LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِFebeuary 04/2010

Bible Of The Day
Luke 13/18-20: "He said, “What is the Kingdom of God like? To what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and put in his own garden. It grew, and became a large tree, and the birds of the sky lodged in its branches.”  Again he said, “To what shall I compare the Kingdom of God? It is like yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.”

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Muslims Attack Two Christian Families in Egypt, 11 Killed/AINA/February 03/11
Hezbollah: A State above the State/Foreign Policy Journal/February 03/11
Hezbollah's Lessons/By: Matt Gurne/FrontPage Magazine/February 03/11
Canada advises on its citizens to leave Egypt/January 03/11
Canada Condemns Violence in Egypt/February 03/11
The Middle East, The World, at a Crossroads/By: Frank Salvato/February 03/11
The Arab revolution and Western decline/By Ari Shavit/Haaretz/February 03/11
Napolitano and Muslim Brotherhood affiliates met secretly/By Jim Kouri/February 03/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 03/11
Hezbollah man, Sami Chehab escapes from Egypt prison: sources/Reuters
Hezbollah members escape Egypt prison amid chaos/Monsters and Critics.com
Security Official: Egypt's Hizbullah Cell Escaped in Prison Break/Naharnet
Netanyahu: Does Hizbullah Promote Human Rights?/Naharnet
With unstable allies, US wants elections 'sooner' in Egypt, remains hopeful over Jordan, Yemen/New Agencies
Maliki: Iran, Syria armed fighters/Middle East Online
Geagea: We are ready to hold early elections to prove Aoun wrong/Ya Libnan
Just Egypt? Or World Insurgency?/Huffington Post (blog)
PM MALIKI CHARGES IRAN, SYRIA WITH SHIPPING WEAPONS/Telegraph.co.uk
Miqati Faces Hurdle of Christian Representation as Aoun Confirms he will Get 'Sovereign' Portfolio/Naharnet
MP Majdalani: Hezbollah hiding behind Aoun/Ya Libnan
Netanyahu: Does Hizbullah Promote Human Rights?/Naharnet
Aoun Denies Naming Miqati to Avenge Hariri: He Thinks Lebanon is One of his Private Companies/Naharnet
Lebanon's Egyptians Anxiously Eye Cairo Upheaval/Naharnet
Report: March 14 to Announce Future Objectives on Hariri's Murder Anniversary/Naharnet
Berri Favors Participation of All Sides in Cabinet Without Setting Prior Conditions on Shares/Naharnet
Maronite Bishops Relieved at Lebanon Calm, Express Regret at Regional Bloodshed/Naharnet
March 14: Iran Should Take Care of its Internal Affairs Instead of Ruining Arab States/Naharnet
Williams after Meeting Gemayel: We Hope New Government Would Respect International Commitments/Naharnet
Geagea Says March 14 to Take Unified Stance on Miqati Govt/Naharnet
Obama to Egyptian Army: Remove Mubarak now, start transition/DEBKAfile

Obama to Egyptian Army: Remove Mubarak now, start transition
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 2, 2011, Wednesday, Feb. 2, President Barack Obama delivered an ultimatum to Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman and the army and security chiefs: Mubarak must be removed in the coming hours or else US aid to Egypt will be cut off, debkafile's Washington sources exclusively report. Pressure on the Egyptian armed forces to oust the president forthwith was further applied by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who called Vice President Omar Suleiman, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates who called Egyptian defense minister Mohamed Tantawi, and US armed forces chief Adm. Mike Mullen in a telephone call to the Egyptian chief of staff Gen. Sami Enan.,
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and UK Prime Minister David Cameron were recruited earlier to lean hard on Egyptian army chiefs to bring Mubarak's presidency to an end in the coming hours.
Our sources report that all the Israelis remaining in Egypt, including news correspondents, were evacuated from Egypt Wednesday night in view of the danger of civil warfare spreading from the first confrontation in Tahrir Square between pro- and anti-Mubarak activists on the ninth day of the campaign for his overthrow.
It turned into a bloody collision with 30 confirmed dead and at least 2,000 injured - most of them protesters.
Obama slapped down his ultimatum when he saw Mubarak had unleashed the strong-arm squads of his National Democratic Party against the anti-government protesters, the day after he told the nation that he would stay for the remainder of his term as president.
The White House shot back: "President Barack Obama has been clear on Egypt that the transition must begin now, and now means now."
Obama hardened his position following three more occurrences:
1. The Egyptian army for the first time abandoned its neutrality and let 50,000 Mubarak supporters enter Tahrir Square where the protesters had been gathering without stopping them for inspection at the checkpoints outside. They stormed into the square on camels and horses, trampled protesters and beat about them with knives, swords, axes and petrol bombs.
Until that moment, the White House had been confident that the Egyptian army was solidly behind a peaceful transition process for displacing the president. But then, alarm signals started flashing.
debkafile sources report that the US administration is trying to find out if the army has switched its support to the president on the initiative of a local commander, or the entire military command has backtracked and laid the country open to a civil conflict. An Egyptian source told debkafile Wednesday night: The country may be descending into a bloodbath.
2. Information reached Washington that the first appearance of violent Mubarak loyalists in Tahrir Square was not the Egyptian president's final throw but his first. More are planned for the coming days in other parts of the country too, climaxing on Friday, Feb. 4.
The Americans have begun to understand that the 82-year old Egyptian president, although seriously ill, has no plans to go quietly as he promised in his speech to the nation Tuesday night. It is even possible that he may not go voluntarily at all.
3. The first fissures appeared Wednesday in opposition ranks. All ten secular parties agreed to respond positively to the Vice President's invitation to dialogue on constitutional reform, excepting the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest and best organized of them all. Its leaders refused to have any truck with the regime or any of its leaders and demanded that Mubarak step down without further delay.
The Brotherhood also heated up its denunciations of America, Britain and Israel.

Netanyahu: Does Hizbullah Promote Human Rights?/Naharnet
Naharnet/Israel's prime minister has said Iran wants to take advantage of the chaos in Egypt to create "another Gaza" there and warned that Islamic parties have already taken over power by democratic means in Iran, Lebanon and Gaza. Speaking before the Israeli parliament on Wednesday, Benjamin Netanyahu said he expects any new government in Egypt to honor its three-decade-long peace agreement with Israel. "Is there freedom in Iran? Is there democracy in Gaza? Does Hizbullah promote human rights?" he asked. "They (Iranians) want an Egypt that goes back to the Middle Ages. They want Egypt to turn into another Gaza, that will be run by radical forces that are against everything we want, everything the democratic world stands for." After initially keeping a low profile over the unrest, Netanyahu has in recent days been warning of the dangers posed by instability in Egypt.
Egypt became the first Arab nation to sign a peace accord with Israel in 1979 and has strictly honored it. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has close ties to Israeli leaders and has acted as a bridge between Israel and the Palestinians to the broader Arab world. Netanyahu said that a more democratic Egypt would not pose a threat to Israel. He called on the international community to insist that whoever takes over power in Egypt remains committed to peace with Israel.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 03 Feb 11, 07:30

Security Official: Egypt's Hizbullah Cell Escaped in Prison Break
Naharnet/Members of the so-called Hizbullah cell convicted of plotting attacks in Egypt were among the escapees in a weekend prison break, a security official told Agence France Presse Thursday. The 22 cell members fled on Sunday along with members of Palestinian group Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and thousands of other convicts during a mass breakout amid anti-government protests in Egypt. The Hizbullah members escaped from Wadi Natrun north of Cairo after guards abandoned their posts. Last April, a Cairo court handed down stiff prison sentences to 26 people in connection with a plot to carry out attacks on the Suez Canal and Sinai resorts. Four were sentenced in absentia. In a handwritten letter obtained by AFP, the defendants -- most of whom had been detained between late 2008 and January 2009 -- said they never planned attacks in Egypt. Hizbullah MPs rejected to comments to pan Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat about the rumors of the escape. "We have no details about this," they said. MP Emile Rahme, who is the lawyer of the Hizbullah cell's leader Sami Shehab, told the newspaper that his "role is limited to the court." He rejected to give further details that confirm the prison break.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 03 Feb 11, 13:09

Miqati Faces Hurdle of Christian Representation as Aoun Confirms he will Get 'Sovereign' Portfolio
Naharnet/Premier-designate Najib Miqati is reportedly facing stiff demands by Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun to be granted the majority of Christian seats in the new government. Miqati's brother, Taha, met with Aoun in Rabiyeh on Tuesday. An Nahar daily said the FPM leader sent a message to the prime minister-designate that he wants a big share that "suits the size of his parliamentary bloc and his popular representation." Pan-Arab daily al-Hayat said that Aoun is asking for the majority of Christian cabinet seats (11 ministers) and is demanding the right to give his opinion on the rest of the Christian representation. Another demand is not to give President Michel Suleiman any share in the government, a request that the remaining March 8 forces are making, al-Hayat said. The newspaper said that Aoun insists on giving the interior ministry portfolio to an FPM member of his choice.
The daily quoted sources following up contacts aimed removing obstacles hindering the cabinet formation process as saying that Miqati is facing demands by Aoun, his ally Marada movement leader Suleiman Franjieh and President Suleiman to be given the interior ministry. Suleiman reportedly prefers to keep the portfolio as part of his share in the cabinet out of keenness on the political balance in the country. When asked by the Qatari al-Watan daily if he is demanding to get a "sovereign" portfolio, Aoun said: "Of course I will get a sovereign portfolio. There are four sovereign portfolios: the defense, foreign, finance and interior" ministries. As Safir daily also said that Franjieh is asking for a portfolio given that Marada's representative in the last cabinet was a state minister. Franjieh believes that his movement has the right to get two ministers if a 32-member government was formed.
Beirut, 03 Feb 11, 08:59

Aoun Denies Naming Miqati to Avenge Hariri: He Thinks Lebanon is One of his Private Companies
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun has denied that he nominated Najib Miqati as premier to take revenge on Saad Hariri for shunning him from the presidency.
In an interview with the Qatari al-Watan newspaper published Thursday, Aoun said he named Miqati because he had a problem with Hariri's internal policies. Aoun slammed Hariri's government for allegedly committing fraud and for conspiring with the finance ministry over missing funds. He vowed to pursue the issue of "embezzlement" after the government is formed. "The files of the finance ministry are scary and there are serious mistakes." "Some countries have given the Lebanese government grants that have never entered the treasury," Aoun told the daily. "There is accountability in Lebanese democracy. Those who make mistakes would be held accountable and the parliament would collapse or a ministry would collapse," he said about accusations that the March 8 forces toppled Hariri's government. Talking about the collapse of Hariri's cabinet while he was in the United States, Aoun said the Mustaqbal movement leader traveled to Washington without informing the cabinet. "He has a private jet that takes him from one country to the other whenever he wants. He acts as if Lebanon is one of his private companies," the MP told the daily. When asked by al-Watan about the March 14 conditions imposed on Miqati to participate in the government, the FPM leader said: "The prime minister can't take a decision on anything alone." The cabinet headed by the premier takes a decision on any issue, Aoun said about March 14's demand for Miqati to stress his commitment to the international tribunal. On whether he was still eyeing the presidency, the MP said: "My role in Lebanon is more important than the presidency. If I go to the (Baabda) palace, I will be asked to play the role of the arbiter and I won't enjoy the freedom of political work." Beirut, 03 Feb 11, 12:23

Miqati Meets Suleiman as PM-designate Seeks 'Comforting' Cabinet Line-up
Naharnet/Premier-designate Najib Miqati visited President Michel Suleiman on Wednesday to inform him about the demands of the March 8 and 14 forces on the cabinet, An Nahar daily said. The newspaper quoted sources as saying that both officials agreed to give contacts more time to exhaust all efforts to form a national unity cabinet or a national salvation government that includes both coalitions. Suleiman's visitors told An Nahar that he wasn't asking for shares in the government and was neither seeking to give a portfolio to his relative Wissam Baroudi.
His aim is to cooperate with Miqati to guarantee the formation of a "balanced and constitutional" cabinet that relieves all sides, the visitors said. The president is also keen on having a government that is productive and guarantees stability, they added. Miqati's sources told As Safir daily that the PM-designate will continue to exert all efforts to form a unity cabinet. However, sources following up consultations between Miqati and different sides told the newspaper that March 14 forces are split between those calling for non-participation in the cabinet and those wanting to take part to prevent the March 8 team from making any step that would jeopardize the international tribunal. As Safir said that Miqati held a meeting with Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's political assistant Hussein Khalil who has expressed readiness to facilitate the cabinet formation process. A political source told The Daily Star that Miqati was expected to meet with Nasrallah soon to discuss the government's formation and other issues. When asked by pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on when his line-up would be ready, Miqati said: "I am interested in having a comforting line-up. When we reach that step, I will consult with President Suleiman and we will unveil it.""The issue is not about speed or procrastination," he said. Beirut, 03 Feb 11, 09:56

Geagea Says March 14 to Take Unified Stance on Miqati Govt
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Wednesday lauded Speaker Nabih Berri's remarks made earlier in the day from the Baabda Palace about the participation of all political parties in the new cabinet without prior conditions on the shares of each side. Geagea said Berri "has always been courteous," but wondered whether the house speaker was the one who has the last word among his allies in the March 8 camp. He noted that Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun is the one who usually expresses the point of view of the March 8 forces. Aoun "was clear yesterday when he said that any party willing to be part of the government must adopt March 8's principles and beliefs." As to Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati's ongoing efforts to form a new cabinet, Geagea accused the rival camp of "complicating the mission of the PM-designate," describing the Hizbullah-led coalition as "totalitarian." The LF leader stressed that "the March 14 forces have a unified opinion and share the same stance on all national issues." He accused the March 8 forces of attempting to mislead the public opinion by circulating "false" news about alleged conflicting standpoints among the March 14 forces regarding participation in Miqati's government. "Our stance as March 14 forces, after several meetings, is that we either unanimously participate or none of us does." "There are constants which we cannot renounce, topped by (our stance) on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and illegal weapons," he added. Beirut, 02 Feb 11, 17:00

March 14: Iran Should Take Care of its Internal Affairs Instead of Ruining Arab States
Naharnet/The March 14 General Secretariat renewed on Wednesday its commitment to the values proposed by the March 14 forces to Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati, repeating its support to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. It said after its weekly meeting: "The STL is a central part of the Lebanese state's commitment to protect its citizens and leaders of free thought from political assassination." It also repeated its commitment to "tackle the distribution of Hizbullah's arms throughout Lebanon." The general secretariat added that it was "not surprised by Miqati's failure to publicly announce his commitment to the fundamental national and humanitarian values that the Lebanese had strived for and to the two elections that have reflected these principles." It also condemned Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun's statement that anyone seeking to take part in Cabinet should announce in advance his commitment to the March 8 camp's political agenda. Addressing Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi's call for the establishment of a new Islamic Middle East, the general secretariat said that Iranian officials should "take care of their internal affairs and listen to the calls of their people who are demanding a real democracy." Iran should address its own concerns "instead of pursuing its policy of sabotage and interference in the affairs of Arab countries," it stressed. The March 14 general secretariat concluded by calling on its supporters to prepare for the commemoration of the sixth anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on February 14. Beirut, 02 Feb 11, 15:49

Muslims Attack Two Christian Families in Egypt, 11 Killed
http://www.aina.org/news/20110202205758.htm
(AINA) 2-3-2011News of a massacre of two Christian Coptic families by Islamists just emerged from Upper Egypt with the return of the Internet connections after a week of Internet blackout by the Egyptian regime. The massacre took place on Sunday, January 30 at 3 PM in the village of Sharona near Maghagha, Minya province. Two Islamists groups, aided by the Muslim neighbors, descended on the roof of houses owned by Copts, killing eleven Copts, including children, and seriously injuring four others.
Anba Agathon, Bishop of Maghagha, told Coptic activist Dr. Mona Roman in a televised interview on Al-Karma TV that the killers are their neighbors, who seized the opportunity of the mayhem prevailing in Egypt and the absence of police protection to slaughter the Copts. He said that he visited today the four injured Copts, who escaped death despite being shot, at Maghagha General Hospital and they told him that they recognized the main attackers as they come from the same village of Sharona. They gave the Bishop details of what happened.
"The two families were staying in their homes with their doors locked when suddenly the Islamists descended on them," said Bishop Agathon, "killing eleven and leaving for dead four others family members. In addition, they looted everything that was in the two Coptic houses, including money, furniture and electrical equipment. They also looted livestock and grain."
According to the Bishop the first group was led by Islamist Ibrahim Hamdy Ibrahim, who was joined by a gang of masked assailants. They accessed the roof of the house of Copt Joseph Waheeb Massoud through the roof of his Muslim neighbor Mahgoub el Khawaled. The armed men killed Joseph, his wife Samah, his 15-year old daughter Christine and 8-year-old son Fady Youssef. Another Islamsist group led by Yasser Essam Khaled and several masked men simultaneously accessed the house of Copt Saleeb Ayad Mayez through the roof of his Muslim neighbor Mohamad Hussein el Khawaed. The Islamist shot dead Saleeb, his wife Zakia, his 4-year-old son Joseph, 3-year-old daughter Justina, his 23-year-old sister Amgad, mother Zakia and Ms. Saniora Fahim. The police in Minya were called and they transferred the bodies in ambulances to Maghagha Hospital.
The Bishop denied any vendetta between the Copts and the Muslims. He called on the police to arrest the Islamist perpetrators immediately, as everyone knows they are the neighbors of the victims. He said "The massacre has nothing to do with the mayhem in Egypt, but the murderers took advantage of the lack of police protection and thought they could commit their crime and no one would notice." Coptic activist Dr. Hanna Hanna views the Mubarak era with its policy of impunity to be the cause of why Copts are targeted. "Why have those Islamists chosen those two Coptic families and not Muslim ones to slaughter and rob? I believe it is because they know that with Copts they can literally get away with murder."
By Mary Abdelmassih. Copyright (C) 2011, Assyrian International

Canada advises on its citizens to leave Egypt
(No. 45 – February 3, 2011 – 2:45 a.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today made the following statement to Canadian citizens in Egypt:
“The Canadian government advises all Canadian citizens in Egypt that we plan to continue evacuation efforts today, February 3, 2011.
“All remaining Canadian citizens who wish to depart Egypt on a Canadian government chartered flight and who are able to do so should immediately proceed to the airport, Terminal 1, Departures area, as soon as possible on February 3.
“We strongly urge all Canadians to leave Egypt.”

Hezbollah man, Sami Chehab escapes from Egypt prison: sources
CAIRO (Reuters) - A member of the Lebanese group Hezbollah jailed in Egypt for planning attacks in the country has escaped from prison, Egyptian security sources said on Thursday.
Sami Chehab, sentenced last April to 15 years in prison, escaped on Sunday, they said. Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has previously said Chehab was a member of a Hezbollah cell that was working to smuggle weapons through Egypt to the Gaza Strip. Sources close to Chehab's family said he had already left Egypt. The emergency state security court sentenced Chehab as part of a group of 26 men charged with planning attacks in Egypt. The case underscored Egyptian concern about what it sees as the destabilizing influence of Shi'ite Iran, Hezbollah's main sponsor. A number of prominent prisoners have escaped from Egyptian jails over the last week as law and order collapsed when mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began and police were temporarily withdrawn from the streets.(Writing by Tom Perry, editing by Tim Pearce

With unstable allies, US wants elections 'sooner' in Egypt, remains hopeful over Jordan, Yemen
By Bradley Klapper,Matthew Lee, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press –
WASHINGTON - Its allies across the Arab world shaken by popular anger, the United States sharpened its criticism of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's teetering regime and expressed outrage over violence against protesters, declaring that its once-close partner should set a brisk course for new elections.
"Now means now," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said of Egypt's transition, repeating that continued aid to Egypt would be influenced by the government's response to the crisis.
The call for an immediate end to three decades of authoritarian rule in Egypt coincided with American hopes that reforms in Jordan and Yemen could stave off similar revolt. It represented something of a dual approach for the Obama administration, which has gradually shed its support for the 82-year-old Mubarak while looking to shore up its other Arab friends facing much of the same resentment if not yet imminent revolution.
"We want to see free, fair and credible elections," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Wednesday. He stressed that keeping presidential elections in September or advancing the timeframe was entirely up to Egyptians and that the process should not be so hasty that it leaves legitimate players out of the process, but he added, "The sooner that can happen, the better."A day after President Barack Obama pressed Mubarak to loosen his three-decade grip on power immediately, clashes between protesters and pro-government supporters further alienated Egypt's besieged government from its longtime patron, the United States.
The administration decried the fighting that started when several thousand Mubarak supporters, including some riding horses and camels and wielding whips, attacked anti-government protesters. Demonstrators dragged some of the attackers to the ground and beat them bloody, and the two sides rained stones and bottles down on each other.
Crowley called the assailants "thugs." Obama "found the images outrageous and deplorable," Gibbs said. The administration did not accuse Mubarak of orchestrating the clashes but said his government should show restraint.
"If any of the violence is instigated by the government it should stop immediately," Gibbs added. Protesters claimed plainclothes police were among the attackers, but he declined to assign blame.
The comments from the two senior spokesmen aimed to keep the pressure on Mubarak amid fears that the Egyptian government was trying to outlast the protesters' calls for democratic change with cosmetic changes that don't meet the need for real reform. They echoed Obama's call for change to "begin now" after Mubarak announced he would not run for re-election.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton demanded in a telephone conversation with Egypt's new vice-president, Omar Suleiman, that the government investigate the events and bring those responsible to account. She condemned the violence, Crowley reported.
"We don't know who unleashed these thugs on the streets of Cairo," he said, but called it a clear attempt to silence Egyptian voices of dissent. "The use of violence to intimidate the Egyptian people must stop."
The day of strife in Egypt underscored the unsure post-Mubarak future for the country. His declaration not to run again was accompanied by plans to shepherd the political changeover from his 30-year reign. But hundreds of thousands of Egyptians continued to demonstrate, determined to chase him from office.
Despite coming down increasingly harder in favour of the protesters, the U.S. was still keen to promote an ordered transition to safeguard Egypt's status as a powerful purveyor of American influence in the Middle East, from Arab-Israeli peace talks to countering Iran and fighting terrorism. Still, the administration would not join the chorus calling for Mubarak's prompt resignation, offering a shred of support for a leader who has long been loyal to the United States.
In contrast to the sharp tone on Egypt, the administration cautiously praised reforms in Yemen by another pro-Western president. Ali Abdullah Saleh pledged not to stay on beyond his current term in an attempt to head off his country's version of the pan-Arab unrest sparked last month by the Tunisian protesters who overthrew their president.
Crowley welcomed Saleh's "positive statements" about including opposition elements in a reform process after three decades in control of his country, which has become a main battleground against al-Qaida. Saleh is seen as a weak but increasingly important partner of the United States, allowing American drone strikes on al-Qaida targets and stepping up counterterrorism co-operation.
"Just as we've seen in Egypt, it is important for governments across the region ... to follow statements with actions," Crowley said.
The United States also was keeping a close watch on developments in Jordan, the only Arab country beside Egypt to have concluded a peace agreement with Israel. Jordan's powerful Muslim opposition has urged King Abdullah II's newly appointed prime minister to step down.
But State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the U.S. was looking forward to working with Abdullah's new government and prime minister. Recognizing the Middle Eastern country's steps toward better democracy, such as allowing monitors at November's primary elections, he said the U.S. would continue to raise the need for greater openness and participation in the country's governance.
Still, the calls for greater democracy were not without peril for the United States, which backtracked under President George W. Bush on an aggressive pursuit of Middle East elections after Hamas won a Palestinian vote and radical groups made gains elsewhere.
In Egypt, the dilemma concerns the Muslim Brotherhood, which has presented the most organized opposition to Mubarak and which rejects much of the U.S. agenda in the region. Israel sees the group as a threat. Asked if the U.S. saw the Muslim Brotherhood as part of Egypt's new democratic equation, Crowley struggled for a response.
"We do not have a favourite candidate or candidates. We are not going to anoint a successor to President Mubarak," he said. But he acknowledged that the Brotherhood was a "fact of life in Egypt."
"They are highly organized," he said. "If they choose to participate and respect the democratic process," then they can play a role in Egypt's transition to democracy. But he added that no U.S. officials have met with members of the group.
In addition to Clinton's conversation with Suleiman, Crowley said Obama's envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, held meetings with Mubarak and Suleiman earlier this week. Wisner left Egypt for Washington on Wednesday.
A senior administration official said Wisner was returning because it was clear he had accomplished all he could with the Egyptian leadership. It was unclear how far Wisner sought to push Mubarak, but the U.S. has sought an end to 30 years of an emergency law in the country that gives police wide scope to detain people.

Hezbollah: A State above the State
by Nima Khorrami Assl
February 3, 2011
Foreign Policy Journal
Two historical trends have been significant to the Middle East’s socio-political development and will continue to shape the region’s future: a long-term Muslim determination to resist Western hegemony, and a widening self-assertion by minorities within their own polities. Hezbollah – The Party of God – is the product of these political and psychological forces that, in one form or another, persist throughout the region regardless of sect.
Recent changes in the composition of the Lebanese government reflect the ascendancy of Hezbollah in Lebanese affairs over the past two decades. Through its forceful backing of Mikati, Hezbollah has clearly demonstrated that it is the dominant political and military force in Lebanon, while simultaneously helping Iran and Syria to gain more influence in the Lebanese theatre. Thanks to its smart positioning, successes against Israel, and social services network, Hezbollah has grown into an independent actor in the Lebanese political scene and this necessitates a sharp focus on the movement as an actor in itself.
People in a cafe in Beirut watch Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah give a speech. (Bryan Denton/New York Times)
Early in the life of Hezbollah, the organization was amorphous and decision-making was decentralized. Nevertheless, with time and with the increasing need to better coordinate and control the decisions and the actions of the organization, Hezbollah has matured into a more hierarchical and more effective institution. This evolution reflects Hezbollah’s growing strength and stature on the Lebanese scene, and its determination not to limit its activities to resistance only. This is clearly evident in its heavy reliance on the use of widespread media network in order to propagate its doctrine and its vision to all of its followers in Lebanon and the wider Muslim world. Currently, it operates a number of powerful means of communications the most prominent of which are al-Manar Television and Radio al-Nour.
For Hezbollah, moreover, the support that it has received from Iran and Syria has almost become the raison d’être of the organisation. The connection is of such intensity that some have argued that Hezbollah is a mere proxy for Syria and Iran in their attempts to carry out their foreign policies by other, more ambiguous, means. In reality, however, the actual influence of external actors has never been to such an extent and thus to see Hezbollah as a proxy element of Iran and Syria is erroneous.
Although state support has been crucial to Hezbollah, the organization has also felt limited by it. In other words, Hezbollah’s power also relies on its standing at home and regional image both of which have suffered from appearing to be a proxy. As a “conventional political party”, Hezbollah has to work with a number of other political parties and organizations. As a “welfare agency”, it has to deal with other Lebanese sects, while, as a militia, it has to “consider the regional balance of power” when engaging in resistance. Anthony Cordesman reported from Israel in August 2006 that no serving Israeli official, intelligence officer, or other military officers with whom he had spoken felt that Hezbollah had acted under the direction of Iran or Syria.
In fact, to achieve a level of autonomy from state sponsorship the Party has sought out aid and support from other sources so it can detach itself from any external sources that would limit the decisions and activities of the organization.
Hezbollah has entered into large-scale business operations by opening co-operative supermarkets in the suburbs of Beirut and other parts of Lebanon. It has revenue coming in from school fees, bookshops, farms, fisheries, factories, and bakeries. It manufactures Islamic clothing which it exports to the expatriate Lebanese Shiite community around the globe. The group has also entered the booming property market in Lebanon and the UAE. Furthermore, many sympathetic individuals in the west have created venture companies that invested Hezbollah money in stocks and shares of commodities. It also uses its faction in the Lebanese Parliament to persuade and/or pressure the government to finance its projects in Shiite population centres.
Historically, tistorically he Lebanese state has never served the Lebanese Shi‘a well. The Shi‘a have been an ignored and deprived underclass that has never received an equal share of the Lebanese infrastructure, political representation, or economic benefits. Consequently, Shi‘a have little confidence that the state can or will meet their needs and thus place greater confidence in Hezbollah as their political instruments.
Hezbollah’s ability, unprecedented in Arab history, to stand up to a superior Israeli military machine and force it to a truce is electrifying. Its character is mainstream Shiite, but its rhetoric focuses on Arab unity, the illegitimacy of the Israeli state, and the need for change in Arab leadership. It represents a powerful regional current and thus cannot be easily suppressed or disarmed. It is a highly credited organisation among the Arab public and a powerful voice for the Shiites in Lebanese affairs which has linked them to the larger Shiite community in the region, especially Iran.
What this observation implies, therefore, is that Hezbollah will willingly seek to remain above the state rather than to be the state. Hezbollah was drawn deeper into Lebanese politics due to its need to protect its armed status after the Syrian withdrawal. Hence, it is primarily concerned about having a dominant say in Lebanon foreign and security policy to ensure the immunity of its armed status from UN resolutions or Lebanon’s relations with the outside world.
Moreover, Hezbollah’s status as a non-state actor is beneficial to the Party because it exempts it from international obligations and restrictions that are imposed upon states and their conducts of foreign policy or military operations. In essence, this is a quality that makes Hezbollah more attractive to the Iranian government and thus helps the Hezbollah’s leadership to secure uninterrupted fellow of financial and military aids from Tehran. This is especially the case now since the Lebanese cabinet, imposed by Hezbollah, is unlikely to be capable of constraining Hezbollah’s strategic choices in matters of war and peace.
In addition, Syria may have appeared as the main beneficiary of the recent changes at the top of the Lebanese state by having an ally in the Office of the Prime Minister, thereby regaining its influence in Lebanon. Nonetheless, it cannot realistically run the show should Hezbollah chooses not to cooperate with it. Syria’s ability to influence political developments in Lebanon was closely tied to its ability to play local politicians against one another due to its direct military presence. This is no longer the case and that it is Syria that needs Hezbollah in order to be able to influence political outcomes there. And in all these, one thing is clear and that is that from now on what Hezbollah says and does matter greatly.
**Nima Khorrami Assl is a security analyst at Transnational Crisis Project in London where he monitors and writes policy briefs on security developments in Yemen, Somalia, and the subregion of Persian Gulf. His areas of interest and expertise include the Middle East, Political Islam and De-radicalisation, China, Energy Security and Geopolitics. Read more articles by Nima Khorrami Assl.

Minister Cannon Condemns Violence in Egypt
http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2011/044.aspx
February 2, 2011 – 6:45 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement on the escalating violence in Egypt:
“I am very concerned at the violence that broke out in Cairo, Alexandria, and other parts of Egypt today. Canada condemns the use of violence by all sides and urges all parties to show restraint and ensure that minority rights are respected.
“I call on the Government of Egypt to protect the peaceful demonstrators and journalists against further attacks. If the Government of Egypt was in any way involved in instigating attacks on the peaceful demonstrators, this would be unacceptable and of grave concern.
“Our government continues to stand by the people of Egypt as they demand democratic reforms and respect for human rights. We urge the Government of Egypt to begin an immediate transition toward serious democratic reform.
“We also extend our condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed or injured during recent events in Egypt.”
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Lynn Meahan
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Iran Sees ‘New Egypt’ as Part of Islamic Revolution
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu/Arutz Sheva
Iran now is actively encouraging what it calls a “freedom seeking” movement in Egypt to help create its dream of a fundamentalist Islamic Middle East. Iranian officials, for the first time, said Tuesday they are offering support to the protesters in Egypt. Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television, "With the knowledge that I have of the great revolutionary and history making people of Egypt, I am sure they will play their role in creating an Islamic Middle East for all freedom, justice and independence seekers." He chastised the United States for allegedly playing a role of “direct interference" in Egyptian affairs at the same time that its citizens “are no longer ready to stand idle in face of crimes by the Zionist regime." A statement signed by 214 Iranian legislators announced their “strong support for the Egyptian nation's uprising and movement against the tyranny of the country's rulers,” according to the semi-official Fars News Agency. They declared that the revolutionary movement in Egypt is a spiritual one, emphasizing Islamic values. The military advisor for the Islamic Republic, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, warned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that he will face a fate similar to that of Iran's ex-Shah, who was toppled in the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Hezbollah’s Lessons
By: Matt Gurne/FrontPage
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/02/brotherhood-rising/
Feb 2nd, 2011
Millions of Egyptians, understandably frustrated by their economic plight and the corruption of the ruling regime of President Hosni Mubarak, have taken to the streets to demand that the President step down and permit elections. With the Egyptian Army making clear that it will not use violence and the police having been swept aside by the power of the mob, Mubarak has no allies to turn to. The final blow came when President Obama’s handpicked special envoy to Egypt, former U.S. ambassador Frank Wisner, informed Mubarak that 30 years of American support for his regime was at an end, and suggested that he not seek re-election.
Mubarak soon went on national television and announced exactly that (no doubt swayed by the fact that while Wisner was delivering President Obama’s message in private, Obama was announcing it publicly to the world). It is unlikely that Mubarak will be able to hold onto power until the next election, scheduled to occur in eight months. Soon, perhaps within weeks, Egypt will have new leadership. There is every reason to fear what such a government will look like.
While Mubarak must shoulder the blame for the corrupt excesses of his regime, he has served Western interests well. As president of Egypt, he has maintained amicable relations with Israel, worked to suppress Islamism in his own country, co-operated with the West in the War on Terror and kept the Muslim Brotherhood, a pan-Arabic Islamist political organization, in check.
The Muslim Brotherhood is politically savvy; they know not to conspicuously or publicly support terrorism and portray themselves as moderates. Many in North America and Europe have bought into their rhetoric of speaking for strict Islam but not Islamism. The Muslim Brotherhood have been similarly shrewd in Egypt: When a recent proposal by the Brotherhood to give Islamic religious courts veto power over all new laws triggered a popular backlash, the Brotherhood quickly backed down in the name of moderation — but still pressed for a law that would ban Christians and women from high political office. While they claim to have renounced all violence, many of their adherents aren’t so picky: Hamas, the fanatically anti-Israel terrorists running the Gaza Strip, is a branch of the Brotherhood that seems to have missed the anti-violence memo.
As an established organization with funding, leadership and boots on the ground, the Muslim Brotherhood will have a head start at preparing for Egypt’s transition to “democracy.” Therein lies the danger. The entire process has happened so fast that chaos will be the inevitable result, and moderate Egyptians — the very ones that the West would wish to see in power — find themselves afraid for their future. They have good reason to be fearful. Even under Mubarak, the Brotherhood was able to establish itself as a major political force in Egypt, and it has already shrewdly announced its support of the relatively moderate, but generally anti-Western, Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaredei. With Mubarak soon to be gone, one way or the other, there seems to be nothing in place that can stop the Brotherhood from becoming a major player in Egyptian politics.
The Brotherhood has clearly learned well the lesson of Lebanon’s Hezbollah. It does not need to outright seize power. In fact, Hezbollah did itself a great deal of good by setting itself up as the real power behind a moderate leader. Only when Hezbollah was strong enough to take control did it bring down the moderate government it had been a part of. Egypt faces a similar threat. Today, the Brotherhood might preach moderation, and speak to domestic issues such as jobs, less corruption and economic growth. Only when they have gathered enough supporters will they cast aside their moderate pretensions and work to impose an Islamic state.
At this point, there is probably little that can be done to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from becoming a powerful force inside Egypt, perhaps the force. Even the Obama administration has signaled that it is prepared to accept a Muslim Brotherhood presence inside a future Egyptian government, as long as it rejects violence and supports democracy. How absurd. Once in power it will be easy for the Brotherhood to play the political game and avoid directly calling for violence while still using its position to destabilize American interests in the Middle East. It can non-violently and democratically end cooperation with Israel, begin to impose elements of shariah law on the Egyptian population and relax the restrictions that have kept Islamism out of power in Egypt for so long. The Brotherhood can easily complicate Israel’s security situation by simply turning a blind eye as weapons and supplies flow freely to their Hamas allies in Gaza.
If there is any hope at all for the West in the new Egyptian reality, it may be that the military and security services, armed and trained by the West and believed to be anti-Islamist, will still be a major force in Egyptian politics, and might serve to somewhat check the Islamist’s power in any new Egyptian government. While that might be the best that can be hoped for, it is hardly good news — it is essentially Pakistan all over again, where a pro-American military struggles to keep surging Islamist forces from taking over the country, fueling a vicious cycle of terrorism and political corruption.
One Pakistan was bad enough. Another, in the most significant Arab country and directly next door to Israel, will be a disaster for the West. It will turn Israel’s most reliable local partner into a security risk, at best, it will leave Washington without a key Muslim ally in the struggle to contain Iran, and it could easily lead to more and more revolutions across the Middle East until the entire region, never particularly stable to begin with, descends into near anarchy to the benefit only of Islamic extremists.
There are already signs that Yemen and Jordan might be next, and Morocco and Syria are also at risk. Even Saudi Arabia is far from secure. If revolution sweeps the Middle East, America will see its influence there essentially vanish, and Iran will exploit that chaos to further enhance its own power. Israel will find itself even more besieged than ever. Weak governments from northern Africa to the Persian Gulf will be ripe for infiltration by radical elements eager to seize any opportunity to impose their own version of Islam on the world. It is impossible to predict what will be the end result of this scenario, but nearly as hard to imagine how it will not be a catastrophic reality for the West and Israel.
**Matt Gurney is an editor at the National Post, a Canadian national newspaper, and writes and speaks on military and geopolitical issues. He can be reached at matt@mattgurney.ca. Follow him on . Follow him on Twitter: @mattgurney

Embassy Row
By James Morrison
The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/1/embassy-row-950355361/
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The United States appeared surprised by Iran‘s diplomatic and military incursions in Latin America and urgently sought intelligence from all U.S. embassies in the region, according to a secret cable from the State Department in 2009.
Beyond Iran‘s public actions to open diplomatic missions and sign military pacts with leftist countries in the region, “we lack information on Tehran’s strategic intentions,” said the cable from the department‘s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
The cable, written in all capital letters and released by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, was sent to 25 U.S. embassies in Central and South American and some Caribbean nations and to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. It posed a series of questions to U.S. diplomats and speculated about the potential for Iran to use Latin America to plan terrorist attacks against the United States.
“What does Tehran see as the ultimate goal of Iran‘s outreach to Latin America? How high a priority is Latin America for Iranian foreign policy? Does Tehran envision becoming a key regional player in Latin America?” the cable asked.
The bureau noted the strong ties already developed between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavezand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, along with Iran‘s support of Hezbollah terrorists.
“Given the high-profile Iran-Venezuela relationship, Hezbollah-linked individuals probably see Venezuela as a safe haven where they can conduct fundraising and support activities without interference,” the cable said.
It asked U.S. diplomats to try to find out whether Iran has “any intention of using the region as a staging ground for potential terrorist attacks, either directly or through surrogates.”
“Are Iranian officials attempting to access U.S. territory or U.S. private firms via Latin America? … Is Iran supporting terrorist activities in Latin America?” the cable added.
Since the cable was written, the United States has collected evidence of an Iranian military presence in Venezuela and on Hezbollah activities in Paraguay and in Mexico. The Washington Times last year reported on the arrest of a key Hezbollah financier in Paraguay and on Iranian paramilitary movements in Venezuela. In 2009, The Washington Times revealed that Hezbollah narco-terrorists were using Mexican drug-smuggling routes into the United States.Last week, Fox News reported that U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Arizona desert found an Iranian book praising suicide bombers.
‘FRANK’ PROTEST
The United States protested Russia’s arrest of top opposition leaders who were demonstrating for freedom of assembly, as guaranteed in the Russian Constitution.
“The United States will continue to be frank in voicing concerns about human rights situations in all OSCE participating states,” said Ian Kelly, U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
At an OSCE meeting last week in Vienna, Austria, Mr. Kelly noted that Moscow had encouraged Russians to demonstrate their support for the constitution’s Article 31, which protects peaceful gatherings, on the 31st of any month with 31 days.
Mr. Kelly noted that Russia’s failure to uphold its own constitution, as well as its “OSCE commitments,” with the arrests of Eduard Limonov and Boris Nemtsov, who were sentenced to 15 days in prison, and Ilya Yashin, who was sentenced to five The OSCE promotes human rights in 56 member nations in Europe, Central Asia and North America.
• Call Embassy Row at 202/636-3297 or e-mail jmorrison@washington times.com.

The Middle East, The World, at a Crossroads
By: Frank Salvato
02 Feb 2011
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3725
In 2008, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, was quoted as saying,
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." As stunningly opportunistic as that statement was to many, it was, at least, a transparently honest statement that defined the tactics used by the White House during the first two years of the Obama Administration. And while those of us who are politically aware here in the United States came to see that tactic bring to fruition a sea-change of initiatives, our political and ideological trials and tribulations pale in comparison to what is happening in the Middle East today.
I bring up Mr. Emanuel's admission regarding crisis because it is cogent to the events happening in Tunisia, Jordan and, especially, Egypt. With pro-democracy and anti-dictatorial movements taking to the streets in protest of what they see as heavy-handed totalitarianism – albeit to a much lesser extent in Jordan than in the other locales, the world is witnessing a level of chaos that can only exist where there is a void in national cohesion; a void of accepted leadership. It is this void that serves as the opportunity for nefarious forces to exploit the "crisis."
Perhaps most notably in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is calculating its actions carefully; waiting in the wings but for their call to take to the streets in support of the protesters. The Muslim Brotherhood, one of the quintessential organizations within the realm of radical Islam, was the organization that gave birth to al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, was a high-level member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood before embarking on a reign of terror, murder and oppression with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
As I wrote for our parent organization, BasicsProject.org, in 2007:
"The Muslim Brotherhood is a world-wide Sunni Islamist movement, which has spawned several religious and political organizations in the Middle East, including al Qaeda, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, dedicated to the jihadi credo: ‘God is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.'
"The Muslim Brotherhood was conceived in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, a 22-year-old elementary school teacher, as a fundamentalist Islamic movement in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent ban of the caliphate system. Al-Banna believed that Islam was not only a religious dogma but an all-inclusive way of life. Al-Banna based his fundamentalism on the tenets of Wahhabism, supplementing the radically fundamentalist Islamic education for the Society's male students with jihadi training.
"As stated in the organization's charter and on its website, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to install an Islamic empire ruled under Sharia Law and a Caliphate across the Muslim world and ultimately the entire world, through stages designed to ‘Islamisize,' incrementally, targeted nations. We can witness this very action taking place in Europe today."
With that cursory understanding of what the Muslim Brotherhood's goals include – and with the understanding that they learn from their foes; how they operate, what tactics works, what tactics don't work – we can see that the notion that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," applies here, and frighteningly so.
To be sure, the overwhelming majority of those taking part in the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan are doing so to affect pro-democratic change; to affect the removal of oppressive governments in favor of governments that afford them a voice in how they are governed. To that extent, even CNN, a normally Left-leaning mainstream cable news outlet, found itself acquiescing to the notion that President George W. Bush's vision of democracy taking hold in the Middle East was ahead of its time and that credit for having the vision was due.
But, along with the upheaval that intrinsically come with governmental change, comes a chaos that can – and will, to the extent that it is allowed to do so – be exploited by those far more evil than those serving as the change catalyst that brought the people to the streets in protest to begin with. The Muslim Brotherhood and their myriad minion groups serve as those forces of evil; those forces of oppression and totalitarianism.
So, with these juxtaposing forces in position, both at the point where violence has become a means for the achievement of their goals, the Middle East – and, in fact, the world, stands at a crossroads; a crossroads that can lead to either an escalation of freedom in a region starving for liberty, human rights and the inalienable rights recognized by Western culture, or an advancement of fundamentalist Islamic dogma that has delivered unto the world the oppression of its subjects (especially females), suicide bombings, and a violent quest for totalitarian rule under a fundamentalist Islamist caliphate where all things un-Islamic are punished, many by beatings, torture and execution.
It is because we are at these crossroads that we must proceed intelligently. We must make it clear to each and every person in the world – and especially in the Middle East – that the peace achieved between the people of Israel and the peoples of Egypt and Jordan is a peace between peoples and not between governments.
It is because we are at these crossroads that we must use the full force of our influence – both individually and through the voices of our governments here in the West – to support the advancement of freedom and liberty and not any one faction, group or individual.
Many learned individuals have been quick to warn that we must be wary of enjoining in an emotionally charged quest to replace an ipso facto dictator without a clear understanding of the goals being sought. They warn of doing this because all too often, the events of history – especially in the Middle East – tell of the dangers of empowering blind emotion in governmental upheavals; that all too often the quest for reform ushers in a new master whose hand is much more harsh in its treatment of those it rules than its predecessor.
It is for exactly this reason that we must focus on advancing freedom, human rights and liberty in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan and the whole of the Middle East, and not the simple and dangerous scheme of regime change. Without the advancement of freedom in these countries, in this region, without the advancement of liberty and human dignity throughout the world, we simply set the stage for the next tyrant to rule.
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." – John Adams

Why the Egyptian Revolution Can Be the Best—or Worst—Thing to Happen
by Raymond Ibrahim
NRO's The Corner
February 2, 2011
http://www.meforum.org/2828/why-the-egyptian-revolution-can-be-the-best-or
It is clear that the media and its host of analysts are increasingly splitting in two camps on the Egyptian revolution: one that sees it as a wonderful expression of "people-power" that, left alone, will naturally culminate into some sort of pluralistic democracy, and another that sees only the Muslim Brotherhood, in other words, that sees only bad coming from the revolution. These extremist views need balancing. The fact is, depending on what the U.S. does—or doesn't—the result of this revolt could either be the best or worst thing to happen to the Middle East in the modern era.
For starters, that the Muslim Brotherhood poses a great threat, there is no doubt. If Mubarak goes and a power vacuum is created, the best positioned opposition group to take over is the Brotherhood—this is especially the case if there is no outside intervention to prevent it.
On the other hand, the majority of the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians protesting and dying in the streets of Egypt today are not doing so because they want sharia law enforced to the letter. Rather, this is a popular revolution in the literal sense, and contains all segments of Egypt's population, not just the Islamists. The only united goal all Egyptians have is to see Mubarak go—hence the ubiquitous Arabic sign, Irhal: "Get out!"
Therefore, rather than naively assume that this revolution will lead to a democratic Egypt (and so the U.S should stand by), or cynically assume that this is unquestionably an Islamist revolt that needs to be crushed (by supporting Mubarak and tyranny), the U.S. should not support the Mubarak regime, but rather do whatever needs doing to see that the revolt, in fact, leads to a secular and pluralistic society, which many Egyptians would welcome.
The secularists are there. Now is the time to support them. Without Western support, the Muslim Brotherhood will take over Egypt by default. And if that happens, the Middle East will rock like never before in the modern era.
**Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

The Arab revolution and Western decline
By Ari Shavit /Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-arab-revolution-and-western-decline-1.340967
Two huge processes are happening right before our eyes. One is the Arab liberation revolution. After half a century during which tyrants have ruled the Arab world, their control is weakening. After 40 years of decaying stability, the rot is eating into the stability. The Arab masses will no longer accept what they used to accept. The Arab elites will no longer remain silent.
Processes that have been roiling beneath the surface for about a decade are suddenly bursting out in an intifada of freedom. Modernization, globalization, telecommunications and Islamization have created a critical mass that cannot be stopped. The example of democratic Iraq is awakening others, and Al Jazeera's subversive broadcasts are fanning the flames. And so the Tunisian bastille fell, the Cairo bastille is falling and other Arab bastilles will fall.
The scenes are similar to the Palestinian intifada of 1987, but the collapse recalls the Soviet collapse in Eastern Europe of 1989. No one knows where the intifada will lead. No one knows whether it will bring democracy, theocracy or a new kind of democracy. But things will never again be the same.
The old order in the Middle East is crumbling. Just as the officers' revolution in the 1950s brought down the Arab monarchism that had relied on the colonial powers, the 2011 revolution in the square is bringing down the Arab tyrants who were dependent on the United States.
The second process is the acceleration of the decline of the West. For some 60 years the West gave the world imperfect but stable order. It built a kind of post-imperial empire that promised relative quiet and maximum peace. The rise of China, India, Brazil and Russia, like the economic crisis in the United States, has made it clear that the empire is beginning to fade.
And yet, the West has maintained a sort of international hegemony. Just as no replacement has been found for the dollar, none has been found for North Atlantic leadership. But Western countries' poor handling of the Middle East proves they are no longer leaders. Right before our eyes the superpowers are turning into palaver powers.
There are no excuses for the contradictions. How can it be that Bush's America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world, but Obama's America ignored it until last week? How can it be that in May 2009, Hosni Mubarak was an esteemed president whom Barack Obama respected, and in January 2011, Mubarak is a dictator whom even Obama is casting aside? How can it be that in June 2009, Obama didn't support the masses who came out against the zealot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while now he stands by the masses who are coming out against the moderate Mubarak?
There is one answer: The West's position is not a moral one that reflects a real commitment to human rights. The West's position reflects the adoption of Jimmy Carter's worldview: kowtowing to benighted, strong tyrants while abandoning moderate, weak ones.
Carter's betrayal of the Shah brought us the ayatollahs, and will soon bring us ayatollahs with nuclear arms. The consequences of the West's betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It's not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It's a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West's word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.
The Arab liberation revolution will fundamentally change the Middle East. The acceleration of the West's decline will change the world. One outcome will be a surge toward China, Russia and regional powers like Brazil, Turkey and Iran. Another will be a series of international flare-ups stemming from the West's lost deterrence. But the overall outcome will be the collapse of North Atlantic political hegemony not in decades, but in years. When the United States and Europe bury Mubarak now, they are also burying the powers they once were. In Cairo's Tahrir Square, the age of Western hegemony is fading away.

Napolitano and Muslim Brotherhood affiliates met secretly
By Jim Kouri Thursday, February 3, 2011
Last year, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet and her senior staff secretly met with a select group of Muslim, Arab, and Sikh organizations. Among the mix were three organizations directly associated with an outlawed terrorist entity — the Muslim Brotherhood, who are involved in the current uprising in Egypt.
Walid Phares, director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, criticized the partnership concept: “Through the so-called ‘partnership’ between the Jihadi-sympathizer networks and U.S. bureaucracies, the U.S. government is invaded by militant groups.”
Just recently, a Washington, DC-based legal group uncovered documents from the Department of Homeland Security that detail a two-day meeting on January 27 and 28, 2010, between DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian “community leaders.”
Judicial Watch reports they obtained documents that include a list of participating individuals and organizations in Napolitano’s meeting with individuals with controversial radical ties, including:
•Imad Hamad, Midwest Regional Director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. According to investigative reporter Debbie Schlussel, Hamad is connected to the Marxist-Leninist terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and has financially supported the Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah. In a television interview in 2002 on Fox’s Detroit affiliate, Hamad supported a Palestine Authority TV program that urged children to become suicide bombers, calling the program “patriotic.”
•Salam Al-Marayati, Founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC): According to press reports, Al-Mayarati has long been criticized for his extremist views and statements. In 1999 former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) withdrew his nomination of Al-Mayarati to the National Commission on Terrorism because of Al-Mayarati’s extremist politics. Al-Marayati once said, “When Patrick Henry said, ‘Give me liberty or give me death,’ that statement epitomized Jihad [Islamic holy war].” One of the organizations that attended the meeting was the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was created by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA was named in 2007 by the U.S. Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terror trial. The group was identified as a major financier of overseas Islamic terrorist organizations, particularly Hamas.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological foundation for today’s terrorist organizations in the Islamic world. Founded in 1928, it is the oldest Islamic fundamentalist political group in modern times. Originally called the Society of the Muslim Brothers, today it is a big supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah and considered the inspirational “father” of al-Qaeda.
In addition to the attendee list and biographies, the documents also included internal DHS email correspondence, talking points for Secretary Napolitano and a meeting agenda. Among the highlights:
•A Thursday, February 4, 2010, email from David O’Leary, DHS Office of Legislative Affairs, to David Gersten, Acting Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: “Gordon Lederman of Sen. Lieberman’s Staff called me asking about the 2-day HSAC meeting last week with American Muslim and Arab groups. He was called by a reporter who told him MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and Muslim American Society “rejected the ideas” of soliciting their help with countering violent extremism and were “angry and indignant.”
•A Friday, January 29, 2010, email from Muslim Advocates Executive Director Khera Farhana to Arif Alikhan, DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: “The commitments Secretary Napolitano made to these community leaders include…Regular quarterly meetings with the Secretary…An honest and full discussion of legitimate grievances from members of these communities about DHS policies that are ineffective and have a deleterious, humiliating impact on Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian American communities.”
•An internal DHS “talking points” document entitled “Community Stakeholder Meeting” that states: “Communicate that DHS understands the need for enhanced partnership with the Muslim, Sikh, South Asian and Arab groups, including those present at the meeting…You should note the importance of sharing information from a policy perspective and on threats to specific Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and Sikh communities.”
“I fail to see how consorting with radicals helps the DHS protect the United States,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“The Obama administration is bending over backward to cater to radical Muslim organizations in the name of political correctness. This is a dangerous political game that could put American citizens at risk. Some of these meeting participants have no business helping Janet Napolitano establish our homeland security policies,” said terrorism expert and Fox News contributor Walid Phares.
Phares warned last year that this policy embraced by the Obama administration “is how American national security policy has been influenced” by Muslim groups, who are duping administration officials.
The program requires bringing in Muslim groups as “partners” in a two-way information sharing program.
He went on to say that the Obama administration are “how American national security policy has been influenced by Muslim groups, who are duping administration officials.”