said the 60-year-old Mursi arrived at the presidential office on Monday for official meetings and consultations. He said his priority is to form a working presidential team until he finishes consultation over nominating vice presidents.
"His priority is the stability on the political scene," said Yasser Ali, a spokesman for Mursi's presidential campaign.
In an effort to rally support and heal national divisions, Mursi vowed to appoint diverse deputies, including a woman and a Christian. He also has reached out to other presidential hopefuls, who garnered popular support in the first round of elections.
Ali , the spokesman, said there were also consultations to form a national coalition government. The military-backed government is expected to resign later Monday, according to legal tradition after a new president is announced. Ali said he anticipates the government, headed by Kamal el-Ganzouri, would remain in a caretaker role because forming a new one "will take time."
Mursi faces enormous challenges of improving the economy and maintaining law and order — both of which deteriorated in the post-Mubarak period. He has also promised he would nominate a non-Brotherhood member to head the government.