Bible Quotation for today/The Judgment Day
Matthews 25/31-46: "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in.  I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’  “Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?  When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’  “The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’  Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;  for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;  I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’  “Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’  Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’  These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources For September 15/13

The Late Bachir Gemayal: The Grain of Wheat & the Yeast
By: Elias Bejjani
September 14, 2013
John 12:24: "Most certainly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit." 
On September 14, 1982, on the day Lebanon was celebrating the Day of the Holy Cross, its President-elect, Sheik Bachir Gemayel, passed away into the hands of the Almighty God after carrying the cross of the country to heaven. He was not even 34 years old, but what he achieved for the freedom and dignity of Lebanon places him among the great men who left a stamp of glory on the history of Lebanon. 
Bachir, the hero, dreamt of a sovereign, free and independent Lebanon, and his dream became the objective of all free-minded Lebanese men and women. And even as the hands of evil and hatred took him away through a cowardly assassination plot (14/09/82), his dream lives on in the fiber of our people and their conscience for as long as the Cedars of Lebanon tower over the country from their peaks.  
Today we remember Bachir in our prayers. We also remember his fallen comrades who gave so much for our beloved country, and we learn from their sacrifice many a lesson. With this 31 remembrance day, our hopes are renewed, our determination is re-energized, and our commitment to the cause is re-confirmed.
Bachir’s bright star was high in the skies of Lebanon and with it the hopes of the Lebanese people. But the joy was killed and the hopes dashed when his star fell from the skies, a martyr to his noble ambitions aiming at building a strong Lebanon, confirmed in its sovereignty and independence.  
Bachir believed that "the one Lebanon is the Lebanon of the 10,452 km², that the Lebanese must win back completely so that it belongs to its sons and daughters in all their communities, creeds, and beliefs". But even as he departed, what he believed in remains in the hearts and minds of all the Lebanese people.  
Bachir was raised on the cross of Lebanon on the day we remember the Cross. He was killed in a political act at the intersection of the interests of nations, individuals, and terrorist groups that feared for their own egotistical interests should a unified, free and sovereign Lebanon rise from its ashes. Bachir established the framework and then was unjustly taken from us too soon. 
Those same regimes of evil, Syria and Iran, and groups and factions like the terrorists, Hezbollah, continue today to hold the Lebanese people and their country hostage to their greed, hatred, and savage schemes. They have mastered the art of subservience and bowing at the doorstep of the forces of occupation. They are shepherds of doom who have reneged on every pledge they made and abandoned their flock.
 They are factions whose job is to drive wedges between the free people of the Land of the Cedars, assassinating their aspirations and hopes in deed, thought, decision and execution. They assassinate Lebanon every morning and every hour of their waking day, killing its sovereignty, its free decision-making, its democracy and culture.
Bachir's venomous assassination still lingers to this day in all its ugliness, its corruption and its neglect.  It still lingers in its displacement and emigration, dhimmitude, apostasy, with economic, social, financial, political, security and patriotic decline.It still lingers with the rule of personal over national interests. It still lingers with the dismemberment of the political parties; the politicization of the judiciary; the truncation of sovereignty with the imposition of foreign interference, and the abandonment of human, religious and ethical values.
Bachir’s dream is here to stay and will never disappear, because it is the dream of a people who want a dignified life, a dream that calls upon unity, sovereignty and peace.
We are today together to remember the martyrdom of Bachir and his 22 comrades, lifting our eyes and hearts in the midst of danger and trouble to the redeemer of suffering humanity, Jesus-Christ, who said "And if I were to rise above the earth, I shall take with me everyone" (John12/32). We ask Him for light, faith, strength, and hope to continue our march forward and lift ourselves, our homeland, and our people to victory, to peace, to righteousness, to freedom and to all that is good in this world. For Bachir is alive in our beings and in our minds.
Sheik Bachir, Lebanon's elected president who was assassinated before assuming his presidential responsibilities was and still is the patriotic blessed yeast that was brewed and produced solid foundations of freedom, sovereignty and independence, as well as perseverance and hope in all Lebanese minds and hearts.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp0_NJaLhb4 .
 Terrorists and powers of evil could not destroy the dream that Bachir left for us. Even the gates of  hell shall not be able to shake our deeply-rooted faith in peace, love and democracy. Bachir is the grain of wheat and the yeast. Bachir's dream is alive and glowing.  As expressed in Galatians 5:9: "A little yeast grows through the whole lump".
N.B: The aboce piece was first published in 2009

FSA Spokesman: Syria shifts chemicals to Iraq and Hezbollah

http://www.aawsat.net/2013/09/article55316795

Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat—The Syrian opposition has accused the Assad regime of transferring one of the world’s largest chemical arsenals to Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. If the claim proves to be true, the move would cast doubt on Damascus’s intention to comply with the US and Russian plan to place the Assad regime’s chemical equipment under international supervision.
Free Syrian Army (FSA) spokesman Luai Al-Mekdad told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Assad regime is “preparing to transfer part of its [chemical] arsenal to Iraq under the supervision of Iran’s Quds Force,” noting that Damascus is “returning the Iraqi chemical arsenal, which Saddam Hussein had sent to Syria before the 2003 Iraq war.”
Mekdad, who claimed to have received this information from special sources within the Syrian government, said that the “regime is waiting for technical circumstances” before it ships the chemicals to Baghdad, a step which will be taken “with the knowledge of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki and under the supervision of the pro-Assad [Iraqi] militias.”
Mekdad said the US should not “fall into the trap twice,” implying that Iraq now will retain its chemical arsenal.
Another likely destination for the weapons is Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Mekdad said “received the first batch of chemical weapons almost a year ago . . . and now is preparing to receive the second batch, which it will stockpile in areas along the border with Syria, as well as in Baalbek in the Beqaa Valley.”
“Hezbollah has prepared several highly fortified depots in several locations that are under its control in Beqaa, as well as in the border zone in preparation for receiving the chemical weapons,” he added.
The West estimates Syria is in possession of 1,000 tons of chemical warheads and rockets, as well as liquid toxins. They are thought to be distributed across Syria, including in the Rif Dimashq Governorate and the mountains of Latakia. On Friday the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said that Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Al-Mekdad contacted it requesting technical help, one day after the civil-war torn country became a full-member in the chemical weapon watchdog organisation

In Kerry-Lavrov Syrian chemical accord scant punishment. Assad is free to pursue war
DEBKAfile Special Report September 14, 2013/

http://www.debka.com/article/23279/In-Kerry-Lavrov-Syrian-chemical-accord-scant-punishment-Assad-is-free-to-pursue-war
The framework accord for destroying Syria’s chemical stockpiles, which US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced at a news conference in Geneva Saturday, Sept 14, covers important ground - but leaves even more important issues unaddressed. Its implementation depends on the full cooperation of Bashar Assad and his army for securing the process. He is therefore assured of staying in power and free to wage war unhindered.
This assurance was incorporated in Kerry’s words that the agreement can end the chemical threat to the Syrian people, its neighbors and the region only “if fully implemented.”
The US Secretary listed the six points of that accord:
1. It included a shared assessment of the amounts and types of Syrian regime’s chemical weaopons stockpiles.
debkafile: Earlier reports spoke of a 40-percent disparity between the US and Russian assessments.
2. The Syrian regime has one week until Sept. 21 to submit a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions and local and foreign storage, production and research and development facilities.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-OPCW, which usually allows 30 days, has agreed to extraordinary procedures to assure the inspection and destruction of all CW stocks.
3. Inspectors must be on the ground by November and the destruction of CW completed by mid-2014.
--- On this point, the Russian foreign minister was less specific: Implementation of the agreed framework for the removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons must be supported by an “OPCW investigation and a Security Council resolution,” he said, indicating a process of several months.
debkafile: This timeline could stretch out even longer because of the technical difficulties of destroying not just stocks but also manufacturing plant and the facilities for mixing and loading the chemical and biological agents on weapons of delivery.
4. Syria must provide immediate and unfettered access to its CW sites.
5. All CW including stocks inside and outside Syria must be surrendered and destroyed on-site, or if necessary outside the country.
6. Non-compliance would entail the approval of Article 7 of the UN charter which provides for legally binding military or non-military sanctions.
Lavrov’s version
--- On this point, too, Lavrov elaborated on Moscow’s position: Violations must be first investigated and confirmed by the OPCW before coming before the UN Security Council for a new resolution mandating “concrete measures.” These may not entail military action, said the Russian foreign minister, “which would be catastrophic.”
Although this word was not mentioned, the accord leaves Moscow free to use its veto once again to bar punitive action against Syria.
In answer to a reporter’s question, Kerry later insisted that the Syrian regime would be held fully accountable for non-compliance with its commitments and the US president retained the power and right to pursue military measures ““commensurate with the [Syrian ruler’s] level of accountability” without UN approval if diplomacy failed to achieve its end.
At the same time, the US secretary allowed that the US and Russians were agreed that Syria would be disarmed of its chemical weapons by diplomatic, not military, means.
Lavrov departed from Kerry’s presentation of their accord on more points:
a) All chemical weapons must be destroyed – not just those in the hands of the Assad regime, but also the Syrian rebels. This laid the groundwork for the Syrian ruler to delay compliance by pointing a finger at Israel.
b) Military action against Syria was ruled out a priori.
c) The Russian-US accord on Syria’s chemical weapons must lead to an international conference to discuss the declaration of the Middle East as a region free of weapons of mass destruction, which is Moscow’s ultimate aim.
This supported Assad’s stipulation which has made his implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention contingent on Israel ratifying the CWC which it signed in 1993, as a step on the road to demanding its nuclear disarmament.
Secretary Kerry made no comments on this point.
d) The US will contribute the funding and other resources for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, and ask other world powers to participate.
More omissions
While the US secretary repeatedly praised President Vladimir Putin for initiating Syria’s handover of chemical weapons, Lavrov omitted to reciprocate with commendations of President Barack Obama.
debkafile’s intelligence and military sources see five conspicuous omissions in the way of the “full implementation” of the US-Russian Geneva Agreement:
--- The timeline is left open. In none of his speeches and interviews did President Obama set deadlines for the eradication of Syria’s poison chemicals, and the dates set by Kerry Saturday in Geneva are unrealistic.
--- Russia and the Syrian ruler were left with the impression that Obama has opted against bringing Assad to account for using chemical weapons in order to keep his war afloat from a position of strength. Indeed the US president appears not to be averse to letting him stay in power.
Neither Kerry nor Lavrov answered the reporter who asked simply: “Why didn’t you first of all try and stop the war?"
--- Notwithstanding the impression Kerry tried to convey at the news conference, Obama has clearly discarded the military option as a means of keeping Assad under pressure to comply with his commitment to dismantle his chemical weapons. Even if Washington decided to invoke Article 7 to punish Syria for non-compliance with the accord, the Russian veto still hangs over this step.
--- Rescued from an imminent American military threat, the Syria ruler is free to surrender only a small part of his chemical resources and, with the support of his Russian and Iranian allies, hold back sufficient poison gas to save himself if he risks losing the war. He can continue to ignore the evidence found by US intelligence agencies that the Syrian army was guilty of using chemical weapons against civilians in Homs, Aleppo and Idlib – even before the poison gas massacre of Aug. 21 east of Damascus. When on April 24, Brig. Gen. Itay Brun, head of Israeli Military Intelligence research stated publicly: "We have recently detected the Syrian army’s repeated use of lethal chemical weapons, apparently sarin,” the White House in Washington was up in arms and made Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon promise that such slips of the tongue would not recur.
Sunday, Sept. 15, Secretary Kerry is expected in Israel for a one-day trip. He faces two uphill tasks: He must convince Israel that there is no danger of Syrian chemical weapons being passed to the Lebanese Hizballah and so diverted from international control; and that the US-Russian deal on Syria is not a template for letting Tehran off the hook on its nuclear program. That is the foremost of Israel’s concerns.

Christians cannot allow Middle East fundamentalism: Rai

September 14, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Cardinal Beshara Rai said Saturday that Christians should act to stop the spread of fundamentalism and terrorism in the region. “The Christian presence in the east dates back over two thousand years and it is essential to spreading the values of peace, love and co-existence,” Rai said in a sermon marking the Holy Cross Day, speaking from Romania’s Bucharest. “The Christians cannot tolerate or allow the spread of terrorism and fundamentalism in the Middle East,” he said. Celebrations were held in different Lebanese regions to mark the Holy Cross Day celebration, and leading religious figures held services for the occasion. In north Lebanon, a service was held in Koura at the Saint Barbara monastery in Ras Masqa town. The town’s priest Father Nicolas Daoud presided over a ceremony and stressed the importance the cross had for Christians. The town was decorated with candles spread on the roads and at the roofs of buildings. In Jezzine, a celebration was held in Mar Maroun church for the Feast of the Holy Cross.

Ban: Assad a war criminal
September 14, 2013/The Daily Star
GENEVA/BEIRUT: U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon Friday accused Syrian President Bashar Assad of crimes against humanity ahead of an “overwhelming” U.N. report he said confirmed chemical weapons were used in Syria. Ban’s explosive comments came as Washington and Moscow held their second day of crucial talks on dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. Though he did not blame the regime directly for poisongas use, Ban said U.N. experts would confirm in the report to be released next week that chemical weapons were used in an attack that killed hundreds. Assad has vowed to relinquish his chemical arms, after the alleged attack prompted threats of military strikes. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov were holding talks in Geneva Friday to hammer out the details of a Russian plan that emerged this week.
The last-minute Russian initiative caused U.S. President Barack Obama to back away from planned military strikes in response to the attack, which Washington blames on the regime and says killed about 1,400 people.
Washington has warned the regime that further steps will be needed before military action would be off the table.
Obama said he hoped talks on the plan were successful, but said he would insist any deal was “verifiable and enforceable,”
“I shared with the emir my hope that the negotiations that are currently taking place between Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov in Geneva bear fruit,” Obama said after meeting in the White House with Kuwait’s emir, Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah
“But I repeated what I’ve said publicly, which is any agreement needs to be verifiable and enforceable.”
At the United Nations, Ban lashed out at Assad and said inspectors would publish an “overwhelming report” that chemical weapons were used.
He said the Syrian leader had “carried out many crimes against humanity” and insisted there had to be “accountability” once Syria’s civil war was over.
In Geneva, Russian and U.S. officials said they hoped the chemical weapons talks would open the door to wider efforts to end Syria’s conflict, which has claimed more than 110,000 lives since March 2011.
Kerry said he would meet Lavrov again later this month – probably around Sept. 28 – to try to set a date for a long-delayed peace conference.
He said Washington and Moscow were “working hard to find common ground” to get peace talks going in Geneva that would bring together Assad’s regime and the opposition.
Much of the way forward “will obviously depend on the capacity to have success here in the next day, hours, days, on the subject of the chemical weapons,” Kerry told reporters after meeting with Lavrov and the U.N.-Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi.
Lavrov said he also hoped a “basically abandoned” peace plan first agreed in Geneva in June last year would be revived.
“We agreed to meet in New York in the margins of the [U.N.] General Assembly and see where we are, and what the Syrian parties think about it and do about it,” Lavrov said.
The French presidency said Kerry, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and British Foreign Secretary William Hague would hold further talks on Syria in Paris Monday.
Assad confirmed for the first time Thursday that Syria planned to relinquish its chemical weapons, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged the international community to take him seriously.
“This confirms the serious intentions of our partners to go along this path,” Putin said at a security summit in Kyrgyzstan.
Syria Thursday filed documents at the United Nations seeking to join the international convention banning chemical weapons and said it now considers itself a full member.
A U.N. spokesman said Friday the organization had asked Syria for more information about its application, but he declined to say what was missing from the documents filed.
France – Washington’s main backer on military strikes – also said Friday that Syria had not yet not done enough, calling for a binding Security Council resolution that would authorize force if Assad does not give up his arsenal.
“The Syrian regime’s announcements are certainly very useful but also certainly insufficient,” French Foreign Ministry spokesman Philippe Lalliot said.
Fueling concerns about Assad’s sincerity, reports emerged Friday that a secret Syrian military unit was scattering the chemical weapons stockpile around the country.
Russia has not revealed many details of its plan, but Russian media report that it calls for a four-step process for the weapons handover.
Reports say the plan calls for Damascus to join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, declare the locations of its chemical arms, allow OPCW inspectors access and finally arrange for destruction of the arsenal. A spokesman for the Hague-based OPCW said it would meet next week to examine Syria’s request.
Syria’s opposition National Coalition said it was “deeply skeptical” of the government’s move and urged a tough U.N. resolution to enforce the measure.
“It is vital the threat of force stays on the table. For a [Security Council] resolution to be anything other than a get-out-of-jail-free card for the regime, it must be enforceable under Chapter 7,” allowing military action, it said in a statement. The French presidency said meanwhile that France, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan had agreed to give more help to the Syrian opposition in its battle against Assad.
After a meeting in Paris, French President Francois Hollande and foreign ministers from the three countries “agreed on the need to strengthen international support for the democratic opposition to allow it to face attacks by the regime,” Hollande’s office said in a statement.

Geagea says Baabda Declaration necessary for state

September 14, 2013 /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Saturday that the Baabda Declaration, an agreement to distance Lebanon from the Syrian conflict, is necessary for building a strong state.
“The Baabda Declaration is the minimum needed for establishing an effective state in Lebanon,” Geagea said in an interview to the Free Lebanon radio station on Saturday. “The capable state in Lebanon is still a far away dream but we will continue to reach such aim,” he said. The LF leader also criticized Hezbollah, saying that the party’s participation in the fighting in Syria alongside the Syrian regime was “scaring tourists and investors away and harming the country’s financial situation.” The Baabda Declaration is an agreement between Lebanon’s opposing political leaders made in 2012 that calls for distancing Lebanon from regional conflicts.
 

Deep freeze
September 14, 2013/The Daily Star
Few people have any remaining doubts about the fact that political life in Lebanon has entered a state of deep freeze as a result of the crisis next door in Syria. For months, or a few years, politicians from all sides of the spectrum have been accusing each other of getting involved in the war in Syria. Throughout much of 2013, the situation steadily evolved into serious gridlock, with the executive and legislative branches of government in limbo. In nearly every political faction, one hears the argument that nothing of any political significance can take place in Lebanon until the situation in Syria becomes clear. On one level, this behavior is understandable – a politician who tells people that nothing will change in Lebanon until the situation in Syria becomes clear might be viewed as an experienced, seasoned “player” in the national game. But such a stance exposes the lack of independence from which many Lebanese political factions suffer and a frightening lack of concern about the country’s future.
Certainly, it might seem “wise” and “realistic” to say that nothing can happen until things become clear in Syria, but the latest chapter in the saga next door should serve as a wake-up call for Lebanese politicians.
After a dramatic crescendo or rhetoric that indicated Western military intervention was just around the corner, the situation has now moved to one of intensive negotiations between Moscow and Washington. However, the focus has been on chemical weapons, and not finding a solution to Syria’s political crisis.
The diplomatic and political tug-of-war over chemical weapons could eat up another month, or three, or six. Perhaps it will require a few years to sort out. And if one engages in reasonable speculation, the war itself in Syria could easily last for a few years, or longer. And in all of these scenarios, there is the possibility that in the end, no one side in Syria will be able to exert full control. Therefore, those who are waiting for one side in Syria to emerge triumphant might be in for a rude surprise when all is said and done. Meanwhile, back in Lebanon, the damage and harm that comes from waiting for a solution in Syria might build up to intolerable levels. Perhaps there are some national issues so divisive that they truly require a resolution of the Syrian war before serious work can begin on them.
But this approach should not be applied to the state of affairs in Lebanon in general; otherwise, paralysis will lead to collapse and fragmentation. Putting things in deep freeze is a dangerous tactic; there are a whole range of policy items that can be worked out without being affected by the crisis in Syria.
The sooner that politicians specify the few things that truly deserve a postponement, the better for Lebanon and its long-suffering public. Because everything else requires serious work, right away.

Battles rage in Syria Christian town: security source

September 14, 2013/Daily Star
DAMASCUS: Syria's army battled rebels for control of the ancient Christian town of Maaloula near Damascus on Saturday, a security official told AFP, a week after opposition fighters took the area. At the same time, rebel units were fighting jihadists in the east, near the border with Iraq, as were Kurdish fighters in Hasakeh province in the northeast, the Syria Observatory for Human Rights said. "The army is continuing its mission in Maaloula. There are still some terrorist pockets in the north of the town, in the Al-Safir hotel and its surroundings, as well as in the hills surrounding the town," the official from the security services said on condition of anonymity. President Bashar al-Assad's regime has consistently labelled opponents as "terrorists" since the outbreak of the revolt in March 2011 that has killed more than 110,000 people. "The army has made some progress," the official added, saying the battle for Maaloula has been hard because the army did not want to bomb the town. The Britain-based Observatory said the air force was carrying out strikes to support the ground operation, with the security source saying the town itself was not being targeted to protect its ancient churches and other heritage sites. Picturesque Maaloula is nestled under a large cliff, whose summit is controlled by the rebels, making it difficult for the army to advance. Last week, the Observatory and residents said rebel forces, including jihadists linked to Al-Qaeda, had overrun the town. Civilians started fleeing the town for Damascus and the neighbouring Sunni village of Ain al-Tine, fearing an imminent escalation. On Tuesday, rebels announced they would withdraw from Maaloula, but that this was "conditional" on pro-regime forces not taking their place. The town, home to about 5,000 people, is strategically important for rebels, who are trying to tighten their grip on Damascus and already have bases circling the capital. In other developments, the Observatory said regime air strikes elsewhere had killed three women and a child near Damascus. In Deir Ezzor province, near the Iraqi border, it said there was fighting between rebels and units of the jihadist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) in Albu Kamal, with five people killed. And in Hasakeh province, in the northeast, Kurdish fighters clashed with elements of ISIS and another jihadist group, the Al-Nusra Front. In July, the Kurds drove the jihadists out of the area after fierce fighting.

Report: Major Powers Keen to Hold Conference to Back Lebanon's Stability
Naharnet/World powers are keen on holding a conference on Lebanon given the instability in the region, most notably the Syrian crisis, reported As Safir newspaper on Saturday. An official Lebanese source said that Russia, China, the United States, and France are in agreement to hold a conference to support Lebanon's stability in order to keep it away from regional conflicts, especially the unrest in Syria. The meeting will also support Lebanon's economy, its army, and efforts to harbor the Syrian refugees. The conference is likely to be held at the United Nations headquarters in New York. The source credited President Michel Suleiman for his efforts to hold the conference, saying that it was discussed during a recent telephone call between him and United States Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this week. According to the source, Kerry voiced his eagerness to ensure the success of the conference, stressing that it should help restore international, regional, and Arab support for Lebanon “after the Lebanese sensed that this backing had waned in light of recent security developments in the country.” Another meeting on helping Lebanon cater to the needs to the Syrian is scheduled to be held on the margins of the U.N.'s annual General Assembly scheduled for later this month.

Saqr Orders Arresting 3 Syrians over the Baabda Rocket Case, Detains Asir Supporter
Naharnet /State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr ordered on Saturday the detainment of three new people over their alleged involvement in the launching of rockets towards Baabda on August 1.
"Saqr order the arrest of three Syrian suspects over the Baabda rocket launching case,” the state-run National News Agency reported. The NNA added that the suspects were referred to Military Examining Magistrate Fadi Sawwan for prosecution. On Thursday, Sawwan issued an arrest warrant against Jamal Ismail over his alleged involvement in the firing of rockets towards Baabda. And on August 30, Saqr ordered the detention of suspects allegedly involved in the cases of firing rockets from Ballouneh on Baabda and from the South towards Israel. Media reports had said that the suspected intended to target the Defense Ministry in Yarze. But one rocket hit a high-voltage power line in a nearby town and a second rocket failed to launch. The launchpads were found in Ballouneh. On August 1, two rockets fired from an area near the town of Aramoun in Aley struck locations near the presidential palace and the Defense Ministry in Baabda. Meanwhile, the NNA also revealed that Saqr arrested on Saturday a supporter of Salafist cleric Ahmed al-Asir over his alleged involvement in the fighting against the army in the southern town of Abra in June. The detainee was referred to First Military Investigation Judge Riyad Abu Ghida for further investigation, the same source added. On June 23, Asir's supporters opened fire on an army checkpoint leaving around 18 soldiers and more than 20 gunmen dead. The gunbattles concentrated in the area of Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque and nearby buildings in Abra in the southern city of Sidon. Since then, many Asir supporters men were detained for their alleged involvement in the armed clashes. However, Asir, a 45-year-old cleric who supports the overwhelmingly Sunni rebels fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, is no where to be found.

Miqati: Various Proposals on New Govt. are Complicating Salam's Mission
Naharnet/Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati noted that the various initiatives being proposed to form a government are only complicating Premier-designate Tammam Salam's mission, reported al-Liwaa newspaper on Saturday. He told the daily: “The proposals only complicate his mission because they vary between one camp and the other.” Moreover, he said that the rival March 8 and 14 camps are each banking on the developments in Syria in a hope that its outcome will fall in their favor. Addressing calls for the resumption of national dialogue, Miqati said: “Despite all sides' demands for a return to the all-party talks, no one is actually taking practical steps to that end.” On Friday, Development and Liberation bloc MPs met with President Michel Suleiman and Miqati to brief them on Speaker Nabih Berri's “roadmap” on the new government and the national dialogue.
The speaker has called for the resumption of national dialogue at the Baabda palace for a period of at least five consecutive days to discuss the form and policy statement of the future cabinet.
He said Salam should attend the talks that bring together the March 8 and 14 alliances. He also called for reviving talks on a new electoral law, supporting the military to deal with arms proliferated in several regions and addressing a national defense strategy, a reference to Hizbullah's arms.

Bahrain Bans Books on Hizbullah because they 'Spread Hatred, Sectarianism'
Naharnet /Bahrain authorities banned books on Hizbullah, and published by a publishing house linked to the party, during a cultural exposition, reported the Bahrain News Agency on Friday. The Bahrain Ministry of Information Affairs said in a statement that the books “promote sectarianism, hatred, and extremist radical ideologies.”“These ideologies are a direct threat to the safety and security of Bahrain,” it explained. “The attempt to import these books is a blatant and heinous violation against the will and sovereignty of Bahrain due to the poisonous sectarianism and ideologies that target the unity of the Bahraini society,” it added. “Freedom of opinion and expression will be preserved in the kingdom as long as it does not violate the sovereignty and security of others,” stressed the ministry. The GCC monarchies decided on June 10 to impose sanctions on Hizbullah, targeting residency permits and its financial and business activities in reprisal for the group's armed intervention in Syria. The council comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Bahrain had already blacklisted Hizbullah “due to its meddling in the country's internal affairs.”Ties between the party and Bahrain had witnessed tensions due to the party's strong support of a popular uprising in the country that began in 2011.

Shells Hit Two Akkar Towns amid Fierce Battle near Grand River
Naharnet/Shells fired from the Syrian side of the border fell on the outskirts of the Akkar towns of al-Noura and al-Dabbabiyeh on Friday, prompting residents to flee the area en masse, state-run National News Agency reported. “A state of fear and anxiety is engulfing these border towns and some residents have fled to safer places,” NNA said. “A major gunbattle involving the use of all sorts of heavy weapons is currently taking place near the Grand River,” the agency added. Meanwhile, Future TV said Syrian artillery shelling was targeting "the Lebanese border area between Western Dabbabiyeh and al-Noura and residents are fleeing the region."Earlier, it said fierce bombardment was targeting the Syrian town of al-Zara "from positions near the Lebanese border at a rate of two shells per minute." Later on Friday, NNA said three shells and heavy machinegun fire targeted the outskirts of Fraydees and al-Dabbabiyeh on the Lebanese bank of the Grand River. It added that gunshots were being fired at the cars crossing the Abboudiyeh-Minjez highway.

U.S., Russia strike deal on Syria chemical weapons
By Warren Strobel and Mariam Karouny | Reuters –
GENEVA/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Russia and the United States put aside bitter differences over Syria to strike a deal on Saturday that by destroying President Bashar al-Assad's chemical arsenal may avert U.S. military action against him. The agreement after three days of talks in Geneva between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demands that Assad give a full account of his secret stockpile within a week. International inspectors would rapidly get to work to eliminate all the weapons by the middle of next year - an "ambitious" target, in Kerry's words.
If Syria reneges on a commitment to comply, Washington and Moscow pledged to cooperate at the United Nations to impose penalties - though these remain to be determined and Russia is highly unlikely to support military action, which U.S. President Barack Obama has said must remain an option. Kerry said Obama retained the right to attack, with or without U.N. backing.
For Assad's opponents, who two weeks ago were expecting U.S. air strikes at any moment in response to a poison gas attack on rebel territory last month, the deal was a big disappointment.
Despite Kerry and Lavrov's assurances that the pact may lay a foundation for broader peace, they said Assad would not comply and that the deal brought an end to their battles no closer.
Warplanes struck rebel-held suburbs of Damascus again on Saturday.
For the world's two greatest military powers, however, the Syrian conflict has chilled relations to levels recalling the Cold War, and Saturday's agreement offers a chance to step back from further confrontation.
For Russian President Vladimir Putin, it brings management of the Syrian crisis back to the United Nations. For Obama, it solves the dilemma created by Congress's reluctance to back military strikes that he was preparing without a U.N. mandate.
Yet many difficulties lie ahead - not least the technical challenge of enforcing a major disarmament involving complex and dangerous materials in the midst of a vicious civil war that has inflamed the entire Middle East.
Kerry told a joint news conference in Geneva: "The implementation of this framework, which will require the vigilance and the investment of the international community, and full accountability of the Assad regime, presents a hard road ahead." Lavrov said: "It shows that when there is a will ... Russia and the United States can get results on the most important problems including the weapons of mass destruction problem."
"The successful realization of this agreement will have meaning not only from the point of view of the common goal of eliminating all arsenals of chemical weapons, but also to avoid the military scenario that would be catastrophic for this region and international relations on the whole."
REBELS DISMISSIVE
In Istanbul, the head of the Syrian rebel Supreme Military Council was dismissive of the deal, however, saying it would not resolve the country's civil war, now in its third year.
General Selim Idris called it a blow to opposition hopes of overthrowing Assad and accused the Syrian president of circumventing any disarmament by already sending chemical weapons to allies in Lebanon and Iraq in recent days. Qassim Saadeddine, a rebel commander in northern Syria and a spokesman for the Supreme Military Council, told Reuters his forces would not cooperate: "Let Kerry-Lavrov plan go to hell. We reject it and we will not protect the inspectors or let them enter Syria," he said by telephone.
A U.S. official, however, said Washington believed all Syria's chemical weapons remained in areas under the Assad government's control.
Assad, who with backing from his sponsor Iran and its Lebanese Hezbollah allies has fought off first demonstrations demanding democracy and now full-blown rebellion backed by Arab states including Saudi Arabia, has agreed to sign up to an international treaty banning chemical weapons and to submit to controls by the U.N.-backed Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
While submitting to its inspections, he will be deprived of arms which he denies having used.
But he has averted what were likely to be heavy U.S. and French missile strikes and bombing raids that could have weakened his defenses against rebels who control large swathes of Syria, including around the capital Damascus.
Despite the diplomatic breakthrough, chemical weapons only account for around 2 percent of deaths in a civil war in which 100,000 people have been killed since 2011.
On Saturday, Syrian warplanes struck rebel-held suburbs of the capital Damascus and government forces clashed with rebels on the frontlines, according to residents.
The residents and opposition activists, asked about the deal, said that it would not benefit normal Syrians.
"The regime has been killing people for more than two years with all types of weapons. Assad has used chemical weapons six or seven times. The killing will continue. No change will happen. That is it," said an opposition activist in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus who uses the name Tariq al-Dimashqi.
"The most important point is the act of killing, no matter what is the weapon," he said.
Syrian state media broadcast the Kerry and Lavrov news conference live, indicating that Damascus is satisfied with the deal.
Having taken the surprise decision two weeks ago to seek congressional approval for military action to punish Assad for using poison gas, Obama faced a dilemma when lawmakers appeared likely to deny him that - citing unease about helping Islamist militants among the rebels and a wariness of new entanglements in the Middle East after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DEAL OFFERS WAY OUT
The weapons deal proposed by Putin, a former KGB agent intent on restoring some of the influence Moscow lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union, offered a way out. Russia has protected and armed Assad and has been alarmed at what it sees as Western willingness to bypass the United Nations to impose "regime change" in other states.
Under the terms of the U.S.-Russian agreement - a bilateral document which in itself may represent something of a landmark in the management of global affairs, recalling East-West deals of the Cold War-era - Syria must let the OPCW complete an initial inspection of its chemical weapons sites by November.
Kerry said Assad must produce a "comprehensive listing" of its chemical weapons stockpiles within a week. The goal, he said, was the complete destruction of Syria's chemical weapons in the first half of 2014.
The framework agreement - which one U.S. official described as having been worked out in "hard fought" negotiations with Russia - states that a U.N. Security Council resolution should allow for regular assessments of Syria's compliance and "in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorized transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter".
Chapter VII can include military force but can be limited to other kinds of sanction. Russia and the United States continue to have different views on what level of punishment to apply.
When Kerry said during the news conference that the text stated that the Council "must" impose measures under Chapter VII, Lavrov interrupted to point out that it says only it "should" impose measures.
"There's no diminution of options," Kerry said, noting Obama's right under U.S. law to order military action, with or without support from Congress or any international body.
Lavrov said of the agreement: "There (is) nothing said about the use of force and not about any automatic sanctions."
Putin has supported Assad's contention that the sarin gas attack on August 21 around Damascus which Washington says killed over 1,400 civilians was the work of rebels trying to provoke Western intervention.
If Russia were "100 percent" sure of a violation, Lavrov said, it would support U.N. moves to "punish the perpetrators".
Senior Kerry aides involved in the talks said that the United States and Russia agreed that Syria has 1,000 metric tons of chemical agents and precursors, including nerve agents such as sarin gas and blister agents such as sulphur mustard. But the officials, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said there was no agreement among the powers on how many chemical weapons-related sites Syria has that must be inspected under the accord.
The U.S. estimate is that Assad's government has at least 45 sites associated with its chemical weapons program, one U.S. official said.
Implementation of the accord, even assuming Syria complies with its terms, will be daunting. "There are lots and lots of details that still have to be sorted through," a second U.S. official said. To inspect, secure and destroy all of Syria's chemical stockpiles by the first half of 2014 "is daunting to say the least". That timeline and others in the accord "are targets ... not a deadline" another said.
Syria's chemical weapons are likely to be removed through a combination of destroying them within Syria and shipping some out for destruction elsewhere, the officials said. Russia is one possibility site for destruction, but no final decisions have been made.
Lavrov and Kerry have said they will meet in New York at the United Nations in about two weeks to see if they can push forward a long-delayed plan for an international peace conference to try to negotiate an end to the war.
A drive last year for a political solution, dubbed the "Geneva Plan" and calling for a transitional government, went nowhere as Assad refused to cede power and the opposition insisted he could not be a part of any new political order. Kerry said Saturday's chemical weapons deal could be "the first concrete step" toward a final settlement. Lavrov said he hoped all parties to the conflict could attend a conference in October, without pre-conditions.
(Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay and Tom Miles in Geneva and Oliver Holmes in Beirut; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

Syrian rebel leader says US-Russian deal a blow to uprising
Reuters – ISTANBUL (Reuters) - The head of the opposition Syrian Supreme Military Council said on Saturday a U.S.-Russian agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons was a blow to the two-and-a-half-year uprising to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power. General Selim Idris said the deal would allow Assad to escape being held accountable for killing hundreds of civilians in a poison gas attack on Damascus on August 21. Assad has denied responsibility for the attack. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced the agreement on removing Syria's chemical weapons on Saturday after nearly three days of talks in Geneva. Idris said Assad's forces had started moving some of their chemical weapons to Lebanon and Iraq in the last few days to evade a possible U.N. inspection. The assertion could not be immediately verified.
"We have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled," Idris told reporters in Istanbul.
"All of this initiative does not interest us. Russia is a partner with the regime in killing the Syrian people. A crime against humanity has been committed and there is not any mention of accountability."
Asked if rebel brigades would facilitate the work of any United Nations weapons inspectors, Idris said: "This is very complicated ... If investigators come, we will facilitate the mission. In the regions under our control there are no chemical weapons. I don't know if this will just mean that investigators will pass through the regions that are under rebel control. We are ready."But another military council official, Qassim Saadeddine, said: "Let the Kerry-Lavrov plan go to hell. We reject it and we will not protect the inspectors or let them enter Syria."(Reporting by Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Dasha Afanasieva and Mariam Karouny; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Hundreds of fleeing Syrian refugees reach Italian coast
Reuters – ROME (Reuters) - Hundreds of Syrian refugees have been rescued in rough seas and brought to Italy's southern coast in the last 24 hours, the Italian coastguard said on Saturday.
Three boats carrying 809 refugees and possibly some migrants, including many women and children, were intercepted off the Mediterranean islands of Lampedusa and Sicily and off the mainland region of Calabria in the toe of Italy. One boat carrying 171 refugees was in difficulty and gradually sinking when it was rescued about 25 miles off Calabria, the coastguard said. All the 359 refugees rescued off Syracuse in Sicily and the 171 rescued off Calabria appeared to be from Syria, the Italian authorities said, while the nationality of those rescued off Lampedusa was not available. The number of Syrian refugees reaching Italy has increased steadily in recent months and the United Nations estimates that 3,300 have arrived since the start of August. More than 2 million refugees have now fled Syria's civil war, mainly to neighboring Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, out of a population of about 20 million. The two-and-a-half-year conflict is estimated to have killed more than 100,000 people. Thousands of migrants and refugees try to reach Italy's southern shores in summer, when Mediterranean waters are calm enough for smaller boats to make the crossing, usually from Libya or Tunisia. Though most come from sub-Saharan Africa, this year many are fleeing the Syrian civil war or political turmoil in Egypt and other parts of North Africa. Many are drawn by hopes of finding work in Europe and often do not remain in Italy. Illegal migrants intercepted by Italian authorities are taken to state-run immigration centers. Some leave the often lightly guarded buildings to seek work, and those who remain and cannot prove that they are political refugees can be sent home. (Reporting by Gavin Jones; editing by Mike Collett-White)

Al Qaeda calls for attacks inside United States
Reuters – DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri urged small-scale attacks inside the United States to "bleed America economically", adding he hoped eventually to see a more significant strike, according to the SITE monitoring service. In an audio speech released online a day after the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 strikes, Zawahri said attacks "by one brother or a few of the brothers" would weaken the U.S. economy by triggering big spending on security, SITE reported. Western counter-terrorism chiefs have warned that radicalized "lone wolves" who might have had no direct contact with al Qaeda posed as great a risk as those who carried out complex plots like the 9/11 attacks. "We should bleed America economically by provoking it to continue in its massive expenditure on its security, for the weak point of America is its economy, which has already begun to stagger due to the military and security expenditure," he said. Keeping America in such a state of tension and anticipation only required a few disparate attacks "here and there", he said
"As we defeated it in the gang warfare in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan, so we should follow it with ...war on its own land. These disparate strikes can be done by one brother or a few of the brothers."
At the same time, Muslims should seize any opportunity to land "a large strike" on the United States, even if this took years of patience.
The Sept 11, 2001 attacks, in which hijacked airliners were flown into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon in Washington and a Pennsylvania field, triggered a global fight against al Qaeda extremists and their affiliates. Almost 3,000 people were killed in the attacks. In his audio speech, Zawahri said Muslims should refuse to buy goods from America and its allies, as such spending only helped to fund U.S. military action in Muslim lands. He added that Muslims should abandon the U.S. dollar and replace it with the currency of nations that did not attack Muslims.
Zawahri spoke approvingly of one of the worst attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, the bombing of the Boston Marathon in April, which U.S. authorities say was carried out by two ethnic Chechen Muslim brothers. The attack killed three people and injured 264. Zawahri sought to paint the bombing as part of al Qaeda's violent transnational campaign of jihad or holy war against U.S. interests, even if it was relatively small-scale.
"The Boston incident confirms to the Americans ... that they are not facing individuals, organizations or groups, but they are facing an uprising Ummah (Muslim community), that rose in jihad to defend its soul, dignity and capabilities.""What the American regime refuses to admit is that al Qaeda is a message before it was an organization," he said.Zawahri, suspected by many security specialists to be living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area, added that the al Qaeda message simply was that if Muslims wanted to live in dignity and "be liberated", then they had to defend their dignity.
(This story has been corrected to fix date of attack in paragraph eight)(Reporting by William Maclean; editing by Mike Collett-White)
 

A real interim choice for Syria
By Dr. Walid Phares
In the northeastern part of Syria—contiguous to Iraq and Turkey—lies al Hasaka or the Triangle, also known as al Jazeera province.
As large as Lebanon, this area is inhabited by roughly four million Kurds, one million Christians and a half million Arabs. Assad forces have practically left the area, and Kurdish militias have set up patrols, stopping Al Qaeda militias trying to enter these districts. This region should be the foundation for a free Syria. Here we should nurture a free zone inside Syria with the potential to grow rapidly and defeat both the Assad regime and the Jihadists.
With U.S. and western help, the Kurds, Christians and Arabs who populate this region can establish a liberated zone with its cities and rivers and expanded airports that should serve as the receiving area for aid.
The current FSA and other opposition groups can be invited to aggregate in this region. This pluralist “smaller Syria” would become the basis for liberation of the country—and the establishment of a pluralistic and peaceful society for all Syrians.
Sound unrealistic?
I would argue this is no more unrealistic than the hope that Vladimir Putin and the Russians will broker an honest peace in Syria.
In fact, if you examine the three current Beltway solutions to the Syrian crisis, we should recognize why turning to this plan will offer a real, long-term hope for a pluralistic and peaceful Syria.
President Obama has made the case for a “limited strike” against Assad and the forces who are presumed responsible for the horrible chemical gassing of more than a thousand civilians—after more than a hundred thousand Syrians have already been brutally killed in the civil war. The president wanted this limited strike to force a weakened Assad to negotiate a settlement to the conflict. But seasoned observers know there will be no mediated solutions to this conflict. It has gone too far and divisions are too deep. But I would argue that other Beltway solutions offer no more hope than those offered by Obama.
The isolationist argument is to simply allow both sides to fight it out because America has no horse in this race. “Let Allah sort it out,” says Sarah Palin. This “safe option” is incredibly dangerous.
If there are two radical forces—those of Assad and Al Qaeda—in the game, each will receive more reinforcements and eventually settle their battles via some Islamist medication—or worse still, a manufactured war with Israel. Even if that war is avoided, we will be left with two extremist and heavily-armed terror groups in Syria.
Another option put forward by Senator McCain is equally dangerous. He wants to fully arm the rebels in an attempt at toppling Assad. The naïveté of this choice can be manipulated by Islamist lobbies who will redirect U.S. assistance to their radical brethren inside the opposition instead of to secular forces. This could end up empowering Al Qaeda and producing future Benghazi-like attacks in Syria.
Meanwhile, all of these positions could lead to war with Iran and Hezbollah—or in view of this administration’s natural tendency toward retreat could culminate in another victory for radicals.
That is why I suggest a practical, but irreversibly winning option for the creation of a free Syria. We have in this region a group of vetted allies who are in place, and where Al Qaeda and al Nusra have been contained—and where the Assad regime is not omnipresent. Those in the U.S. who are concerned about aiding two menacing forces can partner in this al Hasaka region with free and independent Kurds, Christians and Arabs.
Those who want to arm the rebels will have an area ready to be supported.
If the administration wishes to conduct punitive raids against regime targets without aiding Al Qaeda, it can over time empower the real allies to move forward from this particular zone. The development of a free Syria is the most viable option for the United States and Europe and the rest of the international community. This is where the endangered minorities can be protected and joined with liberals and seculars in the Arab Sunni majority.
Syrians yearn for freedom. Americans yearn for effective foreign policy. Let’s start building toward that end.
**Dr. Walid Phares is an advisor to members of Congress and author of “The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom and the Middle East (Threshold Editions 2010).

U.S. military forces still in position for possible Syria strikes
Reuters –WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Saturday that U.S. military forces were still positioned for possible military strikes on Syria, at least for now, even after a U.S.-Russia agreement on destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. "We haven't made any changes to our force posture to this point," Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statement. "The credible threat of military force has been key to driving diplomatic progress, and it's important that the Assad regime lives up to its obligations under the framework agreement." (Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Revolutions Change Arab Societies
Husam Itani/Al Hayat
Bit by bit, we are discovering the impact of the Arab revolutions on our societies and daily lives. Indeed, the revolutions that have been ongoing for about three years have gone beyond the squares, arenas, and armed confrontations, and moved – without us noticing – into our homes, social lives, values, and ideas.
By going back to the pre-revolutions stage on the personal and social levels, many of us can see the extent of this impact on their friendships and social lives, considering that these revolutions repositioned many Arabs in the countries that witnessed the greatest political changes and those which remained on the sidelines, within contexts that might have never even occurred to them.
At this level, there were very bad surprises with the discovery of sectarian tendencies prevailing over those whom one considered as friends, while families were shattered by prejudices exceeding ideology and affecting the perception of life, the world, and the meaning of social and marital ties. But the cases of separation, familial tensions, disputes among former friends and alienation among colleagues, are still not getting direct media attention, although they have become obvious and spread out on the widest scale.
These cases reveal that Arab societies, regardless of the political outcomes and the ups and downs in the ongoing revolutions and their ability to meet the promises for which they erupted in the first place, have irreversibly changed and cannot go back to the way they used to be before Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Tunisia one day.
And whether the military return to power in this country or the Islamists assume new positions in that other country, it is inevitable to say that the patriarchal frameworks featuring a series of principles and taboos and governing the relationships among individuals within the same family and with the political, social and cultural authorities, have been deeply bruised in the majority of the Arab countries and are about to become extinct – regardless of whether their sustainment is negative or positive on social stability and evolution.
Many factors have come together to encourage this transformation, not the least of which being the spread of modern communication means and the dissemination of new values. A lot was written about the role of social communication websites in the organization of demonstrations and uprisings. But what concerns us at this level is that these means, the open satellite channels, and the easy transmission of ideas, participated in shaping a new awareness partly based on the rejection of the widespread corruption seen in tyrannical regimes and the calls for freedom, equality, the rule of the law and a certain degree of social justice.
This step is much too deep to be recanted, whether voluntarily or forcibly, and it will remain present in Arab society and among the youth for many years to come.
This transformation that has started to emerge at the level of social values will defy any attempt to subjugate, intimidate, or contain it, and constitute yet another tributary in the river of the Arab revolutions. And we would not be exaggerating if we were to say that these transformations - which are feared by the governments - will be the greatest legacy in modern history, to the point where the direct political developments and the arrival of this or that side to power will become secondary.
Every day, we are witnessing the death of friendships and the surfacing of others, divorces, separations, and marriages based on continuously changing grounds that are no longer in line with the declining social settlements which imposed these relationships in the past. We are facing a new Arab social dawn with unclear facets and ambiguous details, and its path will not be easy or paved. But what is certain is that it is irreversible.

The Ironies Of Postponing A Military Strike Against Syria
Walid Choucair/Al Hayat
Negotiations and maneuvers have been taking place over a political solution for the crisis that arose after the Bashar Assad regime used chemical weapons against its people, in order to see the regime avoid a military strike by the United States and western countries. On the sidelines of these negotiations and maneuvers, one can stop and take notice of some of the notions, conclusions and ironies, which are well-removed from the propaganda about victory being achieved by this or that country, whether in diplomatic, security, or military terms.
One of the leading observations is as follows: the countries supporting the Syrian regime have not relied upon their military force and capabilities in order to spare Assad a US military strike. Instead they are wagering on the impact of the US Congress’ stance and its vote against supporting US President Barack Obama’s move toward carrying out this strike.
Those who follow the statements made by leaders of the Syrian regime’s leading supports, Russia and Iran, have surely noticed that they avoided threatening the US with a response if Obama carries out his decision. They preferred to issue warnings about the repercussions of the strike, in terms of al-Qaeda and terrorist organizations benefiting from it in order to expand their operations against western and US interests. Moscow stated clearly that it would not take part in any war that breaks out, to the degree that it said it would not respond if one of its ships were hit by mistake, or even on purpose. Meanwhile, the political-media campaign waged by Iran stressed that Israel would be the country that is most harmed by the strike. Iran threatened that missiles would fall on Israel when they begin to strike Syrian regime locations. The excuses put forward by Russia and Iran were aimed at influencing members of Congress who have been hesitant, or who might change their stances if they are influenced by the campaign waged by Obama to bring them around to his point of view. Moscow and Tehran descended to engaging in the democratic game in Washington, in parallel to Moscow’s sending ships to evacuate its nationals, and monitor US military moves in the Mediterranean. Perhaps Russia’s radar will help the Assad’s regime’s early-warning system when the rockets are launched from US warships. Meanwhile there have been reports that Hezbollah has taken over responsibility for some of Syria’s rocket launch platforms, in Syria, hinting that it could responds from Syria, and not Lebanon, against Israel. Tehran has wagered on this leading the Israeli lobby in Washington, due to its deep anxiety over Israel’s security, to influencing certain members of the US House and Senate to reject a strike, while preserving Israel’s security continues to be a priority for Russia.
Tehran has exploited the “lobby” in America to work on warning the US public about the repercussions of a strike, and perhaps this will help preserve a congressional majority that rejects such military action. Iran has promised to provide humanitarian and economic support to Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin has gone so far as to write an editorial for The New York Times, to speak “directly to the American people and its political leaders,” in a rare move. He called for protecting international law, and distanced himself from protecting the Assad regime.
Obama himself has played the game of using external influence on Congress, by drumming up European support. He managed to make progress via the EU call for “a strong and clear response to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons.” However, it is ironic to see everyone talk about “hesitation” by Obama, for merely deciding to refer to Congress to obtain its support, even though this resembles the resort by Moscow and Tehran to peaceful and “democratic” means to confront the possible strike.
It is the economy. US public opinion does not want to hear about a new war after America’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan caused a slowdown in the US economy. This was behind Obama’s hesitation – he fears that a military strike will have a negative impact on the economic situation, and on his promises to Americans that the economy will recover. And the economy is equally important for Russia and Iran. The economic situation in both countries is not enviable. If they move in the direction of any kind of military confrontation with the US if it carries out a strike, whether directly or indirectly, their economic difficulties will become even greater, compared to the cost of their moving toward any compromise. The likely economic cost is what prompted China’s president, Xi Jinping, at the G20 Summit one week ago, to warn about the negative impact of any war.
There is the irony that the Syrian regime has acknowledged it possesses chemical weapons, while Russia has implicitly acknowledged that Damascus used these weapons, as they have both suggested putting them under the authority of the United Nations (because the crisis resulted from their use, and not merely the possession of these weapons). Another irony is that the Russian initiative allows a return to the UN to deal with the Syrian crisis, after three vetoes by Russia and China in the Security Council prevented this.
This (serious) return to the UN was an American demand, and not a Russian one. Washington has retreated from unilaterally leading the world less than a year after it invaded Iraq and failed to govern the country, during the Bush administration. We should recall that the first fruits of this fall-back in the US’ leading role came with UN Security Council Resolution 1559 on Lebanon, which was followed by several decisions, most importantly related to sanctions on Iran, with Russian and Chinese approval. Washington insists on cooperation with Moscow, to preserve international consensus on the Iranian nuclear issue.
However, what deserves the most pity and ridicule in playing the game of influencing American democracy is the letter sent by the speaker of Syria’s Parliament to the legislatures of Britain, France, and the US, asking their members to "not rush into any irresponsible reckless action."

Obama’s Speech of Contradictions: Leadership Lost
Raghida Dergham/Al Hayat
President Barack Obama has returned to his pattern of dithering and backtracking, after appearing on the verge of being firm for a moment, making the majority around the world wonder which Obama are they dealing with exactly, with certainty replaced with speculation.
Obama’s mercurialness has turned the compass needle for this week towards making a deal and evading a military strike. The speech of contradictions the U.S. president delivered was lost between trying to convince the American public of the morality of not burying the collective head in the sand over the use of chemical weapons – which he said he was certain the Syrian regime had deployed against its own people – and between trying to make it clear to the American people that he too did not want military action in Syria, and would prefer to avoid it through an understanding with Russia, which would see placing the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal under international supervision. But the speech of contradictions failed to mention any specific timeframe for chemical diplomacy. It did not contain any clear-cut strategy for what Barack Obama really wants in Syria: Is it a chemical deal, if it is serious? Is it punishment and accountability for crossing the ‘red line’? Is it saving face given where the vote in Congress was clearly heading, i.e. towards withholding authorization for using military force? Or is it that Barack Obama has a surprise in mind that will astound those wagering on structural weakness in the eyes of certain adventurers?
There are those who believe that Barack Obama is deliberately weakening the presidency, because he believes in the necessity of doing so. The proponents of this view adduce Obama’s insistence on shrinking the powers of the presidency and entrusting decision-making to Congress. They say that this is no accident, but is something that is at the heart of his strategy. For this reason, they reckon, Obama relinquished the power of deciding on military action in Syria, granting Congress a ‘veto’ on the matter – though he did reserve the right to make the decision in his capacity as president.
Meanwhile, the Syrian regime and President Bashar al-Assad have interpreted the self-imposed restrictions of the U.S. president – in addition to restrictions the U.S. congress imposed on any military operation during its deliberations – to mean that the regime is safe and that the United States does not want to hold it accountable, let alone remove it or even weaken it.
So far, President Obama has proven that he essentially does not want to take any action in Syria. He wants nothing, in fact. Developments dragged him into taking stances that had not been in his mind. Neatly two years ago, he said that Assad had to step down, before consigning this position into oblivion and the no-man’s land of diplomatic deals. He was practicing presidential rhetoric when he said that the Syrian president had to go, but then contented himself with verbal obfuscation. He did nothing to deliver on his promise – the promise made by the U.S. presidency, no less. He threw his promise, and then turned his back. Thus, he practically backed down on what he pledged, and walked away. More than a 100,000 dead and millions of Syrian refuges and displaced persons did not succeed in bringing President Obama back to calling for Assad to step down. Instead, he entered into bargains over the role of the Syrian president in the transitional process, while Russia and Iran insisted that Assad should remain in power – at least until the presidential elections in the summer of 2014, while the civil war raged.
Not only did the U.S. president backtrack on his calls for Assad to step down, but he also practically pledged not to topple the Assad regime when he insisted repeatedly that the goal of any military strike would be to discipline and deter the regime over the use of chemical weapons. He could have instead not gone public with that pledge – just like he could have reserved the right to take military action and keep its goals ambiguous. He did the opposite, reassuring the regime in Damascus that accountability would be narrow and confined to the chemical weapons issue, but not for any other violations. He threatened, and then he reassured. Now, Damascus has confirmation from the U.S. president that toppling the regime is not the policy of the United States.
When the use of chemical weapons caught Obama off guard, his pride was injured. Indeed, Obama had drawn a ‘red line’ over the issue – but even that was a slip of the tongue. In Obama’s point view, the Syrian regime knew that this was a ‘red line,’ so why did they embarrass him when he was seeking to avoid being implicated in the Syrian issue? He was angry, but he was also moved by seeing the children in their death throes, before becoming bloodless corpses. So he retaliated and threatened a strike.
Some thought that Obama’s true character came to the fore after seeing those horrific scenes, and that it was for this reason that he finally reversed his hesitation and replaced his weakness with a determination to exact punishment. But what happened was that Obama subsequently calmed down, and then backed down. He then found in Congress a way to evade individual responsibility, before he quickly discovered he was still in the predicament.
The Russian ‘precooked’ or ‘spontaneous’ initiative came as a result of another slip of the tongue – as it is said – by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The proposal gave Obama yet another chance to evade military action, and to confirm that pledging to take military action came at an initiative from President Obama that he could have not proposed. But having put forward the threat of military action, he increased expectations. Then by backtracking, he increased confusion. After his second and third about-turn, he helped perpetuate the impression of him that he is a president lacking in the qualities of leadership.
President Obama, when he delivered his speech of contradictions, could have once again taken the lead by restoring the power of decision-making to the presidency. He could have told Congress that Russia made a proposal to place Syrian chemical weapons under international supervision, which he intends to study and test. If the proposal proves to be in goodwill and that it is serious, he would build on it. But if it proves to be a ploy to buy time and an evasive tactic, then he would use his powers as president to take the appropriate decision – whether military or diplomatic.
President Obama could have told Congress that in light of this development, Congress did not have to vote over a decision. He should not have asked to ‘delay’ the vote, but he should have said that he would inform Congress of his decision. He did the opposite. Once again, he gave himself room to retreat by shackling his presidential decision to a Congressional vote. Yet to prove his contradictions, he reserved the right to act and make a decision regardless of what happens in Congress, as he saw fit.
In his speech, President Barack Obama did not mention the Syrian opposition from a standpoint expressing confidence in the Free Syrian Army, which the Obama administration claims it wans to step up its support for. With this, Obama dealt another blow to the opposition, which relies on U.S. support, but which fears deep down the known American habit of letting down and then forsaking those who stand with it.
Nor did Obama put the Russian role in Syria in perspective, especially in terms of supplying the regime in Damascus with Russian military assistance. He did not explain American-Russian disagreements either, or the obstructionism of Russia and China at the UN Security Council in an attempt to thwart every American attempt to resolve the crisis politically, or obtain authorization for military action. He ended up only giving a leading role to Moscow in the chemical issue. Obama did not put any conditions or a timeframe to test the intentions of Russia or Syria in declaring readiness to place the chemical weapons arsenal under international control, with the goal of dismantling them.
Instead of going immediately to the Security Council and secure a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which would put to the test what Russia declared and Syria welcomed, President Obama agreed to dispatch the Secretary of State to Geneva to negotiate with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over the chemical initiative. He agreed to ‘negotiations’ when he should have seized the opportunity to lock the initiative into a UN Security Council resolution. He agreed to take the issue out of the Security Council, giving Russia the gift of pacifying the Council and avoid Chapter IV, making the negotiations essentially bilateral Russian-American talks.
By doing so, the U.S. president has also let down his French allies, who rushed to the Security Council with a draft resolution based on the Russian initiative – to which Moscow responded with immediate rejection.
In truth, President Barack Obama has confounded his allies, more than he has confounded his enemies. The senior members of his administration portrayed the conflict in Syria from the viewpoint of a victory for Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia if Obama were to backpedal from his pledge of a military strike. As for Obama, he did not mention Hezbollah in the speech of contradictions, and mentioned Iran with extreme leniency.
What will happen in Geneva then, when Kerry meets with Lavrov? Is there really a comprehensive Russian plan to implement the proposal of putting Syrian chemical weapons arsenal under international supervision in order to dismantle it?
Lavrov will seek to ‘tame’ Kerry, to render him again a calm partner convinced in a political solution. Russia does not want a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VII, and does not even want the Syrian issue to be discussed at the Security Council. Lavrov will try to confine the chemical issue to a bilateral framework, and will try to revive Geneva 2 away from the Assad Complex. To be sure, Lavrov and his chief Vladimir Putin believe that Obama is their de facto ally because, in their view, he is the man who does not want to carry out a military strike, the man who needs a way out, the man who will always dither, and the man who favors retreating over advancing.
But Russia may have backed itself into the corner of Chapter VII, because the implementation mechanism for placing the chemical arsenal under international supervision requires a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VII – if Russia and Syria are indeed serious. But this also depends on whether the Obama administration is truly serious. Indeed, if its goal is to use the Russian proposal to evade, dither, and backtrack again, then it will be walking into the labyrinths of bilateral diplomatic negotiations with Russia for an indefinite period.
Logically speaking, the developments have engendered a situation where the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal is now on the table. Whether Bashar al-Assad follows in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein and agrees to the dismantlement of an arsenal that has been long claimed to be crucial in the struggle against Israel – thus agreeing to dismantling key abilities of the ‘Resistance’ – or whether he allows UN inspectors to enter Syria as Saddam Hussein was compelled to do while hiding his weapons, the result is one and the same. Indeed, both men placed their regimes above their countries. What is happening now is therefore a radical development that opens the door to international inspection and scrutiny of declarations, no matter how complicated or difficult this track may be.
Ultimately, while the chemical outlet has provided a temporary way out for Obama, Putin, and Assad, it may well be a permanent way in to Syria, resembling the famous one that once played out in Iraq. Regardless of whether we have on our hands the usual dithering, backtracking Obama, or an Obama full of surprises, a radical new development has taken place in the Syrian issue, brought about by the deployment of chemical weapons.

Question: "What is atheism?"

GotQuestions.org/Answer: Atheism is the view that God does not exist. Atheism is not a new development. Psalm 14:1, written by David around 1000 B.C., mentions atheism: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Recent statistics show an increasing number of people claiming to be atheists, up to 10 percent of people worldwide. So why are more and more people becoming atheists? Is atheism truly the logical position atheists claim it to be? Why does atheism even exist? Why doesn’t God simply reveal Himself to people, proving that He exists? Surely if God would just appear, the thinking goes, everyone would believe in Him! The problem here is that it is not God’s desire to just convince people that He exists. It is God’s desire for people to believe in Him by faith (2 Peter 3:9) and accept by faith His gift of salvation (John 3:16). God clearly demonstrated His existence many times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6-9; Exodus 14:21-22; 1 Kings 18:19-31). Did the people believe that God exists? Yes. Did they turn from their evil ways and obey God? No. If a person is not willing to accept God’s existence by faith, then he/she is definitely not ready to accept Jesus Christ as Savior by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). God’s desire is for people to become Christians, not just theists (those who believe God exists).
The Bible tells us that God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Hebrews 11:6 declares, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” The Bible reminds us that we are blessed when we believe and trust in God by faith: “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
The existence of God must be accepted by faith, but this does not mean belief in God is illogical. There are many good arguments for the existence of God. The Bible teaches that God’s existence is clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1-4), in nature (Romans 1:18-22), and in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11). With all that said, the existence of God cannot be proven; it must be accepted by faith.
At the same time, it takes just as much faith to believe in atheism. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything and of having been everywhere in the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God absolutely does not exist. Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. Since those places are beyond our capacity to observe, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.
Atheism cannot be proven, and God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Obviously, Christians believe strongly that God exists, and admit that God’s existence is a matter of faith. At the same time, we reject the idea that belief in God is illogical. We believe that God’s existence can be clearly seen, keenly sensed, and proven to be philosophically and scientifically necessary. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).
Recommended Resource: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek and The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias.