LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِFebeuary 01/2010

Bible Of The Day
John 18/28-40: "They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium. It was early, and they themselves didn’t enter into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. 18:29 Pilate therefore went out to them, and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 18:30 They answered him, “If this man weren’t an evildoer, we wouldn’t have delivered him up to you.” 18:31 Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” 18:32 that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die. 18:33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 18:34 Jesus answered him, “Do you say this by yourself, or did others tell you about me?” 18:35 Pilate answered, “I’m not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered you to me. What have you done?” 18:36 Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews. But now my Kingdom is not from here.” 18:37 Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 18:38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 18:39 But you have a custom, that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Therefore do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” 18:40 Then they all shouted again, saying, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The Egyptian Revolution May Produce a Lebanon-Type Islamic Regime/by Alan M. Dershowitz/February 01/11
Why We Should Fear the Moslem Brothers/By Karin McQuillan/American Thinker/February 01/11
Syria Strongman: Time for 'Reform'/Wal Street Journal/January 02/11
Muslim Brotherhood Declares Jihad on America; America Declares Muslim Brotherhood is Moderate/By Barry Rubin/ February 01/11
Could US abandon Israel too?/ By: Aviel Magnezi/February 01/11
Unreadable Egypt/By: Hussein Ibish/February 01/11
Interview with Lebanese MP, Ahmad Fatfat/Al-Anbaa/February 01/11 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 01/11
Geagea: New Majority is Syria and Hizbullah, Miqati Didn't Make Real Proposal on Cabinet Structure/Naharnet
Williams Tells Berri that Cabinet Should Represent Interests of All Lebanese/Naharnet
'Serious' Consultations Underway between Miqati and Phalange to 'Test Intentions'/Naharnet
Free Egypt" regimes planned alongside March of Millions/DEBKAfile
Arab lawyers call for support for Hariri tribunal/ Washington Post
Hezbollah hails Egypt demonstrators/Monsters and Critics.com
Geagea says new majority for March 14 is Hezbollah and Syria/iloubnan.info
Hezbollah salutes Egypt protesters/iloubnan.info/
Hugo Chavez: US role in Egyptian crisis 'shameful'/J.Post
Billionaire Lebanon Premier Seeks to Bridge Hezbollah With West/Bloomberg
Jordanian king names new prime minister/Now Lebanon
Khamenei to talk about Egypt during Friday prayers/Now Lebanon
Let March 14 go into opposition, says Wehbe/Now Lebanon
Kataeb coordinating with March 14 allies, says Gemayel/Now Lebanon
Hariri discusses developments with British envoy/Now Lebanon
LDP favors national-unity government/Now Lebanon
Hezbollah, Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya delegations discuss political situation/Now Lebanon
EU Ready to Provide Further Funding, Says Tribunal should Continue its Work without Impediment/Naharnet
Miqati: I Don't Follow Anyone's Agenda/Naharnet
Report: Miqati to Launch Consultations with March 8 Bloc Leaders after 3 Days of Negotiations with March 14/Naharnet
Lebanese Bar Manager: Detriot Mosque Bomb Plot Suspect Vowed Blast/Naharnet
Assad Pleased that 'Transition Between 2 Lebanese Governments Happened Smoothly'/Naharnet
Iran Says it Arrested Israeli Spies Linked to Ron Arad Foundation/Naharnet
Bellemare to Fransen: Lebanese Law Applicable in Defining Crimes, STL to Resort to Int'l Law Only if Necessary/Naharnet
Russian Ambassador after Meeting Franjieh: We Will Maintain Our Approach towards Lebanon/Naharnet

Bellemare to Fransen: Lebanese Law Applicable in Defining Crimes, STL to Resort to Int'l Law Only if Necessary
Naharnet/Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare on Monday responded to the "preliminary questions of law" raised by Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen after the prosecutor filed a confidential indictment in the Hariri murder for confirmation. Fransen is tasked with confirming the charges in the indictment filed under seal by Bellemare on January 17, and is allowed to ask the tribunal's organs questions of a legal nature in the process of doing so. On January 21, the pre-trial judge requested written briefs from the prosecutor and Head of the STL Defense Office Francois Roux on the questions related to "the applicability of international law with respect to the notion of terrorist acts; the notion of conspiracy; and the constitutive elements of intentional homicide with premeditation and attempted intentional homicide with premeditation." Bellemare responded by saying that "reliance on international law" to address the aforementioned legal questions is "not required, and would not be consistent with the spirit, object, and purpose of the (tribunal's) Statute." "The Statute is the source of the Tribunal's subject matter jurisdiction, including applicable crimes," he clarified. He noted that according to Article 2 of the tribunal's Statute -- which refers to "the crimes of terrorist acts, conspiracy, and intentional homicide -- the Lebanese Criminal Code is applicable. However, Bellemare added that "if necessary to fill in any gaps that may remain … the Tribunal may resort to international law, after having exhausted the general rules and principles on interpretation of the Lebanese law and Lebanese jurisprudence." "If the Tribunal does so, the test as established by other international courts and tribunals provides guidance," he added. The practice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) has derived a test that can be applied by other international courts when interpreting the laws of a particular country. Beirut, 31 Jan 11,

EU Ready to Provide Further Funding, Says Tribunal should Continue its Work without Impediment
Naharnet/Europe's foreign ministers have reaffirmed their commitment to the international tribunal as an independent court and expressed readiness to provide it further funding.
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon "must continue its work without impediment and with the cooperation of the Lebanese government," the ministers said in a statement following one-day talks in Brussels on Monday. "Funding must be preserved. In this regard, the council notes that the EU and individual member states stand ready to provide further funding. At the same time the EU encourages others to contribute," the statement added. The declaration from the EU's 27 ministers stressed Europe's "determination to reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and stability." It recalled its commitment to the full implementation of all relevant Security Council Resolutions, including 1559, 1680, 1701 and 1757. The foreign ministers also lauded the crucial role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, saying the activities of peacekeepers alongside the Lebanese army continue to be essential for peace in the region. The statement took note of the designation of Najib Miqati as prime minister and called "upon the Lebanese authorities to seek the broadest possible consensus and to preserve unity, in full respect with the principles enshrined in the Lebanese Constitution, the Taef accord and with all Lebanon's international obligations." Beirut, 01 Feb 11, 07:54

Miqati: I Don't Follow Anyone's Agenda
Naharnet/Premier-designate Najib Miqati has stressed that he doesn't "follow anyone's agenda" even if Hizbullah and its allies brought him to power. "I have a friendship with Hizbullah and I also have contacts outside of Lebanon, but it doesn't mean I follow anyone's agenda," Miqati, 55, said in an interview with Bloomberg at his Beirut office. "My own agenda is going to be followed and that agenda is to maintain very good relations with the international community and Lebanon has to fulfill its commitments," he said. "I am keen to maintain very good relations and develop the relationship with the United States," Miqati said. "If they have any worries, or a preconceived or distorted image, this will be clear soon after forming this government and let them judge based on our performance and actions."  A source close to former Premier Saad Hariri told Bloomberg that the Mustaqbal movement leader received "assurances" that he had the backing of Miqati when President Michel Suleiman launched consultations with MPs last month to designate a new premier after the collapse of Hariri's government. "I came here through a democratic process and I will follow the constitution," Miqati said in the Jan. 27 interview that was published on Tuesday. "I don't want to go into any kind of a confrontation with anybody especially at this difficult time," he said. Miqati, who is married with three children, started his frontline political career as public works and transport minister in 1998, and plans to foster "stability, security and prosperity," he told Bloomberg. "People are asking about what I will do for the (international) tribunal, but no one is asking about what I will do for the day-to-day living needs of citizens," the premier-designate added. Beirut, 01 Feb 11, 09:49

'Serious' Consultations Underway between Miqati and Phalange to 'Test Intentions'
Naharnet/Serious consultations are underway between Premier-designate Najib Miqati and the two main Christian parties in the March 14 forces -- the Phalange and the Lebanese Forces -- to mull their participation in the new cabinet. High-ranking Phalange party officials told An Nahar daily in remarks published Tuesday that dialogue between the two sides was "serious" and that contacts started between Miqati and Phalange leader Amin Gemayel through telephone conversations and several meetings. "We can't define the stance of the party from participation in the government as black or white," Phalange Caretaker Cabinet Minister Salim al-Sayegh said. "Our allies should be reassured by our performance." Gemayel "won't give up a cause for which his son was martyred," al-Sayegh told An Nahar. "We can say that there are serious thoughts to participate" in the cabinet, he said. Miqati "should meet us midway through in terms of our commitments to the international tribunal, the solution to arms and the file of Lebanese detained in Syrian jails," the caretaker minister added. Phalange sources confirmed al-Sayegh's remarks, telling pan-Arab daily al-Hayat that the stance from the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is considered the cornerstone to any decision that the March 14 forces would take on the participation in the cabinet. Former Premier Saad Hariri is fully aware of the ongoing contacts between Miqati and Gemayel, they said, stressing that there was a tendency to either accept the participation of all the parties within March 14 or boycott the cabinet as a single group. The sources hinted that some party officials prefer that the Phalange participates in Miqati's government even if the rest of the March 14 parties reject taking part in it. However, negotiations between the two sides are necessary "to discover the stance and intentions" of Miqati and his supporters, the sources said. As Safir newspaper said that Gemayel promised Miqati following their meeting at the residence of the premier-designate in Verdun on Monday to provide him with an answer soon. The newspaper also quoted well-informed Phalange sources as saying that the price the party would pay by participating in the cabinet is much less than it could pay for staying out of the government. Beirut, 01 Feb 11, 08:49

Williams Tells Berri that Cabinet Should Represent Interests of All Lebanese
Naharnet/United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams stressed to Speaker Nabih Berri on Tuesday the need for the formation of a cabinet that has "the broadest possible base." "I underlined with the speaker the need for the new government to have the broadest possible base and to represent the interests of all Lebanese," Williams said after meeting Berri in Ain el-Tineh. "I expressed my hope to the speaker that a new government will be formed soon in Lebanon, and I wished the Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati all good luck in that endeavor," he said. He said the U.N. expects the Miqati government to abide by all of Lebanon's international obligations. Williams added that Berri raised with him again the question of Lebanon's maritime borders and expressed hope that the U.N. would react positively to requests for assistance in that regard. "I expressed my wish to see the U.N. playing as positive a role as possible," he said. Beirut, 01 Feb 11, 14:42

Geagea: New Majority is Syria and Hizbullah, Miqati Didn't Make Real Proposal on Cabinet Structure
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Tuesday that he conveyed to PM-designate Najib Miqati March 14 alliance's fears of the new majority that he dubbed as Syria and Hizbullah. Geagea told reporters in Maarab that he informed Miqati during a meeting they held at the PM-designate's residence in Verdun on Monday that the March 14 forces had no problem with him as a person. "The new majority will be behind the formation of the new government. I honestly told him that this majority according to us is Syria, Hizbullah and the era of hegemony," the LF leader said. The March 14 forces had tasked Geagea with negotiating with Miqati. The LF leader said that the PM-designate didn't make a real proposal on the structure of the future government. He reiterated that the March 14's participation in the cabinet should be collective. "If our demands are not met, we won't participate in the government."
"There should be a clear vision on how to get rid of illegitimate weapons," he told reporters. "Even if the arms are in depots, they are affecting political life and spoiling it."The March 14 alliance had conditioned its participation on Miqati's commitment to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the disarmament of all parties, in reference to Hizbullah and Palestinian arms. Geagea said he would give Miqati some time to think over the proposals made by him and by Phalange party leader Amin Gemayel, another March 14 official, who has held at least two meetings with the prime minister-designate in the past three days. An Nahar daily said Tuesday that the Geagea-Miqati meeting on Monday lasted two hours and the LF leader stayed over for dinner. Beirut, 01 Feb 11,

Hariri discusses developments with British envoy
February 1, 2011 /Outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri discussed the latest developments with British Ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy on Tuesday, according to a statement issued by Hariri’s press office.Hariri also discussed recent political developments with MP Robert Ghanem, the statement added. -NOW Lebanon

LDP favors national-unity government
February 1, 2011 /The Lebanese Democratic Party issued a statement on Tuesday voicing hope that Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati’s consultations result in a national-unity cabinet.
Following the weekly meeting of its political council, the LDP added that the “national unity is the most noble weapon to face Israel.”The party added that its welcomes a cabinet that includes technocrats but consists mostly of politicians. Hezbollah brought down Saad Hariri's government on January 12 after a long-running dispute over the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the 2005 murder of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, which the party worries will implicate its members. Mikati, backed by March 8, was appointed to the premiership last week, giving Hezbollah and its allies increased leverage in the country and provoking widespread protests. The PM-designate called on all Lebanese parties to join the upcoming cabinet. However, March 14 parties said that they will not take part in a cabinet headed by Mikati but asked that he first clarify his stance on non-state weapons and the STL. -NOW Lebanon

Hezbollah, Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya delegations discuss political situation
February 1, 2011 /A delegation from Hezbollah met with one from Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya to discuss the political situation in Lebanon, according to a joint statement issued on Tuesday.
The delegations also supported the Egyptian people’s uprising “that rejects the suppression of freedom.” “Change [through] the people across the [Middle East] region provides a positive and supportive atmosphere for the Resistance to face [Israel],” the delegations said in the statement. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak clings on to power as an angry revolt to topple him raged into its eighth day. -NOW Lebanon

Khamenei to talk about Egypt during Friday prayers
February 1, 2011 /Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will lead this week's Friday prayers, his first sermon after nearly seven months, in which he could address the uprising in Egypt, reports said Tuesday. "In addition to the importance of a speech by the guardian of Muslims. It also coincides with regional developments and the Islamic awakening in Egypt and other Arab Islamic nations," the Mehr news agency reported. ISNA and Fars news agencies also reported that Khamenei, Iran's commander-in-chief, would lead Friday prayers.
The reports did not say where he will address the worshippers, but thousands gather every week at Tehran university campus for the weekly sermons.
Khamenei's website on Monday posted a statement he made last year to members of a Palestinian resistance group in which he said "there is no doubt that based on realities envisioned by God, a new Middle East will be formed and this Middle East will be an Islamic Middle East." The last Friday prayer sermon Khamenei delivered was on June 4, just days before the first anniversary of the disputed June 2009 presidential election which triggered widespread unrest in Tehran and other cities. In that sermon, Khamenei, who has the final say on all national issues, launched a stinging attack on the opposition movement which protested against results which showed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected for a second term. The authorities cracked down hard on the post-election unrest in which dozens of protesters were killed, scores were wounded and thousands jailed. Iran has said it supports the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.-AFP/ NOW Lebanon

Russian Ambassador after Meeting Franjieh: We Will Maintain Our Approach towards Lebanon
Naharnet/Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin announced Monday that Russia will maintain its "supportive approach" towards Lebanon.
He said after holding talks with Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh: "We always want Lebanon to be a free, sovereign, and independent country, which is why we support all efforts that help Lebanon head on the democratic path." "It's too early to make conclusions on all that has happened because the developments are moving too fast, but the region is entering a new phase," the ambassador added. "We are monitoring the developments in Lebanon and the region and it's important that the ongoing actions don't result in human losses," he concluded. Beirut, 31 Jan 11,

Kataeb coordinating with March 14 allies, says Gemayel
February 1, 2011 /Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel said on Tuesday that his party is coordinating with its allies in the March 14 coalition regarding the formation of a cabinet headed by Prime Minister–designate Najib Mikati. Following his meeting with French Ambassador to Lebanon Denis Pietton, Gemayel said that the steps taken by the Kataeb will be based on the principles of March 14, the Kataeb website reported. Gemayel said that he briefed Pietton on the initiatives he took in order to resolve the current political impasse in the country. Pietton, in turn, said that the sit-down with Gemayel “was an opportunity to reaffirm France’s stance regarding international commitments and general developments.” Hezbollah brought down Saad Hariri's government on January 12 after a long-running dispute over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the 2005 murder of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, which the party worries will implicate its members. Mikati, backed by March 8, was appointed to the premiership last week, giving Hezbollah and its allies increased leverage in the country and provoking widespread protests. The PM-designate called on all Lebanese parties to join the upcoming cabinet. However, March 14 parties said that they will not take part in a cabinet headed by Mikati but asked that he first clarify his stance on non-state weapons and the STL. -NOW Lebanon

Let March 14 go into opposition, says Wehbe
February 1, 2011 /“We do not want to repeat the blocking third experience, let March 8 govern and let [March 14] go into opposition,” Lebanon First bloc MP Amine Wehbe said on Tuesday. “[The] national unity cabinet needs a common, clear political view, or else we will go into a democratic opposition,” Wehbe told MTV. “We are proceeding with our plan aiming for a [strong] state [backed by the] constitution and monopoly of arms.” Hezbollah brought down Saad Hariri's government on January 12 after a long-running dispute over the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the 2005 murder of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, which the party worries will implicate its members. Najib Mikati, who is backed by March 8, was appointed to the premiership last week, giving Hezbollah and its allies increased leverage in the country and provoking widespread protests. The PM-designate called on all Lebanese parties to join the upcoming cabinet. However, March 14 parties said that they will not take part in a cabinet headed by Mikati but asked that he first clarify his stance on non-state weapons and the STL. -NOW Lebanon

Iran does favor any Lebanese party, Abadi says
February 1, 2011 /“[The] Iranian stance is to remain at the same distance from all Lebanese parties and to call on them to agree [for the sake of Lebanon],” the National News Agency quoted Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Ghadanfar Roken Abadi as saying on Tuesday. “We discussed the bilateral relations between Iran and Lebanon and the treaties signed [between both countries],” Abadi said after meeting with Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati. Hezbollah brought Saad Hariri's government on January 12 after a long-running dispute over the STL’s probe into the 2005 assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri murder, which the party worries will implicate its members. Mikati, backed by March 8, was appointed to the premiership last week, giving Hezbollah and its allies increased leverage in the country and provoking widespread protests. The PM-designate called on all Lebanese parties to join the upcoming cabinet. However, March 14 parties said that they will not take part in a cabinet headed by Mikati but asked that he first clarify his stance on non-state weapons and the STL.-NOW Lebanon

Ahmad Fatfat
January 31, 2011
On January 31, the independent Al-Anbaa newspaper carried the following report by Zeina Tabbara:
Member of the Future Movement parliamentary bloc, Deputy Ahmad Fatfat, stated that the participation of the March 14 forces in the government depended on the written response of Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati to the paper of conditions that was presented to him by the aforementioned bloc during the parliamentary consultations. He indicated that any participation in the government without there being a clear, blunt and unquestionable response from Prime Minister Mikati to the conditions of the March 14 forces would be like providing a political cover to the coup that was staged against the constitution and the Lebanese national pact, assuring that the March 14 forces will not provide such a cover considering that the strategic dimensions of the coup feature the toppling of the international tribunal, or at the very least the discontinuation of the collaboration of the Lebanese state with it.
He stated that this violated the simplest constitutional rules which clearly stipulated Lebanon’s commitment to international legitimacy and the decisions issued by it. He stressed on the other hand that the conditions featured in the paper of the Future bloc could be implemented and easily ratified, since Prime Minister Mikati himself said, following the completion of the consultations, that they were not impossible to meet. Asked about the March 14 forces’ possible falling into the same mistake that was committed by the Christians when they decided to boycott the 1992 [elections], and their possible reaping of the same results which were translated at the time with their exclusion from the political arena, Deputy Fatfat indicated in statements to Al-Anbaa that the aforementioned possibility was one of the points being debated by the March 14 forces. He added that despite it, decisive positions must sometimes be adopted, especially when the country is standing before a similar coup that has led to the appointment of a prime minister for Lebanon by political sides and under the threat of arms.
He indicated on the other hand that the March 14 forces were convinced that the current position of Prime Minister Mikati was alongside the party that adopted his nomination and presented him – via General Aoun – as being the opposition’s candidate, adding that Prime Minister Mikati informed the Future bloc he will not take any decision in regard to the international tribunal and the headlines related to it except through national consensus and not a ministerial one. He described this talk as being positive, saying it could be capitalized on if Prime Minister Mikati shows his commitment at this level by including it in the ministerial statement in a clear way that is not open to interpretation.
Regarding the insistence of the March 8 forces on seeing the participation of the March 14 forces in the government, to the point where General Aoun revealed that the latter would be granted the blocking third inside the Cabinet, Deputy Fatfat pointed out that in accordance with the calculations of General Aoun which are based on size or proportionality, the March 14 forces are entitled to fourteen ministers out of thirty ministers in the Cabinet, considering it has sixty deputies in parliament. He assured however there was no talk for the time being about the allocation of the portfolios or the seats, adding that Prime Minister Mikati should firstly respond in writing to the paper of conditions before any decision is taken.
Regarding the extent of Syria’s involvement in the recent developments on the Lebanese arena, whether in terms of the resignation of the former opposition ministers from Prime Minister Al-Hariri’s government and its toppling in a constitutional way, or the arrival of Prime Minister Mikati to the premiership, Fatfat assured that the Syrian role in and fingerprints over all these developments were clear, ever since [Ali Hassan Khalil and Hajj Hussein Khalil] met with the Syrian command in Damascus and were followed by Minister Gebran Bassil for that same purpose. He thus recalled that Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri’s attempt to open up to Syria and build the best possible relations with it was one-sided, as his efforts were not met by the Syrian side which was awaiting the opportunity to attack this attempt.

Jordanian king names new prime minister
February 1, 2011 /King Abdullah II of Jordan named Maruf Bakhit as prime minister on Tuesday with orders to carry out "true political reforms," the palace said, after weeks of opposition protests demanding change. "King Abdullah II designated Maruf Bakhit to form a new government to replace the government of Samir Rifai," a palace statement said.
"Bakhit's mission is to take practical, quick and tangible steps to launch true political reforms, enhance Jordan's democratic drive and ensure safe and decent living for all Jordanians."
Jordan's powerful Islamist opposition said on Monday that it had started a dialogue with the state, saying that unlike the situation in Egypt, it did not seek regime change.
Opposition demands included "the resignation of the government, the amendment of the electoral law and the formation of a national salvation government headed by an elected prime minister," a member of the Islamic Action Front's executive council, Zaki Bani Rsheid, told AFP. Rifai formed a first government in December 2009, and reshuffled it in November 2010. Bakhit, who was born in 1947, served as prime minister from 2005 to 2007.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Hugo Chavez: US role in Egyptian crisis 'shameful'
By JPOST.COM STAFF /01/31/2011
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday called the US role in Egypt's political crisis "shameful," Reuters reported.
"It makes you kind of sick to see the meddling of the US, wanting to take control," Chavez said after being briefed on the situation in Egypt by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Syria's President Bashar Assad."See how the United States, after using such-and-such a president for years, as soon as he hits a crisis, they abandon him. That's how the devil pays," Chavez said.

Arab lawyers call for support for Hariri tribunal
The Associated Press /Tuesday, February 1, 2011/THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- Arab lawyers have called on Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world to embrace the U.N.-backed tribunal set up to prosecute the assassins of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Lawyers from the Arab world are meeting to discuss the Special Tribunal for Lebanon as the court prepares to publish the first indictment - expected within a few weeks - naming suspects in the 2005 truck bombing that killed Hariri and 22 others. Mohammed Ayat, a senior legal advisor to the prosecutor of the Rwanda Tribunal, told Tuesday's conference the Arab world "cannot be a simple observer" in international efforts to prosecute atrocities. There are fears that Shiite militant group Hezbollah will block the tribunal's work after its candidate was named Lebanon's new prime minister

Hezbollah hails Egypt demonstrators
Feb 1, 2011/Monsters and Critics.com
Beirut - Lebanon's Syrian and Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement hailed Tuesday the Egyptian protesters who are calling for the ouster of President Hosny Mubarak.
'We salute the proud Egyptian people for their struggle ... and their rejection of normalizing (relations) with Israel as well as their aspiration to freedom, independence and dignity,' Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naeem said in statement. Hezbollah, a strong critic of the Egyptian regime, has accused Cairo of coordinating with Israel during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip in 2008. Hezbollah's relations with Egypt soured in 2010 when Egyptian courts sentenced 26 people, among them Hezbollah membrs, for allegedly planning attacks on behalf of Hezbollah and smuggling weapons into Gaza

Muslim Brotherhood Declares Jihad on America; America Declares Muslim Brotherhood is Moderate!
By Barry Rubin/Monday, January 31, 2011
The best thing I can do for you to understand the Muslim Brotherhood is to ask you to read what I wrote last October 7. In that article I asked whether the United States would notice that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, through its leader, declared Jihad on America. At the end of the article I noted that an Egyptian friend said I was the only one who noticed outside of the country. Here's the key quote: The United States is "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise....Resistance is the only solution…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance – and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”
And here's what the previous supreme guide, Mahdi Akef, said: "Question: Regarding resistance and jihad…do you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid [a holy warrior, literally someone who wages jihad]? "Akef: Certainly, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, drawing closer to God Almighty."
What I never imagined is that 3.5 months later people would be claiming--in contradiction to every Muslim Brotherhood speech and writing (in Arabic)--that the Muslim Brotherhood is some harmless nonviolent reform group. So please click on the link and read that article. These are the people who may be running the most important country in the Arab world.
Note that even if President Husni Mubarak resigns that is not what is important. What is important is whether the current regime survives or there is a totally new government.
The Muslim Brotherhood won't take over immediately but would be the power behind the throne. Remember that after the Free Officers took power in July 1952--the beginning of the current regime--it took three years for Gamal Abdel Nasser to step out as the country's dictator. Then he nationalized the Suez Canal company, made an alliance with the USSR to get weapons, and began subverting every other state in the region. One explanation is laziness and ignorance. I have not seen any evidence to date that any journalist who wrote about it either read the "Palestine Papers" (except for the Guardian and al-Jazira people who--to put it politely--creatively interpreted the materials) or have ever read or heard any statement ever made by a Muslim Brotherhood leader. How can you explain it? The leader of the Brotherhood calls for Jihad on America and destroying all US influence in the region and then the media says they are moderates! Here's my (satirical) theory: Being against revolutionary Islamists seizing power in any country has now been declared to be Islamophobic.

Why We Should Fear the Moslem Brothers
By Karin McQuillan/American Thinker
January 31, 2011 /As we follow the unfolding story in Egypt, we are torn between hope and fear, hope that democracy will gain a toehold, fear that the fundamentalist Moslem Brothers could take control of Egypt. Perhaps you have heard the Moslem Brothers are the oldest and largest radical Islamic group, the grandfather of Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda.
What you haven't been told is this: the Moslem Brothers were a small, unpopular group of anti-modern fanatics unable to attract members, until they were adopted by Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich beginning in the 1930s. Under the tutelage of the Third Reich, the Brothers started the modern jihadi movement, complete with a genocidal program against Jews. In the words of Matthias Kuntzel, "The significance of the Brotherhood to Islamism is comparable to that of the Bolshevik Party to communism: It was and remains to this day the ideological reference point and organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas."
What is equally ominous for Jews and Israel is that despite Mubarak's pragmatic co-existence with Israel for the last 30 years, every Egyptian leader from Nasser, through Sadat, to Mubarak, has enshrined Nazi Jew-hatred in mainstream Egyptian culture, out of both conviction and political calculation. Nasser, trained by Nazis as a youth, spread the genocidal conspiracy theories of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, making it a best seller throughout the Arab world. On the Ramadan following 9/11, Mubarak presided over a 30-week long TV series dramatizing the Elders and its genocidal message.
It is impossible to assess the danger posed by a takeover of Egypt today by the Moslem Brothers without knowing that Nazism launched the Brothers and is still at their core. This response to modernity and to Jews was not predetermined by Egyptian history or culture. It was Germany under Hitler that changed the course of history for Egypt and the Middle East.
How do we know all this? We know it because the Third Reich was a meticulous keeper of records. We have the memos, the planning documents, the budgets, even photos and films of the Reich's spectacularly success campaign, implemented by the Moslem Brothers, to turn the Middle East into a hotbed of virulent Jew-hatred. We have the minutes, the photo and the memo of understanding, when Hitler and the head of the Moslem Brothers in Palestine, the Mufti of Jerusalem, shook hands on a plan for a Final Solution in the Middle East.
We have the records of this meeting, in which Hitler and the head of the Moslem Brothers in Palestine shook hands on a Final Solution for the Middle East - years before the creation of Israel.
The Moslem Brothers helped Hitler succeed in genocide by slamming shut the door to safety in Palestine. This was a key part of the success of the Final Solution. The anti-Jewish riots in Palestine that lead the British to cave to Arab pressure and shut off Jewish escape are well known -- how many of us know they were funded by Hitler? Winston Churchill protested the closing of Palestine to the Jews in the House of Commons, arguing against the appeasement of Nazi-funded Arab violence :
"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population. ...We are now asked to submit, and this is what rankles most with me, to an agitation which is fed with foreign money and ceaselessly inflamed by Nazi and by Fascist propaganda."
Who knows how many Jews would have escaped Hitler if the Jewish National Home in Palestine had remained open to them?
We do know that without the work of Hitler's allies, the Moslem Brothers, many signs indicate that Israel would have been a welcome neighbor in the Middle East, but this path was closed off by Moslem Brotherhood terrorism. This is not ‘ancient history.' According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Yasser Arafat (born Mohammed Al-Husseini, in Cairo) adopted the name Yasser to honor the Moslem Brothers' terror chief, who threw moderate Palestinians into pits of scorpions and snakes, eliminated the entire Nashashibi family of Jerusalem because they welcomed Jews into Palestine, and drove forty thousand Arabs into exile. The corpses of their victims would be left in the street for days, a shoe stuck in their mouth, as a lesson for any Arab who believed in tolerating a Jewish homeland. Arafat as a member of the Moslem Brothers was directly trained by Nazi officers who were invited to Egypt after the fall of Hitler in Europe.
Like the pro-democracy demonstrators out in the streets of Cairo this week, immediately after World War I, Egypt was filled with hopes for developing a modern, tolerant society. The Egyptian revolution of 1919 united the country's Moslems, Christians and Jews around the slogan, "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood." The constitution of 1923 was completely secular, establishing a constitutional monarchy. It took Western democracy as a model and worked for the equal status of women. Jews were an accepted part of public life. There were Jewish members of parliament. The Zionist movement was accepted with "considerable sympathy," because the government's priority was to maintain good relations between the three most important religious groups - Moslems, Jews and Christian Copts. Today the Jews are gone and the Copts are viciously persecuted. But in 1919, there was even an Egyptian section of the International Zionist Organization. Its founder, Leon Castro, a Jew, was also the spokesman of the largest Egyptian political party, the Wafd, related to the largest opposition party taking part in this week's demonstrations.
When in March 1928, the charismatic preacher Hassan al-Banna founded the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, it was a flop. It promoted world domination by Islam and the restoration of the Caliphate, focusing on a complete subjugation of women. In its first decade, the Moslem Brothers attracted only 800 members.
Then Hitler ascended to power. A branch of the Nazi party was set up in Cairo. The Egyptian government was told that if they did not begin to persecute their Jews, Germany would boycott Egyptian cotton. When the government caved and began a press campaign and discriminatory measures against Jews, they were rewarded by Germany becoming the second largest importer of Egyptian goods. The Egyptian public was impressed by the propaganda about Germany's economic progress and impressive Nazi mass marches. The pro-fascist Young Egypt movement was founded in 1933. Abdel Nasser, later Egypt's most famous leader, was a member and remained loyal to Nazi ideology for the rest of his career. During the war there was a popular street song in the Middle East, "Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth."
In the 1930's, the Third Reich poured men, money, weapons and propaganda training into the Moslem Brotherhood. It was the Reich that taught the fundamentalists to focus their anger on the Jews instead of women. By war's end, thanks entirely to Hitler's tutelage and direct support, the brotherhood had swelled to a million members and Jew-hatred had become central to mainstream Arab culture. Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini listened daily to the Nazi propaganda broadcast from Berlin by Moslem Brother Haj Amin al-Husseini. So did every Arab with a radio, throughout the war, as it was the most popular programming in the Middle East. Thanks to Hitler, the Moslem Brothers enshrined antisemitism as the main organizing force of Middle East politics for the next 80 years.
Egyptian society has lived in Hitler's world of hate ever since. According to leading expert on the Third Reich's fusion with Islamism in Egypt, Matthias Kunztel, "On this point (Jews), the entire Egyptian society has been Islamized. In Egypt the ostracism and demonization of Jews is not a matter of debate, but a basic assumption of everyday discourse. As if the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty had never been signed, Israel and Israelis are today totally boycotted...be it lawyers, journalists, doctors or artists...all Egyptian universities, sports associations, theatres and orchestras." "If there is one theme in contemporary Egypt which unites Islamists, Liberals, Nasserites and Marxists, it is the collective fantasy of the common enemy in the shape of Israel and the Jews, which almost always correlates with the wish to destroy Israel."
In launching the Moslem Brother's modern jihadi movement, Hitler did far more than enshrine antisemitism in the Middle East. As if some kind of divine punishment, the creation of jihadism also sabotaged the move towards modernity and representative government, ruining hopes for freedom and prosperity for the Arab people. The Brothers were the excuse for Mubarak's 30 years of emergency rule. The Brothers were central to both PLO and Hamas, killing all hope for peaceful coexistence and prosperity for the Palestinian people. They had an early role in founding the Ba'ath Party in Syria and Iraq, turning those countries over to kleptocratic tyrants. Moslem Brothers taught Osama bin Laden, and their philosophy is considered the foundational doctrine of al-Qaeda.
Will history repeat itself? Or will the Egyptian people take back their country, throw off Hitler's long shadow, and begin again on the hopeful path to democracy and a decent life that they began at the beginning of the modern era?
 

The Egyptian Revolution May Produce a Lebanon-Type Islamic Regime
by Alan M. Dershowitz
January 31, 2011 at 12:00 pm
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1850/egyptian-revolution-islamic-regime
No one can confidently predict the outcome, both short and long term, of the events now unfolding on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. One is reminded of Zhou Enlai's answer to the question whether the French Revolution succeeded: "It's too soon to say."
The short time outcome in Egypt may be the introduction of some structural democracy in the form of fairer elections. But the real test will be whether structural improvements will bring about real functional democracy—freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion and dissent. This will take more time to assess.
There are models for good outcomes, bad outcomes, as well as for in-between results. The paradigmatic horrible outcome was, of course, the structural democratic election of 1932 in Germany which brought to office Adolf Hitler who quickly ended any semblance of functional democracy. An in-between result is the Philippines, where there is more democracy than under the previous dictatorship, but not nearly as much as there should be. The good outcomes have mostly been in Europe, following the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Mubarak administrations has always conjured up the spectre of an Iranian style Khomeini result, in order to frighten those who wanted to replace him. Now Mubarak's critic, as well as many in the media, have challenged this straw man, pointing out the considerable differences between current Egypt and Iran 40 years ago. They are right. Iran is not an appropriate analogy. But neither is the Philippines nor the Czech Republic. The closest analogy may be Lebanon.
Both Egypt and Lebanon have strong middle classes. They both have influential Christian minorities. They both have secular traditions. And they both have a well organized and well funded radical Islamic group vying for power and determined to turn the country into an Islamic theocracy.
There are important differences as well. The Egyptian army is strong, while Lebanon's is weak. And the Lebanese Islamic group has a strong militia, armed and financed by Iran, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood has little military support behind it—at least at the moment. But it is allied with Hamas, which is right across the porous border with Gaza.
The following scenario is possible, if not likely. Mubarak will leave. Someone like Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Laureate who ran the International Atomic Energy Agency, will serve as an interim leader. He is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, and, in turn, he has said nice things about the Brotherhood. On Sunday, he told Fareed Zakaria the following:
"You know, the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism, as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because all the other liberal parties have been smothered for 30 years.
They are in favor of a federalist state. They are in favor of a wording on the base of constitution that has red lines that every Egyptian has the same rights, same obligation, that the state in no way will be a state based on religion. And I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are part of the Egyptian society, as much as the Marxist party here. I think this myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime has no - has no iota of reality."
This Pollyannaish description of the Muslim Brotherhood is misleading and incomplete at best and totally unrealistic at worst. The Muslim Brotherhood is a violent, radical group with roots in Nazism and an uncompromising commitment to end the cold peace with Israel and replace it with a hot war of destruction. Its very name undercuts ElBaradei claims that "every Egyptian has the same rights" and that "the state in no way will be based on religion." Christians, women, secularists and other dissenters will not have the same rights as Muslim men. Right now the Brotherhood "are a minority," but they are the largest and best organized minority, and they don't play by the rules of democracy, using assassination and threats of violence to coerce support.
ElBaradei is their perfect stalking horse—well respected, moderate and compliant. He will put together a government in which the Brotherhood begins as kingmaker and ends up as king.
This will not produce functional democracy. Nor will it preserve peace in the region. The first casualty may well be the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority will be emboldened by the prospect of a powerful military ally on Israel's border. The Israelis will be reluctant to surrender any more territory if they can no longer count on peace with Egypt (and perhaps with Jordan).
The second casualty will be religious freedom for Egyptians, particularly Christians, but also secularists.
I have visited Egypt on several occasions, most recently a few months ago. Compared to other repressive dictatorships I have visited over the years, it was a 5 or 6 on a scale of 10 for the average Egyptian. The hard question is will it get better or worse. "It's too soon to say." My best guess is that it will get better for some and worse for others.

Hezbollah salutes Egypt protesters
AFP - January 31, 2011BEIRUT - Lebanese Islamist party Hezbollah, a strong critic of Hosni Mubarak and his ties with Israel, saluted on Monday protesters who are "combatting and resisting" the Egyptian president. "We should salute the proud Egyptian people for their combat and resistance by their rejection of normalising (relations) with Israel and for their aspiration to freedom, independence and dignity," party number two Naim Kassen said in a statement. Hezbollah calls for armed struggle against Israel and denounces the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and the Jewish state. It angered Mubarak by accusing Egypt of complicity with Israel during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip in late 2008. In 2010, Egyptian courts sentenced 26 people for allegedly planning attacks on behalf of Hezbollah, which was seen as retaliation for the Lebanese movement's criticism. The arrests strained relations between predominantly Sunni Egypt, and Shiite Hezbollah's backer Iran, with Cairo accusing Tehran of using the movement to gain a foothold in Egypt

"Hezbollah took root in Gaza"
31 January 2011 , 16:26
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/2011/01/3102.htm
The Nesher battalion of the Gaza Division recently held its first evening in which past and present soldiers shared the challenges of serving along the Gaza Strip
Florit Shoihet
The Nesher battalion(a Field Intelligence Corps battalion designated to the Gaza Strip) held its first evening at the Urim base (in the Gaza Division), past and present soldiers both participating. The company's activities since its establishment in 2003 were reviewed throughout the evening.
Commander of the Nesher battalion, Lt. Col. Gabay, revealed a sequence of some of the successful operations carried out by the company in the Gaza Strip in recent months. Among others, he spoke about a house where the company found a smuggling tunnel, later targeted by the IAF.
The battalion commander made it clear, however, that the Gaza Strip still constitutes a significant challenge for the soldiers. "The situation in the Gaza Strip presents a serious challenge for the company. The enemy is cruel and thinks deeply about its next move. We can say there is a Lebanonization process in the Strip," he said. "Hezbollah took root in the Gaza Strip, organizationally as well. We are not dealing with a weak entity. They have advanced weapons, no less than ours."
In terms of intelligence, where the Field Intelligence Corps excels, terror organizations in Gaza are still a challenge. "Their intelligence gathering system is not bad, yet they still make mistakes and they are still not an army," clarified Lt. Col. Gabay before adding that, "this is a disturbing process."
What is standing behind the successes of the company is brotherhood between the soldiers, solidarity, friendship and seriousness in trainings,'' continued the Nesher battalion commander, with what seemed to be real proof behind his words. .
The Nesher battalion(a Field Intelligence Corps battalion designated to the Gaza Strip) held its first evening at the Urim base (in the Gaza Division), past and present soldiers both participating. The company's activities since its establishment in 2003 were reviewed throughout the evening.
Commander of the Nesher battalion, Lt. Col. Gabay, revealed a sequence of some of the successful operations carried out by the company in the Gaza Strip in recent months. Among others, he spoke about a house where the company found a smuggling tunnel, later targeted by the IAF.
The battalion commander made it clear, however, that the Gaza Strip still constitutes a significant challenge for the soldiers. "The situation in the Gaza Strip presents a serious challenge for the company. The enemy is cruel and thinks deeply about its next move. We can say there is a Lebanonization process in the Strip," he said. "Hezbollah took root in the Gaza Strip, organizationally as well. We are not dealing with a weak entity. They have advanced weapons, no less than ours."
In terms of intelligence, where the Field Intelligence Corps excels, terror organizations in Gaza are still a challenge. "Their intelligence gathering system is not bad, yet they still make mistakes and they are still not an army," clarified Lt. Col. Gabay before adding that, "this is a disturbing process."
"What is standing behind the successes of the company is brotherhood between the soldiers, solidarity, friendship and seriousness in trainings," continued the Nesher battalion commander, with what seemed to be real proof behind his words. The tens of now citizens, part of the more distant past and less part of this unique unit, were happy to meet with each other, years after fighting shoulder to shoulder. "Truly, it's an experience, it's very exciting to see everybody after so many years," explained Tal Shildan with a smile, a former soldier of the March 2004 enlistment cycle who ended his service as an officer of
Tactical Aerostat Observation Systems. "It's like belonging to family."
Digging with a Hoe
Assaf Levy and Nissay Metatyahu, from the March 2002 and August 2001 enlistment cycles, respectively, were among the first soldiers of the company in the Gaza Strip, and today they remember the old days with nostalgia. "It was fun to be the first to do something. In the beginning, we were digging with a hoe, just like in the 50s, in order to build this mobile company," they recall.
The current company's soldiers were happy to meet the former soldiers, too, who’d walked down the same path they are taking today. "It's cool to see people from previous cycles, and I'm glad they organized this evening," said Dvir Hadar, a crew Sergeant in the company. "The veterans were happy to advise the soldiers to take it easy in their service, and they were interested in the capabilities displayed there, enthusiastic about the practicality of our modern means."
The "Gaza Company" of the "Nesher" Battalion
The company was established in 2003 and its first base was located at Kerem Shalom (on the Gaza Strip border). In December 2009, the company moved to the Urim base. The company is comprised of several types of crews, which specialize in qualitative missions such as gathering information on terrorist facilities sites and gathering information by border patrols and using special vehicles.

Syria Strongman: Time for 'Reform'
By JAY SOLOMON And BILL SPINDLE
DAMASCUS—Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who inherited a regime that has held power for four decades, said he will push for more political reforms in his country, in a sign of how Egypt's violent revolt is forcing leaders across the region to rethink their approaches.
In a rare interview, Mr. Assad told The Wall Street Journal that the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are ushering in a "new era" in the Middle East, and that Arab rulers would need to do more to accommodate their people's rising political and economic aspirations.
"If you didn't see the need of reform before what happened in Egypt and Tunisia, it's too late to do any reform," Mr. Assad said in Damascus, as Egyptian protesters swarmed the streets of Cairo pressing for the resignation of longtime President Hosni Mubarak.
The Syrian strongman, who succeeded his father, has always kept a tight leash on his country and tolerated little protest. His regime has also maintained a close partnership with Iran and militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
While much of the region's unrest has hit countries that have developed alliances with Washington, his remarks indicate that the ripple effects of the Egyptian unrest will reach out to Middle Eastern leaders who are both friend and foe of the U.S.
Syria's response is particularly important because, while Mr. Assad's ties with the U.S. are strained, the Obama administration has been trying to pull his allegiances away from Tehran toward Washington.
But his remarks in the interview suggest that maybe harder in the wake of the Egyptian unrest. Mr. Assad said he will have more time to make changes than Mr. Mubarak did, because his anti-American positions and confrontation with Israel have left him in better shape with the grassroots in his nation.
"Syria is stable. Why?" Mr. Assad said. "Because you have to be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence…you will have this vacuum that creates disturbances."
Mr. Assad said he would push through political reforms this year aimed at initiating municipal elections, granting more power to nongovernmental organizations and establishing a new media law.
His government already made adjustments to ease the kind of economic pressures that have helped fuel unrest in Tunisia and Algeria: Damascus this month raised heating oil allowances for public workers—a step back from an earlier plan to withdraw subsidies that keep the cost of living down for Syrians but drain the national budget. Tunisia, Algeria and Jordan have also tried to assuage protesters by lowering food prices.
Mr. Assad's government, and that of his late father Hafez al-Assad, have been criticized as among the region's most repressive, detaining opponents without charges. This has stoked speculation in Western capitals over whether Syria could also face unrest. Syria's one-party political system and government-controlled media, meanwhile, are seen by many as more rigid than Egypt's or Tunisia's.
Mr. Assad acknowledged in the interview that the pace of political reform inside Syria hasn't progressed as quickly as he'd envisioned after taking power following his father's death in 1999.
Still, Mr. Assad indicated he is unlikely to embrace the sort of rapid and sweeping reforms being called for on the streets of Cairo and Tunis. He said his country needed time to build institutions and improve education before decisively opening Syria's political system. The rising demands for rapid political reforms could turn out to be counter-productive if Arab societies aren't ready for them, he said.
"Is it going to be a new era toward more chaos or more institutionalization? That is the question," Mr. Assad said. "The end is not clear yet."
Many diplomats and analysts believe Syria could serve as a barometer for the direction of the broader Middle East. Damascus's influence has grown in recent years as its alliance with Iran and the militant Islamist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah has opened the door to its renewed influence in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq.
Still, Mr. Assad's rigid rule could leave him vulnerable to rising calls for democracy.
Damascus emerged this month largely victorious after a nearly eight-year struggle against the U.S. for influence inside Lebanon. The standoff was sparked by the 2005 murder of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which some Western officials believed was ordered by Mr. Assad's government. Mr. Assad has repeatedly denied any involvement.
"What pleases me is that this transition between the two [Lebanese] governments happened smoothly, because we were worried," said Mr. Assad. "It was very easy to have a conflict of some kind that could evolve into a fully blown civil war."
This month, the U.S. returned an ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus for the first time since Mr. Hariri's murder.
Mr. Assad said that while he sought closer ties to Washington, he didn't see this coming at the expense of his alliance with Iran. The Syrian leader said that he shares the U.S. goals to target Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, but that Tehran remains a crucial ally to Syria.
"Nobody can overlook Iran, whether you like it or not," Mr. Assad said.
On the Mideast peace process, Mr. Assad stressed that Damascus remained open to a dialogue with Israel to reclaim the Golan Heights region that the Jewish state occupied in 1967. But he said he didn't think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would engage in the same way as his predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Mr. Assad insisted he and Mr. Olmert were close to forging a peace deal in 2008.
The Syrian leader acknowledged his government is likely to continue to be at odds with the U.S. on key strategic issues.
Successive U.S. administrations have charged Damascus with smuggling increasingly sophisticated weapons systems to Hezbollah, including long-range missiles that could reach most of Israel. The U.S. has subsequently put in place economic sanctions against Syria. Mr. Assad denied charges that his government directly arms Hezbollah.
He also indicated that his government was unlikely to give the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, wide access to investigate claims that Syria had covertly been developing nuclear technology. Mr. Assad denies Syria has been seeking atomic weapons.

Assad Prepares for ‘Day of Rage’ in Syria
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu //Arutz Sheva
Syrian President Bashar Assad has one eye on a potential revolution and another eye on remaining a dictator. He says he will push for reforms and will raise subsidies for heating oil, but his country is still restricting Facebook, the social network that is being used to stage an anti-Assad rally Saturday.
In a rare interview with The Wall Street Journal Tuesday, Assad observed that the movements for revolution in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt signal a "new era" in the Middle East, and that Arab rulers, if they want to remaining power, must understand citizen’s social and economic desires. Unlike Egypt, Syria is openly anti-American and is an ally of Hizbullah and Iran.
Assad’s regime is considered one of the most ruthless, even for the Middle East. Poverty in the country is rising, but is still far less than in other Muslim nations, including Egypt. However, abuses of human rights and freedom of expression are frequently the target of criticism by human rights groups and the United States.
“People here are suffering much more than Egypt or Tunisia but you don't see it," a medical student told Al Jazeera. “They keep their mouths shut because they don't want to be locked up for 10 years.” Opponents to Assad are using Facebook to prepare for a mass rally Saturday, using proxy servers to get around government restrictions on Facebook. Users must register their names when using Internet cafés, and police have the authority to confiscate the lists.
The Syrian dictator told the Journal he will grant more power to non-government organizations (NGOs) this year, and he is taking steps to lower food prices in an effort to stave off the revolution fever that is beginning to spread in Muslim countries.
He offered no signs of changing his one-party system and the strict control, often through brutal means, over anyone trying to suggest that Syrians would be better off under a different government. One elderly leftist is serving seven years in jail for proposing an alternative to Assad’s dictatorship.
The planned Facebook-inspired rally may fall flat on its face, partly because of Internet restrictions and partly because it simply has not captured the hearts and minds of Syrians, whether out of fear or because of a feeling of apathy.
The independent Islamic Bloc is among those promoting Saturday’s “Day of Rage” rally in front of the parliament in Damascus, but the government this past Saturday prevented a rally for solidarity with Egyptian protesters, reported the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
Syrian security chief Ali Mamlouk reportedly has met with province governors and police commanders in order to prepare for possible protests in the country, according to Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) research director Y. Yehoshua.

Egypt 2011=France 1968? No Ideal Choices Here
by Dr. Amiel Ungar //Arutz Sheva
It is the prophet Amos who said that "the wise man would be silent at that time".
There is a great deal of confusion about the eventual outcome in Egypt. A correspondent for the Economist began by rapturously chronicling the fall of the regime as electronic files were being destroyed. Later, he qualified his prediction and said it might take one more battle or push.
Hillary Clinton went from one news program to the other to plead for a transitioned approach to democracy that would not leave a dangerous vacuum, but explained that this should not be interpreted as a call for Mubarak's ouster, nor as a threat to remove aid to Egypt.
The Egyptian army was doing a great job, according to Clinton, in discriminating between peaceful demonstrators and keeping order against criminal elements.
But--what happens if Mubarak wants to cling to power and the opposition refuses an orderly transition, and one has to choose between the two?
The prophet Amos' dictum cannot be adhered to by politicians who must supply interviews and project the image that they are controlling events. The same goes for talking heads and pundits who must demonstrate their predictive abilities. So although silence may be golden, it is impossible to maintain. Therefore, we present ur view that this situation is reminiscent of Egypt 1952, but even more of France in May 1968.
In January 1952, a mob swept through Cairo destroying symbols of foreign presence in the capital, including the famous Shepherd's Hotel (yes, they had one too) and the tennis club. This was a reaction against the British punitive raid against Suez.
The British had bases on the canal by virtue of an agreement with the Egyptian government, but that same government was now egging on guerilla warfare against the British. The government, at the same time, was unable to preserve stability and was in the midst of a war with the Muslim Brotherhood that included assassinations by the Brotherhood and killings by the government. This set the stage for the coup of July 1952, that installed the military in power and they remain in power to this day. In other words, the chaos and anarchy eventually created a consensus behind whoever could restore order. When Egyptians have to create vigilante groups to protect their property in the current situation, as criminals are freed and looters enter the national museum and smash mummies, the quest for order is growing. Some suspect that this is part of Mubarak's tactics. They may be right, but the fact is that this is how it is playing out.
France, in the fateful year of 1968, appeared to be on the cusp of revolution. Charles De Gaulle had only been in power nine years, not thirty like Mubarak, but he had been a political factor since 1940. The French students revolted for the same reasons that the Egyptian young are revolting today; because after completing their studies they have few job prospects. The student revolt was joined by a general strike that paralyzed France.
At this stage, left candidate Francois Mitterand played the role of Mohammed el-Baradei by offering himself as the alternative if the strikers and students would unite behind him. Mitterand had been buoyed by the parliamentary elections of the previous year when the left had made sharp gains at the expense of the Gaullists and their allies. De Gaulle appeared paralyzed, but then he met with the army and dissolved the National Assembly. His Prime Minister Georges Pompidou ended the strikes via negotiations. Then De Gaulle presented France with a choice between his way and the "chienlit (dog droppings) of the left". The left was wiped out and its return to power was deferred till 1981.
This comparison means sticking my neck out and ignoring Amos' warnings.
If Hillary Clinton's fantasy comes about, this would be the best way, but its actually occruring is doubtful, to say the least. If the options in Egypt come down a stark choice between order and "chienlit", I believe the tendency will be for order to reassert itself.

Concern for Christian Minorities Under Islam Continues
by Amiel Ungar /Arutz Sheva
Although media attention is focused primarily on the situation in Egypt, it is a mistake to overlook other trouble spots that are tangential to the same issue. As reported in previous articles, the plight of Christian communities in the Muslim world is beginning to attract attention and even some indignation.
Doctor William Oddie, a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster and a former editor of the Catholic Herald, expressed his pessimism over the future of Christian-Muslim dialogue. He reached this conclusion given the reaction of top Muslim scholars at Egypt's Al-Azhar University who suspended dialogue with the Vatican to protest Pope Benedict XVIth's condemnation of anti-Christian violence in Egypt. The writer was referring to the decision of Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, the supreme Muslim religious authority in Egypt, and members of the Islamic Research Academy to suspend dialogue with the Vatican.Sheikh el-Tayeb called the papal comments "inacceptable interference in Egypt's affairs."
According to Dr. Oddie, the double standard that allowed Muslims to comment on anything that happens to Muslims anywhere in the world, but refuses to allow the pope similar rights when complaining about the persecution of Christians, is unacceptable. It also was not the doctrine of a minority but that of the religious establishment and seconded by other Al-Azhar scholars. Doctor Oddie claimed that the idea of defensive jihad has now been extended to secure Islam's borders and to carry the fight to regimes that do not allow Islam to flourish.
Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who was the first Asian to be appointed a Bishop of the Church of England, has stepped up his role on the issue. He recently retired from his post in order to concentrate his full attention on protecting Christian minorities the Muslim world. He knows the situation firsthand, because he too was forced to flee Pakistan for England due to religious persecution after his parents converted to Christianity from Islam. He, however, returned to Pakistan to work with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
The main topic on Nazir-Ali's agenda is a call to repeal the blasphemy law that imposes the death penalty on insulting Mohammed and life imprisonment for those desecrating the Koran. He pointed out to the Pakistani president that Muslims suffer from the law as well because the denunciations are frequently used for settling personal scores. To circumvent the power of local courts that are frequently captives of Islamic fundamentalists, he urged Zadari to create a legal body answerable to the president that would assume authority in such cases, as well as special police units. Zadari was sympathetic but acknowledged that given Pakistan's situation, this was highly toxic.
Italy is also trying to engage Pakistan to safeguard Christian and other minority rights and modify the blasphemy law. Foreign Minister Franco Frattini underlined this while speaking to the Italian group called "Italy for Asia Bibi Freedom Justice and Human Rights Committee. Bibi is a 45 year old Christian mother of five facing the gallows for presumably insulting Mohammed.
While the tone adopted by Oddie, Nazir Ali and Frattini is not a total surprise, one cannot say the same about a recent article in the Huffington Post by Prof. John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion & International Affairs at Georgetown University and founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. It is coauthored by Sheila B. Lalwani, a Research Fellow at the Center.
Esposito is a longtime defender if not an apologist for Islam. Now Esposito is forced to take note of "the significant threat to religious minorities in some Muslim societies, citing a vast arc extending from Turkey to Pakistan and acts varying from discrimination to murder.
Esposito manages not to abandon political correctness by saying that "this is an act of a significant minority of hard-line conservative fundamentalist and militant Muslims – like their counterparts in Christianity and Judaism." Esposito expressed his shock that the assassin of the governor of Punjab was greeted as a celebrity and lawyers are lining up to defend him, pointing to the seepage of fundamentalism to the mainstream.
In proposing a solution Esposito returns to "evenhandedness".
Both Muslim and Christian religious leaders will need to work more closely on religious and curricula reforms for madrasas, seminaries, schools, and universities and utilize mass media, the internet, and other avenues of popular culture.
Still, it is something that Esposito has to address the issue and it is remarkable that the Huffington Post, a critic of "Islamophobia", has printed it.
Comment on this story

Just What Is The Muslim Brotherhood?
By Catherine Herridge
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/31/just-muslim-brotherhood/
Published January 31, 2011
| FoxNews.com
While analysts ask who or what is behind the sustained protests in Egypt, one group is now seeking political legitimacy. Technically banned under Egypt's constitution that forbids religious based parties, the Muslim Brotherhood is now throwing its support behind Mohammed el Baradei as an opposition leader. But many fear that if Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak goes, the real replacement will be either the Muslim Brotherhood itself, or an Islamic fundamentalist group. El Baradei insisted on Sunday talk shows that the fear was unwarranted.
“This is total bogus that the Muslim Brotherhood are religiously conservative,” El Baradei told ABC’s “This Week.” “They are no way extremists. They are no way using violence.”
But critics point out that the Brotherhood, which was established in Egypt in the 1920's, is synonymous with political Islam which supports the use of Islamic law known as Sharia.
Egypt: Why the Markets Care Midwest, Plains Brace for Massive Winter Storm Intel Discloses Chip Design Glitch 7 Insurance Policies That Aren't Worth the Money Three Illegal Immigrants Accused in Death of American Teen Surrender in Arizona “Right now the Arab Republic of Egypt does not impose Islamic law in its fullness,” Rob Spencer, the head of Jihad Watch told FOX News. “The Muslim Brotherhood wants to change that.”
Among the brotherhood's graduates: Al Qaeda's number two leader, the Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri who was imprisoned for three years on weapons charges following President Anwar Sadat's assassination in 1981, Hamas, the terror network behind suicide bombings and rocket attacks in Israel, and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, whose goal is the destruction of Israel.
Walid Phares, who is a terrorism analyst for FOX News, has studied the Muslim Brotherhood. Phares says its history shows that the group is not secular and not moderate.
“The Muslim Brotherhood is the mothership for the jihadi ideologies and thinking. And therefore one can say today's Al Qaeda, and today many other jihadists, are off shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Other analysts, including Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution argue that it may be impossible for the United States to resist dealing with the Brotherhood as a player in Egypt.
"It's not out there in the business of committing terrorist actions,” O’Hanlon pointed out. “Now, the question is -- the question is what lurks beneath, ideologically and otherwise."
Analysts agree that the demonstrations are creating an opening for the Muslim Brotherhood to establish itself as a viable opposition, but the impact reaches beyond Egypt with ramifications for Israel, the United States and its allies. As one analyst said, Iran could end up being the big winner.

Turmoil in Egypt
by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
February 1, 2011
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/9391/turmoil-in-egypt
As Egypt's much-anticipated moment of crisis arrived and popular rebellions shook governments across the Middle East, Iran stands as never before at the center of the region. Its Islamist rulers are within sight of dominating the region. But revolutions are hard to pull off and I predict that Islamists will not achieve a Middle East-wide breakthrough and Tehran will not emerge as the key powerbroker. Some thoughts behind this conclusion:
An echo of the Iranian revolution: On reaching power in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sought to spread Islamist insurrection to other countries but failed almost everywhere. Three decades had to go by, it appears, before the self-immolation of a vendor in an obscure Tunisia town could light the conflagration that Khomeini aspired to and Iranian authorities still seek.
Part of a Middle Eastern cold war: The Middle East has for years been divided into two large blocs engaged in a regional cold war for influence. The Iranian-led resistance bloc includes Turkey, Syria, Gaza, and Qatar. The Saudi-led status quo bloc includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, the West Bank, Jordan, Yemen, and the Persian Gulf emirates. Note that Lebanon these very days is moving to resistance from status quo and that unrest is taking place only in status quo places.
Israel's peculiar situation: Israeli leaders are staying mum and its near-irrelevance underlines Iranian centrality. While Israel has much to fear from Iranian gains, these simultaneously highlight the Jewish state as an island of stability and the West's only reliable ally in the Middle East.
Lack of ideology: The sloganeering and conspiracy theories that dominate Middle Eastern discourse are largely absent from crowds gathered outside of government installations demanding an end to stagnation, arbitrariness, corruption, tyranny, and torture.
Military vs. mosque: Recent events confirm that the same two powers, the armed forces and the Islamists, dominate some 20 Middle Eastern countries: the military deploys raw power and Islamists offer a vision. Exceptions exist – a vibrant Left in Turkey, ethnic factions in Lebanon and Iraq, democracy in Israel, Islamist control in Iran – but this pattern widely holds.
Iraq: The most volatile country of the region, Iraq, has been conspicuously absent from the demonstrations because its population is not facing a decades-old autocracy.
A military putsch? Islamists wish to repeat their success in Iran by exploiting popular unrest to take power. Tunisia's experience bears close examination for a pattern that may be repeated elsewhere. The military leadership there apparently concluded that its strongman, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, had become too high maintenance – especially with his wife's family's flamboyant corruption – to maintain in power, so it ousted him and, for good measure, put out an international arrest warrant for his and his family's arrest.
Gen. Omar Suleiman – Egypt's fourth military ruler since 1952?
That done, nearly the entire remaining old guard remains in power, with the top military man, Chief of Staff Rachid Ammar, apparently having replaced Ben Ali as the country's powerbroker. The old guard hopes that tweaking the system, granting more civil and political rights, will suffice for it to hold on to power. If this gambit succeeds, the seeming revolution of mid-January will end up as a mere coup d'état.
This scenario could be repeated elsewhere, especially in Egypt, where soldiers have dominated the government since 1952 and intend to maintain their power against the Muslim Brethren they have suppressed since 1954. Strongman Hosni Mubarak's appointment of Omar Suleiman terminates the Mubarak family's dynastic pretensions and raises the prospect of Mr. Mubarak resigning in favor of direct military rule.
More broadly, I bet on the more-continuity-than-change model that has emerged so far in Tunisia. Heavy-handed rule will lighten somewhat in Egypt and elsewhere but the militaries will remain the ultimate powerbrokers.
U.S. policy: The U.S. government has a vital role helping Middle Eastern states transit from tyranny to political participation without Islamists hijacking the process. George W. Bush had the right idea in 2003 in calling for democracy but he ruined this effort by demanding instant results. Barack Obama initially reverted to the failed old policy of making nice with tyrants; now he is myopically siding with the Islamists against Mr. Mubarak. He should emulate Bush but do a better job, understanding that democratization is a decades-long process that requires the inculcation of counter-intuitive ideas about elections, freedom of speech, and the rule of law.
**Mr. Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, lived in Egypt for three years.

Could US abandon Israel too?
American response to uprising in Egypt shows Washington has no qualms about 'dropping' long time ally. Is Israel in danger of receiving similar treatment? Experts say 'possibility always exists,' recommend strengthening relations with India, China
Aviel Magnezi Published: 02.01.11, 08:36 / Israel News
The United States sided with protesters over the weekend, threatening to stop aid to Egypt if President Hosni Mubarak does not promote reforms in the country. Washington also added that the Egyptian public's grievances require an immediate response from the government
"The possibility of being abandoned over interests is always possible," says Hebrew University Professor Michal Pomerantz, an expert on international law and US foreign policy.
According to Pomerantz, "The United States is not completely committed to a state, and what happened in Egypt as well as in Iran – with which it had such close relations at one point, that Carter was considering transferring it nuclear technology – proves that it is always possible, especially when there are changes in the administration, as has happened in the United States."
However, the Hebrew University professor emphasized that such a scenario is still far from becoming a reality. Prof. Pomerantz notes the United States must decide what is worse – the current situation, in which there is no real democracy in Egypt, or the possible outcomes. "Not only the local population will suffer, but also the United States' interests and of course its neighbor Israel," she claims. In a conversation with Ynet, Prof. Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US policy from Bar Ilan University, recommended to take precautionary measures and "think over" our relations with Washington, despite the support in congress and positive public opinion.
'Obama stabbed Mubarak in back'
According to Prof. Gilboa, Barack Obama stabbed Mubarak in the back and has already turned his back on Israel once, and therefore we must "take a good look into the future. We must develop our foreign relations with the rising powers – India, with whom we already have military cooperation, and China. However, we must also focus on improving our complex relations with Europe," he added.
Obama is working tirelessly to spread democracy, and is leading the Egyptians toward a monarchy, claimed Prof. Gilboa. The implications, he warned, will also reach Israel.
"He's doing what Carter did when he tried to meet with Khomeini. It happened also in Lebanon, when the Americans thought they would 'expel the Syrians,' and also in Gaza. These were all done under a wrong misconception, which eventually influences us," he said. "All of the United States' Middle Eastern allies will have to think things over, and Israel loses here as well, because Iran will consider this as another Iranian victory, just like any other blow to the United States. "Obama's shortsightedness might change the world order by serving Iran's interest – which is to change the regimes in the regional countries that are still moderate. Not to mention a situation in which there is a nuclear Iran, and the United States is completely out of the Middle East," Prof. Gilboa noted. However, Prof. Gilboa stressed that there is also some room for optimism. "We have a democracy, and our stocks may even rise in Washington because Israel is stable, and the only one that can be trusted in the Middle East. "In addition, the American public opinion is on our side – some two thirds of the public supports Israel, and in the congress the biggest agreement is over issues revolving Israel," he concluded.

Unreadable Egypt
Hussein Ibish, February 1, 2011
Any time Robert Gibbs, the spokesman for President Barack Obama, and Mahmoud Zahhar, a key spokesman for Hamas, end up saying almost exactly the same thing about a situation, you have proof positive that that situation is virtually unreadable.
Last weekend, Gibbs and Zahhar seemed to echo each other on the developments in Egypt – that it was up to the Egyptians to decide about their own future; or we decline to comment on whether President Hosni Mubarak should stay in office or go, and so on. Both the United States and Hamas, after all, will have to deal with the outcome of the Egyptian uprising, no matter who ends up in power in Cairo; and both have a very limited ability to influence the outcome.
Situations as unstable as this tend to bring out the very worst in political commentary. Under such volatile circumstances, commentators should be extremely careful, even though what most readers, editors and producers are looking for is exactly what commentary should avoid: what purports to be detailed political analysis of an unclear, unstable political reality, or, worse, vapid and indefensible prognostications.
One obvious pitfall to be avoided under such circumstances, both as a writer and as a reader, is a simple recitation of the basic facts already established through reportage. The lightest dusting of opinion on a large pile of virtually universal perception, as in this commentary by the British journalist Robert Fisk, isn’t harmful. But it also isn’t worth reading or writing either.
The situation in Egypt is simply too opaque, at least at the time of writing this article, for anything so glib as predictions, except maybe in the context of Twitter’s 140 character-imposed brevity. Not only is the outcome uncertain, even the political identity of the players is undetermined because the uprising seems to have been so spontaneous, without leadership or a clear ideology. “The People” have shown themselves to be a political force of enormous power, but, absent a political leadership, they are not necessarily political actors as such. In other words, all of the popular momentum ultimately needs to be harnessed in a particular direction before one can clearly discern what political agendas are actually facing down Mubarak and his regime.
The largest and most well-organized opposition party is obviously the Muslim Brotherhood. However, like all other organized or semi-organized political opposition groups in Egypt, it has been playing catch-up with the events as they unfold. There is no basis yet on which to judge the extent to which the Brotherhood might be able to seize the momentum in the coming days, or simply try to be a (not necessarily dominant) presence in an alternative regime or even a reformed system.
That is why analyses that proclaim the Brotherhood to be an intolerable menace, foreclosing any thought of revolt or regime change, as suggested by this Jerusalem Post editorial, are so unhelpful. But they’re not any better than commentaries that dismiss the dangers of an Islamist takeover, like that of Chris Harnisch, a staffer for the former vice president, Dick Cheney. Or, conversely, those suggesting that such a takeover may be inevitable, like the articles of John Bradley, author of “Inside Egypt: The Land of the Pharaohs on the Brink of a Revolution”, or of George Washington University political scientist Marc Lynch.
And then, of course, there are those who merely want to put their own spin on the situation, and play events in Egypt up not as a new development on its own terms, but as a confirmation of their own pre-existing agenda. For example, Republican pollster Dick Morris suggests that it’s all Obama’s fault, very obviously with an eye to the next election, when asking: “Who lost Egypt?” This approach will become a staple of American political discourse in the coming months and years.
Neoconservative columnist John Podhoretz takes what is happening in Egypt as an opportunity to resurrect the straw man that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not necessarily be a panacea to all the ills of the Middle East. Obviously, nobody sensible ever says that, but it probably sounds reassuring to supporters of the Israeli occupation.
A former George W. Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, quite naturally found the uprising in Egypt to be an opportune moment to point out that the rhetoric (though not the policies) of the Bush administration (in which he played a key role) about a “freedom agenda” in the Middle East looks much better today than it did. This stands in contrast to the Obama administration’s emphasis on stability. Touché!
These last three examples are all deliberately chosen from the right of the American political spectrum, presently in opposition to the administration and gunning for Obama in the next presidential election. All of these arguments are examples of predictable sparring in which political adversaries try to spin events to their own purposes. However, like commentaries that are summaries of what is already known or rushes to judgment on as yet obviously undecidable questions, what they have to offer a sensible reader is very much open to doubt.
There are times when commentary needs to fall silent for a moment and let events sort themselves out, although there are always sensible things that can be said that don’t go very far in any direction. But it is also important to take the opportunity to look inward and take note of what exactly is, and more importantly isn’t, worth reading and writing about such a fascinating, fluid situation as the one playing out in Egypt today.
**Hussein Ibish is a senior research fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and blogs at www.ibishblog.com.