Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 29/12 
Obama, Netanyahu discuss Iran nuclear program
Obama, Netanyahu united against Iran nuclear drive
Israeli PM: Message on Iran echoes worldwide
US shares Israeli goal on Iran, stops short of 'red line'
Netanyahu's cartoon bomb timed to make big impact
White House irked by Netanyahu’s “red line” speech, reverts to Iran diplomacy
Israel disappointed by Argentina-Iran talks
Malmo police arrest 2 after Jewish center targeted
Clinton: Iran will stop at nothing to protect Syria
International Christian Concern/Teenage Christian Girl Kidnapped, Raped by Young Muslim Men in Pakistan
Egyptian Evangelical Church Attacked with Stones and Gas Bombs
Egypt's Copts abandon Sinai after threats, attack
House chair blocks $450M in US aid to Egypt
US agency: Benghazi attack deliberate, organized
UNHRC extends Syria war crimes mission
Syrian conflict moves beyond ‘tipping point’
Rebels struggle to wrest ground in Aleppo
Over 23,000 newly registered Syrian refugees since August: United Nations
Roux to Arrive in Lebanon Next Week, to Meet Senior Officials
Geagea: FPM Only Wants to Harm Jumblat, Mustaqbal, instead of Seeking Christian Electoral Interests
Maronite Church calls for fair representation
Maronite bishops reject Lebanon’s current electoral law
STL defense says Lebanon has failed to provide necessary information
Beirut’s suburbs feel safer after Army crackdown
Lebanese Businessmen urge plans to save economy
Over 20 Hezbollah thugs assault policemen in Jbeil, northeast of Beirut
NGO leaders seek to implement Taif Accord, bridge political gaps
Lebanon's Premier Denies Revolutionary Guards' Presence in Lebanon

 
Geagea: FPM Only Wants to Harm Jumblat, Mustaqbal, instead of Seeking Christian Electoral Interests
Naharnet /28 September 2012/
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea stated on Friday that the government proposal over the parliamentary electoral law and the one suggested by the MPs Georges Adwan, Sami Gemayel, and Butros Harb are the best current offers on the matter, saying that the Free Patriotic Movement has to choose one of them.
He said during a press conference: “The FPM however is more concerned with harming the interests of the Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat and the Mustaqbal Movement to take into consideration Christian concerns in the elections.”
He said that the FPM is currently in a position of power where it holds sway over which law can be adopted.
The LF leader also voiced his opposition to the 1960 electoral law, which he said is “very unjust.”
“All sides must realize that there can be no return to the 1960 law,” stressed Geagea.
Adwan, Gemayel, and Harb had proposed on Thursday a draft electoral law based on 50 electoral districts.
The opposition has asserted that this law offers Christians with the best representation, adding that it enjoys Bkirki's implicit approval.
The government approved in August an electoral law based on proportional representation and 13 districts.
“Any new law should achieve proper representation and the proposal we made guarantees that a majority of MPs would be elected, as stipulated by the Taef accord,” continued Geagea.
“We are seeking a law that achieves the best representation and does not harm the interests of Hizbullah or AMAL,” he added.
On claims that the March 14 proposal only bolsters sectarianism, he asked: “Does the election of Walid Sukkariyeh, Emile Rahmeh, and Oqab Saqr bolster sectarianism?”
“The adoption of smaller districts weakens sectarianism,” he stressed.
In addition, he noted that smaller districts allow candidates of relatively modest means to run in the parliamentary elections, which are set for 2013.
A draft law based on small districts ensures the election of 56 or 57 Christian MPs, while the government proposal allows the election of 46 or 47 lawmakers.
Jumblat has not completely closed the door on discussions over small districts, Geagea revealed.

Political-Military Challenges of Demining the Strait of Hormuz
Michael Knights/Washington Institute
September 28, 2012
Over the past week-and-a-half, nearly thirty nations participated in the International Mine Countermeasures Exercise (IMCMEX) in the Persian Gulf, which concluded yesterday. Following up on strong U.S. Navy reinforcement efforts in the Gulf, IMCMEX signaled Iran that there is significant multilateral resolve to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Yet some aspects of the exercise highlighted the difficulties of conducting mine countermeasures (MCM) operations in the narrow strait. Future exercises should be more ambitious and involve greater international participation.
IRAN'S THREAT TO MINE HORMUZ
On July 1, as European Union sanctions went into force, Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy proposed legislation to block the Strait of Hormuz in order to bar tankers carrying oil for countries that had imposed restrictions on the regime. On July 15, armed forces chief of staff Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi stated, "We have a contingency plan for the blockade of the strait," describing the scheme as "a viable plan." The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval commander, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, added, "The IRGC's naval forces have had the ability since the [Iran-Iraq] war to completely control the Strait of Hormuz and not allow even a single drop of oil to pass through." More recently, on September 17, IRGC commander Gen. Mohammad Jafari stated, "This is a declared policy by Iran that if war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy [market] will face difficulties." To underline the point, Tehran matched IMCMEX with simultaneous naval mining exercises in the Caspian Sea.
Iran may not be able to close the strait, but it could employ a range of highly disruptive tactics to dissuade commercial tanker traffic and thus drive up oil prices. The regime is capable of attacking maritime traffic with antishipping missiles, artillery, airstrikes, submarines, fast-attack craft, and small boats, though laying mines is one of its most likely courses of action. In addition to a large arsenal of old moored mines (which could also be cut from their moorings and set adrift), it has more sophisticated MDM-6 moored mines and EM-52 bottom mines (which fire a rocket-propelled projectile upward from the seabed).
In addition, Iran could attempt undeclared mining of the strait as it did in the 1980s, using fishing dhows and commercial vessels to sow mines with a degree of plausible deniability. Although modern intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities make this a risky prospect, the IRGC may have adapted new clandestine tactics. Counterpiracy efforts in the Red Sea have shown that differentiating legitimate traffic from hostile actors remains difficult even in closely watched zones. Moreover, anchoring systems guided by global positioning systems and predictable currents could allow Iran to release mines far from their targets, widening the area in which its minelayers can operate.
From a strategic standpoint, Iran might opt for a protracted mining campaign that requires a costly, open-ended international effort to keep the strait open. In any scenario, vulnerable and slow-moving MCM vessels and helicopters would need to be very well protected during their missions, necessitating massive U.S. and allied naval and air cover. In addition to testing diplomatic and military resolve, such operations would be risky given the concentration of Iranian missile and attack boat capabilities within the confined strait.
SURGE OF MINESWEEPERS
For decades, the United States has systematically underresourced countermine warfare, preferring to leave this unglamorous mission to European partners in a division of labor left over from the Cold War. Accordingly, the U.S. military has long accepted its deficiency in dealing with the main naval threat in the Gulf: Iran's ability to surreptitiously lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz and around key Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) anchorages. Whereas Britain's Royal Navy traditionally maintained four small but effective MCM vessels in the northern Gulf, U.S. Navy forces in Bahrain kept only two new minesweepers in service and two older vessels on standby. Experts agree that up to sixteen MCM vessels might be needed to keep Hormuz clear of mines.
Over the past year, mindful of growing tensions with Iran, the United States has taken a number of steps to reverse the dangerous shortfall of MCM capability in the Gulf:
More ships. The U.S. Navy's fiscal 2013 budget request included funds to send four newer MCM ships to the Gulf, doubling the U.S. countermine fleet there.
More helicopters. In June 2012, the Navy deployed four MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters with mine-detecting sonar arrays to Bahrain.
Unmanned underwater vehicles. The mine-hunting SeaFox and MK18 Mod 2 Kingfish unmanned underwater vehicles have also been added to the MCM fleet. Their procurement was driven by U.S. Central Command head Gen. James Mattis, who called them an "urgent operational requirement."
Command ship. The U.S. Fifth Fleet has established a new command in the Gulf focused entirely on mine warfare, overseen by Rear Admiral Kenneth Perry, vice commander of the Navy's mine and antisubmarine warfare efforts. The USS Ponce has been deployed as a mine warfare command ship.
Although the Navy spotlighted its new capabilities during IMCMEX, many aspects of the exercise seemed like missed opportunities. Maneuvers were conducted in parts of the Gulf, Arabian Sea, and Indian Ocean, but not the Strait of Hormuz, and the Fifth Fleet spokesman denied that they were aimed at Iran: "This exercise isn't about any nation or group. It's about being prepared in the event that some violent extremist group used mines." Moreover, only twenty-five ships took part, underlining the symbolic nature of the event for many of the participating nations. Only five countries -- the United States, Britain, France, Japan, and New Zealand -- advertised their involvement, while GCC nations kept their role quiet and reportedly sent observers rather than vessels.
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY
Washington's increased focus on demining in the Gulf is significant and timely, but the recent reinforcements and exercises are only stopgaps. Some of the newly earmarked MCM forces are unlikely to be ready for deployment until 2014, including MK6 patrol boats, littoral combat ships, and new countermining helicopter systems. In the meantime, policymakers and military planners should take several steps to protect international trade and allied naval forces in the Gulf:
Recognize the potential for escalation. As Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen noted on September 20, 2011, the lack of regular crisis communication channels with Iran has planted the "seeds for miscalculation," making it "virtually assured that we won't get it right" in a future crisis unless liaison relationships are established. Any plan to protect sea-lanes in the Strait of Hormuz must therefore recognize the high probability of escalation once naval forces are concentrated to protect MCM efforts. Losses to precious MCM assets are likely and should be accounted for during force planning.
Exercise in the strait. Although Hormuz is congested, sensitive, and certainly not the only part of the Gulf that Iran can target, there is some logic to holding an exercise aimed at clearing the strait in the strait. Doing so would send a powerful signal to Tehran.
Name and shame Iran. Despite political sensitivities, it makes no sense to be coy about the purpose of MCM exercises: Iran should be named as the potential adversary based on its repeated, explicit threats to the strait. U.S. war plans should also prioritize intelligence collection and information operations that can expose covert mining if Tehran goes that route.
Stand up and be counted. Nations participating in MCM exercises should agree to be publicly identified, which would be a more powerful signal of solidarity.
Be creative. Iran's mine threat to oil tankers could also be reduced through novel means. For example, if a crisis erupts, old tankers could be sent to sweep the strait's inbound and outbound channels each morning in order to detonate any mines laid overnight. Double-hulled tankers are difficult enough to sink in normal circumstances and could serve as unsinkable mine-clearers if filled with buoyant materials. Alternatively, a consortium of nations could agree to temporarily assume the financial risk of any tanker transiting the strait.
Michael Knights is a Lafer fellow with The Washington Institute.

Obama, Netanyahu united against Iran nuclear drive
Yitzhak Benhorin Latest Update: 09.28.12/Ynetnews
US president speaks with Israeli PM following UNGA speech; reiterate US' commitment to preventing Tehran from going nuclear; GOP candidate Romney says doesn't think force will ultimately be needed
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday expressed solidarity on the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the White House said on Friday, amid signs of easing tensions over their differences on how to confront Tehran.
Obama, who opted not to meet Netanyahu on his US visit, spoke by phone to the Israeli leader, who used his UN speech on Thursday to keep up pressure on Washington to set a "red line" for Tehran. The two's phone conversation signified, to an extent, a sign of movement toward a truce in their war of words over how to confront Tehran. But in a softening of his approach, Netanyahu also signaled that no Israeli attack on Iran was imminent before the November 6 US presidential election. According to Washington sources, Obama's aides believe that he has played his cards right with Netanyahu, with whom the president has had a notoriously testy relationship.
Netanyahu's strident complaints about US policy on Iran in mid-September plunged US-Israeli relations into crisis, but also spurred a backlash at home and in the US media for seeming to meddle in American politics.
In recent days, the Israelis have sought to dial down the rhetoric, culminating in Netanyahu's speech to the UN General Assembly, which was widely seen as sending a message that Israel would not blindside Washington with a unilateral attack on Iran any time soon.
"The two leaders underscored that they are in full agreement on the shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," the White House said in a summary of their 20-minute phone conversation.But it stopped short of saying Obama had given any ground on his resistance to issuing an ultimatum to Tehran as Netanyahu has demanded.
It was a good conversation. They discussed all the issues," said a senior Israeli official.
An Obama aide went further, saying, "The temperature is lower than it had been."
"I think we are moving in a direction where the differences that were there, which were always tactical and not strategic, are in fact being managed at this point," Dennis Ross, Obama's former Middle East adviser, told MSNBC.
Romney: Strike may be unnecessary
Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Friday that he does not believe military action will be necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The GOP hopeful said he discussed the issue with Netanyahu by telephone Friday afternoon, adding that it was unclear whether there is any difference between the US and Israel's so-called "red lines" on when launching military action against Iran would be appropriate.
Romney said could not "completely take the military option off the table" because Iran needs to take the threat seriously.
He added that he does not believe force will ultimately be needed.
"I do not believe in the final analysis we will have to use military action," Romney said. "I certainly hope we don't have to. I can't take that action off the table."
Netanyahu argues that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities may be the only answer.
Reuters and AP contributed to this report

Maronite Church calls for fair representation
September 29, 2012/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s Maronite Church called Friday for a new election law that ensures a true and fair Christian representation in next year’s parliamentary polls, while rejecting the current law that is based on a winner-takes-all system.
A statement issued after a monthly meeting of the Council of Maronite Bishops chaired by Patriarch Beshara Rai also demanded that the parliamentary elections, scheduled for spring 2013, be held on time, rejecting any attempts to delay the vote.
The Maronite Church’s call came as rival March 8 and March 14 factions engaged in a tough wrangling over conflicting proposals for a new electoral law to be adopted for next year’s polls.
At the center of the debate is a draft approved by the government last month that would divide the country into 13 medium-sized districts with a system of proportional representation.
A proposal for small electoral districts unveiled this week by Christian March 14 parties has sparked nationwide controversy, with March 8 parties and Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt rejecting it.
“The Lebanese people, both residents and in the diaspora, are looking forward with hope for Parliament to issue a new law for parliamentary elections that would ensure a true representation for all citizens and ensure a democratic practice in forming an effective political authority capable of running the country’s affairs,” the statement said. The bishops rejected the current election law better known as the “1960 law,” saying it does not ensure Christian representation.
They said that the 1960 law, which adopts the qada as an electoral district and was used in the 2009 elections, had led “a large number of Christian MPs and others to be subservient to other sects in a way contrary to the formula of true coexistence and equal power-sharing in making up Parliament as consecrated by Article 24 in the constitution.”
“Therefore, it is imperative that a new [election] law ensures true and fair representation for all components of the Lebanese society and grants expatriates the right to vote as part of a genuine and effective equal power-sharing between Christian and Muslim sects as provided for in the Taif Accord and confirmed by the Lebanese Constitution,” the bishops said.
Stressing for the 2013 parliamentary elections to be held on time, the bishops said that discussion and approval of a new electoral law should be given utmost priority “because the time factor is working against the reforms desired by the Lebanese people.”
Many say that it is because Lebanon’s last parliamentary polls were determined by the 1960 law that sectarian divisions persist today and minorities continue to lack representation.
The approved law is based on proportional representation and divides the country into 13 medium-sized districts. A district would be larger than a qada – the electoral region adopted in the last parliamentary polls in 2009 – but smaller than a governorate.
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his March 14 allies have rejected the government’s draft electoral law, saying it was designed to serve the interests of Hezbollah and its March 8 allies. Jumblatt has also rejected the government’s proportional representation draft law, favoring the current electoral law.
A senior Hezbollah official reiterated the party’s support for the government’s draft law based on proportional representation, rejecting the March 14 coalition’s proposal for small electoral districts. “We are in dire need of fair elections that offer equal chances to all parties and prevent monopolies and the influence of money in buying votes. This matter can only be achieved through an election law based on proportional representation,” Hezbollah’s deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem said.
He slammed the March 14 parties who presented a draft electoral law to Parliament earlier this week based on 50 small electoral constituencies.
“Such a proposal is an attempt to go backward ... The law based on 50 electoral constituencies is even worse than the current electoral law,” Qassem said.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea defended the March 14 parties’ draft law, describing it as the best option for Christians in the country.
“Not only does this draft law provide the best representation but it also includes a series of reform items, including the independent committee overseeing elections, pre-printed ballots, organized election financing and media campaigns,” Geagea told reporters at his residence in Maarab, north of Beirut.
He praised the Maronite rejection of a return to the 1960 law, which he described as “a very unfair law.”
“The aim of any new election law is to introduce the biggest number of reforms and ensure a true representation,” Geagea said, adding: “The 50-district draft law achieves the two goals by giving each sect the right to elect the majority of MPs from this sect.”
Geagea said that MP Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement will have to choose between the government’s draft law and the March 14 proposal for small districts. Lawmakers from Parliament’s joint committees began debating Thursday the lines of the government’s draft law.
Also being discussed is a winner-takes-all system and a draft law proposed by Aoun’s Parliamentary Change and Reform bloc that would allow every sect to elect their own MPs under a proportional representation system with Lebanon as a single district.
The MPs are also expected to consider a proposal for small electoral districts unveiled by Christian March 14 lawmakers Thursday.
The draft law, presented to Parliament’s General Secretariat by Kataeb (Phalange) Party MP Sami Gemayel, Lebanese Forces MP George Adwan and MP Butros Harb, would divide Lebanon into 50 small districts, each having two or three seats under a winner-takes-all system.
The Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb Party back plans dividing Lebanon into 61 small districts with a winner-take-all system.
The Bkirki Committee, which includes Christian MPs from March 8 and March 14 parties and former Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud, met under Rai Friday night to examine various electoral proposals. Speaking to reporters upon arriving in Bkirki, former Minister Youssef Saadeh, from MP Suleiman Franjieh’s Marada Movement, said that the proposal for small 50 districts will not pass.
Energy Minister Gebran Bassil lashed out at the Christian March 14 parties’ proposal for small districts, saying it was aimed at manipulating Christian votes.
“In 2000 and 2005, they devised large districts based on a winner-takes-all system to gag the Christian vote. Today, they are devising small districts with a winner-takes-all system to manipulate the Christian vote,” Bassil told Lebanese expatriates at a dinner in the U.S. state of Michigan.

STL defense says Lebanon has failed to provide necessary information
September 29, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The government has repeatedly failed to provide requested information, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s defense counsel said Friday. In messages published by the STL’s Twitter account, the defense team criticized the prosecution’s delay in disclosing material related to the trial.
During a status conference, the defense counsel for Assad Sabra, one of four accused of involvement in the 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, said Lebanon failed to comply with requests for information. The counsel said that Sabra’s defense team has repeatedly sought documents and other information from the government deemed essential for the case.
“The Lebanese government has failed to provide any of the requested information,” the counsel was quoted as saying on the STL’s Twitter feed, adding that, “The Defence for Mr. Sabra has repeatedly sought documents and other information from Lebanon which is essential to preparing its case.”
However, the “Prosecution acknowledges there is more disclosure that needs to be completed,” according to the STL.
Pre-trial Judge Daniel Fransen is presiding over a one-day status conference to discuss preparations for the trial, which is tentatively scheduled for March 25, 2013.
Sabra, along with three other members of Hezbollah, was indicted in June of last year by the U.N.-backed court in the attack that killed Hariri and 22 others. The four men remain at large and have had no contact with the attorneys appointed to them by the court.
At the status conference, the defense asked Fransen to order Lebanese authorities to provide requested information without delay.
Last week, the defense counsel accused the United States of political interference in the court’s proceedings after the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Mustafa Badreddine, one of the accused, for allegedly supporting Hezbollah’s “terrorist activities.”

NGO leaders seek to implement Taif Accord, bridge political gaps
September 29, 2012 / The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Civil society leaders launched a dialogue on implementing the Taif agreement Friday, saying they need to take the lead in breaching the country’s political impasses and put into effect the decades-old agreement. Gathering under the banner of a Patriotic Allegiance Movement, leaders of non-governmental organizations and activists, as well as former Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud and former Beirut MP Bahij Tabbara, opened a public dialogue on Taif’s provisions and their impact on the country’s political system.
Organizers saw the dialogue as an opportunity for groups to fill a gap left by political parties and bridge differences to bring about positive change. Little or no political progress has been made on many of Taif’s provisions since its inception.
“The civil society in Lebanon needs to play more of a role in building the public opinion,” said Ghassan Bou Diab, a journalist and moderator of the discussion at Beirut’s UNESCO Palace. “We need to do something; I think the civil society is the only place we can have reconciliation between [March] 8 and [March] 14.”
The 1989 Taif agreement ended the Lebanese Civil War, and settled two controversial issues: the identity of the country and the religious composition of the political system.
Taif also included a number of other provisions for the government to implement or consider. The agreement includes a call to disarm militias in the country, create a senate and an open-ended call to do away with the political sectarian quota system.
Participants at the conference called for Taif’s implementation, but also said they want dynamic solutions to implement a document that was crafted under intense political pressure and may not completely encompass what the country needs right now.
“There is a deterioration of the political situation in Lebanon due to the rift between the political forces in the Lebanese arena that is reflected in a frightening paralysis in various sectors of the lives of people. It’s no longer acceptable for it to continue,” reads the group’s founding document.
The Patriotic Allegiance Movement’s founding document lists four points of emphasis for their work: moving beyond the sectarian system, ending patronage networks, working to end bribery and corruption in politics and responding to the needs of Lebanese citizens.
Discussion focused on an array of concerns about what were considered the most important parts of Taif, as well as how exactly the provisions would be carried out. Fifteen groups were included in the dialogue.
“The aim of launching the dialogue table is to demand the implementation of what is stipulated in the Taif Agreement and in my name and on behalf of the Lebanese woman I ask for only the implementation of this with the participation of women in the political decision,” said Hayat Arslan, speaking for women’s groups at the event.
Civil society in the country is frequently criticized for its large size but limited results. Its defenders say the non-governmental institutions do the best they can in a difficult environment that resists change.
Kamel Mohanna, head of the NGO Amel, said implementing Taif and changing the direction of the country was the only way to alleviate the suffering for many people in the nation. Mohanna said implementing the agreement could be the start of a new political and economic system in the country.

White House irked by Netanyahu’s “red line” speech, reverts to Iran diplomacy
DEBKAfile Special Report September 28, 2012/US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for the powerful presentation of his case for confronting Iran with red lines instead of hitherto failed diplomacy and sanctions in his speech to the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27. This is reported by debkafile’s Washington sources.
Neither released a statement from their conversation of an hour and a quarter one-on-one shortly after the speech.
Our sources report that Clinton made it clear that President Barack Obama would not tolerate the Israeli prime minister having a say in his Iran agenda. He remained committed to diplomacy regardless of Netanyahu’s warning that it was getting “late, very late” to stop a nuclear Iran.
Clinton accordingly announced a decision by the world powers to go into another round of nuclear negotiations with Iran, although after the breakdown of diplomacy in July, they expected an improved Iranian offer. EU foreign executive Catherine Ashton was directed to get in touch with Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalilee for another attempt to set up talks, although when the two officials met in Istanbul on Sept. 18, they made no headway.
debkafile: US steps early Friday Sept. 28 put the clock back five days to Monday when Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s advocacy of agreed red lines for warning Iran off its nuclear bomb program as “background noises” which he systematically blocked. This reversal came after White House and Israeli officials had begun discussing moving the critical timeline for that program to late spring, early summer 2013, instead of this year.
debkafile reported earlier:
Addressing the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27 Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu graphically depicted Israel’s red line for Iran. He held up a simple diagram showing that Iran had covered 70 percent of the distance to a nuclear bomb and must be stopped before it reached the critical stage next spring or early summer of 2013.
He stressed that it is getting late, very late to stop a nuclear Iran.
The best way, he said, is to lay down a clear red line on the most vulnerable element of its nuclear program: uranium enrichment. “I believe that if faced with a clear and credible red line, Iran will back down and may even disband its program,” he said.
Red lines prevent wars, don’t start them and in fact deterred Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel and the US are in discussion over this issue, said Netanyahu. “I’m sure we can forge a way forward together."
He went on to accuse Iran of spreading terrorist networks in two dozen countries and turning Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds. Hoping a nuclear-armed Iran will bring stability is like hoping a nuclear al Qaeda will bring world peace, the prime minister remarked.
debkafile quotes some Washington sources as disclosing that the White House and Israel emissaries have come to an understanding that Israel will hold back from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November, while a special team set up by President Barack Obama completes a new paper setting out the end game for Iran.
He put the team to work after concluding that negotiations with Iran had exhausted their usefulness. Gary Samore, top presidential adviser on nuclear proliferation, leads the team.
Netanyahu’s citing of late spring, early summer 2013, as the critical point on Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb appears to confirm that he has agreed to delay military action against Iran following negotiations with the White House on the next agreed steps. Our sources report that the prime minister was represented in those talks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror.
According to another view, which is current in Washington’s intelligence community, Israel was finally persuaded to delay by fresh intelligence presented by the Obama administration which showed that Israeli estimates were overly pessimistic in judging the timeline for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be buried in “immunity zones.” That timeline extended to spring 2013, leaving Israel five to six months up to April-May for ordering a military operation against those sites.
However, we have learned that Israeli intelligence circles dispute their American colleagues’ estimate as “interesting” but inaccurate. Netanyahu, in his speech, confirmed that Washington and Jerusalem were constantly exchanging views and evaluations on the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
He also made the point that while intelligence services, American and Israeli alike, had remarkable aptitudes, their estimates on Iran were not foolproof. He was referrng to the Pentagon claim that when Iran was ready to build a bomb, American intelligence would know about it in good time.

Obama, Netanyahu discuss Iran nuclear program
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News
President Obama speaks by with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu (Pete Souza/Official White House Photograph)
President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't meet this week but spoke by telephone on Friday. Their conversation focused on efforts to curb Iran's suspect nuclear program, according to a rather dry White House statement. Obama's press operation also released the above photo of the call.
The two leaders don't have a lot of personal chemistry, and Obama has, to date, resisted publicly setting "red lines"—a euphemism for "past this point we go to war"—on Iran, despite Netanyahu's aggressive campaign for the president to do so. Republicans, led by Mitt Romney, have accused Obama of shortchanging U.S.-Israeli ties.
Here is how the White House described the call:
"President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke today as part of their regular consultations, and to follow up on Secretary Clinton's meeting with the Prime Minister. The two leaders discussed a range of security issues, and the President reaffirmed his and our country's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. The two leaders underscored that they are in full agreement on the shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Prime Minister welcomed President Obama's commitment before the United Nations General Assembly to do what we must to achieve that goal. The two leaders took note of the close cooperation and coordination between the Governments of the United States and Israel regarding the threat posed by Iran—its nuclear program, proliferation, and support for terrorism—and agreed to continue their regular consultations on this issue going forward."

Taking up Dahiyeh’s defense
Hazem al-Amin/Now Lebanon
September 28, 2012
Facts prove once again that the inhabitants of Beirut’s Dahiyeh are also the victims of the security state established by Hezbollah among them. Lebanese Armed Forces Lieutenant Colonel Abbas Jomaa became the victim at the heart of this state while pursuing a wanted armed man who had been protected for years until it was time to leave the man to his own devices. Jomaa was killed by a bullet in Dahiyeh, was buried in Dahiyeh and was grieved by friends and family who live in Dahiyeh. His wife was expecting a baby born he named Hassan. What made Hassan an orphan on the very day he was born?
Lieutenant Colonel Jomaa fell while in pursuit of a wanted man nicknamed Aantar, who has a known address in Dahiyeh. Aantar works in a store located in Ghobeiri and lives nearby, even though several arrest warrants have been issued against him … until a last warrant was finally implemented after he was accused of kidnapping Youssef Bechara, a northern Metn inhabitant, and releasing him in return for a ransom.
Bechara paid $400,000 in return for his freedom whereas Jomaa gave his life in return for performing his duty. Still, the comparison between the bitterness of the two families and – accordingly – between Dahiyeh’s and northern Metn’s inhabitants does not stand due to the prevalence of kidnapping gangs. Indeed, there is clearer evidence that the violation of people’s right to live under the law in Dahiyeh is worse that the violation to which Youssef Bechara was subjected. Aantar, who lives in Dahiyeh, had been the target of several arrest warrants, which the state had been unable to carry out, thus forcing Dahiyeh’s inhabitants to live alongside a wanted man. The latest warrant, which the state was allowed to carry out, did not aim to protect the inhabitants of the area from the wanted man living in their midst; rather, the man was accused of attacking a citizen from outside Dahiyeh. Since his victim this time is a Christian, this may expose the ally of the security state in Dahiyeh, i.e. General Michel Aoun, to his voters’ accountability with regard to his alliance with those who are protecting the kidnappers.
The superiors of martyred Lieutenant Colonel Abbad Jomaa would not have sent him in after Aantar were it not for these considerations. They had never done so before and we all know that they will never do so again, unless the victim is from outside Dahiyeh.
This equation is imprinted in reverse in the Lebanese collective awareness, as there is a prevailing opinion that Dahiyeh’s inhabitants benefit from “autonomy” whereas, in reality, they are its victims. When Maher al-Moqdad was holding his press conferences, thousands of Lebanese residing in Gulf countries felt that their deportation had become likely while the 200-something Moqdad family members working in the Gulf felt that they would be deported as soon as their cousin would finish his press conference.
Dealing with Dahiyeh’s inhabitants as victims of Hezbollah’s security state rather than as people “benefiting from its riches” is a mission that requires a different awareness of the meaning of the state and the blessing of the law. While we, in Lebanon, complain about the weakness plaguing the state and the law, Dahiyeh’s inhabitants are complaining about the lack thereof.

New Opinion: Electoral reform “debate” is a joke
Now Lebanon/September 28, 2012
Just as there was no real reform for the 2010 municipal elections, don’t expect big changes for 2013. When security forces outside of the parliament building beat up activists demanding a reformed electoral law last week, we doubt they realized how perfectly their actions reflected the current “debate” the political elite are having.
Put simply, the law that will govern the 2013 elections – around eight months away – will no doubt be a modified version of the law used in 2009 with little real reform. The demonstrating activists were demanding, among other things, a law that replaces the current “winner-take-all” system of divvying up the seats in a given district with proportional representation.
A law based on proportionality was approved by the cabinet in August. However, the districts were cut in a way to ensure March 8 would win a majority, meaning there is no possible way March 14 would ever vote for it in parliament – and the legislature must approve the electoral law that finally gets put into place. This seems more of an attempt to win points for trying rather than an honest attempt at changing the system.
Since then, the ball now seems to be in the Christians’ court. Lawmakers with Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement are floating the “Orthodox Proposal,” which calls for each sect electing its own MPs (i.e., Sunnis only vote for Sunni politicians). This, again, is calculated politics.
The Christians generally dislike the 2009 law because, they argue, Christians only really get to choose around 30 of the 64 parliament seats allotted to Christians. For example, the MPs who fill the three seats in Bcharre, an almost entirely Christian district, are “chosen” by Christians, whereas the Christian seats in cities like Beirut and Tripoli are not really “chosen” by Christians as both are predominantly Muslim cities, or so the argument goes.
Aoun is trying to sell himself as the top protector of Christian interests in Lebanon, but he backed a proposal that embraces sectarianism so wholeheartedly, it stands no chance of winning. He knows that but wants to be able to look at Christian voters and say, “I’ve tried the hardest to secure your rights.”
The Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb Party are taking a softer tone, but playing the same game. During a Thursday Parliamentary committee meeting, they tabled a proposal to cut Lebanon into 50 districts (up from 26 in 2009) for exactly the same reason Aoun is touting the “Orthodox Proposal” – so named because it was drafted by leaders from the Orthodox Christian sects and signed off on by the Maronite Church in late 2011. Under the LF and Kataeb law, Christians would “choose” more than 40 Christian MPs. An improvement over the 2009 law and not as impossible to pass as the “Orthodox Proposal,” but it, also, will go nowhere.  In reality, the Christians are in a “pre-campaign campaign” as Antoine Haddad of the Democratic Renewal Movement put it in an interview with NOW Lebanon. They’re using the “debate” on the law for politicking when they all know full well that very little is going to change.
In the end, the same kleptocrats who are so disastrously “running” the country will remain in power. Talk of reform is a joke, and we should stop letting them fool us.

Prisoners of Bashar
Michael Young/Now Lebanon/ September 28, 2012
Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin meet in Moscow before the uprising in Syria began. Russia is slowly realizing that any transition in Syria cannot take place if Assad remains in power.
Slowly but inexorably, even the allies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, above all Russia, appear to be coming to the realization that any transition in Syria cannot take place if he remains in power. And yet, despite this, don’t soon expect a change in their policies.
Several days ago, media outlets focused on the apparent departure to Dubai of Bushra al-Assad, the president’s sister and widow of Assef Shawkat, the deputy defense minister who was killed in a bomb attack last July in Damascus. It’s not clear why she left, although the signal it sends is that even the inner core of the Assad regime is fraying.
There had been rumors that Shawkat favored a more multifaceted approach to the uprising, blending negotiations with repression. Some sources suggested that this was opposed by other Alawite officers, including Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother. This led to speculation, with little evidence, that the bomb blast that killed Shawkat and others was a regime job, designed to ensure that the Alawites remained unified around a policy of brutal subjugation.
If this is true, it is conceivable that Bushra sided with her husband and that his made her position in Syria untenable. She was either forced out of the country or chose to leave. Whatever the answer, her exit is more significant than that of Manaf Tlass or former Prime Minister Riyad Hijab. The Assads oversee a system of family rule, based upon sibling solidarity, but the family is, plainly, fragmenting, regardless of whether Bushra held a position of responsibility or not.
That Bashar al-Assad’s outside support may be eroding was alluded to in the remarks of a diplomat at the United Nations to Raghida Dergham of Al-Hayat. According to the diplomat, who is evidently close to the mission of Lakhdar al-Ibrahimi, the United Nations-Arab League envoy on Syria, “Differences remain between Russia and the Western countries over the form of a transfer [of power in Syria] and the participation of the regime in [this transition] and at what level; yet Russia has agreed to the principle of a transitional phase.”
Given that Ibrahim himself has made it amply clear that Syria simply cannot return to where it was before the revolt began, and his implicit criticism of Bashar al-Assad for believing that the country can, the diplomat’s interpretation of Moscow’s intentions was significant. The Russians seek to play a central role in the establishment of a new order in Syria, but they also want to protect enough of their comrades in the Syrian system so that Russian interests will prevail.
We may be near the moment where the weak link in this process is the president himself. If an orderly evolution requires him to leave office, the Assads may find themselves isolated. Russia’s capacity to bring the Alawite military and intelligence elite into such an arrangement will be vital. Moscow doesn’t want the Syrian leadership to crumble, as this would undermine its stakes in Syria. But the longer Assad lingers, the more difficult a manageable transition will become.
Iranian calculations are as important here, if not more so. Much in Ibrahimi’s mediation will depend on whether Tehran and Moscow remain on the same page over Syria. Like the Russians, the Iranians have bolstered Assad militarily, on the quite sensible grounds that if his authority becomes shaky, Iran may lose everything.
Iranian power centers are allegedly divided over Syria, even as they must sense that a military solution is now impossible. If so, the consensus position between the factions in Tehran may eventually be to agree that Bashar al-Assad is expendable, and that a move away from the Assads is the only way to preserve the political and military edifice with which they have collaborated closely in the past years.
That said, there are two fundamental obstacles to Assad’s removal, which is why efforts in that direction may not come now, or ever. The first is that the president embodies the system, so that once he goes, even in the context of a package deal, his system could collapse. And the second is that the Syrian opposition will never agree to bargain with those who have slaughtered tens of thousands of innocents.
And there is another small matter: Assad may refuse to step down. The Syrian president has well understood the paradoxical dynamics of his situation. Though he is losing his grip, both Iran and Russia need to avert a catastrophic disintegration of Assad rule, because otherwise it will mean a disintegration of Iranian and Russian sway over Syria. So the weaker Assad is, the greater the Russian and Iranian urgency to ensure that he remains in place, until such time when he can regain ground and perhaps negotiate from a position of strength.
But that only begs another question: If Bashar al-Assad regains ground, why would he contemplate leaving office?
In other words, Moscow and Tehran are far more Assad’s prisoner than he theirs. They may talk about a transition in Syria, and even plan one, but they cannot conceivably implement such a strategy today without risking everything. Assad grasps this, which is why he remains confident, the peacemakers’ desires notwithstanding.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Teenage Christian Girl Kidnapped, Raped by Young Muslim Men in Pakistan
http://www.persecution.org/2012/09/28/teenage-christian-girl-kidnapped-raped-by-young-muslim-men-in-pakistan/
Washington, D.C. September 28 (International Christian Concern) - A young Christian girl was raped by three Muslim men in Faisalabad, Pakistan last Thursday. The incident came just weeks after a 10-year-old Christian girl was raped by a 60-year-old man in the same city on August 25. The cases evidence escalating abuse toward children in Pakistan's Punjab province, especially among Christians who are often victimized by the country's social norms because of their religious minority status.
Shumaila Masih, a 17-year-old girl from a poor Christian family, was raped by three Muslim men, all around the age of 30, in Chak 226, a district of Faisalabad, on September 20. Shumaila was walking to a home where her mother was working as a maid when the men grabbed her, Akram Masih, the girl's uncle, told ICC.
"She left home around 11:00 am and was on her way to her mother's workplace when three Muslim men kidnapped her and took her to the nearest house, which was under construction," he said."They abused her and raped her."
Hours later, after the girl was noticed missing, Shumaila's parents and uncle went searching for her. "When we passed by a house that was under construction, we heard the cry of a girl and found two boys standing outside," Masih explained. "Shumaila was bruised and tied with a piece of cloth naked to a bed. She had been there for six hours, because we rescued her around 5:00 pm."
Masih reported the incident at Tarkhani police station, in the Samundri Tehsil district of Faisalabad. Two of the culprits have since been arrested. Many Muslims in the community stood alongside Christians to demand that immediate legal action be taken against the offenders, a local activist told ICC.
"The men [should be] punished according to the law," Manzoor Masih, Shumaila's father, told Asia News. "It is not [right] to assault any young girl. These people are monsters and must be punished."
Shumaila's case came less than a month after Allah Rakhi, a 10-year-old Christian girl from the poor Yousafabad district of Faisalabad, was sexually assaulted by Muhammad Nazir, a 60-year-old Muslim man, in late August. The girl followed Nazir to his house where she was promised to be paid for some items she was selling at the market, Asia News reported. Sarfraz Masih, Rakhi's father, found her later that day "lying on the floor" where she had been "brutally raped and left bleeding."
"We are very poor and unable to fight with this kind of rich people," explained Masih. Nazir reportedly told Masih that "Christians would pay" if the incident was reported to the police.
In another case, Sumbal Masih, a Christian girl believed to be 15 years old, was "beaten harshly" by her Muslim employers with "pipes and iron rods" on September 14 in Lahore, reported World Vision in Progress. Sumbal has since gone missing.
According to the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC), there were 40 cases of rape, 14 murders, 22 kidnappings, and six forced marriages of children in Punjab province during the first five months of 2012. Christians and other religious minorities, including Hindus, are often the victims.
"Religious minorities and marginalized groups are easy targets for wealthy landowners in rural areas," said Father Bonnie Mendes, the former Executive Secretary of the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP) in Pakistan "I personally know the victim [Shumalia], because I was [a] pastor in that area. They are a very poor family, but rich in the Catholic faith. They deserve justice."

Question: "What does it mean to grieve / quench the Holy Spirit?"
GotQuestions.org /Answer: When the word “quench” is used in Scripture, it is speaking of suppressing fire. When believers put on the shield of faith, as part of their armor of God (Ephesians 6:16), they are extinguishing the power of the fiery darts from Satan. Christ described hell as a place where the fire would not be “quenched” (Mark 9:44, 46, 48). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is a fire dwelling in each believer. He wants to express Himself in our actions and attitudes. When believers do not allow the Spirit to be seen in our actions, when we do what we know is wrong, we suppress or quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19). We do not allow the Spirit to reveal Himself the way that He wants to.
To understand what it means to grieve the Spirit, we must first understand that this indicates the Spirit possesses personality. Only a person can be grieved; therefore, the Spirit must be a divine person in order to have this emotion. Once we understand this, we can better understand how He is grieved, mainly because we too are grieved. Ephesians 4:30 tells us that we should not grieve the Spirit. We grieve the Spirit by living like the pagans (4:17-19), by lying (4:25), by being angry (4:26-27), by stealing (4:28), by cursing (4:29), by being bitter (4:31), by being unforgiving (4:32), and by being sexually immoral (5:3-5). To grieve the Spirit is to act out in a sinful manner, whether it is in thought only or in both thought and deed.
Both quenching and grieving the Spirit are similar in their effects. Both hinder a godly lifestyle. Both happen when a believer sins against God and follows his or her own worldly desires. The only correct road to follow is the road that leads the believer closer to God and purity, and farther away from the world and sin. Just as we do not like to be grieved, and just as we do not seek to quench what is good—so we should not grieve or quench the Holy Spirit by refusing to follow His leading.

Egyptian Evangelical Church Attacked with Stones and Gas Bombs
by Raymond Ibrahim • Sep 28, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Cross-posted from Jihad Watch
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2012/09/egyptian-evangelical-church-attacked-with-stones
According to Al Masry Al Youm, Kasr El-Dobara, the largest evangelical church in the Middle East, located in Egypt, was recently besieged by "unknown people" hurling "stones and gas bombs." The first gas bomb thrown at the church Thursday afternoon, September 13, was signaled as an error by police, but it was soon followed by other bomb attacks, which went into midnight and early Friday. Worshippers locked themselves inside the church and put on masks to avoid gas poisoning.
Some of those trapped inside looked for help by trying to contact politicians, journalists, and even the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood. All the latter did was announce on TV that the attackers were not members of the Muslim Brotherhood. After the besiegers left and the trapped Christians finally came out, not a single police or security agent to counter the attacks or protect the church could be found.
And today, Reuters reports that "Most Christians living near Egypt's border with Israel are fleeing their homes after Islamist militants made death threats and gunmen attacked a Coptic-owned shop."