LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMarch 06/2011

Bible Of The Day/Jesus & the world
Luke 12/49-53: “I came to throw fire on the earth. I wish it were already kindled. 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, no, but rather division. 12:52 For from now on, there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 12:53 They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Mosques Flourish in America; Churches Perish in Muslim World/By: Raymond Ibrahim/March 05/11
Nearly 4000 Muslims Attack Christian Homes in Egypt, Torch Church/AINA/March 05/11
Report Outlines the Islamic Threat to America/AINA/March 05/11
Statement by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs on International Criminal Court’s Probe Against Libyan People/March 05/11
Beloved leaders think alike/By: Ana Maria Luca/March 05/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 05/11
Sfeir Honored: I Pray that Bishops Make the Right Choice on New Patriarch/Naharnet
Sfeir asks forgiveness, meets Mikati/iloubnan.info
Qaddafi troops regain Zawiyah, most oil towns. Obama names Libya intel panel/DEBKAfile
Lebanon tribunal says it hopes to start proceedings soon/AFP
March 14 Leaders to Visit King Abdullah/Naharnet
March 14 Calls for Massive Turnout at Martyrs Square to Confront Illegitimate Arms/Naharnet
Higher Islamic Council Urges Officials Not to Impede Tribunal's Work/Naharnet
Hariri: Time to protect the resistance is over/Ya Libnan
Gemayel, Geagea, Siniora to Riyadh/iloubnan.info
Celebration for Sfeir starts, Bassil refuses to represent Aoun/iloubnan.info
De Freige says Raad's statement imposes conditions on Mikati/iloubnan.info
Geagea: We are for a resistance that defends Lebanon, not Iran/Ya Libnan
Celebration for Sfeir starts, Bassil refuses to represent Aoun/iloubnan.info
Article in Al-Hayat: Buthayna Sha'ban's Criticism of Mubarak's Egypt/Middle East Media Research Institute
March 14 is not delaying cabinet formation, says Siniora/Now Lebanon
Qaouq: Bellemare's Requests Consolidate Divisions Among Lebanese/Nahaernet
Syrian Embassy Denies Salah al-Hajj Kidnapped Syrian Citizen in Beirut/Naharnet
Officials: No Need for U.N. Action Under Chapter 7/Naharnet
March 14: Raad's Statement Restricts Miqati's Freedom of Movement/Naharnet
Williams: Government Formation Shouldn't Overshadow Security Issues/Naharnet
STL Annual Report: Investigations Didn't End with Indictment Filing/Naharnet
Saudi Interior Ministry Authorizes Police to 'Take Measures' Against 'Illegal' Protests/Naharnet

Sfeir Honored: I Pray that Bishops Make the Right Choice on New Patriarch
President Michel Suleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and Premier-designate Najib Miqati attended a ceremony and mass in Bkirki on Saturday in honor of Outgoing Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir.Cardinal Leonardo Sandri represented Pope Benedict XVI at the event held on the occasion of Sfeir's 25-year tenure. Ministers, MPs and other officials were also present.
The Papal ambassador to Lebanon, Gabriel Caccia, said during the mass that Lebanon won't be able to become strong and a mediator for peace in the world without the Christian presence in the country. He also lauded Sfeir for his role in consolidating national identity in Lebanon. The outgoing patriarch prayed during the mass for bishops to make the right choice in the election of the new leader of the Maronite church and thanked the officials for their presence. "I ask forgiveness from those who thought that I offended them in any way," he said. For the first time in 25 years, Sfeir didn't issue a message of lent given that the patriarchate is busy with preparations to elect a new patriarch. Sfeir, who is 90 years old, asked to be relieved of his post because of his age, and the pope accepted the resignation last week. The Synod of bishops will begin meetings to elect a new leader on March 9. Meanwhile, Caretaker Ministers Fadi Abboud and Youssef Saadeh left the mass as soon as it started over the alleged adoption of wrong seating protocol at the church. Caretaker Minister Jebran Bassil did not attend the mass.
Following closed-door talks between Miqati and Sfeir, the premier-designate said the outgoing patriarch has been keen on the unity of the land and the people, Miqati said.
Beirut, 05 Mar 11, 13:28

STL Annual Report: Investigations Didn't End with Indictment Filing
Naharnet/he President of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Judge Antonio Cassese, has published the second STL Annual Report, "which outlines the successes of the past year as well as the challenges that the Tribunal has faced," STL's press office announced Friday. "This has been a momentous year for the STL", said Cassese. "The submission of the first indictment by the Prosecutor (Daniel Bellemare) to the Pre-Trial Judge (Daniel Fransen) was highly significant and it marked the start of the judicial phase of the STL's life."
"The Annual Report provides an overview of the work of all the organs within the Tribunal. Amongst the highlights of the past year has been the intensification of investigations by the Office of the Prosecutor, as well as the submission of an indictment," the press office said. In his conclusion to the Annual Report, Cassese underlines the challenges "that the STL faces as it continues to fulfill its mandate." "These include a difficult security environment, as well as the costs of ensuring that our work is both efficient and transparent," Cassese clarifies.
He also outlines his vision for the STL over the coming year, noting his "desire for investigations to be completed and for all indictments to be submitted to the Pre-Trial Judge by the end of February 2012." "More than 150 missions were conducted and 430 interviews were held, in Lebanon and other States, all requiring extensive preparation and follow-up. Almost 750 requests for assistance were sent to the Prosecutor General of Lebanon from 1 March 2010 to 18 February 2011," Cassese reveals in the report.
"More than 60 requests for assistance were also sent to other States during this period. In addition, numerous meetings were held with the representatives of States and other international organizations on the practical arrangements for cooperation with the OTP investigations." Cassese noted that achievements were made by the OTP "in spite of the hostile rhetoric against the Tribunal which escalated into clear intimidation and physical violence during the reporting period."
"There has been intimidation of witnesses in a number of ways: commencing in the last quarter of 2010, several calls have been made for a boycott of the Tribunal; public threats have been made to dissuade cooperation with the Tribunal; and unlawful broadcasts of audio recordings of witness interviews made in confidence to the U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission have been aired on some Lebanese television channels," Cassese went on to say. He said that the broadcasts were aimed at "discrediting the Tribunal and undermining the trust that witnesses have in it." Cassese stressed in the report that the submittal of a draft indictment to the pre-trial judge does not signal the end of investigations.
"While the filing of an indictment is an important step in the process, it is nonetheless only a first step. "If confirmed, much more work will be required to ensure that the confirmed indictment meets the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold required at trial. The investigation will also continue in order to identify other persons responsible for the attack," STL's president clarified.
The investigation will continue, as well, "to be able to establish the truth about other attacks falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal," he added.
"The whole of the Tribunal, including the President, is fully aware that the confirmation and eventual publication of indictments may have significant repercussions in Lebanon – this is to be expected when judicial process is applied to what the Security Council has termed 'a threat to international peace and security,'" Cassese says in the report's final observations.
"It is no secret that there still exists much debate in Lebanon and elsewhere about the usefulness of the Tribunal. However, as international civil servants working for an international judicial institution and, in particular, as independent Judges, we are under the obligation to refrain from taking political considerations into account."
Cassese noted that those who "still entertain so many doubts and misgivings about the Tribunal do not pay attention to the fact that so far the Tribunal has already furnished ample proof of its professionalism, impartiality, and independence." "It may suffice to recall the independence with which the Tribunal immediately ordered the release, owing to the lack of evidence against them, of four Lebanese generals being detained in a Lebanese prison, and upheld (Maj. Gen. Jamil) Sayyed's effort to seize the Tribunal of his request about the documents to which he seeks access," Cassese reminisced. STL's first indictment, filed by Prosecutor Bellemare on January 17, is widely speculated to name Hizbullah. The indictment must be confirmed by a pre-trial judge before any arrest warrants can be issued. "This is a considerable task, requiring a small team to carefully study the indictment and thousands of pages of supporting material," Cassese said. "The review of the indictment may take a little longer than we had originally hoped, but the pre-trial judge and his staff are working as expeditiously as possible."
Beirut, 04 Mar 11, 20:23

Higher Islamic Council Urges Officials Not to Impede Tribunal's Work
Naharnet/The Higher Islamic Legal Council urged Lebanese officials on Saturday to "refrain from any action that would impede the work of the international tribunal investigating ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination." A statement issued after the council convened in Dar al-Fatwa under Grand Mufti Mohammad Rashid Qabbani called for "avoiding insulting political rhetoric and respecting the point of view of others." It also expressed relief that a statement issued following a meeting of Sunni leaders at Dar al-Fatwa in early February was welcomed by the Lebanese people and several friendly countries. The statement had said that "the majority of the Lebanese people and the families of the country's martyrs will view any government's abandonment of its commitments to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, whether blatant or masked, as provocation and an abandonment of justice." The February meeting was attended by Outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his successor Najib Miqati. Saturday's statement said Dar al-Fatwa was confident that the respect of the document and its commitment to national principles would bring Lebanon out of the current crisis and achieve stability and peace. Beirut, 05 Mar 11, 14:51

March 14 is not delaying cabinet formation, says Siniora
March 5, 2011 /“The [delay] in the cabinet formation process is not caused by the March 14 [coalition],” former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said on Saturday. Following his meeting with former PM Salim Hoss, Siniora said that “Lebanon should be eager to abide by international resolutions.”“What was said concerning the [Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare’s] request was [not true],” a statement issued by Siniora’s office quoted him as saying. “All what is being said about the STL is pure political and has no legal background.”Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Mohammad Raad said on Friday that Bellemare’s requests for information from Lebanese authorities “are the greatest operation of tutelage and piracy that modern Lebanon has witnessed. The Daily Star newspaper reported on Wednesday that four ministers have not complied with information requests from Bellemare.PM-designate Najib Mikati – appointed following the collapse of Saad Hariri’s government due to a dispute over the STL - on Thursday evening voiced surprise at the STL’s information requests, adding that he fears efforts to obtain a Security Council resolution to force compliance with them.
Mikati is currently working to form his cabinet.-NOW Lebanon

Geagea Urges Wide Participation in March 13 Rally: We Introduced Concept of Resistance
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea lashed out at his critics and said the March 14 forces were the first to introduce the concept of resistance to Lebanon.
"To those who claim we are against the choice of resistance, I say: We originally introduced the concept of resistance to Lebanon," Geagea told LF officials in Keserouan-Ftouh.
Geagea said the resistance he is talking about is "the resistance of the Lebanese state and the Lebanese army and not that of a party," a reference to Hizbullah.
The decision-making of such a resistance is made by the Lebanese state and not Iran, Geagea told his supporters, adding its objective is to preserve Lebanon and not Tehran's strategic location in the region. The LF leader also stressed that his resistance aims at deterring foreign occupiers and not occupying Lebanese land. Geagea finally said the March 14 resistance uses its arms in the service of the citizen and not against him. He urged his supporters to participate en masse in the sixth anniversary of the Cedar Revolution scheduled to be held on Sunday March 13 at Beirut's Martyrs Square. Beirut, 05 Mar 11, 11:29

March 14 Leaders to Visit King Abdullah
Naharnet/A March 14 delegation is expected to visit Riyadh soon to meet with Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri there and congratulate King Abdullah on his safe return home.
Phalange party leader Amin Gemayel, former Premier Fouad Saniora and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea are among the delegation members, An Nahar daily said Saturday.
Several caretaker cabinet ministers, MPs and party officials will also be on board the plane that will head to Riyadh in the coming hours, according to the newspaper. King Abdullah returned to Saudi Arabia late last month from Morocco where he was recuperating. He flew to New York on November 22 and underwent surgery two days later for a debilitating herniated disc complicated by a haematoma. Beirut, 05 Mar 11, 09:08

March 14 Calls for Massive Turnout at Martyrs Square to Confront Illegitimate Arms
Naharnet/The March 14 general-secretariat announced on Saturday that the mass rally on the occasion of the Cedar Revolution will be held on March 13 to confront illegitimate arms.
Following an extraordinary meeting, the general-secretariat urged March 14 supporters to participate en masse in the rally at Martyrs Square at 10:00 am to confirm the public's "commitment to Lebanon's freedom, sovereignty and democratic system." The statement said the wide participation is aimed at confronting "illegitimate arms that are threatening Lebanon" and "defending the achievements of the Cedar Revolution which was the beginning of revolutions in the Arab world." An Nahar daily said Saturday that a meeting that was scheduled to be held by the March 14 forces at the Bristol hotel in Beirut on Sunday was postponed to March 10. Following the conference, the coalition is expected to release a political document that would summarize the March 14 work plan in the coming years, An Nahar added. Beirut, 05 Mar 11, 15:23

Qaouq: Bellemare's Requests Consolidate Divisions Among Lebanese
Naharnet/Hizbullah official in the south Sheikh Nabil Qaouq has said that Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare's requests for data and information on the Lebanese consolidate divisions in the country. Qaouq said the objectives of Bellemare and the U.S. won't be achieved after a change in the parliamentary majority that is now led by Hizbullah.
"Consequently, the resistance is now in a safer and stronger political position," he said. "It is by now clear that the tribunal has become a bridge to fulfill the Israeli objectives that they failed to achieve in the 2006 war" with Hizbullah, Qaouq said. He also slammed Arab leaders for failing to stand by Lebanon in its efforts to uncover the fate of Imam Moussa al-Sadr and prosecute the Libyan regime of Moammar Gadhafi for "committing the first crime against humanity 32 years ago." Beirut, 05 Mar 11, 12:19

Syrian Embassy Denies Salah al-Hajj Kidnapped Syrian Citizen in Beirut
Naharnet/The Syrian embassy has denied a report that Lieutenant Salah al-Hajj, son of former Internal Security Forces chief Ali al-Hajj, had kidnapped Syrian citizen Jassem Merhi al-Jassem in Lebanon. The denial was published in An Nahar daily on Saturday which a day earlier said that the Syrian opposition in Paris accused Lt. Hajj of kidnapping al-Jassem and detaining him in an unidentified location.The opposition accused al-Hajj, who is in charge of security at the Syrian embassy in Beirut, of handing al-Jassem to the Syrian intelligence or imprisoning him at the embassy, An Nahar said. The Lebanese army arrested al-Jassem on Feb. 24 in Beirut while he was distributing fliers condemning the Syrian regime, and handed him to the ISF. But he was later released and kidnapped by al-Hajj the same day, the opposition claimed. Beirut, 05 Mar 11, 09:49

Nearly 4000 Muslims Attack Christian Homes in Egypt, Torch Church
http://www.aina.org/news/20110304222016.htm
GMT 3-5-2011 4:20:23
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George. There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the Church pastor Father Yosha and three deacons who were at church; some say they died in the fire and some say they are being held captive by the Muslims inside the church.
Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."
A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village.
This incident was triggered by a relationship between 40-year-old Copt Ashraf Iskander and a Muslim woman. Yesterday a "reconciliation" meeting was arranged between the relevant Coptic and Muslim families and together with the Muslim elders it was decided that Ashraf Iskander would have to leave the village because Muslims torched his house.
The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honor, which led the woman's brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians.
The Muslim mob attacked the church, exploding 5-6 gas cylinders inside the church, pulled down the cross and the domes and burnt everything inside. Activist Ramy Kamel of Katibatibia Coptic advocacy called US-based Coptic Hope Sat TV and sent an SOS on behalf of the Copts in Soul village, as they are presently being attacked by the mob. He also said that no one is able to contact the priest and the deacons inside the burning church and there is no answer from their mobile phones.
Coptic activist Wagih Yacoub reported the mob has broken into Coptic homes and has called on Copts to leave the village. "Terrorized Copts have fled and some hid in homes of Muslim neighbors," he added.
Witnesses said the mob chanted "Allahu Akbar" and vowed to conduct their morning prayers on the church plot after razing it.
By Mary Abdelmassih
Copyright (C) 2011, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights


Report Outlines the Islamic Threat to America
http://www.aina.org/news/20110304135749.htm

Posted GMT 3-4-2011 19:57:49
(AINA) -- Editor's note: a new report published by the Center for Security Policy, titled Shariah: The Threat to America, outlines in great detail the threat to America posed by Islamic law (Shariah). The full report is freely available in PDF format and may be downloaded from here. The following is the executive summary of the report.
Shariah: The Threat to America
Center for Security Policy
Executive Summary
In 1976, the then-Director of Central Intelligence, George H. W. Bush, commissioned an "Experiment in Competitive Analysis." Its purpose was to expose to critical scrutiny the assumptions and factual basis underpinning the official assessment of the totalitarian ideology that confronted America at the time: Soviet Communism. That official assessment was rooted in the belief that, through a policy of engagement known as détente, the United States and the USSR could not only avoid horrifically destructive conflicts, but could peacefully coexist permanently.
DCI Bush invited a group of known skeptics about détente to review the classified National Intelligence Estimates and other data concerning Soviet objectives, intentions and present and future military capabilities. The object was to provide an informed second opinion on the U.S. policy toward the Kremlin that was, ostensibly, warranted in light of such information. The conclusions of this experimental initiative -- which came to be known popularly as the "Team B" study -- differed sharply from those of "Team A": the Ford Administration and the intelligence community.
Team B found that the Soviet Union was, pursuant to its ideology, determined to secure the defeat of the United States and its allies and the realization of the worldwide triumph of Soviet Communism. As a result Team B found that not only was détente unlikely to succeed the way the U.S. government had envisioned, but the U.S. national security posture and policies undertaken in its pursuit were exposing the nation to grave danger.
The effect of this authoritative alternative view was profound. Among others, former California Governor Ronald Reagan used the thrust of its findings to challenge détente and those in public office who supported this doctrine. Drawing on the thinking of Team B with regard to national security issues, Reagan nearly defeated President Gerald Ford's bid for reelection in the 1976 primaries. Four years later, Reagan successfully opposed President Jimmy Carter, with their disagreement over the latter's détentist foreign and defense policies towards Moscow featuring prominently in the former's victory.
Most importantly, as President, Ronald Reagan drew on the work of Team B as an intellectual foundation for his strategy for destroying the Soviet Union and discrediting its ideology -- a feat begun during his tenure and finally accomplished, thanks to his implementation of that strategy, several years after he left office.
THE CONTEMPORARY THREAT
Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as "the path," shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere -- economic, social, military, legal and political.
Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam's internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates -- figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world's largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama -- whose members espouse the Enlightenment's embrace of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On this side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim's personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.
By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists. Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists -- some terrorists, others employing stealthier means -- seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic State and called a caliphate. On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah. For these ideologues, shariah is not a private matter. Adherents see the West as an obstacle to be overcome, not a culture and civilization to be embraced, or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of governments peacefully to coexist with the end-state they seek.
THE TEAM B II CONSENSUS
It is not within the scope of this study to solve the widely divergent estimates of the strength of these respective camps. The imperative driving this study is America's national security and, by extension, the security of its friends and allies.
Like their counterparts a generation ago, the members of Team B II collectively bring to this task decades of hands-on experience as security policy practitioners and analysts, much of it involving shariah's proponents of both the violent jihadist and pre-violent dawa stripes. They have distinguished backgrounds in national defense policy-making, military, intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement communities, in academia and in the war of ideas. Thanks to their expertise and dedication, this new report represents an authoritative, valuable and timely critique of the U.S. government's present policy towards shariah and its adherents, an assessment of the threat it entails and a call for a long-overdue course-correction. This report reflects consensus on the following significant points:
First, the shariah adherents who comprise the supremacist camp constitute a mainstream and dynamic movement in Islam. Importantly, that characterization does not speak to the question of whether this camp is or is not representative of the "true Islam." There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and their understandings about their belief system, as well as their practices with respect to it, vary. In light of this, there may not be a single "true Islam." If there is one, we do not presume to pronounce what it holds.
What cannot credibly be denied, however, is that:
shariah is firmly rooted in Islam's doctrinal texts, and it is favored by influential Islamic commentators, institutions, and academic centers (for example, the faculty at al-Azhar University in Cairo, for centuries the seat of Sunni learning and jurisprudence);
shariah has been, for over a half-century, lavishly financed and propagated by Islamic regimes (particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran), through the offices of disciplined international organizations (particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of the Islamic Conference); and
due to the fact that Islam lacks a central, universally recognized hierarchical authority (in contrast to, say, the Roman Catholic papacy), authentic Islamic moderates and reformers have an incredibly difficult task in endeavoring to delegitimize shariah in the community where it matters most: the world's Muslims.
Consequently, regardless of what percentage of the global Islamic population adheres or otherwise defers to shariah (and some persuasive polling indicates that percentage is high in many Islamic countries), that segment is punching well above its weight. For that reason, proponents of an expansionist shariah present a serious threat to the United States even if we assume, for argument's sake, that hopeful pundits are correct in claiming that shariah adherent Islam is not the preponderant Muslim ideology.
A second point follows that it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam's authentic moderates and reformers. That cannot be done by following the failed strategy of fictionalizing the state of Islam in the vain hope that reality will, at some point, catch up to the benign fable. Empowering the condign elements of Islam requires a candid assessment, which acknowledges the strength of shariah -- just as defeat of Twentieth Century totalitarian ideologies required an acknowledgment of, and respect for, their malevolent capabilities.
To do this, we must no longer allow those who mean to destroy our society by sabotaging it from within to camouflage themselves as "moderates." The definition of moderation needs to be reset, to bore in on the shariah fault-line. Only by identifying those Muslims who wish to impose shariah can we succeed in marginalizing them.
As this study manifests, the shariah system is totalitarian. It imposes itself on all aspects of civil society and human life, both public and private. Anyone obliged actually to defend the proposition that shariah should be adopted here will find few takers and be properly seen for what they are -- marginal and extremist figures. That, and only that, will strengthen true proponents of a moderate or reformist Islam that embraces freedom and equality.
Third, we have an obligation to protect our nation and our way of life regardless of the ultimate resolution of Islam's internal strife. We can do a far better job of empowering non-shariah adherent Muslims, who are our natural allies, but we cannot win for them. They have to do that for themselves. Irrespective of whether they succeed in the formidable task of delegitimizing shariah globally, we must face it down in the United States, throughout the West and wherever on earth it launches violent or ideological offensives against us.
SHARIAH IS ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL
If we are to face down shariah, we must understand what we are up against, not simply hope that dialogue and "engagement" will make the challenge go away. Those who today support shariah and the establishment of a global Islamic State (caliphate) are perforce supporting objectives that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, the civil rights the Constitution guarantees and the representative, accountable government it authorizes. In fact, shariah's pursuit in the United States is tantamount to sedition.
Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:
the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;
the republican democracy governed by the Constitution;
freedom of conscience; individual liberty (including in matters of personal privacy and sexual preference);
freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);
economic liberty (including private property);
equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);
freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and
an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of federalism and democracy, not wanton violence.
The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework. In fact, we get this concept of civilization jihad from, among other sources, a document that was entered into evidence in the 2008 United States v. Holy Land Foundation terrorist finance trial titled the An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group.
The Explanatory Memorandum was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the U.S. and a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America (MB, also known as the Ikhwan) [The Memorandum is reproduced in full as Appendix II of this report].
The document makes plain that the Islamic Movement is a MB effort, led by the Ikhwan in America. The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to explain that the "Movement" is a "settlement process" to establish itself inside the United States and, once established, to undertake a "grand jihad" characterized as a "civilization jihadist" mission that is likewise led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Specifically, the document describes the "settlement process" as a "grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated…."
To put it simply, according to the Muslim Brotherhood, the civilization jihad is the "Settlement Process" and the "Settlement Process" is the mission of the "Islamic Movement." And that mission entails "eliminating and destroying" our way of life. Author Robert Spencer has popularized this concept with a term that captures both the character and deadly purpose of the Ikhwan's efforts in America: "stealth jihad."
LESSONS FROM THE COLD WAR
There is a loose analogy to the distinctions we made in the Cold War. America and its allies enjoyed a general unanimity that we needed to deal effectively with any potential violent aggression by the chief communist power, the Soviet Union, and we readily maintained a sizeable military force and alliances to that end. But we had more difficulty as a nation deciding how to deal with non-violent domestic communists under foreign control, such as the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the constellation of domestic and international front organizations under party control or Soviet ideological discipline. These tactically non-violent or pre-violent forces, like their violent comrades-in-arms, had as their objective the establishment of a world-wide dictatorship of the proletariat.
Congress, taking note of this objective even before the Cold War, at first tried to force agents of foreign powers to register as such with the Department of Justice, with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. Later, in 1940, Congress attempted to make it illegal to be a communist in the U.S. by passing the Smith Act, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law. Congress enacted the McCarran-Walter Act (the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act), signed by President Harry S Truman, which authorized the exclusion and deportation of aliens on such ideological grounds as support for overthrowing the United States government. The government took a number of other steps with regard to domestic nonviolent supporters of the proposition that our Constitution should be replaced by a dictatorship, including: being required to register with the government and forgo government service. In addition, their organization, the Communist Party of the United States of America was penetrated by the FBI. As a nation we made some mistakes in this process, but in the end it worked reasonably well to protect American democracy against Nazi and Soviet ideological penetration.
Beginning in the 1960s, however, the Supreme Court drastically reinterpreted the First Amendment, gradually extending the original guarantee of American citizens' right to engage in political speech, to include a constitutional protection to (a) subversive speech that could be construed as "advocacy," rather than incitement to imminent lawlessness, and (b) the speech of non-Americans. Bowing to elite opinion, which scoffed at fears of communist penetration of our government and institutions, Congress (in such legislation as the 1965 Immigration Act, the 1978 McGovern Amendment, the 1989 Moynihan-Frank Amendment, and the 1990 Immigration Act) gutted the statutory basis for excluding and deporting individuals based on ideological beliefs, regardless of their subversive tendencies -- at least in the absence of demonstrable ties to terrorism, espionage or sabotage.
Let us assume, again for argument's sake, that there was some validity in the opinion elite's critique that anti-communism went too far -- and set aside the fact that such an assumption requires overlooking post-Soviet revelations that have confirmed communist infiltrations. The prior experience would not mean the security precautions that sufficed to protect our nation from communism are sufficient to shield us from a totalitarian ideology cloaked in religious garb.
Such precautions are wholly inadequate for navigating a threat environment in which secretive foreign-sponsored international networks undermine our nation from within. That is especially the case where such networks can exploit the atmosphere of intimidation created by the tactics of their terrorist counterparts (including individual assassinations and mass-murder attacks on our homeland, and the mere threat of violence) in a modern technological age of instantaneous cross-continental communications and the increasing availability of mass-destruction weapons that allow ever fewer people to project ever more power.
MISSTEPS HAVE COMPOUNDED THE DANGER
As this report will demonstrate, there is plenty of blame to go around. The fact is that, under both political parties, the U.S. government has comprehensively failed to grasp the true nature of this enemy -- an adversary that fights to reinstate the totalitarian Islamic caliphate and impose shariah globally. Indeed, under successive Democratic and Republican administrations, America's civilian and military leaders have too often focused single-mindedly on the kinetic terror tactics deployed by al Qaeda and its affiliates to the exclusion of the overarching supremacist ideology of shariah that animates them.
Our leadership generally has also failed to appreciate the complementary subversion campaigns posed by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood -- groups that fully share the objectives of the violent jihadists but believe that, for the moment at least, more stealthy, "pre-violent" means of jihad are likely to prove more effective in achieving those goals. It must always be kept in mind, of course, that stealthy jihad tactics are just that: tactics to prepare the U.S. battlefield for the inevitable violence to come. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has issued several salutary warnings along these lines, including a major address at the American Enterprise Institute on July 26, 2010.
By neglecting their professional duty to understand the doctrinal and legal basis of jihad, policymakers commit national resources in blood and treasure to foreign battlefields without ever realizing that what we must fight for is not just security from Islamist suicide bombers. Rather, we must also preserve here at home the system of government, laws, and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Our national leaders and military and intelligence officers took oaths to "support and defend" the Constitution that is now being targeted by those foreign and domestic enemies who seek our submission to shariah.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Absent such an understanding, and the policy and operational adjustments it necessitates, we risk winning on the battlefield but losing the war. While the U.S. launches intelligence assets and the finest military the world has ever seen with devastating tactical effect, our shariah-adherent foes deploy their forces strategically across the full battle space of 21st Century warfare, including here in North America.
Team B II believes that the role played in this regard by shariah's most sophisticated jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood, is of particular concern. Steeped in Islamic doctrine, and already embedded deep inside both the United States and our allies, the Brotherhood has become highly skilled in exploiting the civil liberties and multicultural proclivities of Western societies for the purpose of destroying the latter from within. As America's top national security leadership continues to be guided by its post-modernist, scientific, and high-tech world-view, it neglects the reality that 7th Century impulses, enshrined in shariah, have reemerged as the most critical existential threat to constitutional governance and the freedom loving, reason-driven principles that undergird Western civilization. Worse yet, as this report documents powerfully, our leaders have failed to perceive -- let alone respond effectively to -- the real progress being made by the Muslim Brotherhood in insinuating shariah into the very heartland of America through stealthy means. Team B II believes that the defeat of the enemy's stealth jihad requires that the American people and their leaders be aroused to the high stakes in this war, as well as to the very real possibility that we could lose, absent a determined and vigorous program to keep America shariah free. To that end, Team B II sets forth in plain language who this enemy is, what the ideology is that motivates and justifies their war against us, what are the various forms of warfare the enemy employs to achieve their ends and the United States' vulnerability to them, and what we must do to emerge victorious.
© 2011, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.

Statement by Minister Cannon on International Criminal Court’s Probe into Grave Crimes Against the Libyan People
(No. 91 – March 4, 2011 – 6:30 pm. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement on the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s decision to investigate Muammar Qadhafi for grave crimes committed against the Libyan people:
“Canada welcomes the announcement by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, regarding the opening of an investigation into Libya focusing on the actions of Qadhafi, his sons and senior officials in his regime.
“The international community has sent a clear message to the Libyan regime that it cannot act with impunity, and that there will be consequences for committing serious international crimes.
“Canada is confident that those responsible for planning, ordering and carrying out widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population of Libya will face justice before the International Criminal Court.
“Canada calls upon the Libyan authorities to respect the human rights of its people; those individuals in Libya who continue to violate international law should be aware that they will be held criminally responsible.
“Canada also calls upon the Libyan authorities to abide by the international obligations set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970, including the obligation to cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor.
“Some reports have incorrectly indicated that Canada has reduced its contributions to the International Criminal Court. Last fiscal year, Canada made a one-time contribution for its share of costs for the construction of new permanent premises for the Court. Canada’s ordinary annual contributions are based on a fixed scale of assessment that is not open to variance by individual states; Canada always ensures that its assessed contributions are paid in full and on time.”

Mosques Flourish in America; Churches Perish in Muslim World
by Raymond Ibrahim/Pajamas Media
March 3, 2011
http://www.meforum.org/2842/mosques-flourish-in-america-churches-perish-in
As Muslims prepare to erect a mega-mosque near the site of the 9/11 atrocities, it is well to reflect that the sort of tolerance, or indifference, that allows them to do so, is far from reciprocated to churches in the Muslim world. I speak not of Islamist attacks against churches—such as the New Year attack in Egypt that killed 21 Christians; or when jihadists stormed a church in Iraq, butchering over 50 Christians; or Christmas Eve attacks on churches in Nigeria and the Philippines. Nor am I referring to state-sanctioned hostility by avowedly Islamist regimes, such as Iran's recent "round up" of Christians.
Rather, I refer to anti-church policy by Middle East governments deemed "moderate." Consider: Kuwait just denied, without explanation, a request to build a church; so did Indonesia, forcing Christians to celebrate Christmas in a parking lot—even as a mob of 1,000 Muslims burned down two other churches. If this is the fate of churches in "moderate" Indonesia and Kuwait—the latter's sovereignty due entirely to U.S. sacrifices in the First Gulf War—what can be expected of the rest of the Islamic world?
The best example of anti-church policy is Egypt, where the Middle East's largest Christian minority, the Copts, lives. During Mubarak's tenure alone "more than 1500 assaults on Copts have occurred, without any appropriate punishment given to criminals or compensation to the victims," says Coptic Solidarity.
For starters, Egypt's state security has a curious habit of disappearing right before Coptic churches are attacked—such as in the aforementioned New Year attack. They also tend to arrive rather late after churches are attacked: it took security "hours" to appear when six Copts were murdered while exiting their church last year. Considering that weeks ago an Egyptian policeman identified and opened fire on Christians, killing a 71-year-old—while yelling Islam's medieval war-cry, "Allah Akbar!"—none of this should be surprising.
Since the 7th century, when Islam invaded and subjugated formerly Christian Egypt, the plight of churches has been tenuous. The very first condition listed for Christians to obey in order not to be molested in the notorious Pact of Omar—which informs sharia law, "the principal source of legislation" in Egypt—says it all: "We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims." Accordingly, in the words of reporter Mary Abdelmassih:
[U]nlike Muslim citizens, who only need a municipal license to build mosques, the Copts require presidential approval for a church … [and] the approval of the neighboring Muslim community. Even after obtaining licenses for a church, Muslims still attack Christians and demolish or burn their churches. A rumor that Christians are meeting to pray is enough reason for Muslim neighbors to carry out acts of violence against them. On various occasions, it only takes Muslims to protest against the building of a church for State Security to stop the works, under the pretext that it is causing "sectarian strife."
In fact, citing minor building violations, Egypt's state security recently stormed a partially constructed church in the Talbiya region where over one million Christians live without a single church. In the process, state security fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters, claiming the lives of four Copts, including an infant (79 were severely injured, 22 blinded or semi-blinded, and 179 detained, including woman and children). One human-rights activist complained that the wounded Copts "were shackled to their hospital beds and then sent to detention camps."
All this is exacerbated by well-connected Egyptian Muslims who issue fatwas comparing the building of a church to the building of "a nightclub, a gambling casino, or building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs"; or who appear on Al Jazeera ludicrously accusing Copts of stockpiling weapons in their churches and torturing Muslim women in their monasteries.
Incidentally, all this was under the "secularist" Mubarak. As for Egypt's current power-holders, the military, armed forces just stormed a 5th century monastery, opening fire on monks to chants of "Allah Akbar!" (see video here). Consider the fate of Copts should the Muslim Brotherhood assume power.
Such, then, is the plight of Christians and their churches in the Muslim world—and such is the irony: while mosques, some of which breed radicalization and serve as terrorist bases, start dotting America's landscape, churches are on their way to becoming extinct in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. More pointedly, as America allows Muslims to build a mega-mosque near Ground Zero—which was annihilated by Islamists partially radicalized in mosques—America's "moderate friends" in the Muslim world blatantly persecute Christians and their churches.
Such flagrant double standards are—or should be—unconscionable. Yet here we are. Is it any wonder, then, that the Western mindset has a long way to go before it understands how to deal with the scourge that is "radical Islam"?
*Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.

“Beloved leaders” think alike
Ana Maria Luca, March 5, 2011
In mid-December 1989 I was 10 years old and angry at my parents. They would lock themselves in the kitchen without me to listen to the radio my father, a civil engineer with a taste for electronics, had put together himself. Normally he would let me listen to the shows on the national radio station, the only entertainment media we had available in Romania at the time, as the national television station only aired a daily newscast in the evenings and a two-hour show in the weekend, when I would watch either cartoons or a Polish series.
I was locked out of the kitchen while my parents listened to reports of revolutions spreading across Eastern Europe on the radio those weeks in mid-December, but I was allowed to watch TV on December 22, when there was a Communist Party demonstration to hail Nicolae Ceausescu, the ruler of Romania since 1974 and Communist Party leader since 1965. All of a sudden the people in Republic Square in central Bucharest, who were supposed to cheer, started shouting slogans against Ceausescu. I looked at my mother. Her hand covered her mouth.
That’s how I remember the Romanian Revolution started – with the hungry people tired of seeing their leader enjoying luxury they could only dream of.
It’s the same way this year’s Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan revolutions started. When Hosni Mubarak first appeared on television to address the protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, saying he was the “father of Egypt” and wouldn’t step down, I thought of Ceausescu.
But nothing made me think of Ceausescu more than when Libya’s president of 42 years, Moammar Gaddafi, said a few days ago that he is “the glory of Libya.”
Ceausescu was also “the glory of Romania,” our “beloved ruler,” “the father of our nation,” “the leader of the revolution,” “the enlightened leader,” and “the greatest ruler.” I knew all the poems dedicated to him by heart, and, as required by my state school curriculum, I had learned to applaud him and envy the Girl Scout troopers who handed him flowers on national day. That is what Libyan children were probably taught in their schools – the same phrases, the same praises, the same chants. Just replace “Ceausescu” with “Qaddafi” and “Romania” with “Libya.”
The Romanian Revolution started in Timisoara, a city in the west of the country, on December 15, 1989 – like the Libyan revolution started in Benghazi, not the country’s capital of Tripoli. In Romania following the beginning of the revolution, there was a total news blackout, just like in Libya. Borders were closed, foreigners were rarely allowed in, and Romanians were not allowed to travel abroad. But news that the Berlin wall had fallen on November 4, 1989, that Czechoslovakia and Poland had new democratic governments, that East Germany was getting ready for elections, and that the Chinese government had massacred protestors in Tiananmen Square, had slipped into Romania through Radio Free Europe, the station my parents and other Romanians were secretly listening to in their kitchens.
On December 15, 1989, people gathered in front of a Unitarian pastor’s home to protest the decision of the county court to force him to evacuate his house. The protestors reportedly beat up a state security agent and started singing anti-Communist songs. The next day huge crowds in Timisoara took to the streets in spite of the curfew the state authorities had imposed, and large numbers of people were arrested. Two days later, the Communist regime’s security forces started shooting at the protestors, but by December 20, workers in several factories in the city went on strike, and hundreds of thousands of people demanded Ceausescu’s resignation.
In spite of the news blackout, word of the revolution spread, and protests were held in cities across the country.
In his desperation to retain power, Ceausescu had gunmen shoot at crowds of protestors, just like Qaddafi is having done to demonstrators in his country. The people who shot to death 1,200 protestors and wounded another 3,200 in Romania still haven’t been identified. The massacring of Romanian civilians is still being investigated by the State Prosecutor’s office in Bucharest. Ceausescu, “the great leader,” who had only graduated from the 4th grade and had trouble reading his speeches from his sheet of paper, called the protestors violent “hooligans” and “anti-revolutionary elements” to justify why he had his forces shoot at them – just like Qaddafi called those protesting his regime “drug addicts” and torched his soldiers for not shooting at them. During those days, Ceausescu’s former allies and staff deserted him like diplomats and members of the Libyan army have deserted Qaddafi. Ceausescu suddenly became the “dictator,” “the tyrant.”Ceausescu called for a large demonstration to be held in Bucharest on December 22 in his support. My aunt, a technician in a textile factory in Bucharest at the time, was obliged to go and cheer for “the beloved leader of the Communist revolution.” When he was booed by the crowd in Republic Square, he realized he couldn’t contain the storm and fled by helicopter. He and his wife were captured 200 kilometers away from Bucharest.
During what was essentially a mock trial that took place in the following days, Ceausescu and his wife were accused of genocide – they were guilty of many things, but not of genocide. Ceausescu kept saying, “We are martyrs,” as Qaddafi, who refers to himself as a “Bedouin warrior,” vowed to “die as a martyr.”
They were executed a few days later, on Christmas.I saw it all on television, kind of the same way children in Lebanon can follow the revolutions taking place around the Arab World on Youtube and Twitter. “The beloved leader” in Romania and the “glory of Libya” were close friends while Ceausescu was alive. Ceausescu visited Tripoli in 1974, 1979 and 1985, while Qaddafi was in Bucharest in 1981 and 1983. Some of the gunmen who shot at protesters in 1989 were allegedly trained in Libya, as were some of Ceausescu’s personal bodyguards. Ceausescu also had close ties with Hosni Mubarak, whom he visited in 1987. Two decades apart, history not only repeats itself, but it also doesn’t forgive.

Qaddafi troops regain Zawiyah, most oil towns. Obama names Libya intel panel
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 5, 2011,The big offensive pro-Qaddafi forces launched Friday night, March 4, to wrest from rebel hands control of Libya's most important towns and oil centers resulted Saturday in the recapture of the key town of Zawiya and most of the oil towns around the Gulf of Sirte. In Washington and London, talk of military intervention on the side of the Libyan opposition was muted by the realization that field intelligence on both sides of the Libyan conflict was too sketchy to serve as a basis for decision-making.
Their reports from their primary sources, American military advisers and intelligence officers attached to the Benghazi-based rebels in the east, are fragmentary and often contradictory. They too appear unclear about who is command the assorted militias in revolt against the Qaddafi regime and who gives those commanders their orders. Over the weekend, shapes began to emerge of informal armed civilian groups cohering occasionally into small militias who then decide independently whether to seize a certain piece of territory or town and hold it against military pressure. When there are no troops around, the rebels claim victory.
This is what happened Friday night when the opposition claimed to have finally captured Brega, the important oil terminal and refinery town south of Benghazi and, later, Libya's second oil terminal town of Ras Lanuf. However, according to debkafile's sources, while these opposition successes were widely reported, they were not confirmed. Opposition militias seized only parts of Brega – and not the most important ones, such as the oil exporting harbor which Qaddafi's forces control – and were still camped 15 kilometers outside Ras Lanuf when they claimed its capture.
Both towns are major prizes and have been tenaciously fought over. Their fall into rebel hands would cut Qaddafi off from fuel supplies and choke of Libyan exports of 500,000 barrels of oil a day. While only a third of Libya's regular export capacity, this amount it nonetheless nets him enough money to bankroll his war effort against the uprising against his rule.
Friday night, the rebel militias in the east suffered a major setback which halted their advance: Two ammunition dumps in Benghazi which they had seized from the Libyan army in the third week of February in were blown up, wiping out the anti-Qaddafi militias entire ammunition stocks. The cause of the explosions has not been established. Speculation ranges from a pro-Qaddafi suicide saboteur to aerial bombardment or the negligence of rebels inexperienced in ordnance maintenance.
Inside information about Qaddafi's forces is just as sparse. He is known to be supported by three elite brigades under the command of two of his sons, Khamis and Mutassim and the Defense Minister Maj. Gen. Abu Baker Younis Jaber, but intelligence about them is hard to come by, except that the most effective professional unit is the Khamis Brigade No. 32 of the Libyan army, which Saturday morning won the battle for Zawiyah 30 kilometers west of Tripoli, using tanks, Grad surface missiles and artillery to break down opposition defenses..
debkafile's Washington sources report the shortage of the most basic information on the ground has seriously constrained deliberations between President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the next steps in Libya. To correct this, Obama in the last 48 hours established a supreme intelligence commission on Libya made up of Pentagon, NSC and CIA experts to scrape together any data available as input for decisions.
By creating this panel, the president has also sidestepped the stiff opposition to his policies coming from Gates and Clinton, especially his inclination to explore limited military intervention to expedite Qaddafi's removal. They are also critical of Obama's policies in general with regard to other Middle East centers of unrest, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Following Hosni Mubarak's overthrow in Cairo, the Egyptian military junta in charge of the transition to democracy appears to be losing its grip on the situation events and letting the street protesters run out of control. Friday night, thousands stormed the national security services Alexandria headquarters and are still in there. The Muslim Brotherhood appears to be setting the tone in the Egyptian street amid reports of an internal coup by militant young leaders against the veterans.
The Obama administration has a better inside picture of the state of Egyptian opposition groups than it has about Libya, but it is still rated inadequate. US policy-makers are short of precise information about the real leaders of the opposition groups and to whom they are answerable.
In Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, unrest is spreading especially among the two million Shiites who live and work in the eastern oil regions. Demonstrations have become a daily event in with prominent anti-American slogans. Saturday, the Saudi government finally banned demonstrations and protests altogether.
The Wall Street Journal's reported Saturday, March 5, claiming that "The US is settling on a strategy in the Middle East aimed at keeping longtime allies who are willing to make democratic changes in power." Even if this is true, the change comes far too late to affect the tide of unrest surging through the region. After he summarily evicted Hosni Mubarak, America's staunchest Arab ally in the region in the second half of January, President Obama