LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMay 21/2011

Biblical Event Of The Day
The Good News According to John 16/1-11: “These things have I spoken to you, so that you wouldn’t be caused to stumble. 16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time comes that whoever kills you will think that he offers service to God. 16:3 They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. 16:4 But I have told you these things, so that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you about them. I didn’t tell you these things from the beginning, because I was with you. 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 16:6 But because I have told you these things, sorrow has filled your heart. 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I don’t go away, the Counselor won’t come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 16:8 When he has come, he will convict the world about sin, about righteousness, and about judgment; 16:9 about sin, because they don’t believe in me; 16:10 about righteousness, because I am going to my Father, and you won’t see me any more; 16:11 about judgment, because the prince of this world has been judged."
 

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Lebanon, fasten your seatbelt/By: Michael Young/May 20/11
Turkey's Christians under Siege/by John Eibner/May 20/11
The Quandary of Christians in Syria/By Lillian Kwon/May 20/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 20/11
Obama hints at shift on Syria/LAT
Syria accuses Obama of meddling in country's internal affairs, 'incitement'/WP
Tight security across Syria as troops deploy for Friday prayers/M&C
Stories Of Syria's Crackdown Seep Across The Border/NPR
Alert on Lebanon-Israeli border in anticipation for Friday protests/M&C
Syria, Libya, Yemen and Middle East unrest - live updates/The Guardian
Syria Condemns US Sanctions on Assad/NYT
Syria continues crackdown, condemns new US sanctions/BC
A third intifada? Not necessarily/Haaretz
Syria defies US sanctions, uses tanks and shelling to crush dissent/CP
Opposition Deadlocked With Syria's Government/WSJ
Time to turn up the heat on Syria/CBS
Rai to host follow-up of rival Christian meeting/Daily Star
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - May 20, 2011/Daily Star
Islamist threat in north exaggerated: analysts/Daily Star
Aoun holds key to Cabinet formation: Aridi/Daily Star
UNIFIL downplays Israeli measures along border/Daily Star
Kidnapped Estonians Plead for Help in New Video: Our Government has Left Us/Naharnet
Al-Rahi Meets Suleiman, Informs him of Bkirki's Activity/Naharnet
Police Commandos End Riots in Roumieh's Bloc B/Naharnet
Geagea Calls for Formation of Technocratic Cabinet as it is Only Serious Solution to Crisis/Naharnet
Shebani Delivers Message of Support from Ahmedinejad to Suleiman/Naharnet
Britain Urges Formation of Cabinet that Supports STL/Naharnet
Government Formation Takes Backseat to Regional Developments/Naharnet
Le Figaro: France Provided Info to Bellemare Confirming Syrian Involvement in Hariri Murder/Naharnet
Mofaz: Hizbullah is an Iranian Threat and We Are Ready for Any 'Test'/Naharnet
Jumblat Plays Go-Between for Paris and Damascus, Says Syria's Stability Important/Naharnet
Williams Urges Lebanese Officials to Form Cabinet, Avoid Economic Break Down/Naharnet
U.N. Official Stresses Importance of Respect for Blue Line/Naharnet
Obama's speech stuns Israelis. Netanyahu rejects 1967 lines/DEBKAfile

Al-Rahi Meets Suleiman, Informs him of Bkirki's Activity
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi held talks on Friday with President Michel Suleiman at the Baabda palace on Bkirki's efforts on the Christian and national levels. The Patriarch also presented him with an icon of the late Pope John Paul II.Suleiman later threw a luncheon banquet in al-Rahi's honor. Beirut, 20 May 11, 14:25

Mofaz: Hizbullah is an Iranian Threat and We Are Ready for Any 'Test'
Naharnet/Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee at the Israeli Knesset Shaul Mofaz described Hizbullah is an Iranian threat towards the entire region. He told the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper that Iran threatens the region, especially the pragmatic Sunni Arab states, through its nuclear program. It also heads the radical axis in the region and Hizbullah, he added. Mofaz stressed: "The party has already controlled Lebanon and it is affecting its parliament." The Israeli official said that Hizbullah is stronger than the Lebanese army, saying that it "is a terrorist organization that has seized the state through the support of the great Iranian radical state." He emphasized that Israel has the "right response" to face Hizbullah if it wanted to "test Israel." Addressing Sunday's Nakba Day clashes at Maroun al-Ras in the South and the Golan Heights, Mofaz accused Syria of being behind the unrest, saying: "The Syrians and President Bashar Assad tried to divert attention away from what is happening inside Syria."
Beirut, 20 May 11, 11:36

Le Figaro: France Provided Info to Bellemare Confirming Syrian Involvement in Hariri Murder
Naharnet/Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare's amended indictment includes names of Syrian officials involved in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's Feb. 2005 assassination, said the French daily Le Figaro. According to the article written by George Malbrunot, French intelligence agencies provided the STL with information about Syria's involvement in the murder. Earlier this month, Bellemare filed the amended indictment based on further evidence in the probe into the killing of Hariri. The indictment, which is being kept confidential, has to be examined by pre-trial judge Daniel Fransen, who has the responsibility of confirming it before arrest warrants or summonses are issued. The prosecutor informed a high-ranking French diplomat that he is convinced the instigator is in Syria, said Le Figaro. The newspaper quoted the diplomat as saying that Bellemare told him several months ago that he would accuse members of Hizbullah but knows that the instigators are in Damascus. "I will reach the ringleader if you provide me with the means to continue with my investigation," the STL prosecutor reportedly told the diplomat. "I will reach the ringleader." "If we help him, he will definitely be able to make accusations against Syria," the French official told Le Figaro. If any Syrian official was accused of involvement in Hariri's murder, it would be easy to impose U.N. Security Council sanctions against Syria, he said. The names of some suspects could most probably be among the 13-member list that the European Union has sanctioned. "It will be clear within weeks whether the information provided by the French intelligence would lead Bellemare to Damascus in his search for Hariri's killers," said Malbrunot. Beirut, 20 May 11, 09:10

Feltman Begins Talks in Lebanon, Discusses Ministerial Statement and Regional Developments
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman stressed the importance of establishing stability in the Middle East and encouraging the reform its countries are implementing.
He added after holding talks with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman: "The United States should play a serious role in the area and push for achieving comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East." The two officials discussed regional developments in light of U.S. President Barack Obama's speech on the area on Thursday.
Feltman then headed to Beirut where he held talks with Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat on the latest local and regional developments. He is expected to discuss the ministerial statement of a new government during his trip to Lebanon, reported al-Jumhuriya newspaper on Friday. The American official arrived in Lebanon on Thursday where he is scheduled to meet with a number of Lebanese officials. Concerned sources told the daily An Nahar in remarks published on Friday that he is expected to hold talks on bilateral ties, the country's governmental crisis, and Washington's position on a new Cabinet. This will include emphasizing the need for Lebanon to commit to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701. The U.S. official later met with Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati, while he will reportedly be unable to meet with Speaker Nabih Berri because a date for their meeting could not be set. He may also hold talks with former Prime Minister Fouad Saniora in light of caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri's presence outside Lebanon. A prominent source from the March 14 forces told As Safir newspaper in remarks published on Friday that Feltman may not meet with officials from the camp because the visit "does not have a Lebanese feel to it, but a Lebanese-Syrian one." The newspaper revealed that Feltman is scheduled to make a television appearance on LBC to explain the United States' position on developments in Lebanon and the Arab world, especially Syria. In a related development, a U.S. Embassy delegation toured a number of border crossings in northern Lebanon that have been used by displaced Syrians to enter Lebanon. Beirut, 20 May 11, 12:18

Shebani Delivers Message of Support from Ahmedinejad to Suleiman
Naharnet/Visiting deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Reza Shebani delivered a message of support from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to his Lebanese counterpart Michel Suleiman, reported al-Jumhuriya newspaper on Friday. The message includes the Islamic Republic's position on regional issues, while asserting its ongoing support to Lebanon.
Suleiman was also presented with an invitation to attend an anti-terrorism conference held in Tehran on June 25 and 26. The meeting addressed regional developments, with Shebani renewing Iran's support for Lebanon and hope that a Lebanese government would be formed soon in order for it to follow up on the developments in the region.
The Iranian president also backed Lebanon's confrontation of Israeli plans against the country. Shebani is later expected to hold talks with former President Emile Lahoud, Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh, Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri, the Vice President of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council Abdul Amir Qabalan, Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati and other officials on Saturday. Beirut, 20 May 11, 13:15

Britain Urges Formation of Cabinet that Supports STL
Naharnet/British Government spokesman Martin Day stressed the need for the formation of a government that respects its commitments to the international community and Special Tribunal for Lebanon. He added in a radio interview that the Cabinet formation is an internal Lebanese affair, saying that the British government will deal with the new government on the basis of its policies.  On the release date of the indictment in the investigation into the assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri, he stated that this depends on the international court, urging all countries to respect its autonomy. Beirut, 20 May 11, 12:49

Geagea Calls for Formation of Technocratic Cabinet as it is Only Serious Solution to Crisis
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea called on Friday for the formation of a technocratic government "seeing as it is the only solution for the governmental crisis because a political one cannot be established at the moment." He said during the opening of the ninth session of the discussions on the LF's internal structure: "We were hoping that parliamentary sessions would be held given the deteriorating social and economic situation, but these sessions would be illegitimate under a caretaker government." Addressing the Maroun al-Ras clashes that erupted on Nakba Day on Sunday, he stated: "With all respect to the martyrs and wounded, this rally was reckless because of the unpredictable results it would have caused." "Those who pushed the youths towards inevitable death should be held responsible," he added. Commenting on regional developments, Geagea stated: "Despite the current turbulence, it is a sign that the Arab world will enjoy a bright democratic future." Beirut, 20 May 11, 13:46

Miqati: Formation of Government Product of Pure National Will
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Najib Miqati stated on Friday that forming a responsible government in Lebanon stems from "a pure national will".
He said after holding talks with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman that he accepted his role as premier "in order to establish a national and productive government capable of living up to the expectations of the Lebanese." He stressed that it would be capable of confronting internal, regional, and international challenges, given the developments in the area. He added that this sentiment remains the basis upon which he is conducting his efforts to form a government. Addressing U.S. President Barack Obama's recent speech on the Middle East, Miqati said that some points in his statements require clarifications. "It's important that the American president have a serious will to reach a solution to the region contrary to the efforts of previous U.S. presidents," he continued.
The people in the Middle hope that Obama would follow up his words with actions through taking practical measures to achieve comprehensive peace, Miqati said.
Earlier on Friday, Miqati had stressed that he rejects to adopt customary decisions as long as the constitution clearly states that he signs with the president the cabinet formation decree after consultations with parliamentary blocs. "My only intention is to form a cabinet as soon as possible" and deal with the people's concerns and economic, social and security problems, Miqati was quoted as saying by An Nahar daily on Friday. "I believe that the price of waiting is less than the price (paid) for the formation of a cabinet that is not at the required level," the prime-minister designate said. When asked why he wouldn't deal with Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun the same way former Premier Fouad Saniora and Caretaker PM-Saad Hariri have done, Miqati said: "I understand their circumstances but I would be laying the foundation for norms."
He said he rejects such a move as long as article 64 of the constitution clearly states the role of the premier-designate and the president in the formation of the cabinet.
"We can't implement the constitution if it is in our interest one day and ignore its implementation another day if it's not," Miqati stressed.
Asked about accusations by the FPM that he hadn't conditioned Hizbullah and Amal to provide him with three names for each ministry as he had done with Aoun's bloc, the premier-designate said: "This is not true. I have asked it from Amal movement, Hizbullah and the Progressive Socialist Party and all the blocs and sides that will participate in the cabinet."
"Only Hizbullah and the FPM haven't proposed names to us," he added. Miqati also denied that he had received a message from U.S. Ambassador Maura Connelly to delay the formation of the cabinet. "We don't receive messages from anyone," he said about himself and President Michel Suleiman. Asked how he would be able to form a successful team if the president, PSP leader Walid Jumblat and Miqati lacked veto power, he said: "The most important thing in the cabinet formation process is how to rule with my team in the interest of the country."
Beirut, 20 May 11, 14:53

Kidnapped Estonians Plead for Help in New Video: Our Government has Left Us
Naharnet/Seven Estonian tourists kidnapped in Lebanon two months ago pleaded for help in a video released Friday, criticizing their government for abandoning them and saying they were in "great danger". "We are very tired and in great danger. We ask our families and all who know us to help us," one of the seven men, Kalev Kaosaar, says in the video, a link to which was published by the Estonian foreign ministry. "We have been imprisoned for 54 days by now and it has been very hard time for us." He said he was speaking on Monday. "We ask Estonian government to help us as Estonian government has left us and is not willing to help us anymore," he added, surrounded by his six companions. The foreign ministry said it had received the video late Thursday. The ministry said no concrete demands had been made for the tourists release in the video, adding that it was continuing to work with Lebanon "and other partners" to win their release. The men, all in their 30s, were kidnapped on March 23 shortly after entering Lebanon on a bicycle tour from neighboring Syria. The case remains shrouded in mystery with little information gleaned on their whereabouts or those behind the abduction. Authorities initially appeared confident that the case would quickly be resolved after recovering a mini-van and car used in the kidnapping and arresting several people. But the trail appears to have gone cold with two key suspects -- a Lebanese and a Syrian -- still on the run and no clear evidence as to who ordered the kidnapping.(AFP) Beirut, 20 May 11, 14:42

Police Commandos End Riots in Roumieh's Bloc B
Naharnet/Police commandos ended the riots that erupted at Bloc B at Roumieh prison Friday morning when security forces attempted to carry out an inspection of the prisoners.
The security forces began the inspection after one of the inmates threatened a doctor with a knife if the latter refused to take him to hospital, even though he was in no urgent medical condition. The security forces had enlisted the service of a number of doctors to work at Roumieh prison after the riots that broke out at the jail earlier this year.
This has increased the number of doctors at the jail from one to six. A number of doctors requested to be relieved of their duties soon after this morning's unrest.
Upon the start of this morning's inspection, a number of Bloc B inmates began rioting and resisting the security forces. The police commandos intervened to put an end to the violence in order to complete the inspection and get rid of all forbidden material from the cells. The inspection is expected to end Friday night. Beirut, 20 May 11, 11:54

Jumblat Plays Go-Between for Paris and Damascus, Says Syria's Stability Important
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat has said that Syria's stability and future are important for Lebanon.
"What matters to us is a strong and stable Syria, where stability is accompanied with reform," Jumblat told As Safir newspaper on Friday.
The PSP leader described his latest visit to France as "delicate." The newspaper remarked that the visit of Jumblat, who was accompanied by caretaker Public Works Minister Ghazi al-Aridi, was aimed at "exchanging messages." As Safir said that al-Aridi will head to Syria soon to meet with Assistant Vice President Maj. Gen. Mohammed Nassif to inform him about Jumblat's talks in Paris. Jumblat had returned from Paris after holding talks with French Foreign Minister Alaine Juppe and the French president's diplomatic advisor Jean-David Levitte.
Beirut, 20 May 11, 09:57

Williams Urges Lebanese Officials to Form Cabinet, Avoid Economic Break Down
Naharnet/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams said that the Lebanese government crisis isn't witnessing any breakthrough, which is affecting the economic sector.
Williams told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Friday that the tourism season in Lebanon isn't promising this year, hotel and flight reservations are deteriorating and most tourists come from neighboring Arab countries. The U.N. Special Coordinator stressed that two months have passed on the kidnapping of the seven Estonians which clearly forms an obstacle for Europeans to head to Lebanon during the summer. Williams snapped back at Israeli officials who have criticized him for saying that the Jewish state used excessive force against unarmed protesters in the border town of Maroun al-Ras on Nakba Day last Sunday. He said that UNIFIL Commander Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta was on a constant contact with the Lebanese and Israeli army officials during the demonstration. The daily quoted him as saying that the protesters violated the Blue Line in contravention with U.N. Security Council resolution 1701, nevertheless they didn't cross the technical border fence. In response to a question if incidents of this kind might raise fears of a war or military confrontation, Williams said that he doubted this option.
He confirmed that many countries that have contingents in UNIFIL confirmed their commitment to their task in southern Lebanon.
Williams visited Caretaker Minister Salim Sayegh on Friday. "We are very conscious of the work they do throughout Lebanon and very conscious of the efforts of the minister recently with regards to the numbers of Syrian people displaced in northern Lebanon," he said. He said the U.N. is working closely with the ministry and the Higher Relief Council to see that the needs of the displaced people can be met. "The humanitarian situation I believe in Akkar is another reminder of why we need to see the formation of an early government in Lebanon," he added. Beirut, 20 May 11, 09:29

Lebanon, fasten your seatbelt
Michael Young, Now Lebanon
May 20, 2011
Syrian anti-regime protesters hold a banner reading "Freedom means to stop killing and arresting" during a rally in the northeastern Syrian Kurdish town of Qamishli on May 13. (AFP photo/STR) The visit to Lebanon of Jeffrey Feltman, the US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, is another visible sign of why Lebanon can expect to hit turbulence as the situation in Syria deteriorates. The Middle East is being transformed, the Syrian regime is under great pressure, and therefore political actors in the region and outside are preparing, among other things, for the aftermath in Lebanon. Last weekend, Syria and Hezbollah showed how they were willing to play Lebanese vulnerabilities in their favor. There seems increasingly little doubt that they manipulated Palestinian outrage on Nakba Day to create incidents on the Lebanese border with Israel and on the Golan Heights, in order to better underline that the fall of the Assad regime would heighten Israeli insecurity. This echoed Rami Makhlouf’s comments to The New York Times last week, in which the cousin of President Bashar al-Assad warned, “If there is no stability [in Syria], there’s no way there will be stability in Israel.” It was very useful of Makhlouf to remind us that the Assads have pegged their survival to guaranteeing Israeli tranquility, despite occasional pin pricks. However, both the Americans and Israelis have taken unkindly to the border incidents. The decision on Wednesday of President Barack Obama to sanction Bashar al-Assad, like the statements he made in a speech a day later, puts the US president on a path where he will almost certainly soon demand the Syrian leader’s departure from office, since the regime in Damascus cannot reform.
Feltman’s visit came in the midst of this maelstrom. The United States could see an opening in Lebanon to regain some, or much, of what it has lost in recent years. On Thursday, Obama announced a new initiative on the Middle East, and the unrest in Syria means that Washington, for the first time in a long time, has an opportunity to push Iran and Hezbollah onto the defensive in Beirut and beyond.
Certainly, the Lebanese have been sensitive to American displeasure. When the US government fired a shot across the bow of the Lebanese Canadian Bank some months ago, accusing it of having laundered money on Hezbollah’s behalf, people paid attention. Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh flew to Washington and quickly arranged the bank’s sale, to protect the banking sector. Now, there is considerable speculation that Salameh’s tenure may not be renewed, given the opposition of March 14 to the holding of a special parliamentary session to address the issue while a caretaker government is in place.
That the speaker of parliament, Nabih Berri, is pressing for such a session and that March 14, by rejecting his initiative, is effectively undermining Salameh’s chances of being reappointed, suggests that the Central Bank governor may be at the heart of a political-financial dispute. And if that’s the case, it could signal that the Americans may still hold the governor responsible for the Lebanese Canadian fiasco. For one parliamentarian I spoke to, the heart of the matter is money: Washington is playing hardball to choke off Hezbollah’s financing.
The prime minister-elect, Najib Mikati, is also very much aware that his margin of maneuver with respect to Washington is limited. Personal business interests aside (and they are hardly negligible), Mikati appears to have no intention of locking himself into a fixed position in a new government where he would have to submit to Hezbollah, when much might change in the foreseeable future. When he took on the task in January, the prime minister-elect still expected his strong Syrian backing to be a counterweight to Hezbollah and Michel Aoun. But today he is incapable of making such a calculation.
We’re beyond the stage to legitimately doubt the formation of a government “of one color,” and Feltman’s visit will have hardened that reality. Hezbollah understands that the ground is shifting, even if it will do everything to prevent it from shifting in the party’s disfavor. Lebanon is entering a decisive phase in the rivalry between the US and most Arab states on the one side, and Iran on the other. The country will be a front line in that confrontation.
Expect more regionally-influenced thrusts and parries in the foreseeable future to define what, conceivably, a post-Assad Lebanon might look like. Not a particularly difficult prediction to make, you say. Indeed, but if it’s so obvious, then much more needs to be done to fill the yawning political vacuum in Beirut. Since Mikati will not be able to form a government of national unity and, evidently, refuses to put together a cabinet that would be dominated by Hezbollah and Aoun, it would seem that his only option is to lead some sort of team of technocrats. That’s not ideal, it will perhaps not work, but it may be better than allowing the void in the executive branch to persist.
The likelihood, however, is that the prime minister-elect will do nothing at all. With so much in motion around him, he is simply unwilling to commit to anything that might burn him later on. Does that mean that March 8 and Aoun will withdraw their support for him? That’s improbable. New parliamentary consultations would almost certainly benefit March 14 and Saad Hariri. So expect a long interregnum without a government. Another easy prediction to make.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and author of The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle, which the Wall Street Journal listed as one of its 10 standout books for 2010. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

The Quandary of Christians in Syria
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Reports that Syrian Christians are throwing their support behind President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has ruled the Western Asian country for 40 years, may at first sound daunting.
May 15, 2011.
Reports that Syrian Christians are throwing their support behind President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has ruled the Western Asian country for 40 years, may at first sound daunting.
"They see what's happening in other countries, specifically what's happened in Egypt where we see a regime change but even more attacks against Christian churches, and they're afraid that's what's going to happen in Syria," Jerry Dykstra, spokesman for persecution watchdog Open Doors USA, told The Christian Post.
To put it into perspective, Dykstra noted that Christians in Syria – approximately 1.5 million (or eight to nine percent of the population) – currently have relative freedoms, including the freedom to worship. And Syria is ranked No. 38 out of 50 countries on Open Doors' list of the worst Christian persecutors in the world.
"That's pretty moderate persecution," he said.
While Syria is one of the most tolerant countries in the Middle East regarding religious freedom for Christians, its track record hasn't been perfect, he added. Last year, the government closed at least six buildings where Christians had gathered. Several Christians were also arrested and interrogated because of their Christian activities, according to Open Doors. And foreign Christians were forced to leave the country, with their visas no longer renewed.
Like us on Facebook
But when they consider the alternative, such as the introduction of Sharia (Islamic) law, Christians are siding with the current government.
They see that their relative freedom to worship could erode under a regime change, Dykstra said. "If these fanatical groups get in control there'd be no protection for churches. Already, we heard that churches in other religious places have to provide their own protection."
Uprisings against al-Assad, who became president in 2000 after the death of his father, began in March, following the toppling of the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt.
Protesters are demanding freedom and calling on the president to step down. The government has cracked down on demonstrators, killing hundreds, according to human rights groups.
President Obama imposed sanctions against al-Assad and his top officials on Wednesday over the brutal crackdown. In a speech Thursday, Obama said al-Assad has the choice of either leading the transition to the democracy that people are calling for, or getting out of the way.
Though Syrian Christians back the current regime, Dykstra made it clear that they do not condone the violence being perpetrated by the government against innocent people. Moreover, the Christian community does endorse reforms, he added.
Bob Roberts, an evangelical pastor from Texas who travels the world forming relationships with Muslims, doesn't view the protests as "anti-government" but rather as "freedom" protests.
While he said he can't speak to the specific situation in Syria and the church there, he does maintain that "a free society has a better chance long term of ensuring rights than a dictatorship."
"In the end, if you bless the dictator, you bow to Caesar," he told CP. "The Gospel will spread regardless of who is in office, but when Christianity gets too cozy with the government – regardless of the form of government – history shows it loses its power."
Generally, freedom of course is better than dictatorship, Dykstra agreed. But the question is, "is there truly going to be freedom of religion for Christians? Or is there going to be Sharia law?"
"We don't know," he responded. "So that's the quandary of Christians in Syria." A Syrian pastor submitted a prayer request to Open Doors, asking that people pray for peace to come to the country, that extremists groups won't come to power, and that the church will be safe.

Obama's speech stuns Israelis. Netanyahu rejects 1967 lines
DEBKAfile Special Report May 19, 2011,
US President Barack Obama's declaration in his policy speech Thursday, May 19, that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed territorial swaps caused consternation in Jerusalem. Before flying to Washington, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated: The 1967 lines are indefensible. Israeli security demands an IDF presence on the Jordan River. Israel appreciates the US president's commitment to peace but a Palestinian state cannot rise at the expense of Israel's existence.
In his statement, the Prime Minister pointed out that not only the US but the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people and a peace accord must guarantee an end to all claims against the Jewish State of Israel.
In effect, Israel has rejected Obama's new Middle East policy as it relates to resolving its dispute with the Palestinians before he meets the US president at the White House Friday.
As presented Thursday night, Obama call for mutual swaps of land amounted to calling on Israel hand over to the Palestinians large chunks of sovereign territory in return for leaving the settlement blocks in the West Bank. This demand was not agreed in the exchanges between the White House and the Prime Minster's Office ahead of the speech. It also contradicts the guarantee the Bush presidency gave Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004 not to force Israel to return to the indefensible borders of 1967.
Obama was also the first US president to demand that Israeli Defense Forces withdraw from the Palestinian state without the security measures Israel required after numerous Arab and Palestinian attacks and still threatened. The US President's plan would also entail the IDF's evacuation of its the vital defense lines in the Jordan Valley against invasion from the east, which would pass to the Palestinian state.
The US president stated repeatedly that the Palestinian state was entitled to "a sovereign, contiguous state" bordering on Egypt, Jordan and Israel. This would give the Palestinian state sole control of its borders without regard to Israeli's security requirements. Israel was advised to be satisfied with America's "unshakeable commitment" to its security.
Obama introduced a new concept for potential Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations, from which he admitted "the Palestinians have walked away." The Palestinians state would be "non-militarized," he said - not demilitarized as Israel has demanded but possessed of an army of a size to be negotiated by the parties.
Washington sources informed reporters later that Obama's speech was delayed by more than an hour over a behind-the-scenes argument the White House had with Jerusalem and Ramallah in pursuit of approval from both for the fundamentals contained in his speech.
debkafile's Washington sources report that although both Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas voiced strong reservations on some points, those sources concluded that they need not stop them entering into negations on the basis of the Obama principles.
According to other sources, nothing of the kind was agreed and major differences lie ahead of Netanyahu's White House talks in Washington and his speeches to Congress and the conference of AIPAC the Israel lobby.
Turkey's Christians under Siege
by John Eibner
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2011, pp. 41-52 (view PDF)
http://www.meforum.org/2907/turkey-christians
The brutal murder of the head of Turkey's Catholic Church, Bishop Luigi Padovese, on June 3, 2010, has rattled the country's small, diverse, and hard-pressed Christian community.[1] The 62-year-old bishop, who spearheaded the Vatican's efforts to improve Muslim-Christian relations in Turkey, was stabbed repeatedly at his Iskenderun home by his driver and bodyguard Murat Altun, who concluded the slaughter by decapitating Padovese and shouting, "I killed the Great Satan. Allahu Akhbar!" He then told the police that he had acted in obedience to a "command from God."[2]
The brutal murder on June 3, 2010, of the head of Turkey's Catholic church, Bishop Luigi Padovese, seen here in 2006 leading the funeral procession of another slain priest, Andrea Santoro, was met by denials and obfuscation—not only by the Turkish authorities but also by Western governments and even the Vatican.
Though bearing all the hallmarks of a jihadist execution, the murder was met by denials and obfuscation—not only by the Turkish authorities but also by Western governments and the Vatican. This is not wholly surprising. In the post-9/11 era, it has become commonplace to deny connections between Islam and acts of violence despite much evidence to the contrary.[3] But while this denial has undoubtedly sought to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, as opposed to Christians, Jews, or any other religious group, it has served to encourage Islamist terrorism and to exacerbate the persecution of non-Muslim minorities even in the most secularized Muslim states. For all President Barack Obama's high praise for its "strong, vibrant, secular democracy,"[4] and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's "Alliance of Civilizations" rhetoric, Turkey is very much entrenched in the clash of civilizations paradigm. Unless Ankara is prepared to combat the widespread "Christophobia" that fuels violence and other forms of repression, the country's Christians are doomed to remain an oppressed and discriminated against minority, and Turkey's aspirations of democratic transformation and full integration with Europe will remain stillborn.
The Victim and His Mission
Consecrated bishop in November 2004, half a year following Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's elevation to the papacy, Padovese belonged to the body of intellectually sharp, proactive clerics who share Benedict XVI's ecumenical understanding of the church and its global mission of evangelization, especially in the Islamic Middle East where a century of intensive de-Christianization now threatens the faith's regional existence.
Padovese's mission in Turkey was to help save the country's Christian community from extinction and to create conditions for its religious and cultural renaissance. Rejecting the church's historic dhimmi status as a protected religious minority under Islam—which reduced it to little more than a submissive worshipping agency with no other legitimate activity—he viewed Turkey's European Union candidacy as a golden opportunity for winning significant concessions from Ankara and pinned high hopes on the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops, which took place in Rome in October 2010.[5] However, the synod ended on a sour note. While confirming the Second Vatican Council's positive shift in attitude toward Judaism and unequivocal rejection of anti-Semitism, the Middle Eastern bishops sought to enhance the security of their flocks by playing an anti-Israel card and criticizing Israel—the one country of the region with a growing Christian population—with a directness that was not employed in relation to any Islamic state, no matter how repressive.
Had it not been for his murder, the bishop would have traveled to meet the pope in Cyprus on the very next day for the launch of the synod's Instrumentum laboris, the Vatican's strategic plan for reviving Christianity in its Middle Eastern cradle, to which Padovese was a substantial contributor.
Though written in low-key Vatican jargon, the Instrumentum laboris is full of radical implications for Turkey and the broader Middle East.[6] In contrast to the common post-9/11 predilection to downplay Islamism's less savory aspects, the document does not gloss over the disadvantaged position of Christians in the Islamic world and identifies the issue of human rights, including religious freedom, as central to the well-being of the whole of society:
Oftentimes, relations between Christians and Muslims are difficult, principally because Muslims make no distinction between religion and politics, thereby relegating Christians to the precarious position of being considered non-citizens, despite the fact that they were citizens of their countries long before the rise of Islam. The key to harmonious living between Christians and Muslims is to recognize religious freedom and human rights.[7]
This harmonious living was to be achieved through a policy of dialogue—defined by Benedict XVI at the beginning of his papacy as "a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends"[8]—that would identify the common ground between the two religions: service to society, respect for common moral values, the avoidance of syncretism, joint opposition to the atheism, materialism, and relativism emanating from the Western world, and a collective rejection of religious-based violence, that is—killing in the name of God.
The Instrumentum laboris also encouraged a search—together with Muslim reformers—for a new system of church-state relations, which it referred to as "positive laicity." But the Vatican does not uphold Turkey's secularism—which the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have praised as a model for the Islamic world—as the answer. "In Turkey," the Instrumentum laboris notes—undoubtedly on account of the influence of Bishop Padovese—"the idea of 'laicity' is currently posing more problems for full religious freedom in the country." The working document did not elaborate but simply stated that the aim of this "positive," as opposed to "Turkish laicity," would be to help eliminate the theocratic character of government and allow for greater equality among citizens of different religions, thereby fostering the promotion of a sound democracy, positively secular in nature, which also fully acknowledges the role of religion in public life while completely respecting the distinction between the religious and civic orders.[9]
These were the principles that guided Padovese's Turkish mission. He worked in the clear knowledge that "faithfully witnessing to Christ"—as the synod's preparatory document acknowledges—"can lead to persecution."[10] And so it did.
Conspiracy of Silence
Within hours of Padovese's death, the provincial governor preempted the results of police investigations with the announcement that the murder was not politically motivated but rather committed by a lone lunatic.[11] Moreover, in an attempt to eliminate any Islamic motive, NTV Turkey announced that the murderer was not actually a Muslim but a convert to Catholicism.[12] Then the police leaked word—allegedly from the assassin—that he had been "forced to suffer abuse" in a homosexual relationship with the bishop and that the killing had been an act of "legitimate defense."[13]
It is true that Turkey's minister for culture and tourism, Ertuğrul Günay, issued a short message of condolences on behalf of the government[14] and that the foreign ministry expressed regret to the international media. But neither President Abdullah Gül nor Prime Minister Erdoğan expressed their own condolences or publicly addressed the murder of the head of their country's Catholic Church, and even the foreign ministry's statement took care to highlight the murderer's alleged "psychological problems."[15]
Erdoğan's silence in response to this national tragedy was particularly striking. Together with Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodrigues Zapatero, the Turkish prime minister and leader of the ruling Islamist Peace and Justice Party (AKP) has been a principal architect and cosponsor of the U.N.'s flagship program to promote a global "Alliance of Civilizations." Diversity, cross-cultural dialogue, and opposition to isolation of "the other" were among the principles articulated by Erdoğan in his attempts to present Turkey as "the best panacea against 'clash of civilizations' theories."[16] The beheading of a senior Christian cleric by a Muslim zealot could not but send an unmistakable message that this very clash was in full swing on Erdoğan's home turf.
Moreover, at the time of the murder, Erdoğan was both sending thinly veiled threats of Turkey's growing impatience with the slow progress of its EU application and seeking to enhance his stature throughout the Islamic world with menacing anti-Israel diplomacy in response to its interception of the Turkey-originated Gaza flotilla.[17] He thus had nothing to gain and much to lose by generating headlines about Padovese's execution.
So did Washington and its European allies. If Western diplomats spoke at all about the bishop's murder, it was in the same hushed tones that are used when referring to Turkey's Armenian genocide of World War I, its subsequent use of terror against remnant Christian communities and Kurdish villages, its 1974 invasion of Cyprus and subsequent ethnic cleansing of the occupied Christian population, and its blockade of neighboring Armenia.
Well aware of the absence of backing from Western powers, the Vatican acted swiftly to avoid confrontation with Turkey. Notwithstanding an early observation by Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi that the murder highlighted the "difficult conditions" of the church in the region,[18] the official explanation was swiftly harmonized with that of Ankara. In a statement broadcast on Vatican Radio on the same day, Lombardi negated his previous comment by stating that "political motivations for the attack or other motivations linked to socio-political tensions are to be excluded." He also stressed the killer's "mental imbalance"[19] as if solo psychopaths might be a primary source of the church's difficult conditions in the Islamic world.
The day after the murder, while en route to one of Europe's hot spots of Muslim-Christian communal tension—the divided island of Cyprus—Pope Benedict XVI himself sought to quash speculation about its motivation. He admitted that he still had "very little information" about the killing, yet endorsed—much to the bewilderment of Christians in Turkey—the Turkish government's reflexive denial of a religious-political motive when he declared, "We must not attribute the fact [of Bishop Padovese's murder] to Turkey … What is certain is that it was not a religious or political assassination."[20]
The Lessons of Regensburg
Why did the pope so swiftly deny political or religious motives for Padovese's murder when so much about the crime was still shrouded in mystery? Benedict XVI provided a motive when he explained, "We do not want this tragic situation to become mixed up with dialogue with Islam or with all the problems of our journey [to Cyprus]."[21] A quarrel with Ankara at this particular juncture could certainly have had damaging repercussions for the church, but behind the pontiff's timidity, lay his keen awareness of how easy it was to trigger the destructive rage of the Islamic powers and the temporal weakness of his church.
Indeed, a few months before his ascendancy in May 2005, the pope-to-be caused consternation in Turkey by declaring his opposition to its application for EU membership because "historically and culturally, Turkey has little in common with Europe."[22] Upon Ratzinger's election to the papacy, Erdoğan opined that his "rhetoric may change from now on … because this post, this responsibility, requires it."[23]
Benedict XVI did lower his tone but not before the mass demonstrations, violence, and threats that followed his now famous Regensburg University lecture of September 2006—just two months before he was scheduled to travel to Istanbul for his first papal foray into the world of Islam. At Regensburg, the pope broached one of the key issues obstructing harmonious relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds: the sensitive question of violent jihad as a legitimate means of advancing the Islamic faith.[24]
In his address, the pope overstepped a red line drawn by Muslim political elites throughout the world. Erdoğan joined angry Muslim clerics and statesmen, demanding that the pope apologize for his "wrong, ugly, and unfortunate statements" and calling into question whether the planned papal visit to Istanbul would take place.[25] He was followed by Director for Religious Affairs Ali Bardakoğlu—the overseer of the Turkish state's massive financial support for Islamic institutions, including those in Europe, especially Germany[26]—who condemned the pope's message as reflecting "anger, hostility, and hatred" in addition to a "Crusader and holy-war mentality."[27] The deputy chairman of Erdoğan's AKP Party, Salih Kapusuz, announced that the Regensburg speech would place Benedict XVI in the "same category as Hitler and Mussolini."[28]
Left isolated and exposed by Washington and Europe, the pope quickly succumbed to pressure. To be sure, he did not retract a single word uttered at Regensburg, and his apology was more of a regretful explanation than an admission of error, but his humble and appeasing demeanor was conciliatory enough to salvage his church's dialogue with Islam and keep the door open to Istanbul. Since then, he has taken extraordinary pains to temper his language and make flattering gestures to avoid frenzied Muslim responses.
Consider Benedict XVI's November 2006 visit to Turkey—his first as pope to a Muslim-majority country. While reiterating the Vatican's customary plea for religious liberty, his remarks were overshadowed by his gestures of goodwill aimed at underscoring his esteem for Islam and Turkey's Islamist government, notably his prayer facing Mecca in Istanbul's Blue Mosque and his praise for Erdoğan's role in launching the Alliance of Civilizations.[29]
The biggest plum for Erdoğan was the indication that the pope would now welcome Turkey's membership in the EU.[30] Although the Vatican made no mention of it, the Turkish press announced that Benedict XVI had endorsed Erdoğan's plan to establish a bureau of Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs in Brussels to "counter efforts to inflame Islamophobia."[31]
The Regensburg speech led to the harmonization of the Vatican's diplomatic language with that of Turkey and the Alliance of Civilizations, on which the Padovese murder had no apparent effect. Anti-Christian violence remains a powerful factor in influencing the language of the church as it struggles to balance its fundamental, unwavering advocacy of religious freedom and opposition to killing in the name of God with the pursuit of dialogue with Turkey and other Muslim majority states.
The Plot Thickens
Not all Christians in Turkey accepted the denials and obfuscation of Ankara and the Vatican about the circumstances surrounding the murder. Foremost among them was the archbishop of Smyrna, Ruggero Franceschini—Padovese's successor as head of the country's Catholic Church—who rejected the official explanation of his colleague's murder and maintained that the pope had received "bad counsel" prior to his denial of the murder's political or religious motives.[32]
The archbishop had lived in Iskenderun, where the murder took place, and had known the assassin and his family personally. In the hope of ascertaining the true facts, he immediately visited the scene of the crime, subsequently telling the press that he could not accept the "usual hastily concocted, pious lie" about the murderer's insanity. He also dismissed the claim that the assassin was a Catholic convert, confirming that he was a non-practicing Muslim.[33]
The archbishop did not doubt the murder's religious and political motivation. "I believe that with this murder, which has an explicitly religious element, we are faced with something that goes beyond government," he said. "It points towards nostalgic, perhaps anarchist groups who want to destabilize the government. The very modalities of the murder aim to manipulate public opinion."[34]
What the archbishop suspected was a crime stage-managed by Turkey's "deep state"—an opaque underworld where powerful elements within the state, especially the military and security services, act in conjunction with violent extremist groups, such as the ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves and the Islamist Hezbollah, as well as the apolitical criminal underworld, to undertake special, illegal operations in the political interest of the country's ruling elite.[35]
Until recently, the deep state was imbued with the secularist ideology of the republic's founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. But since coming to power in 2003, Erdoğan's AKP has vigorously endeavored to lay hands on all levers of power including the deep state with a view to promoting its Islamist, "neo-Ottoman" vision for the country.[36] This has in turn produced a schizophrenic deep state with older elements loyal to the Kemalist opposition and newer elements loyal to the AKP's Islamist agenda.
Since 2007, the Turkish media has feasted on a steady stream of revelations about an extensive deep state network called "Ergenekon." Government prosecutors have secured the arrest and indictment of scores of retired and still-serving military and security officials for allegedly plotting to destabilize the AKP-dominated government. Show trials are already underway.
Deep state documents released by the prosecution, if taken at face value, point to Ergenekon as a source of anti-church activity, including the torture and Islamic-style ritual murder of three evangelical Christian book publishers in the town of Malatya in April 2006.[37]
The Ergenekon conspiracy has been similarly linked with the murder of the 61-year-old Catholic priest, Fr. Andrea Santoro—shot and killed in his Trabzon church in February 2006. Witnesses report that the convicted killer, a 16-year-old, shouted "Allahu Akbar" immediately before firing his pistol.[38] Bishop Padovese said at the time that the assassination "did not seem incidental" as it occurred while passions were aroused by the Danish cartoon affair.[39] The former papal nuncio to Turkey, Msgr. Antonio Lucibello, had similarly argued that there was a mastermind behind Santoro's murder.[40]
Prosecutors also ascribed the January 2007 murder of the Armenian Christian journalist, Hrant Dink, by a 17-year-old, to the Ergenekon.[41]A vigorous and well-known campaigner against Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide, Dink had been convicted of having violated article 302 of the penal code banning "insults to Turkishness." The hanged body of Dink's Turkish lawyer, Hakan Karadağ, was found in suspicious circumstances the day after the Padovese murder.[42]
It is far from certain whether the alleged anti-AKP Ergenekon conspiracy is a reality, or whether it is largely an AKP fabrication, designed to cover the efforts of Erdoğan's Islamists to turn the deep state into an instrument for promoting their own agenda.[43] But whoever may be pulling the strings, Kemalists or Islamists, the deep state is no friend of Turkey's Christians.
A Turkish Anti-Christian Agenda
Persecution, however, is by no means limited to the deep state. Like their counterparts in most of the Islamic Middle East, Turkey's Christians are effective hostages to the arbitrary actions of powerful elites, made up of Islamic state and non-state actors who collectively monopolize violence. The oldest Christians retain living memory of the state-sponsored mass deportations and massacres that culminated in the World War I Armenian genocide. During the twentieth century, Turkey's Christian population has dropped to the verge of extinction.[44] The last anti-Christian mass violence was the 1955 deep state-sparked, anti-Greek pogrom in Istanbul, which also took a heavy toll on the city's Jewish and Armenian populations.[45]
Such memories are reinforced in the younger generation of Christians by continuing acts of smaller scale and more discriminative violence. In February 2006, for example, a Slovenian priest was attacked by a gang of teenagers in the parish compound in Izmir (Smyrna), and five months later a 74-year-old clergyman was stabbed by young Turks on a street in Trabzon, following which Padovese told the media, "The climate has changed … it is the Catholic priests that are being attacked."[46] In December 2007, another priest was knifed by a teenager as he left his church following Sunday mass.[47]
A leader of the Turkish Protestant community, Rev. Behnan Konutgan, recently recorded cases of violence against church property and the physical harassment of church members while a noted Turkish sociologist of religion, Ali Carkoğlu, has argued that no non-Muslim religious gathering in Turkey is completely risk free.[48]
What little protective law there is, whether national or international, does not have the strength to provide adequate defense. Plain-speaking about persecution invites hostile reactions, sometimes deadly. The church's language of dialogue is powerfully influenced by this reality. But there are some voices in Turkey that do not always cower to the violence-backed taboos of official Christian-Muslim dialogue or of the Alliance of Civilizations.
At the end of 2009, Bartholomew I, the normally subservient Ecumenical Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes and shocked Turkey's political establishment. Speaking to Bob Simon, the patriarch reported no significant improvement in conditions for the church. Instead, he argued that Turkey's Christians were second class citizens and that he personally felt "crucified" by a state that wanted to see his church die out. Asked whether Erdoğan had responded to the petitions submitted to him in the course of many meetings, Bartholomew answered, "Never."[49]
Turkey's rulers lashed out angrily. "We consider the crucifixion metaphor an extremely unfortunate metaphor," argued Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. "In our history, there have never been crucifixions, and there never will be. I couldn't really reconcile this metaphor with his mature personality."[50] President Gül endorsed the foreign minister's assessment while the head of the ruling AKP's international relations section, Kürsat Tüzmen, menacingly retorted, "If there is someone who is being crucified, it is the politician, security officials, and others. If he [the patriarch] is a religious and spiritual leader, he should be much more cautious when making a statement. Someone who really loves his country has to be more responsible."[51]
Bartholomew seems to have touched a raw nerve. For all its Alliance of Civilizations rhetoric, Erdoğan's Islamist government has maintained a tight stranglehold on the country's Christian institutions and blocked reforms that could lead to the growth of Christianity. True, the government has made some minor concessions to Christian institutions, including legislation that creates new but very limited possibilities for Christian foundations to recover some confiscated property, [52] but this was little more than a ploy to please the European Union and Washington and pales into insignificance by such hostile measures as the refusal to reopen the Halki Theological Seminary—the only institution in Turkey where Orthodox clergy could be trained—before Greece and Bulgaria improved the conditions of their Muslim minorities.[53] In other words, Ankara does not recognize the right of the Orthodox Church, or any other church for that matter, to run a theological seminary as a religious liberty but merely as an instrument of deal-making with Western powers for the purposes of enhancing the position of Islam.
Indeed, while Turkey's churches have long enjoyed freedom of worship, they have remained without legal status to this very day. Most of their work takes place in the legal framework of foundations that operate under the strict supervision of the General Directorate for Foundations[54] and other state institutions—including a secret national security department whose mandate is to control non-Muslim minorities.[55] They have, moreover, been entangled in labyrinthine negotiations and lengthy and expensive court cases for the return of confiscated property as well as permission to expand their engagement with society through the provision of education and other charitable activity. Churches have experienced grave setbacks in addition to the above mentioned murders, notably: The state conducted a four-year prosecution of two Turkish, evangelical Protestant converts from Islam on charges of "insulting Turkishness." Although these charges were dropped for lack of evidence in October 2010, the converts were forced to pay fines of $3,170 each or go to prison for seven months for "collecting information on citizens."[56]
Ankara is taking legal action to confiscate lands that historically belonged to the Syriac Orthodox Monastery of Mor Gabriel (founded in 379 CE), whose bishop has encouraged persecuted Christian refugees to return to the area and rebuild their villages.[57]
Less than a year before his death, Padovese was especially disappointed by the rejection of his appeal for the status of the Church of St. Paul in Tarsus to be changed from a museum to a functioning place of regular worship. Not only had the pope made a personal appeal in this respect, but the archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Meisner, had asked Erdoğan for the return of the church "as a gesture of European cooperation." The Turkish media reported that Ankara turned down these requests from the pope, Cardinal Meisner, and Bishop Padovese, notwithstanding the Catholic leaders' pledge to support the building of a mosque in Germany on condition that the Turkish government hand over the holy site to the church, together with permission for the construction of a center for pilgrims.[58]
The Islamist Erdoğan maintains continuity with his ultranationalist predecessors by refusing to respect the historic, ecumenical character of the Patriarchate of Constantinople—i.e., its titular ascendancy over the other patriarchates of the 300 million-strong Orthodox communion worldwide—and by requiring that the patriarch be a Turkish citizen by birth. Last October, the Turkish authorities allowed the right-wing Nationalist Movement Party to conduct Islamic prayers at the ancient Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Virgin at Ani.[59]
Raging Christophobia
Padovese believed that there would be no end to the war against the church in Turkey until the public as a whole rejected the widely-accepted negative stereotypes of Christians as dangerous, subversive aliens within society, and he especially blamed the popular Turkish media for perpetuating a climate of hate. He highlighted as an example two cases involving the late Fr. Santoro. In the first, he was run out of a village near Trabzon by a group of children while local adults incited the youth with applause. The local newspaper reported the incident with the headline "Priest Sighted on the Coast Road," as if his presence there justified the mob action against him.[60] The second case followed Santoro's murder when the daily Vatan alleged that the assassinated priest had been guilty of distributing money to young people to entice them to visit his church.[61]
Turkey's Christians were especially alarmed by the mass popular hysteria whipped up by the 2006 blockbuster Valley of the Wolves, an action-packed adventure film set in post-Saddam Iraq. Reviewing the movie in Spiegel, Cem Özdemir—a member of the European Parliament of Turkish descent—decried its pandering to "racist sentiments" and its making "Christians and Jews appear as repugnant, conspiratorial holy warriors hoping to use blood-drenched swords to expand or reclaim the empire of their God."[62]
Far from distancing themselves from the movie, ultra-nationalists and those at high levels in the Islamist camp praised it. "The film is absolutely magnificent … It is completely true to life," exclaimed the parliament speaker (and later deputy prime minister) Bülent Arınç. Unconcerned about the damaging implications of the film's negative images of Christians and Jews, Turkey's President Gül refused to condemn it, saying it was no worse than many Hollywood films.[63] Erdoğan's pious wife is reportedly a fan of the racist film.[64]
The Christophobia of the boulevard press and "Istanbulywood" can also be found in state documents. A national intelligence report, exposed by the Cumhuriyet newspaper in June 2005, revealed similar dangerous sentiments that are at odds with the principles espoused by Erdoğan at showcase Alliance of Civilizations events.
Titled "Reactionary Elements and Risks," the report put Islamist terrorist groups on a par with Christian missionaries, who, it claimed, cover Turkey "like a spider's web" and promote divisions in sensitive areas such as the Black Sea and eastern Anatolia. According to the report, the Christian evangelizers included Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, as well as other Christian and non-Christian groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Baha'is, with the latter concentrating on government officials, liberal businessmen, and performing and other artists.[65]
Echoing the tenor of the intelligence report, Turkish state minister Mehmet Aydın, who oversees the state's Directorate for Religious Affairs and who has served as an advisor to the National Security Council on religious issues, argued that the goal of Christian missionaries was to "break up the historical, religious, national, and cultural unity of the people of Turkey," adding that much evangelizing was "done in secret."[66] This claim was echoed by Erdoğan's interior minister Abdülkadir Asku, who told the Turkish parliament that Christian missionaries exploited religious and ethnic differences and natural disasters to win the hearts of poor people. Having highlighted the secret and subversive nature of this allegedly devious effort, he noted an embarrassingly small success rate: 338 converts to Christianity (and six converts to Judaism) out of 70 million Turks during the previous seven years.[67]
Deep Prejudice
When Erdoğan, as an Islamist opposition politician, announced in 1997 that "the minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army"—lines from a poem of by Ziya Gökalp, a nineteenth-century architect of Turkish nationalism based on a synthesis of Islam and Turkish ethnicity—he was not only making a statement about the role of Islam in promoting the interests of the Turkish state but also indicating the unity of religion and nationalism in Turkish perception. As historian Bernard Lewis explained, "One may speak of Christian Arabs—but a Christian Turk is an absurdity and a contradiction in terms. Even today, after thirty-five years of the secular republic, a non-Muslim in Turkey may be called a Turkish citizen, but never a Turk."[68]
Much has changed in Turkey over the past half century but not the fundamental character of Turkish nationalism. The Turkish nation still thinks of itself in terms of Islam and Turkish ethnicity, leaving little scope for the full integration of non-Muslims into the life of the nation. Most Christians in Turkey belong to ethnic minorities. In the case of the Greeks and Armenians, they are identified in the public mind with historically hostile states. Roman Catholics and Protestants are linked with the Western powers that imposed humiliating conditions on the Ottoman Empire, notably the capitulations for the protection of non-Muslims and the sponsorship of Christian missionary activity.
Four academics of Turkish background have highlighted this Islamo-Turkish supremacism in a 2008 EU-commissioned report. They argued:
Despite laicism, the Turkish state has not been able to overcome the segregation of non-Muslim minorities and to integrate them into the nation as citizens with equal rights. While the Muslim Turks have been the "we," the non-Muslim minorities have been categorized as "the other"… they have been rather perceived as "domestic foreigners."
The authors make further observations about the prevailing concept of nationality in the context of the need for the state to end religious-based discrimination:
Notwithstanding the spirit of the founding text of the republic, the notion of Turkish citizenship was shaped according to the legal context that prevailed before the Tanzimat reforms of 1839. Although the new republic defined itself as a secular state, Sunni Islam has been functional in the nation-building process as a uniting, common cultural factor of the majority of Turkey's inhabitants. A person who is not a Muslim is usually referred to as a minority person or a Turkish citizen, but not a Turk. Turk designates an ethno-religious characteristic of a political community.[69]
The extent to which this cultural phenomenon still influences Turkish society at the grassroots level is evident from the findings of an EU-financed public opinion survey conducted in 2008 by two Turkish scholars as a part of the International Social Survey Program. It discovered that
One third of Turkish Muslims would object to having a Christian as a neighbor.
More than half believe that Christians should not be allowed to openly express their religious views in printed publication or in public meetings.
More than half are opposed to Christians serving in the army, security services, police force, and political parties.
Just under half believe Christians should not be active in the provision of health services.[70]
The road from such views to outright discrimination and a heightened threat of violence is very short indeed.
Conclusion
All available evidence points to the presence of important religious and political elements in the assassination of Bishop Padovese. If truth is to prevail over "pious lies"—as the archbishop of Smyrna desires—Ankara and the Vatican will have to cooperate to ensure a full and transparent enquiry into the bishop's death. The credibility of an enquiry will depend on open examination of the details of the murderous act itself as well as on the broader circumstances surrounding it, including other violent acts of Christophobia and the encouragement of xenophobic attitudes by the media, the entertainment industry, and the educational system. This means penetrating the netherworld of connections between the Turkish government, the deep state, and radical political groups, and examining the institutional sources of Turkish Christophobia.
Such a joint investigation, perhaps with the assistance of the deceased bishop's homeland, Italy, or with the United States as Turkey's most important ally, would be an expression of Christian-Muslim dialogue in practice. A government-sponsored campaign to combat Christophobia in Turkish society would demonstrate Turkey's commitment to bring to an end its own historic clash of civilizations and replace it with a strong, equitable alliance of civilizations.
In the months that have passed since Padovese's beheading, Erdoğan and his Islamist government have not taken such steps. This failure is a sign of a lack of political will to break from Turkey's historic tradition of Islamic and Turkish supremacism. Unless determination is publicly demonstrated, Turkey will entrench itself still deeper in an Ottoman-oriented Islam that is increasingly at odds with its Christian minorities, its former non-Muslim ally Israel, and the West.
The soft power of the modern papacy, with its appeals for religious liberty, can exercise a positive influence on Turkey and the rest of the Islamic world. But Islamic powers can see, as did Stalin, an absence of papal military divisions in the current clash of civilizations. Unless the thoroughly secularized nations of what was once Christendom provide firmer backbone, the Vatican will have little choice but to bend with the breeze.
John Eibner, chief executive officer of Christian Solidarity International-USA, focuses on religious and ethnic conflict, mainly in the Middle East, North-East Africa and Eastern Europe. He has visited these regions on numerous human rights fact-finding and humanitarian aid missions.
[1] According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2009, U.S. Department of State, Washington D.C., there are approximately 90,000 Christians in Turkey. Vatican sources claim a total of 30,000 Catholics. Catholic News Agency (Rome), Nov. 27, 2006.
[2] Asia News (Bangkok), June 7, 2010.
[3] Daniel Pipes, "Denying [Islamist] Terrorism," The New York Sun, Feb. 8, 2005.
[4] "Remarks by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament," in Ankara, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Apr. 6, 2009.
[5] Bishop Luigi Padovese, presentation, St. Louis Catholic Parish, Ansbach, Germany, June 18, 2009.
[6] "The Catholic Church in the Middle East: Communion and Witness. 'Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul' (Acts 4:32)," Synod of Bishops, Special Assembly for the Middle East, Vatican City, June 6, 2010.
[7] Ibid., p. 37.
[8] "Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI," meeting with representatives of Muslim communities, Cologne, Libreria Editrice Vaticana (Rome), Aug. 20, 2005.
[9] "The Catholic Church in the Middle East," pp. 10-12.
[10] Ibid., p. 44.
[11] ANSA News Agency, Vatican City, June 3, 2010.
[12] Agence France-Presse, June 4, 2010.
[13] Asia News, June 7, 2010.
[14] Press release, Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, June 3, 2010.
[15] CNN, June 3, 2010.
[16] Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, statement, opening session, Alliance of Civilizations Forum, Madrid, Jan. 15, 2008.
[17] Ynet News (Tel Aviv), June 1, 2010.
[18] Associated Press, June 3, 2010.
[19] Radio Vatican, June 3, 2010.
[20] Ibid., June 4, 2010.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Le Figaro (Paris), Aug. 13, 2004; CatholicCulture.org, Dec. 17, 2004.
[23] Inter-Press Service (Rome), Apr. 20, 2005; Agence France-Presse, Apr. 21, 2005.
[24] Benedict XVI, "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections," University of Regensburg, Sept. 12, 2006.
[25] Yeni Şafak (Istanbul), Sept. 17, 2006; Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch, no. 1297, Sept. 22, 2006.
[26] Ali Bardakoğlu, "The Structure, Mission and Social Function of the Directorate of Religious Affairs," accessed Dec. 31, 2010.
[27] MEMRI, Special Dispatch, no. 1297, Sept. 22, 2006.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Catholic News Agency, Nov. 29, 2006.
[30] The Sunday Times (London), Nov. 29, 2006.
[31] Today's Zaman (Istanbul), May 14, 2009.
[32] Documentation Information Catholiques Internationales (Menzingen, Switzerland), June 28, 2010.
[33] Asia News, June 10, 2010.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Gareth H. Jenkins, "Between Fact and Fiction: Turkey's Ergenekon Investigation," Silk Road paper, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C., Aug. 2009; H. Akim Ünver, "Turkey's 'Deep-State' and the Ergenekon Conundrum," The Middle East Institute, Policy Brief, no. 23, Apr. 2009.
[36] Michael Rubin, "Erdoğan, Ergenekon, and the Struggle for Turkey," Mideast Monitor, Aug. 8, 2008.
[37] Today's Zaman, Nov. 22, 2008, Jan. 17, 2009, Apr. 13, 2010.
[38] Reuters, Oct. 4, 2007.
[39] Catholic News Service, Feb. 6, 2006.
[40] Asia News, Feb. 7, 2006.
[41] BBC News, Feb. 4, 2008.
[42] Today's Zaman, June 5, 2010.
[43] Rubin, "Erdodgan, Ergenekon and the Struggle for Turkey."
[44] Ahmet Igduygu, Sule Toktas, and Bayram Ali Soner, "The Politics of Population in a Nation-building Process: Emigration of Non-Muslims from Turkey," Ethnic and Racial Studies, Feb. 2008, p. 363.
[45] Ünver, "Turkey's 'Deep-State' and the Ergenekon Conundrum."
[46] Asia News, Feb. 9, 2006; BBC News, July 2, 2006.
[47] Voice of America, Dec. 16, 2007.
[48] Behnan Konutgan, "Christians Still Second-class Citizens under Turkish Secularism," International Journal for Religious Freedom, 1 (2009): 99-110; Compass Direct News, Dec. 4, 2009.
[49] 60 Minutes, CBS, Dec. 17, 2009.
[50] Today's Zaman, Dec. 22, 2009.
[51] Hürriyet (Istanbul), Dec. 21, 2009.
[52] Otmar Oehring, "Turkey: What Difference Does the Latest Foundations Law Make?" Forum 18 (Oslo), Mar. 13, 2008.
[53] Hürriyet, Dec. 21, 2009.
[54] Orphan Kemal Cengiz, "Minority Foundations in Turkey: From Past To Future," part 1, Today's Zaman, June 16, 2010, part 2, June 18, 2010.
[55] "Religious Freedom in Turkey: Situation of Religious Minorities," European Parliament, Directorate General External Policies of the Union, Policy Department External Policies, Luxembourg, Feb. 2008, p. 10.
[56] Compass Direct News, May 28, 2010.
[57] The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 7, 2009.
[58] Catholic News Service, Aug. 3, 2009; Hürriyet, Aug. 6, 2009.
[59] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Oct. 1, 2010.
[60] Asia News, Feb. 8, 2006.
[61] Ibid., Mar. 14, 2006.
[62] Spiegel Online (Hamburg), Feb. 22, 2006.
[63] The Times (London), Feb. 17, 2006.
[64] Deutsche Welle (Bonn), Feb. 20, 2006.
[65] Compass Direct News, June 22, 2005.
[66] Forum 18, July 10, 2007.
[67] Compass Direct News, June 22, 2005.
[68] Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 15.
[69] "Religious Freedom in Turkey. Situation of Religious Minorities," pp. 2, 10.
[70] Compass Direct News, Dec. 4, 2009; Hürriyet, Nov. 17, 2009.
Related Topics: Anti-Christianism, Turkey and Turks | John Eibner | Spring 2011 MEQ
The Middle East Forum


Barack Obama Middle East Speech
May 19, 2011

US President Barack Obama on May 19 delivered a speech on his country’s policies in the Middle East and North America amid the revolutions sweeping the Arab world. He said:

“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, have a seat. Thank you very much. I want to begin by thanking [US Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark – one million frequent flyer miles. I count on Hillary every single day, and I believe that she will go down as one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith.

Today, I want to talk about this change – the forces that are driving it and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security.

Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt Al-Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It’s the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home – day after day, week after week -- until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

And this lack of self-determination – the chance to make your life what you will – has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world – a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. And so a new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”

In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”

In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”

In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age – a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we’ve already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways – as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens – a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then – and I believe now – that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.

Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region. But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.

The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high – as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: Keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Qaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it’s not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Daraa; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad.

So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home. Let’s remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Now, our opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change – with change that’s consistent with the principles that I’ve outlined today. That’s true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that’s true today in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.

Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and we will – and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States.

We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people. We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.

For the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a lone blogger. In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them.

We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. And that’s why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.

Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can’t stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. For just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

So, drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy. And we’re going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we’ve asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we’re working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. And these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. And just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts at anti-corruption – by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable. Politics and human rights; economic reform.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just one or two leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them – not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows – a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

That is the choice that must be made – not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.” In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union – organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa – words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

It will not be easy. There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.”