LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJanuary 30/2010

Bible Of The Day
The Good News According to Mark 11/22-26: "11:22 Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 11:23 For most certainly I tell you, whoever may tell this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and doesn’t doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is happening; he shall have whatever he says. 11:24 Therefore I tell you, all things whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you have received them, and you shall have them. 11:25 Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father, who is in heaven, may also forgive you your transgressions. 11:26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your transgressions.”

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Mikati’s probationary period/By: Tony Badran/January 29/11
Experts warn Lebanon has no authority to abolish tribunal/By Youssef Diab/January 29/11
If Egypt falls, Syria must follow/By Farid Ghadry/January 29/11
Terrorist group strengthened by Lebanon’s new prime minister/By W. Thomas Smith Jr./January 29/11
What kind of relationship will Mikati have with the international community?/Al-Arabiya/January 29/11
News Analysis: Ending ties with STL main task of new Lebanese gov't: analysts/Xinhua
Before the Silence: the Turkish Genocide Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians/AINA
The Birth of Hizballahstan/By Jonathan Spyer/January 29/11
Lebanon's return to Syria-backed rule is likely to keep Hezbollah in check/The Guardian/January 29/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 29/11
Lebanese PM-designate reiterates to form government with all parties/Xinhua
Beirut divided over tribunal support/UPI
Britain Refuses to Label Miqati's Government as Hizbullah's: We are Not Striking Deals to Halt Justice /Naharnet
Suleiman Informed by Miqati of Results of Consultations: No Room for Spite in Miqati's Government /Naharnet
Saudi Arabia: Travel Warning to Our Citizens was Related to Events at the Time, Today it No Longer Stands /Naharnet
Ban: STL Not up for Politicization, Shouldn't be Obstructed by Anyone or Any Country /Naharnet
Saudi king slams Egypt protests, supports Mubarak/Now Lebanon
Mubarak hangs on to power as Obama dictates terms. But for how long?/DEBKAfile
Frenchman killed in Lebanon avalanche/AFP
U.K. concerned, but engaged with Syria/UPI
Lebanon: Hezbollah's political triumph/ABC
Lebanese government still in flux/Financial Times
European Diplomat Says No Deal Appointed Miqati: Hizbullah Doesn't Want to Control Govt. But Influence it /Naharnet
UNIFIL: Latest Developments Don't Threaten Lebanon's Future /Naharnet
Hariri to Miqati: I Haven't Agreed to a Thing as Long as Saudi-Syrian-Turkish-Qatari Efforts Have Failed /Naharnet
Berri: Miqati Should Have Week or 2 to Seek for March 14's Participation in Cabinet /Naharnet
Miqati Promises to Form All-Party Government: Hariri's Demands Not Tough /Naharnet
Williams Meets Hariri, Hopes Lebanon Will Uphold International Obligations /Naharnet
Frenchman Killed in Qornet al-Sawda Avalanche, 10 Skiers Escape Unhurt /Naharnet
Army Helicopter Makes Emergency Landing in Akkar after Malfunction/Naharnet
Bkirki, Al-Ahbash Deny News about Bomb Threat against Catholic School /Naharnet
Emergency Talks between Sarkozy, Qatari PM Cancel 'Contact Group' Meeting on Lebanon /Naharnet
Pietton after Meeting Geagea: No Need to Hold Paris Meeting as Tensions in Lebanon Have Eased /Naharnet
March 14 Sticks to its Demand at End of Consultations /Naharnet
Feltman: We Are Keen on Seeing Lebanese Commitment to International Resolutions /Naharnet
PM's Designation Splits Sunni Camp in Lebanon /Naharnet

Lebanese PM-designate reiterates to form government with all parties
2011-01-28 22:
BEIRUT, Jan. 28 (Xinhua) -- The Hezbollah-backed Lebanese Prime Minister designate Najib Mikati on Friday said the new government will include all sects and political parties.
Mikati told reporters at the conclusion of two days of consultations that after listening to the parliamentary blocs he found that "the views and denominators that combine parliamentary blocs, more than any points of difference."He said he would brief President Michel Suleiman on the outcome of consultations on Saturday. Mikati added that he can not set a specific time to form a government. On conditions set by the Future Movement led by caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, Mikati said that they are "not impossible."
The Future Movement on Thursday asked Mikati clarify his stance on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon probing the murder of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005. They asked Mikati not to stop Lebanon's contacts with the STL, to continue funding it and not withdraw the judges. Mikati said that the new government must include all political parties and he will make every effort to get everyone involved. Mikati was appointed PM on Tuesday after the Hezbollah-led opposition toppled Hariri's government because of a dispute over the STL.
The STL is expected to indict some Hezbollah members, which triggered the current crisis in Lebanon.

News Analysis: Ending ties with STL main task of new Lebanese gov't: analysts
English.news.cn 2011-01-29 05:53:46
by Mirella Hodeib, Ren Ke
BEIRUT, Jan. 28 (Xinhua) -- Ending Lebanon's ties with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) constitutes the main task of Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati's government, analysts here said this week. Mikati wrapped up Friday a two-day consultation with parliamentary blocs on forming a new government to replace caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri's national unity Cabinet, which collapsed on Jan. 12 after ministers of Shiite armed group Hezbollah and their allies in the March 8 coalition resigned in a dispute over the STL.
The UN-backed STL, which is probing the 2005 assassination of Hariri's father, former Sunni Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, has drawn sharp controversy in the country with its indictments widely expected to point the finger at Hezbollah members.
Mikati's nomination came about because of the crisis over the STL and the main task of his government is to break ties with the tribunal, said Paul Salem, head of the Beirut-based Carnegie Middle East Center.
"He might not do it blatantly, he might find a gradual means," Salem said.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urged the newly-designated prime minister Thursday to continue cooperating with the Netherlands-based court.
Hezbollah demanded that the government of Saad Hariri end its cooperation with the court, withdraw Lebanese judges, and cut funding. When Hariri refused, Hezbollah and its allies withdrew, bringing down the 14-month-old Cabinet.
"I have been repeatedly stating the position of the UN: this is an independent international justice system, justice process," Ban told a news conference in Davos, Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum, adding that "nobody, no country, should interfere or obstruct the smooth proceedings of this justice process."
Following binding consultations with lawmakers this week, President Michel Suleiman designated business tycoon Mikati to head Lebanon's next government. Hariri's rival Mikati was designated for the premiership by a majority of 68 MPs, the bulk of whom were from the Hezbollah-led March 8 Alliance.
Hilal Khashan, professor of political sciences at the American University of Beirut (AUB), told Xinhua that Mikati's main task was to deal with the consequences of the STL and undo Lebanon's association with it.
"This is why Hezbollah has agreed to his designation," he added.
Tensions between Hezbollah and Hariri's Future Movement mounted over the STL, sparking fears of growing Sunni-Shiites tension spilling into clashes. Lebanon's two main power-brokers Saudi Arabia and Syria launched a fruitless initiative to reconcile Lebanon's rival groups.
Mikati's designation unleashed angry street demonstrations by supporters of Hariri, who took to the streets Tuesday protesting the appointment of 55-year-old Mikati, who they describe as " Hezbollah's candidate". But since his designation Mikati struck a conciliatory tone, calling himself a consensus candidate.
The prime minister's post should be assigned to a Sunni Muslim by convention, Salem said, adding the majority of Lebanon's Sunni community was against the Shiites imposing a prime minister on them.
"The protests were meant to say that the Sunni community could act and that it should be respected," said Salem.
However, professor of political sciences at AUB Ahmad Mousalli disagreed.
According to Mousalli, who is also an expert on Islamist movements, Hariri has lost ground among the Sunnis in Lebanon.
"While Sunnis sympathized with Hariri after the assassination of his father, they don't approve of the sectarian rhetoric used by the Hariri team," the analyst said.
Mousalli said Hariri and his team have achieved nothing substantial to the Sunni community, adding claims that the outgoing prime minister represented the Sunni community were completely unfounded. "This does not mean that the Sunni community prefers Hezbollah, but there are strong indications that the Sunni opposition is rising," he said.
Hariri was significantly weakened after his main backer Saudi Arabia withdrew support to him, Mousalli said.
"Hariri lied and double-crossed the Saudis when he refused to comply with the terms of the agreement brokered by the Kingdom and Syria to solve the deadlock (over the tribunal) in Lebanon," he added. Khashan said that Saudi Arabia was further upset with Hariri after his comments about Deputy Director of Saudi intelligence Prince Mohammad bin Nayif. In a leaked affidavit he gave to STL investigators, Hariri described bin Nayif as "brutal and bloodletting".
Several renowned Saudi columnists, who were once supportive of Hariri, criticized Hariri in editorials this week.
Daoud al-Shiryan wrote in Saudi-daily Al-Hayat that Hariri's departure "is not the end of the world," advising the outgoing prime minister to "accept the rules of democracy" and support Mikati. According to Khashan, the Mikati government has not gained the support of the U.S., adding that this was enough to cripple him politically.
This week, Hariri's Future parliamentary bloc called on the premier-designate to uphold Lebanon's cooperation with the STL, in defiance of calls by Hezbollah and its March 8 allies to sever all links with the tribunal. Mousalli said Hariri's bloc was asking Mikati for the impossible, "They are demanding what it was impossible for them to do."
Mousalli said a government made-up of technocrats would be the most efficient, adding that Mikati's cabinet ought to include members acceptable to all groups.
"He has to be very careful with forming the government," said Mousalli. "It should not include controversial figures; members of the new government should be acceptable to all groups."

Experts warn Lebanon has no authority to abolish tribunal
By Youssef Diab /Daily Star staff
Saturday, January 29, 2011
BEIRUT: Lebanon has no authority to abolish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon but the government could cancel the memorandum of cooperation ratified with the U.N.-backed court, according to legal experts. However, the experts warned against such a decision, saying it could result in political and economic sanctions imposed on Lebanon for failing to comply with international resolutions.
The disputed issue of the STL, investigating former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination, led to the collapse of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
Hariri has tied his participation in a new government to be formed by the March 8-backed Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati to the latter’s commitment to uphold STL cooperation.
Legal expert and former Baabda MP Salah Honein said Lebanon had not ratified an agreement with the U.N. over the tribunal to be capable of abolishing it. Honein added that the U.N. Security Council would not succumb to any pressure to halt the tribunal, while a Lebanese government decision to stop cooperation with the STL would leave Lebanon in confrontation with the U.N. International law professor Antoine Sfeir said Lebanon was entitled to abolish the cooperation protocol with the court. Nonetheless, the Lebanese authorities would remain legally bound to meet the tribunal’s requests. “Withdrawing the protocol does not influence the court, which was established under Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter,” Sfeir said.
He added that the STL’s president, Judge Antonio Cassesse, could inform U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of Lebanon’s refusal to cooperate, which could prompt the Security Council to issue resolutions imposing political or economic sanctions. Other judicial sources believe the notion of abolishing the STL is a complete non-starter, since it would constitute a precedent that could affect the formation of all international courts. Recalling the experience of the International Criminal Court established for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, the source said that the court failed to arrest any accused individuals for years, but eventually tried Slobodan Milosevic and others for war crimes.

Britain Refuses to Label Miqati's Government as Hizbullah's: We are Not Striking Deals to Halt Justice
Naharnet/British Foreign Minister William Hague refused to label the new government headed by Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati as a "Hizbullah government," saying that the new premier is not affiliated with the party. He told al-Watan Online that the Cabinet encompasses a wide alliance in Lebanon that does not strictly include Hizbullah, stressing that the government should be judged by its actions. He called for the formation of a "consensual" Cabinet that would include representatives of Lebanese political camps.
Addressing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Hague pointed out that failure to go through with the tribunal would bring about greater instability in Lebanon in the future.
It is important that Lebanon steer away from the "culture of political assassinations," the British official stated. Furthermore, he rejected allegations that deals are being struck over the tribunal, stressing that the U.K. does not seek to thwart the course of justice. Hague had arrived in Damascus on Thursday where he met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Muallem. Beirut, 29 Jan 11, 10:38

European Diplomat Says No Deal Appointed Miqati: Hizbullah Doesn't Want to Control Govt. But Influence it
Naharnet/A high-ranking European diplomatic denied that a French-Qatari deal was behind the appointment of Najib Miqati as prime minister-designate, saying that France, like other western countries, is monitoring the "worrisome situation" in Lebanon. He told the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat in remarks published on Saturday that Miqati is faced with a number of tests regarding the formation of a new Lebanese government, as well as challenges in how he deals with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The diplomat labeled as "unconvincing" Miqati's statements that the dispute over the STL should be referred to the national dialogue table. Furthermore, he revealed that prime minister-designate's brother Taha had informed a number of western diplomats in Beirut that Miqati had sought through his nomination to save the country from a confrontation that would have ensued had former PM Omar Karami been appointed as the new premier. The diplomat said that Miqati received encouragement in this matter, including Syria's, but he ruled out the possibility that Saudi Arabia had advocated this move.
"Miqati's appointment appeared to be a normal constitutional procedure that cannot be criticized because it is possible in any democratic country for the parliamentary majority to be changed," he continued.
"In the Lebanese case however, what worried us was the pressures exerted on National Struggle Front leader MP Walid Jumblat through Hizbullah's deployment on the street a few days ahead of the parliamentary consultations," he stated. "Even though the deployment was limited, the message was clear to Jumblat who later headed to Damascus, leaving no doubt that the shift in the majority was not caused in a calm atmosphere," the diplomat added. "This matter can be overcome though because France cannot withdraw its support for the STL, while it also realizes the importance of stability in Lebanon," he continued.
"We are now wondering what Miqati can do seeing as he has not presented any commitments, but I find it hard to accept this rosy picture that he is presenting as there is an opposition and Hizbullah, whose primary concern is the STL," he stressed. Furthermore, France informed Miqati of "red lines" connected with Lebanon's agreement with the United Nations over the tribunal, he added. The diplomat said: "We know that Lebanon won't pay its share of the STL budget, and we'll see how that will be dealt with. Regarding the withdrawal of Lebanese judges, this is a sensitive issue from a legal perspective, because they are no longer Lebanese judges, but part of the tribunal and its team and they don't have to comply with the Lebanese government's demands." Cooperation between Lebanon and the STL is the main issue at hand, noted the diplomat, but Miqati's statements that the judges will not be tampered with are important. He stressed that the formation of the government is important for the international community, and it would be wise to choose politicians or technocrats, but not individuals who are very partial to other countries.
"We have more questions than answers at this point … It is hard to imagine that an agreement over the STL will be reached at the national dialogue table … and will Lebanon's ties with the STL be severed in a manner that will satisfy the international community, while all along Hizbullah is eager for results as the indictment will likely be issued in two months?" he asked.
He reiterated U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's statements that the new government should be judged by its actions, revealing that Miqati's brother Taha had said that should Miqati's ministerial statement be rejected, then he will resign. A government headed by Hizbullah may pose a problem, but the diplomat believed that the party does not want to completely control the government, but simply influence it. Beirut, 29 Jan 11, 09:39

Suleiman Informed by Miqati of Results of Consultations: No Room for Spite in Miqati's Government
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati briefed on Saturday President Michel Suleiman on his talks on forming a new government, set to be boycotted by outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Miqati did not make any comments after the meeting. The telecoms tycoon and former premier held two days of talks with parliamentary groups on forming his government, ending on Friday with the Hariri camp still refusing to join his administration. A source close to Miqati told AFP that the new Cabinet would likely consist of 24 to 30 ministers, most of whom would represent political parties but which would also include technocrats. "Contacts are ongoing with all parties in order to secure the widest participation possible in the new government," the source said. "Mr. Miqati wants to form his government quickly but not hastily." Meanwhile, Suleiman's visitors reported him as saying that the issues of dispute between the Lebanese, especially those linked to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, should be resolved through dialogue. They told the daily al-Mustaqbal in remarks published on Saturday: "The president is seeking with the prime minister-designate to quickly form a new government to finalize a number of social issues." "The president stressed that there is no room for malice in Miqati's new government as it would harm the interests of all Lebanese, not just one side, and therefore, vengeance from one political camp against the other is out of the question for him and the premier," they continued. Meanwhile, caretaker Education Minister Hasan Mneimneh told the daily An Nahar Saturday that Suleiman had previously held talks with Miqati on the formation of the new government and he encourages the participation of all political camps, including the March 14 forces.(naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 29 Jan 11, 11:00

Saudi Arabia: Travel Warning to Our Citizens was Related to Events at the Time, Today it No Longer Stands
Naharnet/Saudi Arabian Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awadh Asiri stated on Friday that the Kingdom's travel warning for its citizens against heading to Lebanon was related to events at the time, but now that matters have calmed down, it is no longer necessary. The ambassador made his statements after holding talks with Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati.
Asiri said in a statement that Saudi Arabia is keen on Lebanon's security, stability, and sovereignty. On Wednesday, the Saudi Arabian foreign ministry had advised its citizens against traveling to Lebanon "until calm and stability is restored" in light of violent protests that broke out on Tuesday against the appointment of Miqati as prime minister. Beirut, 29 Jan 11,

Lebanon's return to Syria-backed rule is likely to keep Hezbollah in check
Media reports are wrong: Syria, not Hezbollah, is in control – and it will not let its trial of military-free influence be disrupted
Mohanad Hage Ali- guardian.co.uk, Saturday 29 January 2011
The toppling of the pro-western March 14 alliance in Lebanon by its pro-Syrian adversaries – including Hezbollah – has led to a worldwide media scare. Many western news organisations portrayed it as some sort of Islamist takeover.
Even the BBC reported that the "Hezbollah nominee", Najib Mikati, won the most votes to succeed Saad Hariri as prime minister. Rupert Murdoch's Sky News went further in that direction, reporting: "Hezbollah gain control of Lebanese government". The fact is that they are all missing the point. Syria, and not Hezbollah, won control of Lebanon's government. In the past year, many articles have shown Syria recovering its political weight, and the latest developments in Lebanon are testimony to this. At the heart of the recent change of government in Lebanon are 11 former "March 14" MPs, including Mikati, who until recently was supposedly a Hariri ally. Among this group is Walid Jumblatt, a major power-broker and the leader of the Druze group, which has seven MPs. He said earlier this week that "geopolitics [now a codeword for Syria's influence] dictated that we choose between the sea or going to the Arab depth: Syria". Jumblatt had previously accused Syria of assassinating his father, Kamal, and Rafik Hariri, the late prime minister, among others. Jumblatt was also a leading figure, if not "the one", behind the so-called "cedar revolution" of 2005 – the massive demonstrations that led to Syrian military withdrawal from Lebanon, and the election of a western-backed anti-Syrian coalition government. American support for the March 14 movement was overwhelming; Jumblatt and his allies spoke of a new era of American-infused democracy, specifically asking for the toppling of the Syrian regime that had dominated Lebanese politics since the end of the civil war in 1991.
At the end of the Bush era, Jumblatt changed course; Syria opened its doors again, and welcomed him back as an ally. For 14 years, Syria – openly through its direct military presence and local allies – controlled every aspect of Lebanese political life. Its military and security chief in Beirut chose the candidates for the key posts in governments, played local politicians against each other, and utilised Lebanese institutions to crush any opposition. During those years, the European and American governments tolerated Syria's influence, and dealt directly with Damascus on Lebanese issues. Today, after the dust of the Bush era is brushed away in Lebanon, Syria is back with the aid of its allies, among them the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. And according a European diplomat I interviewed on Monday, "We have lived with Syrian influence for years, we don't welcome it, but there will be no sanctions or a Vietnam". The British foreign secretary, William Hague, visited Syria on Thursday to discuss – among other issues – "the political situation in Lebanon".
The change of government in Lebanon does not mean that Hezbollah will be "ruling from the shadows", as Newsweek overstated. It will be Syria ruling from the shadows – the same regime that kept Hezbollah in check throughout the 1990s and until 2005. Many here in Lebanon believe that the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon would have not have happened under a Syria-backed regime.
In fact, and just days before the parliamentary consultations and the nomination of the new prime minister, Lebanese websites reported that there is a Syria-Hezbollah rift regarding the political situation, as the former wanted to give more time to reach a deal with Hariri. Jumblatt only announced his new stance after a quick meeting with the Syrian president, who had also met Mikati, an old friend. With Syria's full support, this new government led by Mikati, a western-educated Sunni businessman, would probably lead Hezbollah back to its pre-2005 status, avoiding military confrontation and keeping a low profile on the anti-Israel front. Damascus considers this government a trial of what its influence would be like without military presence, so it will not let anyone, including Hezbollah, sabotage it.
Syria's primary concern will be confronting the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri, and whose indictment is expected to name Hezbollah members and Syrian officials. Whether it will succeed or not depends on the international community's ability to keep the STL going with the Lebanese government's support.
Regardless of the outcome, Syria's comeback to Lebanese politics could only be secured if Damascus proved itself capable of playing Lebanese politicians against each other again. The Hezbollah-Jumblatt interaction and Damascus's ambiguous position in it were a sign of a return to that era. Will Hariri, now a former prime minister but still a very capable and representative leader, agree to play politics according to Syria's rules, like his father did for years before his assassination? After he lost the prime ministerial nomination this week, his parliamentary bloc severely criticised "Hezbollah's Iranian-backed coup", but when one of his MPs decided to condemn the Syrian president in a live speech, he was interrupted by a Hariri aide after receiving an anonymous call. Jumblatt understands "geopolitics" and how to engage Syria's influence. Just like Hariri junior, he only joined politics after his father was assassinated, following a rift with the Syrian regime over invading Christian territory in the beginning of Lebanon's civil war. The question now is whether Hariri will follow Jumblatt's footsteps.

The Birth of Hizballahstan
By Jonathan Spyer *
January 27, 2011
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click here. When processing your donation through PayPal please indicate in the "Special Instructions for Seller Box" for GLORIA Center. By check: "American Friends of IDC." "For GLORIA Center" on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
Events have moved fast in Lebanon. The country now faces the prospect of a government controlled by Hizbullah and consisting solely of the movement and its allies.
Parts of Lebanon looked in danger of slipping into chaos on Tuesday, as angry Sunnis took to the streets for a "Day of Rage" in protest of what they called Hizbullah's "coup."
They were responding to the securing of a parliamentary majority for Hizbullah's preferred prime ministerial candidate, Najib Mikati. Mikati received the backing of 65 members of the 128-member parliament earlier this week, clearing the way for his appointment as prime minister.
But the protesters' rage was insufficient to prevent Mikati's accession. He received the official presidential decree confirming his appointment on Tuesday, even as protesters blocked the Beirut-Saida road and shots were fired in the Sunni stronghold of Tripoli.
This is because the real, currently silent capacity for violence in Lebanon is on Mikati's side, not that of the demonstrators.
Mikati, 55, a billionaire telecommunications tycoon, tried to present himself as a compromise Sunni candidate (Lebanon's constitution requires that the prime minister hail from the Sunni sect). The candidacy of a previous pro- Hizbullah Sunni, Omar Karami, had been withdrawn because of his too-obvious ties to Syria.
The new prime minister-designate even called on supporters of the March 14 alliance and its leader, incumbent Prime Minister Saad Hariri, to remember his uneventful record as prime minister for a short period following theassassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005. March 14 wasn't buying. It pointed to Mikati's close links with Damascus. More importantly, it is clear to all sides that Mikati would never have been put forward by Hizbullah and its allies as a candidate for the premiership were he not fully in line with the movement's plan to neuter or dismantle the UN tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri's murder. Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah also tried to sound conciliatory this week. He said the new prime minister would form a new unity government in which "everyone participates."
Nasrallah's and Mikati's words were rendered particularly hollow by the means that engineered the parliamentary majority securing Mikati's nomination.
March 14's parliamentary majority was removed following the defection of Druse leader Walid Jumblatt's 11-man faction. This defection, according to Lebanese sources, was obtained by crude and extremely credible threats of violence against Jumblatt personally and against his family and community.
Saad Hariri, meanwhile, has made clear that Mikati is the candidate of the Hizbullah-led camp, while he remains the candidate of March 14. As such, his movement is refusing to join a government led by Mikati. This has led to the very real possibility that a government will be formed under direct Hizbullah domination. The response of March 14 supporters has been, for the first time in half a decade, to take to the streets. The demonstrators seen in recent days are not the wellbehaved, idealistic protesters of the period following Hariri's assassination. This crowd has the unmistakable whiff of sectarian rage about it. Angry Sunnis in their northern heartland of Tripoli smashed reporters' cameras. In Tripoli's Nour Square, the offices of Muhammad Safadi, the MP who proposed Mikati's candidacy, were burned. Protesters also targeted a transmission van belonging to Al-Jazeera, which they associated with Qatar and support for Hizbullah. The frightened journalists had to be rescued by members of the Lebanese Armed Forces. The protests look set to continue.
But for all their rage, the Sunnis of northern Lebanon are helpless to prevent the rise of a government openly dominated by the Shi'ite Islamists of Hizbullah and their Iranian creators and backers. And it appears unlikely that the "international community" will be anywhere around to assist them. The real story behind the coup now under way is that of Iran.
Since 1982, Iran has been engaged in establishing a political and military instrument in Lebanon designed to wage war with Israel. That instrument is Hizbullah. Since late 2006, the movement has been engaged in an ever-more-overt assertion of its political power. It now looks set to move toward open domination of the government.
This may have profound effects on the way Lebanon is viewed by the world. Certainly, if a new government were openly to impede the work of the tribunal, isolation and even sanctions might follow. Capital could withdraw from the country.
Hizbullah's rise to power is the latest victory for the Iranian model of combined political militancy and paramilitary strategy that has also enabled Teheran to split the Palestinian national movement and become the kingmaker in Iraq. Israel now faces the prospect of two Iran-backed, Islamist entities to its north and south.
From an Israeli point of view, Hizbullah's move into plain view may also bring advantages. For a long period, the non-Hizbullah "government" of Lebanon functioned for the Shi'ite Islamists as part cloak, part human shield. The emerging situation looks set to have the virtue, by contrast, of clarity. This would raise the possibility of the next clash between Israel and Hizbullah taking on the unfamiliar dimensions of a stateto- state conflict.
* Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

Feltman: We Are Keen on Seeing Lebanese Commitment to International Resolutions
Naharnet/U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman stressed that U.N. Security Council members have expressed their keenness on seeing a Lebanese commitment to international resolutions following the formation of a new government led by Caretaker PM Najib Miqati. Feltman told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat in remarks published Friday that his talks with French officials in Paris touched on the developments in Lebanon. Security Council members have expressed to him their keenness on Lebanon's commitment to resolutions 1701 and 1757, he said. Washington does not interfere in the cabinet formation process but it is very interested in seeing the next government's commitment to 1701 and 1757, the former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon said. He said a meeting that was scheduled to be held on Friday between the directors of the U.S., French, Russian, Turkish, Qatari, Saudi and Egyptian foreign ministries reflects those countries' keenness on Lebanon's commitment to the Security Council resolutions. Feltman unveiled that the U.S. wants to cooperate with the Lebanese government if it stresses commitment to the resolutions and said it was premature to make any steps because Miqati hasn't yet made his stance clear from the issue.
About the collapse of the government of former premier Saad Hariri, Feltman said there was mutual French-U.S. concern on how the Hariri cabinet was "toppled under threat and intimidation." Meanwhile, western diplomatic sources told al-Hayat that the cancellation of a visit by the French parliament speaker was a sign of deterioration in French-Syrian ties. Beirut, 28 Jan 11, 08:15

If Egypt falls, Syria must follow
Jan 28, 2011
By Farid Ghadry, a Syrian-American who co-founded the Reform Party of Syria (RPS) dedicated to freedom and human rights in his native country, blogs at ghadry.com. The opinions expressed are his own. When watching the riots in Tunisia and Egypt, the question on everyone’s mind is, what outcome will these organic and popular uprisings will produce?
The world may be witnessing a new dawn in the Middle East fostered by enlightenment or a new Egyptian government trailing behind Syria as the latest conquest the Mullahs of Iran can claim is the result of their wise policies.
With Hezbollah’s latest dismantlement of a Lebanese government, aided by the complicity of the Assad regime and an Egypt whose future remains uncertain, it is essential for US and European policy makers to view Syria as a clear and present danger rather than the country stabilizing the region. No matter what happens, Egypt is a changed country. If it falls in the “L” column, Syria and Iran will play an essential role in supplying Egypt, as they did to Hezbollah, with the necessary tools to destabilize North Africa. This outcome will place a heavy military burden on Israel, the result of which may engulf the region with intermittent wars for many years to come.
As the world watches images of Egypt erupting, similar images are being reproduced in Syria. We have witnessed today many demonstrations in Damascus, Aleppo, and Qamoshli. With 10,000 IRGC (the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) personnel residing permanently in Syria, we also witnessed them, mixed with Syrian Army Battalions, deploy in several cities around the country. Yet, the international media, and al-Jazeera especially, have gone dark on Syria.
Instead of supporting a similar organic uprising by a people whose 65% of its citizens were born enslaved living in total misery, the world seems oblivious to the pain Assad inflicts on our people. I believe this is a major mistake. One that Syrians, Israelis, Lebanese, and Americans will pay a dear price for.
With Syria becoming free and falling into the hands of its people, a major supply line to Hezbollah and possibly Egypt will be disrupted. The fall of Syria might also save Egypt from a possible takeover by the Mullahs. This scenario is basked in pessimism but when was the last time the west received good news from the Middle East?
Al-Hurra, a US-funded TV station, has been slow in responding to any threats affecting the Syrian regime. Why? Because planted within its Virginia offices are sympathizers and supporters of Assad and Hezbollah. The last time al-Hurra broadcasted a negative story on Syria was in 2005 due to pressure from the Bush administration.
If al-Hurra covers the demonstrations happening in Damascus, it will encourage Syrians to rise against Assad. And while many pundits and experts will capitalize on Assad’s propaganda that his alternatives are hardcore Islamists, the reality is that Syrians are mostly secular people. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood cannot possibly muster more than 10% of the votes but the mere thought that some analyst could be wrong has frozen our intellect to the point where we view Assad’s evil as a stabilizing factor. The question becomes: Are you really willing to bet Egypt on Assad’s stability? The time has come for true leadership in the region.
Photo caption: A protester walks in front of a fire in downtown Cairo January 28, 2011. President Hosni Mubarak ordered troops into Egyptian cities on Friday in an attempt to quell street fighting and growing mass protests demanding an end to his 30-year rule. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic


Terrorist group strengthened by Lebanon’s new prime minister
n 28 January 2011
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.
WORLD DEFENSE REVIEW
Though soft-soaped in the media, the Lebanese parliament’s dubbing of pro-Hizballah billionaire Najib Mikati as Lebanon’s new prime minister has Lebanon’s pro-democracy movement aghast. It should be equally disturbing to anyone supporting freedom, democracy, and transparency in that country.
Let’s not forget, Hizballah – which former U.S. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said, “makes al Qaeda look like a minor league team” – is perhaps the most dangerous terrorist army (let’s not mince words here) on the planet. The group is heavily funded by Iran, and operationally supported by Iran and Syria. It has a capable military wing in Lebanon where it maintains huge stockpiles of military grade weapons – staged throughout the country which have never been adequately challenged (in violation of both United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701).
Hizballah has operational cells worldwide, including here in the U.S. It has a media / propaganda arm that is second to none. Its military wing is stronger – and frankly has more political leverage – than the Lebanese army and police (both of which have been heavily infiltrated by Hizballah). And if Hizballah doesn’t get what it wants from the so-called democratically elected government of Lebanon, the terrorist group and its allies have no qualms about attacking the Lebanese people as they did in May 2008. And they’ll attack with impunity.
Now with Mikati as prime minister, the terrorist group’s strengthening political leverage is essentially delivering that country’s military forces and intelligence services to the Iranians – not that Iran (with its billion-plus annual petrodollars funding Hizballah) didn’t already have a hand in Lebanese politics. But now Iran will have unfettered control of the Lebanese army and army policy.
How did we get to this?
“The collapse of the [Saad] Hariri government is a result of Hizballah threatening members of parliament to shift to their side so that they could form a government headed by Mikati,” says Tom Harb, Sec. Gen. of the International Lebanese Committee for the Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559. “This is a direct threat to both Lebanon’s Cedars Revolution and the majority will of the Lebanese based on two elections in 2005 and 2009. The new government should be rejected by the U.S. government, and Mikati should have his assets frozen because of his cooperation with a terrorist organization like Hizballah. It doesn’t matter if he is a billionaire, so is Bin Laden.”
The installation of Mikati as prime minister should be disturbing to Western military leaders. It certainly is to some of the clearer thinking U.S. policy makers.
U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R, N.C.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and founder of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, sent a letter to Barack Obama, Tuesday, stating in part, “The situation in Lebanon, and the growing global power of Hizballah, should be a great cause of concern to Americans,” adding, “We must not let Iran gain further influence in the Middle East.” She appealed to the pres. to “show solidarity with the Lebanese People by rejecting any recognition of a Hizballah government.”
According to Harb, the installation of Mikati is not only a dark day for freedom and democracy in Lebanon, but it is a direct threat to U.S. national security as “Hizballah, which has already infiltrated the Lebanese army, will fully open the gates to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Hizballah operatives and the IRGC will be granted even greater global access through Lebanese embassies worldwide and with terrorists being protected by diplomatic immunity.”

Mubarak hangs on to power as Obama dictates terms. But for how long?
DEBKAfile Special Report January 29, 2011,
In his first public appearance in four days of violent protests against his rule, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said after midnight Friday, Jan. 28, he would not resign, but had asked the cabinet to step down, would form a new government Saturday and promised democratic reforms. The protests, Mubarak charged, were part of a plot to destabilize Egypt and destroy his own legitimacy. As he spoke, dozens of army tanks massed in Cairo's central Tahrir Square.
President Barack Obama then confirmed at the White House that he had called the Egyptian for the first time since the crisis erupted last Tuesday and told him he must deliver on his pledges for a better democracy and greater economic opportunities.
In his speech, Mubarak defended the hated security forces' actions against the protesters. While promising to fix the economy and provide more freedoms and jobs, he said this would come through national dialogue, not chaos. The Egyptian president said he had a duty not to let anything happen to threaten the country's peace and security or permit terrorism.
debkafile: The coming hours will see how the protest movement responds to Mubarak's decision to hold on to power in defiance of their main rallying cry and how the army conducts itself as thousands of protesters defy the nationwide curfew decree. So far, they have not fired the machine guns on their tanks and the soldiers were welcomed although there were some cases of hostility.
According to some sources, tanks are surrounding the British and US embassies.
After announcing that US aid to Egypt would be reviewed in the light of "unfolding events," Obama laid down five conditions for Mubarak to stay on as president with US support:
1. Egyptian military and security forces must be restrained from violence against civilians. The US would defend the rights to freedom of assembly and speech everywhere.
2. Mubarak must deliver on his pledges of reforms for a better democracy and greater economic opportunities;
3. He must hold a dialogue with the opponents of his regime and abandon the use of force;
4. The shutdown of Internet and other services must be reversed.
Before Obama communicated with Mubarak, his administration was generally seen to have abandoned the Egyptian president as a write-off and thrown its support behind the protesters.
"The situation must be solved by the Egyptian people which deserves to have its universal rights respected," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs when asked if the administration supported its pro-Western Arab ally. President Barack Obama had not spoken to President Mubarak since the crisis began, Gibbs said, stressing that it was up to the Egyptian government to "immediately address the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people by reforms – not violence. Military and security forces must act with restraint."
Gibbs warned that US aid to Egypt would be reviewed in the light of unfolding events.
The Egyptian president is clearly on trial in Washington as well as at home. It is not clear if he can survive both tests

What kind of relationship will Mikati have with the international community
 28 January 2011 /Al Hayat
Raghida Dergham
The victory of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria in the current battle out of the series of Lebanon’s wars does not mean opening a chapter of stability in Lebanon and closing the chapter of justice – as the tripartite alliance wishes – with a strategy of defiance that has received support from Arab and Western countries alike. Indeed, Hezbollah nominating businessman and seasoned politician Najib Mikati may be a “master’s stroke”, in view of the respect the Lebanese billionaire enjoys, especially among businessmen, locally, regionally and internationally, and of the fact that many describe him as a man of moderation.
Yet this “master’s stroke” is in the interest of the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah trio, and not necessarily in Mikati’s interest or in the interest of Lebanon’s future on the international scene. Indeed, his nomination to the post of Prime Minister comes amidst Sunni discontent, and perhaps as one of the symbols of Sunni division at this dangerous phase of Lebanon’s present.
Mikati also comes shackled with conditions listed by Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, who made it clear that no alternative Lebanese government to the one he toppled (Saad Hariri’s government) would be acceptable as long as it does not meet three conditions: first, that of withdrawing the Lebanese judges from the UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL); second, that of putting a stop to the Lebanese government’s commitment by virtue of UN Security Council resolutions to fund 49 percent of the tribunal’s budget; and third, repealing the cooperation protocol between the Lebanese government and the Special Tribunal, a tribunal established by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which is binding for all UN member-states. Najib Mikati is therefore charged in advance with carrying out this challenge directed at the United Nations, and he has doubtless agreed to be at such a forefront, or else he would not have agreed to be Prime Minister-designate. The obvious question is thus as follows: what kind of relationship will Mikati form with the international community and with UN resolutions in light of the fact that his hands are tied to doing away with the resolution, the commitment and the protocol concerning the Special Tribunal? Indeed, there are many other resolutions that concern Lebanon, among them Resolution 1701 which has reinforced the presence of UN troops in the South, and these are resolutions that effectively fall under ceasefire and some stability. Just as important will be the challenge of shaping an identity for Lebanon that would go along Mikati’s personality, being open to the West and to modernity, knowing that the identity Hezbollah seeks for Lebanon more closely resembles that of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with its hostility to the West and to openness. Then there is the relationship with Syria, as Mikati has never made a secret of his affinity with Syria at every stage, especially as he and his family have vital interests in Syria, including in the field of mobile phones, and as Syria’s leadership has made clear its desire to regain direct and predominant influence on Lebanon. Mikati says he is the candidate of “moderation”, not that of “extremism”. The question thus poses itself: “whose extremism?”, and in what “center” will he position himself in light of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria clearly positioning themselves together? Indeed, the latter trio considers itself to be victorious, after having subjected the local players to its will, by removing Saad Hariri against his will and by imposing its conditions on Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, whose seven MPs provided the parliamentary majority for nominating Najib Mikati to the post of Prime Minister, allowing him to win by 68 votes versus 60 votes for Saad Hariri. Last but not least: what kind of relationship will Mikati form with the US Administration, which received a blow from the tripartite alliance and another relapse for “Obamian” diplomacy? Indeed, President Barack Obama realizes that the trio is wagering on his weakness and on his lack of alternatives. However, the man wants to remain President and is able to produce surprises as well as blunders, and he has his sights set on Iran at this juncture.
The burden of responsibility and choice weighs down the shoulders of Mikati, who assumed the post of Prime Minister for a period of 5 months immediately in the wake of the Cedar Revolution that toppled the Karami government and drove Syrian troops out of Lebanon in 2005. He has today been designated to form a government cabinet in the wake of the coup carried out by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran against the Saad Hariri government.
He is the man of both phases. Indeed, the previous phase had started with Syria’s insistence on amending the Lebanese constitution so as to allow for the reelection of its man, Emile Lahoud, as President of the Republic. This was followed by a confrontation that led to issuing UN Resolution 1559, which represented one of the main motives for revenge from former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, who played a part in having it issued. It is during this phase that revenge for Resolution 1559 and what preceded it began. As for the current phase, it is the phase of revenge for the UN resolutions entrusted with finding those responsible for the assassination of Rafic Hariri and his 22 companions and prosecuting them in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, this alongside the remaining political assassinations, which were classified as “terrorist” by the Security Council, and which investigations have proven to be connected to the Hariri assassination.
At the security level, and although some consider the Parliament’s election of Mikati and his efforts to form and head the next government to perhaps represent a safety valve that could stop the descent into blood-spattered confrontation, the situation is fragile and prone to a breakdown. Moreover, the events of the past few weeks have clearly shown that it was impossible to separate Syria from Hezbollah. Indeed, the logic behind such an assumption was flawed to begin with, as their cooperation runs deep and strong, even in their tactical competition and strategic alliance. Thus, those who wagered on, or promoted, breaking the bonds between Iran and Syria had in fact adopted a failing policy in the first place, being based either on delusions or on being misled.
Today, it has become clear that those who have mastered the art of misleading considered Obama’s “naivety” to be a “gift” and an opportunity not to be missed in order to buy time. Iran took advantage of a US President it from the start considered to be politically inexperienced and incompetent at the art of negotiation, as well as having neither the ability for confrontation nor any alternatives.
The reduced language of force in the Obama Administration and the reduced ability of the US to wage wars have given rise, within Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, to the conviction that this was a unique opportunity for Hezbollah to be able to speak the language of weapons without being held accountable or punished for it, as long as these weapons are not in effect turned towards Israel, and regardless of the escalation of political discourse under the slogan of “Resistance”. It is a unique opportunity where Syria can thwart every US or Saudi effort hindering its ambitions in Lebanon, and where it can sponsor defiance of UN resolutions and hinder the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Indeed, it has formed the resolve, along with Hezbollah, to obstruct the STL – at least by preventing the Lebanese government from cooperating with it – based on the conviction that the regional and international climate allows for this, and in fact may help to achieve it. This is while putting on record Hezbollah’s official stance, holding Israel responsible for the assassination of Rafic Hariri and stating that the STL is aimed at bringing down the Resistance.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is worried about what Barack Obama might have in mind, being under electoral pressures that might drive him to act with resolve towards Tehran by strengthening sanctions that are harmful to it. He might even be forced to do more than this if Iran continues to provoke and embarrass him, directly, through its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, or through its Syrian ally.
Perhaps what the tripartite alliance had in mind was to acquire the largest possible number of instruments of control and influence and to impose a de facto situation in Lebanon, this as quickly as possible, because the opportunity was available now. What this alliance wants is to implicate the Lebanese government in a direct confrontation with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in order to bring down justice under the threat of weapons and of undermining stability. Najib Mikati seems to have been charged with this delicate mission.
The Prime Minister-elect may consider that his predecessor Saad Hariri had offered both Syria and Hezbollah tremendous concessions, including that of clearing Syria politically and that of preparing to take steps to distance the Lebanese government from the Special Tribunal “after” the indictment is issued, not before it is. It is far too late for such a formula because the indictment has been presented by General Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare to the President of the Tribunal. Talk is then now about taking measures, measures it is being said that Saad Hariri himself was willing to take, and that, he being the martyr’s son, no one can thus be blamed in this respect.
Saad Hariri may see himself as the victim of a “political assassination”, and perhaps the victim of “treason” by several political players, both inside Lebanon and outside of it. Indeed, he found himself alone after the US Administration gave him but fleeting words as he received the news of his removal while sitting at the White House. He found himself deceived when French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested that he was in a rush to hold a regional and international summit that would safeguard Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence as well as the STL. He found himself besieged by the force of weapons, of scare-mongering and of resolve to fight, while he for his part had taken the decision not to fight with weapons. He found himself besieged politically when his former ally Walid Jumblatt let him down in Parliament and when his friend Najib Mikati surprised him by agreeing to become the opposition candidate.
There are indications that Najib Mikati might be backed not just by France and Qatar, and that is because of his personality, which meets with respect. The test that faces him is a difficult and dangerous one, because the phase ahead is the phase of determining Lebanon’s identity and the direction it will be taking.
If Najib Mikati is thus the man of both phases, then what he will have to do in the coming weeks and months will be to determine the nature of the phase of which he will be the caretaker in Lebanon, if he manages to avoid falling into a dark tunnel leading to his destruction. Indeed, the coming phase is that of Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria waging their war against the Special Tribunal for Lebanon through Najib Mikati’s government. The danger is for Lebanon to turn into a marginal marginalized state, having no respect on the international scene because it chose to come “attached” and yielded to the dictates of crushing justice. The danger is for Lebanon to turn into what would nearly be a “rogue” state if it takes upon itself the task of thwarting the UN resolutions it requested then turned against in a fierce battle.*Published in the London-based AL-HAYAT on Jan. 28, 2011.

Before the Silence: the Turkish Genocide Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians
 1-29-2011 /Seyfo/Assyrian International News Agency.
Editor's note: the Assyrian Genocide Research Center (Seyfo Center) conducted the following interview with Sofia Kontogeorge Kostos on the occasion of the publication of her book about the Turkish genocide of Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians in World War One.
Ms. Sofia Kontogeorge Kostos, first of all congratulations on publishing your new book Before the Silence. We, at the Seyfo Center are very pleased and delighted about the publication of your new book. There are many books that have been published about the Genocide that was perpetrated against the Armenians, Assyrians and the Greeks by the Ottoman Empire commencing in 1914, but rarely the Assyrians and the Greeks are mentioned in these books. There was no discrimination when the Armenians, Assyrians and the Greeks were being slaughtered, so it is important to include all the 3 nations when we talk about the Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. We are very pleased to see that your book mentions all of the 3 nations that were persecuted and slaughtered in the hands of the Ottoman Empire, and of the Young Turks Regime.
Before the Silence is not a new title. It was the title of one of your poems from the "Forgotten Genocides of the 20th Century" published in 2005. Why did you choose the same name for your book? Was the poem the motivation for writing the book?
Thank you for mentioning my poem, Before the Silence ---- actually, my answer can be found in the first stanza of my poem:
Can an unknown tragedy be forgotten?
Lost in a maze of unknowing
Mistaken in the realm of forgot and forgotten
I hungered for answers
From books but they were stolen
I summoned Cleo, the muse of history
She fed me rare books and vintage news,
Revealing truths impossible to forget
When did you commence writing Before the Silence and how long did it take you?
I must answer your question indirectly.
Prior to 2003: I had been engaged in sending excerpts (via email) from archival books that had been written by unbiased eyewitnesses in Asia Minor (today Turkey). Namely, they were written by United States Government Officials, Missionaries, Medical Doctors, and others. I named that series of excerpts: "Voices of Truth."
After 2003: Many of eye-witness books, were no longer restricted by copyright laws. Therefore, many of the books were reprinted. That is about the time that I shifted my energies to the archival news reports.
On or about 2003, I had the good fortune to meet a great Armenian humanitarian, a man whose memory I will always cherish. He was DR. CHARLES N. MAHJOUBIAN, a retired dentist, a Bill of Rights activist, a community activist, and in his nineties at the time. He had escaped with his family from Konya, Turkey (located in the south central region of Turkey). Eventually they immigrated to the United States. When I expressed my interest in uncovering the facts of what happened in Turkey, "Sófia," he said, "look for old newspapers because they reported the truth back then." As my book illustrates, he was right.
It was about 8 years ago that I began to research for archival news reports. I then shared my findings with my email-list. At that time, I discovered a thirst for these eye-opening and heart-wrenching archival news reports. Some of my email recipients from around the world began to send me their personal email lists----asking me to add them to my mailings.
What was your motivation for writing Before the Silence?
It was an email that I received from one of my recipients, Dr. Dennis R. Papazian, the Founder and Director of the Armenian Studies Department at the University of Dearborn, Michigan. He turned the light bulb on in my head, when he asked, "Do you plan on writing a book?" I answered, "I am not ready, but will you be willing to add my work to your website?"
Once I had prepared a substantial body of work, I then approached Dr. Papazian. By that time, unfortunately, he had retired from his position.
Soon after, a telephone call from Mr. Elias Neofytides, the Founder and Director of the Pan-Macedonian Society approached me with the same offer. That time, I answered, "Yes, but I must edit my work." After I edited my work, unfortunately, Mr. Neofytides had retired from his position.
That is when the historian and doctoral candidate, Mr. Stavros Stavridis, from Melbourne University, spoke to his Assyrian Publisher at Gorgias Press, Dr. George Kiraz, on behalf of Before the Silence.
I would imagine writing about Genocide is quite difficult. How did you manage to write about such a horrific topic? What was your motivation and drive?
Yes, it was extremely difficult. There were times that I could not type because of my tear-filled eyes. I was motivated as one of the lines from my poem indicates:
"Can an unknown tragedy be forgotten?"
I was 67 years of age, when first I learned about the Genocides of our peoples and was horrified at my self-imposed ignorance. My self-imposed ignorance was due to the fact that when I was a young mother, my wonderful neighbour, Mrs. Amalia Distenfeld, had told me the story of her and her husband Dr. Menachem Distenfeld's survival under Hitler's exterminations in Poland. As a good friend I listened attentively, but I no longer could listen to another such story.
While visiting Washington D.C., my husband and I learned about the 75th Anniversary of the Christian Holocaust. What I learned that day put fire in my belly. I was especially horrified to learn that the books written by the eye-witnesses were no longer available, stolen from libraries, and removed from store bookshelves. That knowledge gave me my determination.
As a film buff, I feel insulted that there are several hundreds of movies about the Jewish Holocaust and probably 20 films about the Christian Holocaust. Interestingly the film, "40 days of Musa Dagh" until recently could not be produced. More recently, in 2002, "Ararat" by Atom Egoyan was almost not produced.
Why is the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Genocide important to you?
In my heart and in my mind, I am not a regionalist. A Greek lady who learned that my family was not from Asia Minor, asked me, "Why are you so interested in Asia Minor?" My answer to her was pure and simple, "I don't stop being Greek because my family is from Euboea, and because I was born in the United States."
As soon as I learned that the Armenians, and Assyrians suffered the same sad fate as the Greeks---- I could not in good conscience separate them. This applies to the Greeks of Asia Minor whether they were from the Pontian Region, East or West they were all Greeks.
From this day forward: We would all do well by our people if we all would spell the word "Genocide(s)" with a capital "G."
What is the message you are trying to convey to your readers in your book?
My book should cut through Turkey's lies and deceptions. The very nature of the so-called "deportations" in reality were "death marches." Death marches were part of the hidden agenda to exterminate all of the Christians and to make "Turkey for the Turks Only." Turkey now boasts that they are 99% Moslem ---- one need ask how did that happen?
We know you have co-authored a book which was a Poetry compilation titled "Forgotten Genocides of the 20th Century". Have you published any other books besides your recent publication Before the Silence?
No I haven't.
What other books about the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Genocide do you recommend to the readers?
Specifically, there are too many books to list by the many missionaries, medical doctors, diplomats, etc. who were serving the needs of specific peoples in Asia Minor.
In my book, Before the Silence, Archival News Reports of the Christian Holocaust That Begs to Be Remembered, I take great pride in recommending specific books by titles and authors. The eye-witnesses in Asia Minor were great writers as well. To my knowledge, the authors when referring to the Assyrians, wrongfully referred to them as "Syrians."
It is my understanding that the Westerners when interviewing the Assyrians mistakenly described them as "Syrians." The Westerners including the highly esteemed U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, confused the spoken language "Syriac" as being that of the "Syrians."
Might I add: In the mid-70's while living in Athens, Greece, I had the pleasure of meeting the first Assyrian I ever met. He was Valentine Lazar, an Assyrian pilot from British Airlines. I remember him for his extraordinary kindness and consideration.
Do you intend to write any more books?
I have two in the oven, and more poems as well.
What do you know about Seyfo Center and its activities?
I guess not as much as I should. I am aware of your Center through the Internet and from occasional emails that I receive. Incidentally, I believe that the Assyrian flag is the most beautiful flag I have ever seen.
Seyfo Center would like to thank you for taking the time and accepting to interview with us. Once again congratulations for your new publication of Before the Silence. We wish you every success with the book and hope to see more books from you in the near future.
www.seyfocenter.com
Ms Sofia Kontogeorge Kostos’ book Before the Silence can be purchased from Gorgias Press.

Saudi king slams Egypt protests, supports Mubarak
January 29, 2011 /Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz has expressed his support for embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and slammed those "tampering" with Egypt's security and stability, state news agency SPA reported on Saturday. The Saudi ruler, in Morocco recovering from back surgery performed in the United States, telephoned Mubarak early Saturday, the report said.
During the conversation, Abdullah condemned "intruders" he said were "tampering with Egypt's security and stability... in the name of freedom of expression."
Saudi Arabia, he added, "stands with all its means with the government and people of Egypt." SPA said Mubarak had responded by assuring King Abdullah that "the situation is stable [in Egypt]... and what the world has seen is nothing more than an attempt by some... suspicious groups which do not want stability and security for Egyptians."Thousands of anti-regime demonstrators poured onto Cairo's streets again Saturday as massive protests against the rule of Mubarak raged into a fifth straight day.- AFP/NOW Lebanon

Mikati’s probationary period
Tony Badran, January 27, 2011
Lebanon's Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati is seen during an interview at his residency in Beirut on January 25, 2011. (AFP photo/Anwar Amro)
The reactions from Washington, Paris and Riyadh following Najib Mikati’s designation as prime minister suggest that we are now in a watchful, wait-and-see period. Everyone is keeping a close eye on where Mikati will stand on the key issues, namely the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). However, the prime minister-designate’s recent comments indicate he realizes he is in the hot seat facing both careful international scrutiny as well as pressure from Hezbollah. The US and its allies should ensure his feet are kept to the fire, clearly spelling out the consequences of rubber stamping Hezbollah’s agenda.
It’s been obvious that Mikati’s designation, and the way it came about, was received rather coolly and cautiously by the US, France and Saudi Arabia. At best, it’s been made clear that Mikati is on probation. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton summarized the prevailing mood: “As we see what this new government does, we will judge it accordingly.” Though, understandably, the US has already begun a broad review of its assistance to Lebanon.
Meanwhile, a State Department press statement made a point of emphasizing the violence and intimidation underpinning Hezbollah’s drive, which culminated in the toppling of Saad Hariri’s government. Tellingly, the statement spelled out two specific demands the US expected Mikati’s government to abide by: preventing any retribution against former government officials, and continued commitment to all relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the STL.
The French Foreign Ministry echoed this position, calling on the future government to uphold Lebanon’s international obligations, especially with regard to the STL.
But what about Saudi Arabia? Officially, the kingdom has kept mum after having publicly placed the failure of its mediation effort at the Syrians’ feet. However, the Saudi media has provided enough hints as to where Riyadh stood on the developments in Lebanon.
In his column in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed mirrored the two conditions highlighted by the State Department’s statement: “All of us will be watching how Mikati will deal with the state’s obligations toward the international tribunal, which has become legally binding for the government. And everyone will watch how the Mikati government will behave vis-ŕ-vis going after and threatening senior former government officials.”
Hezbollah and Syria had made it rather clear that such retribution against certain opposing figures was a central aspect of their intended coup. Be it the Syrian arrest warrants against Hariri’s closest associates, or the open threats against Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, or the menacing campaigns against key judicial and security figures, Hezbollah and the Syrians never hid their intentions in this regard. Indeed, it was unambiguously understood that the push to bring in Omar Karami as premier was intended to affect precisely this type of complete overhaul of the political scene.
An anonymous diplomat in Beirut told Le Figaro correspondent Georges Malbrunot that Hezbollah’s next step would be a purging campaign, targeting people like Ashraf Rifi, head of the Internal Security Forces, and Chief Prosecutor Said Mirza. The latter in particular had been the target of a relentless campaign by Syria’s allies. Of course, the ISF and Mirza represent Lebanon’s cooperation with the STL.
Mikati’s statements to a number of media outlets in the last 48 hours signaled much reluctance to go ahead with such plans. He was at pains to show that he had no interest in antagonizing the US and the international community, pleading to be given a chance to prove himself, all while trying to craft prudent language when addressing the central issue of the STL.
Hezbollah and its allies have made clear that they intend to include a clause in the next government’s policy statement ending Lebanon’s cooperation with the STL. Mikati’s language was carefully worded: “I am not going to make any move against the tribunal without full Lebanese consensus.” Clearly, no such consensus exists. However, it remains to be seen what Mikati will do should Hezbollah and its allies decide to go all the way and push for a vote on the matter in the new cabinet (whose nature and makeup are still unclear).
All this suggests keen awareness on Mikati’s part of his vulnerability domestically, regionally and internationally.
Take for instance, what the editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat wrote regarding Mikati’s standing with Saudi Arabia: “We don’t know if Mikati has arranged his affairs in the Gulf, especially since there are states that didn’t approve the manner in which he was designated. More importantly, there is no confirmation of a Saudi consent.”
Aside from domestic political and communal pressure, as an international tycoon Mikati is also personally susceptible to financial pressure should he submit to Hezbollah’s and Syria’s writ on the STL. If he should sign off on the abrogation of Lebanon’s commitments to UN Security Council resolutions, Lebanon’s international standing would change dramatically.
Mikati has said he recognizes that Lebanon has no interest in such a disastrous confrontation with the international community, and the US in particular, and that he himself has no intention of leading Lebanon in that direction.
The premier-designate has begged to be given a chance to prove himself. However, those who voted him into office have other ideas and priorities, which they will surely try to impose on him and the rest of the country. During this probationary period, it would behoove the US and its allies to articulate clearly and forcefully what the implications of such a decision would be.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Survivor
Ana Maria Luca and Nadine Elali, January 30, 2011
Khalil Fayyad walks toward the couch in his living room without hesitation, goes around the little coffee table, sits down and puts on his sunglasses. He can still see shapes with his left eye, but the “right one is finished,” he says. His face still has deep scars from the bomb attack he survived three years ago, he still feels pain in one of his legs, and you have to shout for him to hear. But he is still a mountain of a man, and if he could see he would go back to work, he says.
Fayyad was former MP Antoine Ghanem’s bodyguard, his last one. The politician, a member of the Kataeb party, died on September 19, 2007 after being targeted by a car bomb in Sin al-Fil, a suburb of Beirut. The bodyguard remembers every second.
Ghanem had been getting threats for months and was living in Abu Dhabi for his own safety. “They used to tell him, ‘Watch out, don’t go around too much, they want to kill you. It might be a bomb, or they might just shoot you.’” Fayyad remembers.
In spite of Fayyad advising him to stay abroad, Ghanem came back to Lebanon on September 16, 2007. He wanted to be with his family, Fayyad says. The bodyguards took all necessary precautions. “We changed his car, exchanged the MP plates with normal ones, we bought a new phone SIM card and a new phone, and switched off the old phone. I kept it in my pocket,” he said. But it was all useless. On September 19, Ghanem insisted on seeing a friend in Sin al-Fil, and called him from his new cell phone to set up a meeting there.
“We stood by the cars. It was three of us [bodyguards]. We didn’t move; our eyes were on the cars. No car passed while he was inside. When we left, the bomb went off. And the next thing I remember is that I was in the hospital,” Fayyad says. “They must have known we were going there, because the bomb was left there before we arrived. There is no other explanation,” he says, his voice rising in anger. “We were right outside, on the street. We stood there; we never left the car alone so nobody could put a bomb under it. This is what made me wonder. They must have heard his conversation on the phone and knew we were going there,” he says.
Fayyad remembers asking from his hospital bed if Ghanem and the other two bodyguards made it. They only told him a month later that they were gone.
His wife, who is sitting next to him, shakes her head. “When I saw him there, in a room, all bandaged, I had to accept it. My son told me not to cry. I just wanted to see him to know he was alive. I couldn’t believe it,” she says, sighing.
The former bodyguard is reluctant to talk about what it feels like not to be able to work and support his family anymore. “This is my situation now. It’s very bad. I can’t do much about it. This is my life now,” he says quietly.
His wife explains that he doesn’t get any government pension after being wounded in the bomb attack. Fayyad gets help from ordinary people, while a benefactor pays his family’s rent and for his medicine.
“My condition will not get any better. My right eye is finished, and the doctor says my left eye will not get any better. Some of the nerves are destroyed. So I’ve accepted it. But if I could see properly, even with one eye, I’d go to work. My friend Tony has one eye, and he drives just fine. But I can’t. I avoid going out at night, because I fell once and I gave everybody a hard time.”
“I want to know who did this to him,” his wife says. “I would sleep better at night knowing that the killer is paying for it. Why would the blood of so many people be wasted for free?”
“Maybe I won’t get anything tangible out of it,” Fayyad says, “but it would change the way I feel. I will be able to go out on the street with my head high.”