LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 24/2012

Bible Quotation for today/
John 08/51-55: "Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.’The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, "Whoever keeps my word will never taste death." Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, "He is our God", though you do not know him. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Turkey: Fresh hopes for a new Kurdish policy/By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat/November 23/12
Al-Assad is the beneficiary/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 23/12
Who holds the resistance to account/By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat/November 23/12

Al-Rahi: No One Has Right to Request Handing over of Hariri Murder Suspects
Naharnet /Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi said Thursday that no one should request the authorities to hand over suspects in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination because they are innocent until proven guilty. “No party has the right to request the handing over of the suspects because a suspect is innocent until proven guilty and the issue is up to the judiciary to decide,” al-Rahi said in response to a question on the request made by the March 14 opposition alliance. But Bkirki spokesman Walid Ghayyad told Naharnet that al-Rahi “differentiated between the political and judicial accusation,” saying “the judiciary should be making the request to avoid complicating things.”The patriarch supports “the handing over of the suspects if the court (Special Tribunal for Lebanon) makes such a request because not every suspect is guilty and we can't consider him guilty before the final verdict.”Salim Ayyash, Hussein Oneissi, Mustafa Badreddine and Assad Sabra, who are Hizbullah members, have been indicted in Hariri's Feb. 2005 assassination in a massive suicide car bombing. In June last year, the STL issued warrants and Interpol has also issued a "red notice" for the suspects. But Lebanese authorities have not arrested them for allegedly not being able to find them. During the press conference he held in Rome on Thursday night, which coincided with Lebanon's Independence Day, al-Rahi said that independence is based on the sovereignty of decision-making away from the threat of arms or illegal training camps. He stressed the importance of holding the 2013 parliamentary elections on time and not to adopt the 1960s electoral law. Al-Rahi also said the formation of a new government should be held calmly to avoid pushing Lebanon into a vacuum that threatens the country's economy. The March 14 opposition has been calling on the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Miqati's cabinet and the formation of a salvation government. He reiterated that the country's bickering parties should attend the national dialogue session called for by President Michel Suleiman at Baabda palace. Al-Rahi is in Rome to be officially appointed as cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday.

Lebanese Army detains retired sergeant for alleged role in rockets
November 23, 2012/The Daily Star
SIDON, Lebanon: The Lebanese Army detained a retired sergeant who was allegedly involved in the attempt to launch a rocket from Lebanon at Israel, security sources told The Daily Star Friday.
During investigation with Amjad al-Ezzi, Army intelligence found photos on his personal cellphone of the southern area of Kfar Tabneet as well as the location of the rocket, the sources added.
There were no photos of the rockets.The sources said that Ezzi confessed to transporting the rockets and setting them to launch near the border with the Jewish State.
The National News Agency, however, denied reports that Ezzi’s detention was over the rocket incident and quoted high-ranking security sources saying that the retired soldier was involved in a different case.The Army discovered and dismantled a rocket ready to launch in the Kfar Tabneet area Thursday while two rockets were fired Wednesday and landed in al-Khiam valley, near the same area, bordering Israel. On Monday, Lebanese officials also foiled an attempt to launch rockets towards Israel, and defused two katyusha rockets in the southern region of Mazraat Halta.
Earlier this week, a source told The Daily Star that attempts to launch rockets from Lebanon to Israel occur every time there is an aggression against Gaza.

Cabinet should change if need be, but no to power vacuum: Rai
November 23, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Maronite Cardinal Beshara Rai rejected Thursday night a change in government that would leave behind a power vacuum and urged political leaders to engage in National Dialogue. “It is important to respond to President Michel Sleiman's invitation to [National] Dialogue and work on changing the government if need be but calmly, without plunging ourselves into a vacuum,” Rai told reporters at a news conference in Rome. Lebanon’s opposition has boycotted the all-party talks, conditioning their return to Nation Dialogue on the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati resigning over the recent assassination of a top general who headed the police’s Information Branch.
The Oct. 19 killing of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan has led a political stalemate with the March 14 coalition also boycotting Parliament work that includes ministers.
Rai said that Dialogue provided the groundwork for stability in the country. “Lebanon should be an element of stability in its Arab region and stability can only be built via understanding and Dialogue with each other,” the prelate said. Rai, who spoke in Rome days before his official appointment as cardinal, also spoke on the subject of Lebanon’s Independence Day and said for real independence there needed to be three primary principles at play: safeguarding the exclusive right to decision-making with regard to internal and foreign; the integrity of the internationally-recognized territory in the absence of illegitimate arms; and national dignity.Rai will join the Catholic Church's College of Cardinals on Saturday when he will be officially appointed to the newly elected "Princes of the Church" in a ceremony at St. Peter's Basilica. Lebanon's newest Cardinal is one of six non-European prelates, including American James Michael Harvey and Nigeria's John Onaiyekan
During his chat with reporters, Rai stressed on the need for holding the 2013 parliamentary election on time and reiterated his objection to the 1960s electoral law that was used in the 2009 elections.
"We voice our objections to that law and we will not accept delays because we should respect constitutional timeframes but we will not block roads or burn tires if the 1960s law is adopted,” he said.

Al-Assad is the beneficiary!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat,
There can be no doubt that the Bashar al-Assad regime was the main beneficiary of the bombing that struck the passenger bus in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, particularly as this explosion took place at a time when everybody was awaiting the announcement of an Egyptian and internationally guaranteed de-escalation or ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian factions in Gaza, led by Hamas.
The bombing took place at a time when everybody was convinced of the need to halt the Israeli aggression and the firing of rockets from Gaza. This is something that the Egyptian wanted, to the point that some had already begun speaking about a victory for “Egyptian diplomacy” when the bombing took place. In fact, Khaild Mishal himself expressed his movement’s desire to abide by a ceasefire, saying “we do not want escalation, Hamas is courageous but not reckless!”
Everybody wanted this ceasefire, including the Israelis, and the story is not one party’s intransigence over another, whether this is Hamas or Israel; rather all parties wanted to make gains from the truce in order to promote the story of their victory. However this bombing came to target the “final moments” of the efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement. This act did not accelerate or postpone the conflict in Gaza, rather lead to further Israeli intransigence, in addition to upsetting the balance of international media coverage. This ultimately resulted in talk about a “terrorist operation” rather than an Israeli war or aggression on the Gaza Strip, not to mention the sufferings of the people of Gaza. As for the party that most benefits from this, there can be no doubt that this is the party that most wanted to prolong this war.
The biggest beneficiary of this war was the regime of the tyrant of Damascus, as the Gaza war drowned out the sounds of the war al-Assad is raging against his own people. We also saw Iran and Hezbollah attempting to benefit from the Gaza war to improve their stained images and prolong the life of the al-Assad regime. We saw Hassan Nasrallah, for example, saying that “Iran and al-Assad and Hezbollah will not abandon Gaza”. As for Iranian Parliamentary Speaker, Ali Larijani, he shamelessly said that regional countries “should send their forces, weapons and equipment to the Palestinian so that they will be used for confrontation with the Zionist regime instead of being used to cause attrition and confrontation between two Muslim groups in Syria”, as if 36,000 people killed at the hands of the al-Assad regime forces is nothing! Therefore, the statement made by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was most important, in which he said that “one finds Iran in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Gaza and each time with very negative intentions” adding “and then there is the big question of a nuclear Iran before us!”
Accordingly, we should have no doubt that the party behind the bombing of the Tel Aviv bus is none other than the party that most wanted to prolong the Israeli aggression on Gaza, hit the Egyptian efforts and preoccupy the Arabs and international community with the Gaza crisis, rather than focusing on al-Assad’s war against his own people! In conclusion, as we have said before, the most important factor regarding the stability of this region is the toppling of al-Assad, whilst the Gaza war is the greatest proof regarding the threat represented by this regime and its allies on the region as a whole and the Palestinian Cause itself!

Obama’s pledge of US troops to Sinai next week won Israel’s nod for ceasefire
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 23, 2012/Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to a ceasefire for halting the eight-day Israeli Gaza operation Wednesday night, Nov. 21, after President Barack Obama personally pledged to start deploying US troops in Egyptian Sinai next week, debkafile reports. The conversation, which finally tipped the scales for a ceasefire, took place on a secure line Wednesday morning, just hours before it was announced in Cairo. The US and Israeli leaders spoke at around the time that a terrorist was blowing up a Tel Aviv bus, injuring 27 people.
Obama’s pledge addressed Israel’s most pressing demand in every negotiating forum on Gaza: Operation Pillar of Cloud’s main goal was a total stoppage of the flow of Iranian arms and missiles to the Gaza Strip. They were smuggled in from Sudan and Libya through southern Egypt and Sinai. Hostilities would continue, said the prime minister, until this object was achieved.
Earlier, US officials tried unsuccessfully to persuade Israel to accept Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s personal guarantee to start launching effective operations against the smugglers before the end of the month. The trio running Israel’s Gaza campaign, Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, were willing to take Morsi at his word, except that Israeli security and intelligence chiefs assured them that Egypt has nothing near the security and intelligence capabilities necessary for conducting such operations.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Jerusalem from Bangkok Tuesday, she tried assuring Netanyahu that President Obama had decided to accelerate the construction of an elaborate US system of electronic security fences along the Suez Canal and northern Sinai. It would also cork up the Philadelphi route through which arms are smuggled into the Gaza Strip. (The US Sinai fence project was first disclosed exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 564 on Nov. 9).
US security and civilian units will need to be deployed in Egyptian Sinai to man the fence system and operate it as an active counter-measure for obstructing the smuggling of Iranian weapons supplies.
The prime minister said he welcomed the president’s proposal to expedite the fence project, but it would take months to obtain Egyptian clearance. Meanwhile, the Palestinians would have plenty of time to replenish their weapons stocks after Israel’s Gaza campaign. It was therefore too soon to stop the campaign at this point or hold back a ground incursion.
Clinton was sympathetic to this argument. Soon after, President Obama was on the phone to Netanyahu with an assurance that US troops would be in place in Sinai next week, after he had obtained President Morsi’s consent for them to go into immediate action against Iranian smuggling networks.
Netanyahu responded by agreeing to a ceasefire being announced in Cairo that night by Clinton and the Egyptian foreign minister, and to holding back the thousands of Israeli reservists on standby on the Gaza border. debkafile’s military sources report that the first air transports carrying US special forces are due to land at Sharm el Sheikh military airfield in southern Sinai in the next 48 hours and go into action against the arms smugglers without delay.
This development is strategically significant for three reasons:
1. Once the missile and arms consignments depart Iranian ports or Libyan arms bazaars, Tehran has no direct control of their transit from point to point through Egypt until they reach Sinai and their Gaza destination. All the same, a US special forces operation against the Sinai segment of the Iranian smuggling route would count as the first overt American military strike against an Iranian military interest.
Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman are impressed by the change the Obama administration has undergone since the president’s reelection. Until then, he refused to hear of any military action against Iran and insisted that Tehran could only be confronted on the diplomatic plane.
2. President Morsi, by opening the Sinai door to an American troop deployment for Israel’s defense, recognizes that the US force also insures Israel against Cairo revoking or failing to honor the peace treaty Egypt signed with Israel in 1979.
3. In the face of this US-Israel-Egyptian understanding, Hamas cannot credibly claim to have won its latest passage of arms with Israel or that it obtained guarantees to force Israel to end the Gaza blockade.
Indeed, Gaza’s Hamas rulers will be forced to watch as US troops in Sinai, just across its border, break up the smuggling rings filling their arsenals and most likely laying hands on the reserve stocks they maintain under the smugglers’ guard in northern Sinai, out of reach of the Israel army. This means that the blockade on Gaza has been extended and the focus of combat has switched from Gaza to the Sinai Peninsula.

Turkey: Fresh hopes for a new Kurdish policy
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
In politics, every move can produce unintended consequences that could be far more important than any initial objectives. This is what may be happening in Turkey where a group of Kurdish political prisoners are ending a 68-day hunger strike in exchange for concessions from Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan’s government.
Started by a handful of prisoners, the strike quickly developed into a cause celebre attracting support not only from ethnic Kurds but also within broader Turkish public opinion. Some public figures joined the strike and many others, including opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu, expressed support and sympathy.
Erdogan’s critics on the radical right claim that he has been forced to end the crisis from a position of weakness.
His critics on the left accuse him of having prolonged the crisis solely to flatter his own macho image.
Turkish media are full of “who won, who lost” speculation.
But what if this particular political stand off went beyond the “who won, who lost” cliché?
Is it not possible that Turkish democracy might be the winner in a game that has no losers?
It has taken Turkish democracy decades to develop a credible mechanism for resolving political conflicts through compromise rather than the use of violence and counter-violence.
In its first decade, Turkish democracy hardly merited the label, if only because a one-party system was in place. In the second decade, a one-and-a-half party system emerged in which one party governed while the other made occasional noises in opposition. In the third decade, a multi-party system was more or less accepted with the proviso that ideological uniformity be maintained. The armed forced acted as guarantors of that uniformity, staging coups whenever they thought a governing party was stepping out of line.
It was not until it was in its sixth decade that Turkish democracy also accepted ideology, enabling the crypto-Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) to form the government. However, AKP continued the authoritarian tradition by trying to keep diversity within strict limits while surreptitiously purging the state from elements that did not share its ideology.
Nowhere has AKP’s campaign against diversity been more consistent than against the Kurds who account for at least a sixth of the population.
To be sure, AKP’s Kurdish policy has not been as repressive as that of its predecessors. This is partly because the party owes much of its electoral success to support from the predominantly Kurdish areas of southeastern Anatolia. And, yet, AKP has not been able to shed the Pavlovian reflex of using force to deal with the tougher aspects of the Kurdish issue. For a decade it has ignored repeated appeals by the imprisoned Abdullah Ocalan, the historic leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), to initiate a process of negotiations to disentangle this Gordian knot of Turkish politics.
Erdogan’s friends claim that Ocalan, an ageing has-been, may well be fishing for personal relevance. If that is, indeed, the case, one might wonder what is the use of keeping an old and sick man in jail for much longer?
Though some participants in this complex game of brinkmanship may be adepts of the Machiavellian school of politics, a number of points are clear.
First, there is ample evidence that a majority of Turkey’s Kurdish community do not want secession. Nor to they share the PKK’s anachronistic dream of Proletarian Dictatorship. Many Kurds, perhaps even a majority, who would never vote for PKK, are, at the same time, not ready to endorse the policy of iron fist in their regard. This is not unusual. A majority of Corsicans in France reject the secessionist groups but do not agree with the policy of crushing them by force. This is also the case in Spain where a majority of ethnic Basques protect the secessionists while never voting for them.
Next, it must be clear that PKK’s strategy of armed struggle has failed. It has achieved nothing but decades of war that have claimed 50,000 lives. That strategy has also discouraged economic development in Kurdish-majority parts of Turkey, making them the poorest in the country that has enjoyed a dramatic transformation in the past decade.
Third, the Turkish government’s iron fist strategy has also failed. The PKK and its allies among professional bandits have shown their ability to continue a low intensity war for as long as imaginable. Intermittently backed by mischief-making neighbours such as Syria and Iran, the PKK could pursue its deadly business without great difficulty.
Prime Minister Erdogan should seize this opportunity to unveil a new strategy for dealing with the Kurdish problem. The first step in that direction is to accept that such a problem exists.
Next, he should embark on a pedagogic campaign to garner popular support for the new strategy.
He should tell his people that Turkish democracy is now strong enough to regard diversity as a source of strength rather than weakness. The Kurds’ desire to speak Kurdish and read official documents in their mother tongue is no threat to Turkey’s integrity as a united republic. Spain has not been harmed by the fact that a chunk of its citizens speak Catalonian. Nor is France’s unity undermined by the availability of official documents in the Breton dialect. The existence of over 500 languages, not to mention scores of different cultures, has not weakened the Indian democracy over the past six decades.
Democracy is also about the acceptance of the other in a framework of citizenship under the rule of law. Because Turkey is a democracy, even angry Kurds have no excuse for taking up arms against it. For the same reason, the Turkish government has no excuse to respond to the peaceful demands of its citizens by force.
If used properly, this new opening could deal a blow to the double myths of revolutionary violence and state-sponsored repression. And that could be good news for the whole region.

Long-range rockets change balance of power with Israel – Hamas strongman
By Saleh Jumaa
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat – Speaking exclusively to Asharq Al-Awsat, Hamas politburo member, Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, stressed that the “rockets of the resistance” striking Tel Aviv represents a change in the balance of power between Hamas and the “Israeli entity.” He claimed that this balances the “terror” that each party can inflict on the other, adding this new balance will cause the Israelis to think twice before initiating any new aggression against the Gaza Strip. Al-Zahar also praised the position taken by Egypt in the conflict and its efforts in securing the eventual ceasefire, saying “we expected this position from the new Egypt whose president, government and people stand firmly behind the Palestinian people”
The Gaza strongman compared Hamas’s newer longer range missiles to “stones of baked clay”, a Quranic reference to Surat al-Fil [The Chapter of the Elephant]. This Quranic chapter relates to the “companions of the Elephant” who sought to destroy the holy Kaaba, relating that God sent “flights of birds” which struck this army with “stones of baked clay”, ultimately destroying them and making them “like an empty field of stalks and straw.”
Al-Zahar said “the battle of the stones of baked clay with the Israeli enemy has defined new factors in the nature of the conflict with the occupation and will shape the end of this aggression via a well-planned and escalating battle which will reveal the extent of the delusion of the enemy regarding its disregard of the Palestinian people’s will and their valiant resistance.”
He added “this battle will be a milestone, not just in the history of the region, which has seen numerous regime changes, particularly in Egypt; but also in the history of the world. “
The Hamas senior member asserted that “these regime changes were the result of protests that swept the world and the strong public sympathy with the Palestinian people will repel the Israeli aggression.”
Al-Zahar also informed Asharq Al-Awsat that “[Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu wanted to end the war after three days because his security leadership informed him that the resistance possessed just 300 rockets that could be fired…however they were surprised when the rocket fire continued and the resistance rained down rockets on Israel in the final days during which time the aggression intensified, not decreased.” Al-Zahar revealed that the Israeli government accepted all the conditions of the Palestinian resistance, without any amendments or changes, as claimed by the Israeli media. He said “we did not accept the Israeli proposal regarding a two-stage de-escalation process, namely firstly a ceasefire and then opening the border crossings. We rejected this and stuck to our original demands namely a ceasefire and opening the border crossings in one step, and Israeli agreed to this.”
He added “we have proven that the option of resistance in this conflict is the only successful choice in front of us and we have demonstrated this in driving out the Israeli occupation from Gaza in 2005.”
He said “the period in which the enemy attacked us is over, and we are now in the stage when we are attacking them.” He confirmed that this period is one of “bloodshed and the gun” and that the Palestinian people’s only option is resistance. He added “the occupation is well aware that the blood that was shed will show us the way and that everything that has been pulled down will be rebuilt in a liberated Jerusalem.” In addition to this, the Gaza strongman called on everybody to review their position and form a coalition supporting the choice of armed resistance, asserting that the Palestinian people who came out to celebrate the Gaza victory represented a true referendum regarding the choice of jihad and resistance.
He stressed that the Palestinian people today support the valiant resistance and stand firm in the face of the Israeli aggression. He said “the blood of the leaders remains the fuel of the people and the resistance.” Al-Zahar also strongly denied reports that he fled the Gaza Strip during the Israeli aggression, saying “martyrdom for the sake of God and defeating the occupation is a goal that we, the people of Palestine, are eager to obtain. We have given our sons for the sake of Islam and in defense of our land and holy sites. Therefore, how can you say that I, a Hamas leader, would run from the battle to Egypt?”
He added “I am present in Gaza and I met the Egyptian delegations and I shared in the joy of the Palestinian people last night in our victory. I will remain here on Palestinian land in the forefront of the Palestinian people until victory or death!”

Who holds the resistance to account?
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
In his speech before the Israeli Knesset in 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin voiced his concern at the growing security threats from the Gaza Strip. He warned of the phenomenon of suicide bombings, which had begun a year earlier against the backdrop of the terrorist attack in the Ibrahimi Mosque. In reference to Yahya Ayyash, a young Muslim Brotherhood affiliate who was considered the mastermind behind suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, and whose ghost continued to haunt the Israeli authorities, Rabin said: “I am afraid that Ayyash is sitting among us in the Knesset”.
With regards to recent events in Gaza, we must look to the modern history of the conflict to understand what is going on. The idea of “terrorizing the enemy”, which Hamas’ leaders use today to justify the unequal war that their unarmed compatriots are being exposed to, was born more than two decades ago. At that time, Yayha Ayyash, nicknamed the “engineer”, and his colleagues in the “Brotherhood Military Commission”, later renamed the al-Qassam Brigades, decided that the shortest path to the liberation of the occupied territories was by resorting to means of suicide, in order to inflict the maximum damage upon their opponents’ daily lives. Ayyash was a bombmaker and between 1992 and 1996, his devices caused the injury and death of hundreds of Israelis, both civilians and military personnel, while the lives of hundreds of Palestinians were lost in Israeli retaliatons.
Hamas went on to spend nearly two decades carrying out suicide bombings, and what has been the result? Up until the end of 2008, Palestinian factions carried out more than 170 suicide operations. These operations killed more than 800 Israelis, but subsequent retaliations resulted in the deaths of more than 7,500 Palestinians. In other words, a hundred Palestinians were sacrificed in order to kill one Israeli.
In a United Nations report focusing on the second intifada’s impact on the Palestinians, only a small number of Palestinians died in the first weeks of the demonstrations in 2000, which were intended to replicate the 1987 intifada. However, Hamas and other factions decided to militarize the intifada through the use of suicide attacks, costing the Palestinians nearly 2,000 lives in less than two years.
In his press conference from Cairo on Monday, Khaled Mishal, head of the Hamas political bureau since 1996, boasted of his movement’s resistance to Israeli attacks, and with a smile said that Israel is the one calling for a truce, not the people of Gaza. This is despite the fact that a hundred Palestinians have died and what remains of the dilapidated infrastructure there has been destroyed. What was particularly noticeable in Mishal’s speech was his assertion that the region has changed after the Arab Spring, calling for some countries to review their positions.
Unfortunately, Hamas under Mishal’s leadership is known for having close relations with men like Bashar al-Assad, Hassan Nasrallah, Muammar Gaddafi, Imad Mughniyah and other infamous characters. Nowadays, rather than Hamas attempting to atone for its subordination to the Syrian-Iranian axis, some in the movement want to continue its false “resistance” rhetoric, even after the magnitude of crimes committed in its name has been exposed. For example, from Khartoum, Mishal vowed to avenge Sudan for the Israeli attack there. Yet this attack targeted Iranian weapons that were being smuggled through Sudan, something the Hezbollah media acknowledged itself, and even a number of Hamas figures have admitted to using Fajr-5 missiles, a model most probably supplied from Iran through Hezbollah.
There is no doubt that the region has witnessed a change, as Mishal pointed out, but the fact is that he is not part of this change. His rhetoric and his “resistance” logic belong to a bygone era. In a speech before the Justice and Development Party conference in Turkey last month, Mishal said: “There is no contradiction in our adoption of democracy and reform, and our support of the resistance”. However, it is clear that there is a contradiction between this statement and Hamas’ alliance with two regimes that have undermined the rights of their citizens and brutalized them.
It is no coincidence that the jihadist groups sabotaging the truce in Gaza are Iranian funded. However, at a time when Hamas is supposed to be pursuing Salafi groups in Gaza, the movement did not condemn their attacks, rather its leaders talked about the victory that was achieved through the missile fire. There is no doubt that igniting the Gaza front directly serves as a means of distracting attention away from what is happening in Syria, where every day for the past two years more have died than the current Gaza death toll. Here I do not mean to belittle the deaths of those in Gaza, but those who want to draw attention to the victims in Gaza must also draw attention to the victims in Syria who are falling at the hands of Hamas’ former allies. Furthermore, we see Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and likewise Hezbollah, warning against arming the Syrian opposition at a time when Hezbollah is boasting of supporting the Hamas “resistance” with arms.
The leaders of the “resistance” have committed grave errors against regional peace, and have caused irresponsible destruction to the countries of the region. They have jeopardized the future of the Palestinians in order to serve the interests of malicious regimes. Despite all this there has not been any sort of review of the Hamas leadership, even though its key figures today have become leaders at the expense of the blood of unarmed civilians.
In one of his final interviews, Ayyash said: “We need to exert more pressure, make the cost of the occupation that much more expensive in human lives, that much more unbearable”. However, the result has been the opposite; life for the Palestinians has become unbearable, while the leaders of the “resistance” have spent their days in the hospitality of Damascus and the southern suburbs of Beirut.

Osama Othman: From Salafi to secularist
By Mary Wajdi/Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat - “All I want is to ensure that no young person is deceived, as I was, in the name of religion; I wasted the most precious years of my life on a misguided ideology”. This is how Osama Othman, a young Egyptian who has transformed from being a Salafi jihadist to a secularist, describes what he went through during his time as a member of an extremist Salafi jihadist organization. Osama Othman, aged 38, lives in the El Matareya district of Cairo. Speaking exclusively to Asharq Al-Awsat, Othman recalled the various stages of transformation in his life, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Salafi jihadism, and finally to secularism.
He revealed that “I joined the Muslim Brotherhood when I was in the penultimate year of secondary school, through my school friends. They convinced me of their ideology, and I was just 16 at the time. Also during this period, my brother got to know some members of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in one of El Matareya’s mosques, where they were conducting a meeting after the state security services had killed Dr. Alaa Mohieddin, the group’s leader at the time”.Othman revealed that his school friends had convinced him of their ideology and the necessity of performing jihad for the sake of God; he said “they assured me that those who die for the sake of God do not experience the pains of the grave. Then my brother joined the group [al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya] and sought to recruit me as well. He brought me to a meeting they were holding, and invited me to read many books that expressed their ideology, until I became fully convinced by their views and of the need to change what is wrong by your own hands. Thus I entered the organizational structure of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in the year 1991”.
Othman was keen to carry out jihadist operations with the group, and an opportunity came along when he was invited to participate in an assassination attempt on Nobel Prize winning Egyptian novelist, Naguib Mahfouz. However, the Egyptian state security apparatus arrested him four months prior to the planned operation, and hence he missed out on this “opportunity”.
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya attempted to assassinate Naguib Mahfouz on 14 October 1994. A young man stabbed Mahfouz in the neck outside his Cairo home but the Egyptian novelist survived. This assassination attempt was in protest at the Nobel Prize winning author’s work, which the group described as blasphemous, particularly his novel “Children of Our Alley”.
Regarding the assassination attempt, Othman told Asharq Al-Awsat:“At the time of the operation I was very keen to participate, because we believed that Mahfouz’s work incited immorality and blasphemy. In truth we had not read these books, but members of the group convinced us they were wrong”.
As for why Othman had been arrested, the Egyptian youth's father had reported him to the state security services for his aggressive behavior. Othman had smashed up a television set in their family home, which alarmed and terrified his father who subsequently reported him. Although the security services detained Othman for three and a half years, he was perhaps saved from a worse fate in falling deeper into the jihadists thrall.
Following his release from prison, Othman travelled to Saudi Arabia. He informed Asharq Al-Awsat that he used this period of travel to re-assess his views, adding that he was haunted by many questions, such as: “How could those seeking to apply God’s law and ensure the victory of Islam be defeated by an infidel government?”
Othman began to read numerous books on secularism and moderate Islam. He said that he gave careful consideration to the views and arguments of the al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, which he ultimately concluded to be contradictory. Othman said that he realized that the group was seeking to gain power through young people, who were being exploited to fulfill the group’s own interests and objectives. He spent the next six years of his life reviewing and restructuring his thoughts, and in the end he became fully committed to the idea of secularism.
Othman stressed that he is proud of his Islamic faith and fully believes that the youth affiliated with Salafi jihadist groups are good people, but that “they have been duped and brainwashed”.
He pointed out that whilst he was a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, he was influenced far more by the group’s personalities than he was by its ideology, which he now regards as contradictory.
Othman revealed that he now plans to record his experiences in a book entitled “My Journey: From Salafi Jihadist to Secularist”. He said that he intends to explain in detail everything that has happened to him since he first began to believe in extremist views to his new-found belief and respect for secularism in the hope that others will learn from his experience.
He said: “I do not care about anything now except conveying my experience to young people, so that none of them waste the most precious years of their lives, as I did. The ideology of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya is counterproductive to Islam, whether its members are aware of it or not”.

France and the Arabs
By Hussein Shabokshi/Asharq Alawsat
The European leadership is changing, at least in terms of specific roles. Historically speaking, Britain was the most influential as a leading state, but it was extremely "cautious" when the European Union was established, particularly with regards to the financial aspects, and hence it opted to maintain its national currency and declined to join the Euro. This in turn provided Germany and France with exceptional leverage. As time passed, France began to play a series of notable roles that were markedly different from its traditional European counterparts, whereby it distanced itself from Germany and Britain's political lines. It sought to adopt "progressive", adventurous and daring political roles in order to restore some of its former glories, when France was an international power of great influence.
These endeavors manifested in various forms in Lebanon and in parts of Africa including, but not limited to, Mali, Niger and the Ivory Coast. Then the French stance and intention to overthrow the Gaddafi regime served as a pretext and example for the rest of world to pattern after. Ultimately, this prompted NATO to decide to immediately intervene and put an end to the Libyan regime. Now, albeit in a different manner, France is seeking to play a leading role in championing the Syrian revolution against the criminal Bashar al-Assad regime.
The Syrian regime's media was overjoyed when news broke out of Sarkozy's defeat in the recent French presidential elections, believing that this would mark an end to France’s "unjust campaign" against Syria. However, the new French President has even greater zeal and a deeper conviction regarding the necessity to overthrow the al-Assad regime immediately. He quickly called upon greater support for the rebels and set about restructuring the Syrian opposition by providing it with political support and recognizing its ambassador, urging all European states to act likewise.
France and its new leader are seeking to play a new role in the Middle East. The country is eager to extend its economic ties with the region and is exporting various technologies through infrastructure projects pertaining to railways, power plants, nuclear plants, arms, aviation systems and so on. At the same time, however, France is seeking to promote greater coordination and security in the politics of the Arab world. Today, Paris fears that extremist groups will reach the center of Europe, namely France, through the gateway of North Africa. Therefore, it is seeking to establish closer contact and to ensure coordination with prominent Arab states with a history of fighting and combating terrorism. President Hollande is also facing an enormous challenge, and the Arab world is watching him attentively, because he intends to vote in favor of Palestine becoming a UN member state.
France now faces a serious test to prove its sincere will towards the Arabs and the Arab world, having long been a voice defending rights and championing weaker nations. Today, its slogans and objectives must be manifest on the ground. Will France be able to overcome the impact of influential Jewish pressure groups upon Western decisions? Will it remain committed to its principles and maintain its firm objectives?
Personally, I believe that France will be somewhat reserved and will refrain from voting [in favor of a Palestinian state], in order to avoid embarrassing itself with the Arab world. Of course, this would not be a principled, honorable stance that France could boast of, especially considering that the French Revolution itself was based on the principles of justice, fraternity, equality and freedom. The Palestinian people have been severely deprived of these principles throughout the prolonged occupation that still continues today. So France must now adopt stances that can compensate for its colonial and imperial history and it must apply the ethics and values it has long championed; this is the real test. The French stance in favor of Libya and Syria must also extend to the Palestinians. We will see.