LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 27/12

Bible Quotation for today/ Teaching about Revenge
Matthew 05/39-42:" You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too. And if someone takes you to court to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two miles. When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants to borrow something, lend it to him.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Prepare for nuclear Iran/By: Eitan Haber/Ynetnews/May 26/12
Lebanon’s perilous street politics/By: Michael Young/Now Lebanon/May 26/2
Is this the beginning of the Brotherhood’s incapacitation/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 26/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 26/12
Netanyahu, Barak refuse to see US official with negative report on Baghdad talks
U.S. study: Iran has enough uranium for five nuclear bombs
Iran has enough uranium for 5 bombs: expert
Iran letter to UN condemns Israeli 'threats'
Over 90 killed in Syria massacre: activists
Mikati postpones trip to Turkey, status of Lebanese pilgrims unclear
Mufti Qabbani backs Saudi call for dialogue
Clinton concerned Syria unrest affecting Lebanon
Nasrallah Agrees to Dialogue 'without Preconditions': For Putting All Arms under Army-People-Resistance Equation
Lebanese Officials Say Arrival of Freed Pilgrims in Beirut Delayed till Morning
Miqati on Pilgrims’ Release: We Hope it Will Pave Way to Dialogue among Political Factions
Geagea: Dispute over Govt. Must Be Resolved before Resuming National Dialogue
Jumblat Hails Berri-Hariri Talks, Says Only Dialogue Can Solve Problems
Saniora Calls for Neutral Salvation Govt. to Ease Tensions
Lebanese-Canadian Named BMW’s New Designer
Charbel: Lebanese Shia men abductors had no demands
PSP's Jumblatt meets with UN envoy
Berri thanks those who contributed to Lebanese pilgrims’ release
Soueid: Hariri’s assistance in release of kidnapped pilgrims ‘ethical, not political’
Geagea hopes for the release of Lebanese detainees in Syria
NLP holds government responsible for Lebanon’s instability
Bassil: March 14 working to bring back Syrian army to Lebanon
US official in Israel after Iran nuclear talks
IAEA detects traces of higher-grade uranium in Iran
Italy auto group Fiat suspends sales to Iran
Iran still has to build “confidence” in nuclear bid, Ban says
Russia Calls Iran Talks 'Constructive' Despite Differences
Syria Helicopters 'Hit Rebel Positions' near Turkey
German Foreign Ministry summons Syrian envoy
No Plan B for Syria, Ban says
Hollande: France will Coordinate Exit from Afghanistan

Netanyahu, Barak refuse to see US official with negative report on Baghdad talks
http://www.debka.com/article/22032/Netanyahu-Barak-refuse-to-see-US-official-with-negative-report-on-Baghdad-talks
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 26, 2012/The rupture between the US and Israel over Iran’s nuclear program widened further Friday, May 25 when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak decided not to be available to hear the briefing brought to Jerusalem from Baghdad by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman who headed the US delegation to the Six Power talks. The report she delivered to National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror and Foreign Ministry Director-General Rafi Barak was that no progress had been achieved in Baghdad due to Iran’s refusal to budge on its “right” to enrich uranium at low (3.5-5 percent) or high (20 percent) levels or shut down the Fordo nuclear plant near Qom.
Although the participants agreed to reconvene in Moscow in three weeks, the Iranian delegation stressed there would be no progress until the US and the other five world powers (Britain, France, Russia, Germany and China) recognized Iran’s absolute “right” as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium.
Meanwhile, every day spent on diplomacy is thoroughly exploited by Iran to zip ahead with its nuclear plans. The Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog (IAEA)’s quarterly report released Friday reveals that since February Iran almost doubled its stockpile of more highly enriched uranium which is close to weapons grade from 73.4 to 145 kilograms.
The centrifuges at the Fordo facility, built into the side of a mountain, rose to over 500 from 300 in the last report.
Using the IAEA figures, debkafile calculates that if Fordo goes on producing 23.9 kilograms of 20-percent enriched uranium per month, Iran will by the end of December have accumulated 336 kilograms of near-weapons quality uranium.
The IAEA also reported that Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to less than 5 per cent grew to 6,232 kilograms from 5,451 reported in February.
Its inspectors recorded “the presence of particles” of 27 per cent-enriched uranium at Fordo. Iran maintained the particles were a result of “technical reasons beyond the operator’s control.”
The IAEA report was released a day after talks between Tehran and the six powers ended without progress.
Iran’s senior delegate Saeed Jalili declared that his government would never accept the Washington-ruled distinction between two categories of nations – one permitted and the other forbidden to enrich uranium. He claimed this was against international treaties.
Friday, the Washington Post quoted Mohammad Hoseyn Moussavian of Princeton University as revealing that in 2004, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, “I would resign if for any reason Iran is deprived of its rights to enrichment.”
Moussavian is presented as an Iranian academic visiting Princeton to lecture and write a book on the Iranian nuclear issue. debkafile reveals that he was the contact man in one of the direct, back-channel negotiations taking place in Paris between the White House and Khamenei. His words therefore were intended to carry weight as a reminder to Obama that the supreme leader, like the US president, intended to come out of their dialogue strengthened – not undermined. And therefore, for both their sakes, Washington must endorse Iran’s “right to enrichment.”
Tehran presented a second ultimatum for the nuclear talks to continue: phased sanctions relief, starting with the postponement of the European Union’s oil embargo scheduled for July 1 until the end of negotiations and the reconnection of Iranian banks to the SWIFT international money transfer system.
The gap between Israel and the Obama administration widened in the course of Washington’s direct, secret give-and-take with Tehran. In early April, Defense Minister Barak reported that Israel offered some compromise on the enrichment issue. debkafile disclosed at the time that Israel had informed Washington of its approval of a “1,000 formula.” Iran would be permitted to activate 1,000 centrifuges for enrichment and keep 1,000 kilograms of 3.5-per cent enriched uranium.
The Netanyahu government backtracked when this concession was used by US officials as a lever for further accommodations with Iran.
The direct US-Iran channel and the second round of Six Power talks with Iran have clearly left the standoff over Iran’s nuclear solidly in place: Iran stands by its right to enrich uranium up to weapons grade, the US stands by diplomacy, however hopeless, for resolving the controversy, while Israel demands a time limit for negotiations. Its military option was put back on the table for so long as Iran’s enrichment centrifuges continue spinning at top speed.

U.S. study: Iran has enough uranium for five nuclear bombs
By Reuters | May.26, 2012 | 12:19 PM | 4
ISIS analysis, based on IAEA report, finds Iran has significantly stepped up output of low-enriched uranium in the last five years; Iran reportedly downplays IAEA report.
Iran has significantly stepped up its output of low-enriched uranium and total production in the last five years would be enough for at least five nuclear weapons if refined much further, a U.S. security institute said. The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a think-tank which tracks Iran's nuclear programme closely, based the analysis on data in the latest report by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was issued on Friday. Progress in Iran's nuclear activities is closely watched by the West and Israel as it could determine how long it could take Tehran to build atomic bombs, if it decided to do so. Iran denies any plan to and says its aims are entirely peaceful. During talks in Baghdad this week, six world powers failed to convince Iran to scale back its uranium enrichment program.
They will meet again in Moscow next month to try to defuse a decade-old standoff that has raised fears of a new war in the Middle East that coulddisrupt oil supplies.
Friday's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a Vienna-based UN body, showed Iran was pressing ahead with its uraniumn enrichment work in defiance of UN resolutions calling on it to suspend the activity.
It said Iran had produced almost 6.2 tonnes of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent since it began the work in 2007 - some of which has subsequently been further processed into higher-grade material.
This is nearly 750 kg more than in the previous IAEA report issued in February, and ISIS said Iran's monthly production had risen by roughly a third.
This total amount of 3.5 percent low enriched uranium hexafluoride, if further enriched to weapon grade, is enough to make over five nuclear weapons," ISIS said in its analysis.
It added, however, that some of Iran's higher-grade uranium had been converted into reactor fuel and would not be available for nuclear weapons, at least not quickly.
Friday's IAEA report also said environmental samples taken in February at Iran's Fordow facility - buried deep beneath rock and soil to protect it from air strikes - showed the presence of particles with enrichment levels of up to 27 percent.
Iran's permanent representative to the body played down the findings, saying some western media sought to turn a technical issue into a political one.
"This matter is a routine technical discussion that is currently being reviewed by experts," IRNA quoted Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as saying.
The IAEA report suggested it was possible that particles of uranium enriched to higher-than-declared levels could be the result of a technical phenomenon. Experts say that while it is embarrassing for Iran, there is no real cause for concern. The UN agency also said satellite images showed "extensive activities" at the Parchin military complex which inspectors want to check over suspicions that research relevant to nuclear weapons was done there. After talks in Tehran earlier this week, IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said the two sides were close to an agreement to let inspectors resume investigations into suspected nuclear explosive experiments in Iran.Enriched uranium can be used to fuel power plants, which is Iran's stated purpose, or to provide material for bombs, if refined to a much higher degree. The West suspects that may be Iran's ultimate goal despite the Islamic Republic's denials.
Iran began enriching uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent in 2010, saying it needed this to fuel a medical research reactor. It later expanded the work sharply by launching enrichment at Fordow.
It alarmed a suspicious West since such enhanced enrichment accomplishes much of the technical leap towards 90 percent - or weapons-grade - uranium.
Central to the talks in Baghdad were attempts to get Iran to halt enrichment to 20 percent, in exchange for measures to ease sanctions and assistance with safety at its nuclear plants.
Iran demanded world powers expressly confirm its right to enrich uranium. Iran has installed more than 50 percent more enrichment centrifuges at Fordow, the IAEA report said. Although not yet being fed with uranium, the new machines could be used to further boost Iran's output of uranium enriched to 20 percent. ISIS said Iran still appeared to be experiencing problems in its testing of production-scale units of more advanced centrifuges that would allow it to refine uranium faster, even though it had made some progress

Iran letter to UN condemns Israeli 'threats'
Dudi Cohen /Published: 05.26.12/Ynetnews
In complaint sent to Security Council, Iran's UN envoy accuses Israeli officials of threatening to strike Islamic Republic despite nuclear program's peaceful nature
Iran's ambassador to the UN has lodged a complaint against Israel at the Security Council on Friday, slamming Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli officials for remarks about a potential strike on the Islamic Republic. Barak said on Tuesday that the deal reached between the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran does not eliminate the possibility of an Israeli attack meant to stunt Iran's nuclear program. The Iranian envoy, Mohammad Khazaee, said in the complaint letter that Barak "unwarrantedly and under erroneous and false presumptions on Iran's peaceful nuclear activities" threatened to use force against the Islamic Republic. Khazaee claimed that it is ironic that the "inflammatory remarks" are made by a state infamous for its "atrocities" and "crimes against humanity." He added that Israel's clandestine nuclear development is the primary threat to peace in the region and the world. Moreover, the official stressed that Iran has been a leader in rejecting all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, but noted that the country wouldn't hesitate to defend itself in the face of an attack.Meanwhile, Iran's envoy to the IAEA said that the new report issued by the UN's nuclear watchdog agency offers "proof" that Tehran's atom program is peaceful. He added that the report indicates that Tehran is cooperating with the UN agency, according to the semi-official Islamic Republic News Agency. Ali Asghar Soltanieh made the comment late Friday on Iranian state television, despite the fact the report showed that uranium traces of an

Prepare for nuclear Iran
Eitan Haber Published: 05.24.12/Ynetnews
Op-ed: Just like nothing could stop Israeli determination, Iran will likely achieve its nuclear goals Benjamin Netanyahu was roughly five-years-old when he played in the sandbox at kindergarten, and Ehud Barak was roughly 12-years-old and run in the orchards when David Ben Gurion, Professor Ernst David Bergmann, Shimon Peres and Emmanuel (Mannes) Prat gave birth to the State of Israel’s “deterrent power.” They, and many others, built during a whole generation what “foreign sources” refer to as “the State of Israel’s nuclear facilities.” They, and many others, looked far into the future: During the days of austerity in the 1950s, when food supply was limited, they invested huge sums (relatively, of course) in order to safeguard Israel, a small island in the midst of a zealous Muslim and Arab ocean. The story of how Israel’s “deterrent power” was built is among the most amazing in the history of the world: Plenty of resourcefulness, wisdom, ruses and tricks were utilized for long years. Only ignoramuses are convinced that such power can be built within days, weeks or months. Those in the know would tell you that they went through major crises, years of hard work, days of despair and hours of anxiety before completing the task. Use brains, not force Netanyahu and Barak were indeed children when all this took shape, yet during their tenures in the post of prime minister, defense minister and finance minister they learned two highly important lessons: First, if one is determined, nothing will stand in the way. Second, the State of Israel invested hundreds of millions of dollars in order to utilize every trick and achieve the ultimate result. So why should the Iranians behave any differently? If the Iranians are determined and should they use their brains to fool the entire world, they will acquire a nuclear device. Nothing will stop them. According to currently available information, and the emphasis here is on currently, the Americans do not wish to find themselves entangled with the Iranians. Meanwhile, the Israelis, who keep yelling “hold us back,” know well that without America one cannot gravely hurt Iran, if at all. The conclusion, as things stand now, is as follows: Within some time, Iran will go nuclear and threaten world peace. It will most certainly threaten the State of Israel’s existence. Instead of thinking about utilizing force, maybe, just maybe, we should think about using our brains: How will the State of Israel exist and persist for years in the shadow of Iranian nukes? What should we say? What should we do? How will we survive in the midst of this hot lava?

Is this the beginning of the Brotherhood’s incapacitation?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
I write this article whilst all signs in Egypt indicate that Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi has booked his place in next month’s Egyptian presidential run-off, whilst there is competition between General Ahmed Shafiq – who is currently in second place – and Mr. Hamdeen Sabahi – who is in third place – over the remaining run-off spot. This is how the situation stands as I write this article, although things may change and Sabahi could find himself in second place and taking part in the presidential run-off against the Muslim Brotherhood candidate.
These results show that a broad section of Egyptian society has taken the decision to incapacitate the Muslim Brotherhood, out of fear of the establishment of a religious state, not to mention Muslim Brotherhood – Salafist control of the Egyptian parliament, and, of course, the Brotherhood’s positions on the drafting of a new constitution. All of these issues are alarming in the eyes of a broad section of the Egyptian people, and they cannot be underestimated or played down. If the Muslim Brotherhood wins the Egyptian presidency, this not only means that Egypt will become a religious state, it will become the “Muslim Brotherhood State of Egypt.” Therefore the initial results from the Egyptian presidential elections, until now, show that the biggest election losers are the Egyptian people themselves.
According to reports, Egyptian presidential election turnout is at 50 percent of all eligible voters, namely 50 million Egyptians; this means that approximately 25 million Egyptians voted in the elections. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate will not be able to win outright during this election-round, namely he will not be able to obtain 50 percent of the vote of 50 percent of the Egyptian electorate, and this is the opposite of what the Muslim Brotherhood achieved during the parliamentary elections, particularly with regards to the Egyptian People’s Assembly. Therefore it is clear that there is a form of uprising in Egyptian society against the Muslim Brotherhood, as it appears today – at least from the initial results of the presidential election – that the Brotherhood now represent no more than 20 to 25 percent of Egyptian society, and this is something of a defeat for the Muslim Brotherhood, over a relatively short period of time, namely since the departure of former president Mubarak until today.
This is a very important indication, particularly as during the last days of the Mubarak regime and the rise of the Egyptian revolution, many people refused to even criticize the Muslim Brotherhood, saying: we have had enough of the Muslim Brotherhood being used as a “scarecrow”. However what is happening today confirms that the Muslim Brotherhood is a genuine source of fear and concern, not just regionally, but also within Egypt itself. The best example of this can be seen in the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood candidate is a “backup” whose electoral campaign is associated with Khairat al-Shater; this reveals that the Muslim Brotherhood candidate is not an independent figure, but rather the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood General Guide and organization, not a titular political figure in his own right!
Therefore this, of course, represents a loss for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and this is a loss that has been caused by the Muslim Brotherhood themselves, because they have revealed their true intentions, which has caused everybody to distrust them and fear for the future of the country. So if the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt believe that their candidate progressing to the presidential run-off is a victory for them, then this is a victory that no doubt tastes of defeat, because a broad section of Egyptian society– and without the influence of the Mubarak regime which is out of the game – are now against them. What a paradox it is that the Egyptian people only rose up against Mubarak after 30 years in power, whilst they are rising up against the Muslim Brotherhood today, less than one year after the Egyptian parliamentary elections!

Clinton concerned Syria unrest affecting Lebanon
May 26, 2012 /US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday expressed concern that interminable unrest in Syria is "contributing to instability" in neighboring Lebanon. Armed clashes between supporters and opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime have taken place in recent weeks in both the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli and the capital Beirut. "The United States is concerned that developments in Syria are contributing to instability in Lebanon," Clinton said in a statement. "We encourage all parties to exercise restraint and demonstrate respect for Lebanon's security and stability," the chief US diplomat added. Clinton also renewed calls on the Assad regime to implement a six-point peace plan brokered by Kofi Annan, the United Nations and Arab League envoy.
"We call on the Syrian regime to stop the violence against its own people and fully implement the Annan Plan," she said. "The regime needs to institute a peaceful, democratic transition now. We remain committed to a unified, stable, sovereign, and independent Lebanon," Clinton added.In addition to the clashes in Tripoli and Beirut, Lebanon's state news agency NNA said 13 Lebanese Shia pilgrims were abducted in northern Syria as they made their way home from a pilgrimage in Iran, which is Assad's key ally.It accused the rebel Free Syrian Army of having kidnapped them. Lebanese Health Minister Ali Hassan Khalil said the pilgrims were freed on Friday and arrived in Turkey.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
May 25, 2012/Now Lebanon
On May 25, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered a televised speech on the occasion of the Liberation Day:
“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Peace be upon you.
I congratulate you all, and I congratulate the Arab Muslim nation on Liberation Day and the [day of the] victory of the resistance. Today, we also witness a happy ending to a sorrowful incident. It was confirmed that the [Lebanese Shia pilgrims that were abducted on Tuesday in Syria] are on their way to Beirut's Rafik Hariri International airport.
It is an ethical duty to thank God first for the release. On behalf of the relatives of the abductees, we thank those who contributed to the release. We were also communicating with the Syrian leadership and authorities who took care of the women and elderly who were released first. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad helped send the women and the elderly to Lebanon. We also thank all the Lebanese officials who helped with their release, who used their contacts.
We thank President Michel Sleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Future Movement leader Saad Hariri, who made a lot of efforts to release them. We also thank Turkish President Abdallah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. I also thank all the people who controlled their emotions and responded to our call for calm, wisdom and patience. I shall note that the Iraqi authorities are working on transferring to Lebanon the Lebanese [Shia] pilgrims who were injured in a bomb attack. We thank them for this.
Regarding the reaction of some people following the abduction, I want to say that protesting and blocking roads is useless, this is [a sin] and it is unethical. What good did it do? The abductors were not Lebanese… who were you trying to pressure? I call all people to abstain from such acts if in the future such an incident would reoccur. We also ask those in charge of the pilgrimage trips to stop organizing trips by land. This time people controlled their emotions, next time we do not know what might happen. We ask people to go on pilgrimages by air.
To the abductors I say: kidnapping innocent people harms your image and contradicts all you say you are working to achieve. Our stance on Syria is based on sources and on our vision for the region. If this kidnap operation seeks to pressure us into changing our stance, it will not work. If the kidnap sought to push the Lebanese [parties] to pressure the Syrian regime into releasing some detainees so that the kidnappers release the abductees, then it is very dangerous… it is very dangerous to approach things this way. This kidnap is a failed incident.
We called on the state to take responsibility in this matter. Some people said it was a good starting point [for us to support the state’s role]. I say this was not the first time; we have always called on the state to assume responsibility. The people and leadership of the South have always called on the state to defend them and stop Israeli aggressions. But the state never responded to these calls. Missing Shia cleric Imam Moussa Sadr had always called on the state and the army to deploy in the South to defend the people of the South, not Israel. But the state did not respond. The state disassociated itself from defending its land. This is why Sadr called on the people to defend themselves and buy weapons. We want to remind you that the people of the South had to buy weapons and carry out their national duty amid the absence of the Lebanese state. The people expressed their resistance through [several] organizations and parties.
Today, we are celebrating a true national occasion. I call for considering this day a national day of celebration. This is a celebration for all people, we do not accept that some people consider it a celebration day for a certain sect. The resistance is an accomplishment and a cause. The Israelis did not occupy Lebanon to eventually leave it… they had ambitions about Lebanon’s waters and land and there are documents that prove this. The land of the South was restored to the Lebanese with dignity and without conditions. The lands were restored to the authority of the state. The Lebanese state has the right to decide how to organize the land of the South and it does not need the permission of Israel or the UN to do so. This is an accomplishment. The Israelis left the South immediately and left the Israeli-backed troops of Antoine Lahad behind them without any warning. They did this thinking that it will lead to a civil war. The Israeli army plotted against Antoine Lahad’s army. But the resistance behaved in an ethical way with collaborators. Amid the [prevalence of] the resistance’s weapons, [the families of Antoine Lahad’s soldiers] were never asked to leave their home and lands. Those who were not directly involved with the Israelis can return to their land whenever they want. We are ready to contribute to everything that reinforces national unity and reconciliation. The Israelis have not dared for 12 years to attack our villages and the sovereignty of our country. It is not the United Nations protecting Lebanon, but the unity of the army, people and Resistance.
Regarding the wall that Israel is building along the town of Kfar Kila: it is an indication that Liberation Day ended the project called ‘Greater Israel.’ The project of Greater Israel always aimed for a big territory bordered by rivers. These walls built by Israel along the border with Palestine and Lebanon show that the project of 'Greater Israel' is over. The project of having rivers as borders ended with having walls for borders. One of the Israeli officials said: It never occurred to me that there would come a day when the Israeli army would have to flee in the face of Arabs [i.e. Hezbollah]. The Israeli official said: Hezbollah proved that there is another type of Arab people.
There was never a national consensus on the resistance. Today, some people are calling for discussing the issue of non-state weapons, including the weapons of the resistance. This is a mistake because the weapons of the resistance have accomplished [something], but the weapons of other organizations did not accomplish [anything]. All parties in both March 14 and March 8 coalitions have weapons. Although we do not confuse between the weapons of the resistance and weapons of other organizations, we say we do not mind discussing the issue of weapons and the national defense strategy. It is not logical to say that “we should cancel the weapons of the resistance because there is a ‘weapons’ chaos’ in Lebanon. The opposite logic should be adopted: we should discuss how to organize the weapons if there is chaos.
On the internal level, the Lebanese state is the only one in charge of the security of the people and land. We [Hezbollah] are not responsible for security, it the state that is responsible. The most important institution that can protect civil peace is the Lebanese army. We should protect it, defend its capabilities and morale.
In 1993, army troops shot at protesters in Beirut, killed several and injured others. Did we attack the army? Did we call for its withdrawal from our regions? We did call for punishing them but nothing happened. Also, some people were killed by army troops in the Beirut area of Hay al-Sellom. Did anyone attack the army? The accident that happened in [North Lebanon’s] Akkar and led to the death of Sheikh Ahmad Abdel Wahed is sad and we condemn it, but it was just an accident. Some people compare it to the incident between the army and Hezbollah in Beirut’s Mar Mekhayel… no one attacked the army at that time, we only called for punishing the officials responsible for killing people. The Lebanese army and security forces should be provided with the necessary equipment to stop any kind of internal clashes. Some Lebanese parties try to incite sectarian strife to win more votes in the elections. But we say that sectarian strife is really dangerous… it cannot be controlled once it erupts. The political leaderships and media should take responsibility and stop the incitement.
Regarding the issue of Islamist detainees, Hezbollah has demanded the acceleration of their trials since day one. Some people say that the Shia are preventing the acceleration of the trials. This is not true. Personally, there was an assassination attempt against me by an Islamist but I said I will not charge the assailant. It is unfair to hold the Shia sect responsible for the issue of Islamist detainees. I say we should find the real reason behind the stalling of the trials. Hezbollah is against security institutions that deal with the CIA or any foreign security body. But the [General Security] is a state institution and does not belong to Hezbollah.
President Michel Sleiman called for dialogue. I announce that Hezbollah accepts to engage in dialogue without preconditions. We call on March 14 parties to accept dialogue if they really care for the country.
Regarding the situation in the south, we think that the reasons behind the formation of a national unity cabinet in Israel is related to internal reasons, and it is not related to a [possible] war in the region. This is just an analysis, it does not mean that we shouldn’t always keep our eyes open and be ready.”

Lebanese Officials Say Arrival of Freed Pilgrims in Beirut Delayed till Morning
Naharnet /25 May 2012/Jubilation turned into anxious waiting in Lebanon on Friday after top officials said eleven Lebanese Shiite pilgrims abducted in Syria have been freed and conflicting reports emerged about the exact timing of their arrival in Beirut and about whether or not they were handed over to Turkish authorities. According to a statement issue by Prime Minister Najib Miqati’s office, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu informed the premier that the pilgrims are doing well and that they were on their way to Beirut.For his part, Speaker Nabih Berri received a telephone call from former Prime Minister Saad Hariri confirming the development. Head of Syria's opposition Ahrar Party Ibrahim al-Zohbi also confirmed the release to al-Jadeed television.
He said that they were handed to Turkish authorities, adding that they were released without any conditions. But around midnight, Interior Minister Marwan Charbel announced that the abductees “have just arrived in Turkey” and that they were not expected to arrive in Beirut before morning. Hizbullah and AMAL Movement also issued a joint statement confirming that the pilgrims are in good health and asking their families to return home and wait till morning. Several media reports -- some attributed to Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour, Transport Minister Ghazi Aridi and the Beirut Rafik Hariri International Airport -- had earlier said the freed pilgrims were due to arrive in Beirut around 11 p.m. Friday.
Charbel blamed the delay on “routine logistic reasons,” reassuring that the pilgrims are in good health. The minister did not rule out that the interrogation of the freed pilgrims in Turkey could be the reason behind the delay. Meanwhile, Ahmed Ramadan, member of the opposition Syrian National Council, told MTV that “the Lebanese abductees are still in Syria.”“The fierce Syrian shelling on border areas is hindering the handing over of the abductees to Turkey,” MTV also reported.
The pilgrims’ relatives and hundreds of supporters had flocked to the Beirut airport since the afternoon hours to welcome the freed men. Top Lebanese officials had also arrived at the airport to welcome the pilgrims, including Deputy PM Samir Moqbel, the representative of President Michel Suleiman and PM Miqati, Speaker Nabih Berri’s representative MP Hani Qobeissi, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour, Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, several lawmakers and Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s representative MP Ali Ammar. Thousands of people took to the streets and celebratory gunshots were fired in Beirut's southern suburbs at the news of the release. The pilgrims will be transported from Turkey to Lebanon on board ex-PM Hariri's private jet, state-run National News Agency reported.
NNA said Hariri's plane arrived at Turkey's Adana Airport at around 7:15 p.m. and that routine procedures had started ahead of the plane's takeoff.
On Tuesday, Lebanon's state news agency NNA said the pilgrims were abducted in northern Syria as they made their way home from a pilgrimage in Iran and accused the rebel Free Syrian Army of having kidnapped them. The FSA denied the claim. On Thursday the rebel army said it was making "every effort" to locate and release the pilgrims.

Miqati on Pilgrims’ Release: We Hope it Will Pave Way to Dialogue among Political Factions
Naharnet/25 May 2012/Prime Minister Najib Miqati praised on Friday Speaker Nabih Berri and Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah for their efforts in ensuring the release of the 11 Lebanese pilgrims who were released from captivity in Syria earlier on Friday. He said in a statement: “We hope this occasion will enable the Lebanese to overcome all obstacles that prevented them from holding dialogue given the goodwill showed by all sides.” He also noted former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s efforts in ensuring the release. “This is a glorious day that reflects the unity of the Lebanese people,” remarked Miqati.
On the details of the release, he said that he does not have exact details of how they were set free, adding that he had held contacts with various Turkish officials.
“We thank the Turkish authorities and all those concerned for their efforts,” he stressed. “We will meet tonight at the airport to greet the pilgrims,” he added. The pilgrims were kidnapped in the city of Aleppo on Tuesday as they were returning from a pilgrimage to Iran. Earlier on Friday, Miqati had warned the Lebanese against disunity and rivalry, saying their strength lies in their solidarity and coordination.
“I congratulate all the Lebanese on the occasion of Liberation Day,” Miqati said on his twitter feed.
Liberation Day commemorates the Israeli army’s withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 2000. Several rallies are being held on Friday in southern towns on the occasion.
“The solidarity of the Lebanese and their unity contributed to the liberation and were an important factor in confronting the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in July 2006,” he tweeted.
“The strength of the Lebanese lies in their solidarity and unity … and their weakness lies in fragmentation and rivalry,” Miqati said. He also hoped that “Lebanon and its citizens would be protected at all times.” Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn also said on Liberation Day that the Lebanese should rally behind the army and support the resistance. He called on the Lebanese not to shove the military into political issues, saying the only enemy is Israel. “There is another less dangerous enemy which is terrorism. It has no religion nor sect,” Ghosn added.

Lebanon’s perilous street politics
Michael Young, May 25, 2012 /Now Lebanon
Consider Shadi Mawlawi, Sheikh Ahmad Assir, the combatants in Bab al-Tabbaneh, Jabal Mohsen and Tariq al-Jadideh, and the angry youths in Beirut’s southern suburbs who burned tires on Tuesday to protest against the abduction of Shia religious pilgrims in Syria. Lebanon is succumbing to populist impulses and their impresarios, which cannot represent a good development for the future.
Lebanon’s political class is frequently, and quite reasonably, maligned. However, the street is infinitely worse. It was a clearly concerned Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah who took to the airwaves Tuesday evening urging young Shia to calm down after the news of the pilgrims’ fate broke. What Nasrallah sought to avoid at all cost was an outbreak of violence between Shia and Sunnis.
To a great extent, Hezbollah has only itself to blame. The arrest of Mawlawi by the General Security directorate was a reckless, suspicious operation that was certain to lead to a heightening of sectarian animosities. The party, and behind it the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, manipulated events in Tripoli to show that the city is a Salafist stronghold—in that way confirming Assad’s contention that he is fighting a coalition of armed jihadists.
Like many traps, it threatened to backfire when two Sunni clerics were killed in Akkar and fighting spread to Beirut. A Sunni-Shia conflict is not something Hezbollah desires, not when its strategic objective is to use legislative elections next year to gain control of parliament, then the presidency, then the broader apparatus of the state. This mad scheme cannot conceivably work, even less so when the Sunni community feels invigorated by the failure of the Assad regime to prevail in Syria. Yet Hezbollah, in order to survive in a post-Assad Middle East, needs to anchor itself somewhere while simultaneously avoiding suicide in a new Lebanese civil war.
That is where the street comes in. No less than Nasrallah, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri sensed the potential dangers on Tuesday when he felicitously issued a statement calling for the release of the Shia pilgrims. This should be taken further. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has called for a resumption of dialogue between the Lebanese parties. While March 14 sources spun this into censure of Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government, it actually meant rather more than that, creating an opening that must be exploited.
King Abdullah is right about one thing: Lebanon’s leaders urgently need to engage in dialogue. For now the agenda must focus on achievable ambitions, above all avoiding Lebanon being dragged into the Syrian conflict. Syria has reportedly sought to pressure Mikati into taking a more forceful stance against the Syrian opposition. But such a step would only break the country apart and push the Lebanese toward the very predicament that Hezbollah, and everybody else, seeks to avert, namely sectarian civil war.
Hezbollah’s views on the pressure against Mikati seem ambiguous, but if the party fears Lebanon’s breakup then it must welcome a dialogue. Yes, it might have to accept Mikati’s efforts to defend Lebanese non-alignment, or split personality, over the Syrian crisis. On the other hand this would provide valuable advantages down the road, because Hezbollah’s self-preservation would necessarily require that the party improve relations between Shia and the other Lebanese communities, above all the Sunni community.
And what would be in it for the Sunnis? Justifiably, Hezbollah’s arms remain a bone of contention for many Lebanese, and that will not soon change. However, the more urgent priority today is to impede a slide toward the sectarian abyss. As for the longer term, if Assad falls, as he will, the Sunni leadership can then engage in a conversation with Hezbollah from a position of strength over those issues that it considers essential—weapons above all. But that should not prevent a dialogue today. Nor should it prevent March 14 from mobilizing to challenge Hezbollah politically when the elections come.
As King Abdullah surely knows, for an inter-Lebanese dialogue to make sense, Saad Hariri must be intimately involved in it. The former prime minister cannot participate by proxy, especially as there is a worrisome drift of the initiative in the Sunni community toward the extremes. The extremists remain a minority, but as we saw in Tripoli last week, in periods like these they can impose their will.
After initial confusion, Future politicians read the dangers of the Mawlawi arrest relatively well, and did so again after the shooting of the two sheikhs in Akkar. However, their allies on the ground took a different tack. When Khaled Daher of the Jamaa Islamiyya—who worried that he might be overwhelmed from his right—accused elements in the army of deliberately killing the clerics, this crossed a red line that disturbed many people, not least Future’s Christian ally Sami Gemayel.
The army is a house of myriad murky corners, but it is the only national institution that stands between a semblance of peace and a security void. There are also substantial numbers of Sunnis in the ranks, so it makes no sense to undermine the military in the eyes of the community. Only a national dialogue, with a reinforced role for the Army at its core, can counter the perils of visceral politics.
Now is not the time to engage in petty politicking. Mikati made many enemies by becoming prime minister against the will of a majority of his coreligionists, in what was a sordid arrangement that has brought him, and us, only misery. However, if Mikati were to resign today, the absence of a consensus would mean a prolonged period without a functioning government. This vacuum would carry Lebanon into the unknown, and into another minefield favored by Syria.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Question: "Is it important to know Greek and Hebrew when studying the Bible?"
question.org/Answer: Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer, wrote the following in regard to the importance of understanding Greek and Hebrew when studying the Scriptures: "The languages are the sheath in which the sword of the Spirit is contained." God sovereignly chose to have His Word written in Hebrew (the Old Testament) and Greek (the New Testament).
Our modern English translations are excellent. Most of the major English translations available today are superb renderings of the original Greek and Hebrew. However, in any translation, not everything that was communicated in the original language can be precisely conveyed in another language. Some nuances do not transfer well from one language to another. As a result, a translation rarely is a perfect rendering of the original. (This is one reason why the Amplified Version was published.)
An example of this is the "aspect" of Greek verbs. English verbs have tenses—past, present, and future. Greek verbs have these same tenses, but they also have what is known as "aspect." Present-tense Greek verbs mean more than the action is occurring presently. A Greek verb can also carry the meaning that the action is occurring continually or repeatedly. This is lost in English unless the aspect word "continually" or "repeatedly" is added to the translation along with the verb. A specific example of this is Ephesians 5:18, "...be filled with the Spirit." In the original Greek, this verse is telling us to continually be filled with the Spirit. It is not a one-time event—it is a lifelong process. This "aspect" is lost in the English translation.
With all that said, the Bible also makes it clear that the Spirit is the author of the Bible and that He will help us to understand the His Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 14:26). You do not have to know Hebrew and Greek in order to understand the Bible. God's intended message for us is accurately communicated in English. You can have confidence that God can reveal the meaning of His Word to you without your knowing Greek and Hebrew.
Perhaps this is a good analogy: reading the Bible without knowing Greek and Hebrew is like watching a 20" television, while reading the Bible knowing Greek and Hebrew is like watching a 65" LED 1080p HDTV with stereo surround sound. You can understand what is going on with the 20" television, but the 65" LED HDTV with stereo surround sound gives added depth and clarity. With the help of the Holy Spirit, anyone can accurately understand the Bible in English. However, knowing Hebrew and Greek helps to better understand the nuances and richness of the biblical texts

A slap in Lebanon’s face
By Diana Moukalled/Asharq Alawsat
Activists on social networking websites in Lebanon have re-posted a video that was first released several years ago, showing a number of men and women receiving successive slaps to the face without moving a muscle. The video concludes with the number of victims of war in Lebanon - which has surpassed 200,000 - and the word “enough”.
The video clip went viral after the events that Lebanon witnessed recently, accompanied by calls for protests, banners being raised and online forums attempting to incite activism rejecting violence and the renewed slide towards war, and this is a voice that has not found any space in the traditional media.
However, the attempts to rationalize what happened in Lebanon - coupled with the uncertainty of the online activists regarding how best to avoid falling back into the abyss - seemed disjointed and ultimately only had a limited impact, compared to another current that was also strongly active on social networking websites.
In addition to activists fearing a new war gathering pace in Lebanon, confused about what could be done to avoid this, and aware that any move could provoke volatile anger on the streets, there were other pages on Facebook and Twitter attracting thousands of ideological and irrational zealots, who believe that the only solution to the perceived threats is armed confrontation.
This time, those attracted by this scaremongering discourse were from the mainstream Sunni current, for whom the recent events in north Lebanon and Beirut provided the spark that ignited something that has been building up in their consciences for years.
What has been said by the local Lebanese media could – at times – be described as blatant in its hostility and sectarianism, but this time the “digital media” has been far worse. Social networking websites have devoted pages of their coverage of the recent events in Lebanon to hostile, political and sectarian audio, video and commentary. It seems than in the online domain, Sunni discourse is being militarized.
Now we might even see a response from a militant entity such as Hezbollah, which in turn would prompt the general body of Lebanese Shiites towards militarization. We must deal with the reality that we are now facing dangerous attempts in Lebanon to militarize Sunni discourse, and we have already seen the militarization of the street in some areas of the north, not to mention Beirut. If one was to set himself the task of addressing Hezbollah’s weapons, its role in undermining the state, and in transforming Lebanon into a tool in the hand of foreign parties stretching from Iran to Syria, this task becomes clearer when focusing less on Hezbollah’s weapons and more on the absurd Lebanese scene itself, not to mention the tendency towards rivalry and competition.
This is exactly what has been reflected not only in the street, but also in cyberspace.
Something fundamental must change in Lebanon.
Although the weakening of the state was carried out by Hezbollah and the Syrian and Iranian regimes, we in Lebanon all contributed by fostering it in the street, in our conversations, and in our virtual worlds.
The slaps that can be heard in the activists’ video should be enough to alert anybody to danger, but it seems that in Lebanon and the surrounding area there are those who have been rendered so numb that the slap no longer means anything to them.

False hopes, stretched nerves
Ana Maria Luca and Luna Safwan,
May 26, 2012/Now Lebanon
Relatives of the Lebanese pilgrims kidnapped in Syria celebrate at the Beirut International Airport before finding out they weren’t released. (Photo AFP)
Siham Mahmoud has been waiting for two days to know if her husband is still alive or not. Mahmoud’s husband, Awad Ibrahim, is one of the 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims who were kidnapped in Aleppo four days ago by an unknown group. She says she has no news about Ibrahim other than what she has been seeing on the news. “What we have been seeing on television is exactly what the middle men between us—[Hezbollah leader] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, [Amal leader] Nabih Berri and the government—have been telling us. No clear news,” she told NOW Lebanon.
Last night Mahmoud was in the crowd at the Beirut International Airport to wait for Ibrahim, as she and other family members had seen on the news that their relatives had been released and handed over to the Turkish authorities. They cheered when they heard the Lebanese government announce the captives’ release and when they found out that former PM Saad Hariri had sent one of his private jets to take the newly released men from Adana to Beirut.
But Hariri’s plane never took off from Adana, and the kidnapped pilgrims never reached home. The reason why their relatives are not back is still unclear for the families.
The crowd at the Beirut International Airport, together with the ministers and politicians who were ready to welcome the kidnapped, had to go home. A day later, there is still no clear information about what went wrong with the release, and no government officials are making any statements. Some news programs quoted “official sources” saying that the captives were still with the kidnappers, others quoted Turkish officials saying they had no information, and others said that the Syrian army’s shelling had made it impossible for the pilgrims to be handed to the Turkish authorities.
The only real information came from the opposition Free Syrian Army. “Contacts with the rebel group, which is present in Aazaz in Aleppo, has been interrupted since 8 p.m. on Friday,” FSA spokesperson Khaled Youssef al-Hammoud told Al-Jadeed earlier today. “The Syrian regime is preventing us from acting in order to resolve this issue… They shelled the team that we sent to conduct negotiations with the abductors.”
Hezbollah and Amal Movement leaders made calls for the people in Beirut’s southern suburbs to keep calm and wait till the morning because “It is just a matter of delay.” There had been tire-burning protests upon the news that the pilgrims had first been kidnapped, and they feared more strife.
Mohammad, a 24-year-old from Hay al-Sillom, told NOW Lebanon that “There are many people in this region angry and ready to cause trouble, but Hezbollah is making sure they don’t take to the streets.” He also said that he heard of Syrian nationals being attacked overnight in nearby neighborhood of Shiyyeh. “People, like me, think that what happened to the pilgrims is a game. I think they will release them eventually. People hope for it here,” he said. “What happened last night was playing with people’s patience and nerves. It has always been like this in Lebanon. Nothing will ever change.
Ibrahim, a 25-year-old Hezbollah supporter in Haret Hreik, also said the kidnapping was a game. “I think the revolutionaries kidnapped them to make some sort of exchange. But people also talk about the high probability that they are already dead,” he said. “But all these lies circulating might lead to trouble. In Haret Hreik there are many Syrians. I haven’t seen anybody assaulted, but I’ve heard that Syrians were beaten up around Dahyieh,” he said.
“What is funny is that the government has no clue about what is happening, but they still make statements. This sectarian strife option is always there in this country. We all follow our sect blindly. They trick us, they laugh at us and we still follow them,” he said.
Al-Balad analyst Ali al-Amin agrees politicians’ reckless statements have caused a great deal of tension. “The statements of Hariri and the cabinet ministers, and the information coming from Turkey were so contradictory. I wonder if there was some sort of agreement and at some point something went wrong with the deal,” he told NOW. “The politicians in Lebanon fell into a trap of bidding their efforts. Everyone was showing off what they had done for the release,” he said. “Right now each sect takes care of its people. The cabinet has no role in this story. Hezbollah and the Amal Movement are the ones negotiating for the kidnapped, just as Future would negotiate for the Sunnis, or Kataeb and the Lebanese Forces for the Christians,” he said.
“The problem this time is not in Lebanon. The problem is either with the Syrians or with the Turks, but the fragility of the situation puts Lebanon at risk. The people are tense, and the situation is fragile,” Amin said.
In Dahiyeh, the relatives of the 11 hostages gathered at a religious pilgrimage office that had taken them on the trip. Their patience was almost gone, Mahmoud told NOW. Her anger was directed at the Turkish government. “We are giving them two or three hours and then all the people who were there at the airport last night will march to the Turkish Embassy to ask them to state something clear. We need to know if our relatives are still alive. We want a clear statement from the Turkish cabinet. If not, we’re going to the Turkish Embassy. God knows what happens next,” she said.