LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMay 23/2011

Biblical Event Of The Day
Paul's Letter to the Ephesians 01/03-14/"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ; 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and without blemish before him in love; 1:5 having predestined us for adoption as children through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his desire, 1:6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he freely bestowed favor on us in the Beloved, 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 1:8 which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him 1:10 to an administration of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, in him; 1:11 in whom also we were assigned an inheritance, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his will; 1:12 to the end that we should be to the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ: 1:13 in whom you also, having heard the word of the truth, the Good News of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 1:14 who is a pledge of our inheritance, to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory"

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The Syrians have pressured Obama…What about the Arabs?/By Tariq Alhomayed/May 22/11
Syria: The Case for 'The Devil We Don't Know'/By Amos Yadlin and Robert Satloff/May 22/11
Human rights violations in Syria/Talking to HRW’s Nadim Houry/By:Nadine Elali/May 22/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 22/11
US commitment to Israeli security is “ironclad,” Obama says/Now Lebanon
Netanyahu welcomes Obama call for peace/Now Lebanon
Netanyahu: I am determined to work with Obama to renew peace talks/Haaretz
Raad: Feltman visited Lebanon to protect Israel’s security/Now Lebanon
Death toll rises to 11 as Syrian funeral becomes protest/J.Post
They Shoot Horses, Don't They?/New York Times
Background: Israel's Pre-1967 Boundaries/NPR
My Word: Blurred borders/J.Post
Hezbollah slams 'rudeness' in Obama's speech/Daily Star
9/11's Triumvirate of Terrorist Travel: al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Iran/Right Side News
In the Golan Heights, Anxious Eyes Look East/New York Times
Promise of Arab Uprisings Is Threatened by Divisions/New York Times
Syria's defiant women risk all to protest against President Bashar al-Assad/The Guardian
Miqati Resumes Consultations on Monday, his Circles Hint about Politicians-Technocrats Cabinet'/Naharnet
March 8: No Cabinet is Looming in Horizon'/Naharnet
Hizbullah Accused of Aiding al-Qaida in September 11 Attacks'/Naharnet
Paris Says Lebanese Cabinet Deadlock Linked to Syria as West Expresses Readiness to Help/Naharnet
Rahi Meets Raffarin, Says God would Hold Accountable Oppressors/Naharnet
Hizbullah: Feltman Told Suleiman, Miqati that Cabinet 'Shouldn't Witness Light'/Naharnet

The Syrians have pressured Obama…What about the Arabs?
22/05/2011
By Tariq Alhomayed/ Asharq Al-Awsat
If it wasn't for the resilience of the unarmed Syrian people, and their commitment to their legitimate rights in the face of brutal repression from the Syrian regime over the past 9 weeks, the U.S. President would not have broken his silence, calling on Bashar al-Assad to stop the killing, and reform or leave. But the question here is: What about the Arab silence?
If the Syrians have pressed the Americans and the Europeans with their resilience, and forced them to break their silence, and move against the al-Assad regime, then when will the Arab silence be broken? The number of Syrians who have died at the hands of the regime's repression has now reached nearly a thousand. Where are the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of Islamic Conference? Why did they stand so quickly with the Libyans against Gaddafi, and demand that the international community intervene, while they have kept silent about what is happening to the unarmed Syrians, some of whom in demonstrations last Friday came out without their shirts to show they had no weapons, and despite this the Syrian security forces killed nearly forty of them?
The Libyan regime used violence against the rebels from the beginning of the revolution, and we all know the Libyan rebels took up arms early against Gaddafi's forces, or mercenaries. Meanwhile in Syria the demonstrations are entering their ninth week, and the uprising does not seem to be armed, despite all the misleading propaganda from the Syrian regime. It is easy of course, to confirm the reality of the situation in Libya, because Gaddafi allows a media presence in Tripoli, although he is under a NATO bombardment seeking to end his reign, yet there is no media presence permitted within Syria!
Therefore, the Arab silence about what is happening in Syria is sad and depressing, especially as the murder and brutal repression against the unarmed Syrians continues, with no sign of stopping. We saw Sheikh al-Qara in Damascus announcing his resignation from his Friday podium, because the worshippers feel uncomfortable praying in the presence of the security services. Of course it is not inconceivable that the authorities are there to prevent the Friday prayer from going ahead, in order to stop the demonstrations, even though they are based on solid foundations, rather than sectarianism or Salafism, as the regime tries to portray. We see the Kurds participating in the demonstrations, the rural communities, and even major cities from Damascus to Allepo to Homs and so on. Therefore, away from all political concepts, there is a moral and humanitarian duty incumbent on all those in the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to break their silence and take a moral and humanitarian stand in support of the unarmed Syrians. The protestors simply want to live a decent life and are tired of repression, humiliation, and false slogans of resistance. What the Arabs have ignored, without exception, are the genuine questions being raised in the region today as a result of the Syrian situation, such as: why is a Syrian who protests in his country being killed, while a Syrian who protests in the Golan Heights against the Israeli occupation is not? Why are the Lebanese handing over Syrian soldiers who have fled because they refuse to kill their own people, while if they had fled to Israel, they would not have been handed over to Damascus? Because we criticized America's silence towards Syria, and its selectivity in dealing with Bahrain, where the demonstrations were supported by Iran, we must ask ourselves the following question as Arabs: If the Syrians' resilience has forced Obama to act, when will we feel forced to act?

US commitment to Israeli security is “ironclad,” Obama says
May 22, 2011 /In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday, US President Barack Obama pledged that US commitment to Israeli security is “ironclad” and called on the Hamas Movement to reject violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Obama also reiterated the US government’s commitment to keeping up “pressure” on Tehran, to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and to stop Iran’s funding, arming and otherwise supporting violent extremists. "So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and we will stand up to groups like Hezbollah, who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs," said Obama. On the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama said of Hamas that, "No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction," and pointed to the recent Palestinian Fatah-Hamas unity agreement as "an enormous obstacle to peace." "We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements," Obama said, to loud applause at the AIPAC Policy Conference. "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," he also said. He added that this position had been "misrepresented" by critics who did not take into account his call for land swaps. "It means that the parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," he said. Obama had earlier delivered a major speech on Thursday addressing the revolutions sweeping the Arab world, including Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya, and also saying, "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” Hezbollah will reportedly be indicted by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) as part of the UN body’s investigation of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination. -AFP/NOW Lebanon

Netanyahu welcomes Obama call for peace
May 22, 2011 /Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that he shared President Barack Obama's vision for peace, in remarks that appeared to be aimed at defusing a deepening row with the US leader. "I am partner to the president's desire to foster peace and I value his efforts in the past and the present to achieve this goal," said Netanyahu, reacting to Obama's speech to the main pro-Israel lobby in Washington. "I am determined to work together with President Obama to find ways to renew the peace negotiations. Peace is crucial for all of us." Speaking to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama forcefully defended his call for an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on pre-1967 frontiers, suggesting critics had misrepresented his policy.In a dramatic Oval Office appearance on Friday, Netanyahu emphatically rejected the call, saying those borders would make Israel militarily indefensible and he then proceeded to lecture the American president.-AFP/NOWLebanon

Raad: Feltman visited Lebanon to protect Israel’s security
May 22, 2011 /Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Mohammad Raad said Sunday that US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman visited Beirut because of Palestinian protests on the Lebanese-Israeli border near Maroun al-Ras, not delay in cabinet formation. “The Americans sensed real danger due to the growth of the Palestinian people’s zeal, which drove Feltman to come to Lebanon to protect Israel’s security,” Raad said at a commemorative event in Nabatiyeh, according to the National News Agency. Raad also said that widespread unrest in Syria is “being exaggerated.”“Is shooting police in Syria, destroying public property, burning public administrations, and sniping protesters in the street an act of reform?” he asked. “If this were done in any European or Western country, they would view it as a terrorist act.” Ten people were killed and more than 100 wounded when Israeli troops fired at majority-Palestinian protests commemorating the 1948 “Nakba” that took place on the border near the town of Maroun al-Ras. Feltman arrived in Beirut on Thursday to meet with Lebanese politicians and officials. He left on Saturday. -NOW Lebanon

Human rights violations in Syria
Talking to HRW’s Nadim Houry
Nadine Elali, May 22, 2011
Nadim Houry (courtesy of HRW.org)
Waves of anti-regime protests hit Syria in mid-March. Since then, Syrian authorities have been shooting and arresting protestors in more than 20 towns and villages. Nadim Houry, Human Rights Watch's senior researcher for Lebanon and Syria and the director of the Beirut office, speaks of the human rights violations across Syria and what is being done to stop them.
What are some of the human rights violations going on now in Syria? Nadim Houry: We’ve documented a number of grave human rights violations; the first one is the shooting of protestors in more than 20 towns. There are no exact statistics because certain areas like Banias and Daraa are difficult to obtain information from, but the death toll is anywhere between 600 and 800… The other is the massive wave of arbitrary arrests. We’ve seen two types of arrests: targeted arrests against anyone who may have played a role blogging, tweeting or organizing protests. Also, sweeps of entire towns particularly focused on young men in Zabadani, Deraa, Douma, Banias and neighborhoods of Homs.
The third violation is the issue of ill-treatment and torture. We’ve interviewed 24 individuals who were detained by multiple security agencies. Out of the 24, 21 told us that they were beaten or tortured in detention. There’s a pattern of beatings as soon as these protesters arrive at the center of the security services, sometimes through electric cattle prods, to extract information. After they were interrogated, they were also forced to sign confessions. The fourth kind of violation has been restrictions on free media, be it denying journalists access into Syria and sometimes arrests. One case now is the Al-Jazeera English Iranian-Canadian journalist. The Syrian authorities are not saying where she is. They stated that she left Syria, except no one has heard from her since then. Another important violation is the denial of access to medical care in a number of towns like Daraa and Douma, where ambulances were prevented from reaching the wounded. There were also cases where wounded protestors were taken from hospitals before they received proper treatment.
How does this information make its way to Human Rights Watch?
Houry: We’ve developed a network of activists and sources of information from inside. The second source is direct interviews through direct calls, by mobile phones, Skype, emails, or through consultants who have done these interviews for us. The third is interviewing people who have managed to leave Syria. We refer to multiple sources and cross check. We don’t publish it until we have enough corroborating evidence. It sure has been challenging in covering places like Daraa, where the Syrian government has managed to siege the town and prevent the flow of information. But in this age you can’t withhold information for long; it will always have a way to surface. What is done with the information that you gather?
Houry: Once we have this information we are disseminating it to the media to create public awareness and public pressure. We lobby countries and international organizations like the UN Security Council to take action. We have been lobbying for targeted sanctions against individuals who are known to have committed grave human rights violations.
We also explore if there is a useful role to be played by the Arab League or by countries like Turkey who have contacts with Syria and who could encourage the Syrian authorities to stop their crackdown.  As a human rights organization, we’re not in the business of regime change; our job is to increase the cost of human rights violations. Do you believe that your advocacy is effective?
Houry: In the first three weeks there was a clear sense in many countries that not much could be done and that they still trusted the mantra that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a reformer. But then there was a succession of events that made it clear for most policy makers and followers of Syria that the regime is not interested in reform. It started with Assad’s speech in parliament on March 30, then with the deadly Easter Friday, then when the army sent in the tanks. Now we’re seeing more receptivity to some of these concerns: The EU has imposed sanctions on 13 different Syrian leaders, Turkey is being more vocal in its criticism against Syria, and there is support from the international community for an international investigation through the Human Rights Council. They have not yet been effective, and therefore we need to continue pushing. At the end of the day, the tools are limited. No one here is advocating military intervention; it would be counterproductive. If the Arab Spring is about something, it’s about change from within.
*This interview has been edited and condensed

Al-Rahi Meets Raffarin, Says God would Hold Accountable Oppressors
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi said in his Sunday sermon that officials should be aware that God would hold them accountable if they were derelict in their duties and oppressed the people. After celebrating mass in Bkirki, al-Rahi met with the visiting French deputy Senate leader, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. He later threw a lunch banquet in his honor. Ahead of the mass, the patriarch told a visiting delegation that "Lebanon is suffering from a lot of new illnesses that we should confront." "There should be freedom of expression and freedom of opinion in a democratic world," he said. Al-Rahi also called for diversity of views, parties and expectations. Beirut, 22 May 11, 13:39

Hizbullah: Feltman Told Suleiman, Miqati that Cabinet 'Shouldn't Witness Light'
Naharnet/Hizbullah MPs have said that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman has informed President Michel Suleiman and Premier-designate Najib Miqati that the new cabinet should not be formed. The MPs told pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat in remarks published Sunday that Feltman carried a message to Suleiman and Miqati that the government "should not witness light." He stressed to them that the policy statement should clearly refer to Lebanon's commitment to the rulings of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the sources said. When asked about the stances of the president and the premier-designate, they said: "Suleiman went along with the U.S. proposals out of his keenness to reconnect with the March 14 team and attempt to include it in the new national unity government." "As for Miqati, he is cautious about the proposal although he is convinced that the March 14 team rejects to participate in any type of cabinet that is suggested by Suleiman," the Hizbullah MPs said. They accused Washington of using Lebanon as a bargaining chip against Syria which they said is now busy with its local issues and is incapable of pushing towards the formation of a new Lebanese government. The lawmakers stressed that the deadlock will continue as long as Syria is in upheaval. Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah said during a speech in Bint Jbeil on Sunday on the occasion of Liberation Day that Feltman's visit to Lebanon was a continuation of the provocation against Syria. He accused the U.S. of seeking to shove Lebanon into Syria's internal problems. Beirut, 22 May 11, 10:01

Paris Says Cabinet Deadlock Linked to Syria as West Expresses Readiness to Help
Naharnet/The standstill in the cabinet is the result of the upheaval in Syria, western sources said, stressing they remain adamant that Premier-designate Najib Miqati was nominated after a coup by the new parliamentary majority against Caretaker Premier Saad Hariri's government.Paris informed Miqati's advisor Joe Issa al-Khoury that it insists on its stance that the nomination came after "a forceful coup that toppled the cabinet that had emerged from the Doha accord," French sources told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat in remarks published Sunday. Syria "is now busy with its local issues. That's why the expected results from this coup have changed and are no longer in the interest of the majority as some had estimated," the sources said. They said that Miqati was incapable of forming the cabinet due to the "new status quo in Syria." "For the time being, Syria can't exercise pressure" on Miqati, the sources told al-Hayat. Al-Mustaqbal daily also quoted western diplomatic sources as saying that the link between the situation in Syria and the formation of the new government in Lebanon would lead the country into more vacuum and reflect negatively on the economic situation. They expressed concern over the vacuum but stressed that the solution lies in the hands of the Lebanese. The international community is only ready to assist in the efforts to form the cabinet, the sources told al-Mustaqbal. "France has informed more than one side involved in the formation that it rejects putting pressure on the premier-designate," they said. "It understands that he is in a difficult situation but it's important for France that a cabinet that respects international resolutions and Lebanon's commitments is formed." Beirut, 22 May 11, 08:26

March 8: No Cabinet is Looming in Horizon
Naharnet/The March 8 forces have expressed pessimism at solving the cabinet deadlock soon, saying contacts between Premier-designate Najib Miqati and the different parties of the March 8 forces have been in a standstill since last Wednesday. The circles of the new parliamentary majority told An Nahar daily published Sunday that although Miqati stayed in touch with Hizbullah and Speaker Nabih Berri's Amal movement, the different sides are not expected to meet with the premier-designate next week. Furthermore, there was still no improvement in the relations between Miqati and the Free Patriotic Movement whose leader Michel Aoun has launched verbal attacks against the prime-minister designate and President Michel Suleiman accusing them of delaying the formation of the cabinet. "Things have gone back to square one less than two weeks after reaching agreement on naming retired Internal Security Forces Maj. Gen. Marwan Charbel to the interior ministry post," the new parliamentary sources told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. They hinted that the agreement was now in tatters after Aoun began making demands for more shares in the new cabinet and Miqati rejected conditions imposed on him. Beirut, 22 May 11, 09:30

Qobeissy, ' Ministerial statement will be fully consistent with our policy
BEIRUT | iloubnan.info / NNA -
May 22, 2011 At the opening ceremony of the new municipal headquarters in Nabatiyeh-South Lebanon on Sunday, MP Hani Qobeissy criticized how some UN resolutions are implemented while others ignored, rendering all slogans launched by the UN and USA "meaningless." Qobeissy, who represented House Speaker Nabih Berri in said ceremony, gave his speech in front of a crowd inclusive of representative of ambassador of European Union to Lebanon. The municipal project was funded by the EU, which allocated the amount of 30 million Euros to aid the region. 'To date we have not seen any changes in the policies of countries which...manipulate decisions of governmental institutions,' said the MP, adding that Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman came to Lebanon to complicate cabinet formation further. Qobeissy asserted that the next government will be formed based on the new majority and its ministerial statement will be in complete compliance with the policies of March 8 Camp.

'Netanyahu, Obama share little chemistry'
Tense White House meeting between US president, Israeli PM makes headlines in British, American newspapers. Wall Street Journal calls leaders' photo-op 'most undiplomatic moments of international diplomacy ever offered for cameras'
Jonathan Weber Published: 05.21.11, 09:48 / Israel News
The tension during US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's White House meeting on Friday was the focus of American and British media reports, after Netanyahu slammed Obama's speech, saying Israel will not retreat to the 1967 lines because they are "indefensible." Under the title "Netanyahu's outrage at Obama's Middle East speech is synthetic," British newspaper the Guardian's Middle East Editor Ian Black claimed that Obama's statement about Israel's need to return to 1967 lines "is more about Israeli anxieties and spin than a substantive US policy shift.
Sources privy to political atmosphere prior to US president's Mideast policy speech say tension between White House, Jerusalem hit new high
"American presidents from Bill Clinton onwards have used identical language. It was the basis for talks between Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. It also formed the basis for George W. Bush's talks with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert," he wrote.
Black noted that "Netanyahu's outraged rejection of Obama's words thus appeared both tactical and synthetic.
"The accompanying notion of 'mutually agreed swaps' allows in principle for Israel to retain settlement blocs it has built illegally in the West Bank and around east Jerusalem," he wrote, adding that "the row reflects Netanyahu's dislike of Obama as well as mounting alarm that Israel's diplomatic position is being eroded by a combination of international impatience and the changes of the 'Arab spring' – especially in an Egypt now pursuing a less pro-American foreign policy."
Black concluded that "Netanyahu's anger would have been genuine had Obama insisted simply on a return to the 1967 borders. That would have been a major shift in US policy."
British newspaper the Independent took a harsher stance against Israel, writing that the disagreements between the US president and the Israeli prime minister were too visible to conceal.
Under the title "Netanyahu shoots down Obama’s peace plan at the White House," the paper's US Editor David Usborne wrote, "Any artifice of unity between the leaders evaporated when they came before the television cameras at the White House to report on their talks.
"It has become clear that the men share little personal chemistry, the right-wing Israeli premier more at home with the Republican Party, which is generally more supportive of Israel's demands vis-à-vis the Palestinians."
The American press also commented on the strained atmosphere during the leaders' on-camera talk. The Wall Street Journal stated that "Netanyahu delivered a rare public rebuke of President Barack Obama at the White House, declaring that Israel would never accept the terms of his proposal to resume peace talks with the Palestinians.
"Friday's 15-minute Oval Office photo-op with President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might go down as one of the most undiplomatic moments of international diplomacy ever offered for the cameras," the newspaper added.

Syria: The Case for 'The Devil We Don't Know'
By Amos Yadlin and Robert Satloff
May 19, 2011
Washington Institute For Near East Policy
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/print.php?template=C05&CID=3363
The Obama administration's announcement yesterday specifically sanctioning Syrian President Bashar al-Asad begins to clear the fog that has clouded policy toward this pivotal country since the outbreak of mass protests weeks ago. As U.S. and international leaders have grappled with popular uprisings across the Middle East, the tension between moral values and strategic interests has often complicated decisionmaking, and until yesterday, this appears to have been the case with regard to Syria. But now that the administration has adopted a policy of "reform or go" -- i.e., calling on the Syrian president either to begin an improbable transformation of his family-led dictatorship into an accountable, rights-respecting democracy or step aside from his leadership of the country -- Washington may finally have shed its reluctance to adopt measures that could bring about the demise of the al-Asad regime. In other words, President Obama now at least entertains the idea that the "devil we don't know" in Syria -- an alternative to Asad -- is preferable to the one we do.
Context
The phrase "no size fits all" applies to the current situation in the Middle East. Each country presents a unique case, due to the complexity of the various factors at play and the need to assess what sort of outcome a given policy will foster down the road. In Egypt, for example, U.S. decisionmaking vis-a-vis the fate of Hosni Mubarak had to resolve the clash between, on the one hand, loyalty to a long-time ally and a desire to maintain the stability and peace his governance provided and, on the other, respect for the will of the Egyptian people and the deeply ingrained values of democracy, freedom, and human rights at the heart of the American experience. The choice was not easy, but the Obama administration ultimately made a decision that reflected the weight of the ethical, human, and political factors. In policy terms, the risks of change were deemed acceptable enough to justify that values-based decision. In other cases, U.S. and Western policy has been shaped by differing assessments of the strategic stakes, the ethical and moral imperatives, and the size and composition of the local rebellion. The result is the wide variety of diplomacy and military mixtures employed in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain.
The Syrian Exception
Surprisingly, the uprising against the Asad regime has triggered profound soul-searching in Washington and among Western powers about the precise mix of tools to use in support of the protesters, despite the fact that Syria does not present a clash of interests versus values. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to identify an Arab state that displays less concern for the core values of human rights, freedom, democracy, or peace. Indeed, Syria has chosen to ally itself with Iran -- the greatest antagonist toward Western interests in the region, a regional power that leads the anti-West, anti-American, anti-peace coalition and exports a destructive terrorist ideology.
Syria's complicity in Iran's strategy is clear. Damascus has willingly played a role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and Lebanon, the arming of Hizballah and Hamas, and terrorist operations against Israel, Lebanon, and Western nations. For its own use, the Asad regime continues to develop chemical weapons and would even have had enough fissile material for a nuclear device if its clandestine program had not been stopped in 2007. As recent weeks have shown, Asad is as cruel at home as he is dangerous abroad, authorizing the premeditated murder of unarmed civilians in cities around Syria, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. By any standard, the Asad regime should merit no delicate handling on the part of the international community, against which it has done nothing but offer contempt and violence.
Arguments for "The Devil We Know"
In theory, there are many arguments for adopting a cautious stance toward Asad, some worthy of discussion and others that rest on shaky ground and superficial analysis. Four claims in particular merit scrutiny:
Despite his shortcomings, Asad is a known entity and a careful ruler who has, throughout his tenure, ensured a certain sense of stability; any leader who follows him would be a wild card.
The most likely alternative to Asad is the reemergence of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which may transform the current secular state into a dangerously fanatical Sunni radical regime.
"Apres Asad, le deluge." The demise of the Asad regime would take the lid off Syria's deep sectarian divisions, triggering a post-Asad civil war that has the potential to engulf Syria's neighbors, threaten regional security, and dwarf the violence and horror of the mid-2000s Iraqi civil strife.
The chaos of a post-Asad Syria may open the door to a weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) nightmare: either the use of Syria's substantial supply of chemical weapons by rogue remnants of the regime or its even more irresponsible successors, or the transfer of these stocks to Hizballah or other terrorist organizations.
Arguments Against
On careful scrutiny, all four claims are wrong or exaggerated:
The fallacy of Asad as a force for stability: It is difficult to imagine any conceivable successor to Asad who would pursue more problematic or troublesome policies. Indeed, history shows that post-transition regimes tend to be preoccupied with internal problems and therefore do not pursue aggressive behavior toward their neighbors. The Syrian army under Asad's successor would likewise focus on ensuring domestic security, rather than seeking external ventures for which Syria might pay a heavy price.
The straw man of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood: In a post-Asad world, the ruler of Syria -- "the devil we don't know" -- is likely to be Sunni and, in comparison to Asad, more secular and politically moderate. Whatever his political inclinations, chances are unlikely that a Sunni leader would maintain Asad's close ties with Shiite Iran and Hizballah. Still, even if one assumes, for argument's sake, that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would dominate a new regime, such a government would still likely be less problematic than Asad's. The Brotherhood is a relatively weak movement in Syria -- many of its members have been killed or locked away in Asad's prisons, and the remainder is abroad. Furthermore, Syria has a secular majority, and a Muslim Brotherhood government would be constrained by that reality. Even in a worse-case scenario of a powerful and effective Sunni fundamentalist regime in Damascus, one should not forget the influence of a strong deterrent, such as Israel has displayed since 2006 toward Hizballah, itself a well-armed, radical Islamist movement.
The inflated threat of a post-Asad implosion: The argument that "civil war is inevitable" is even less convincing. Syria does not have a history of long periods of civil strife; while there have been numerous coups, they have rarely descended into lengthy periods of sectarian violence. Compared to Iraq, Syria is much less sensitive to ethnic tensions and religious extremism. Indeed, one option to consider is the possibility that a post-Bashar Syria could see the quick stabilization of a Sunni-Alawi alliance without the Asad family. Moreover, Syria's immediate neighborhood is much less threatening than Iraq's. Whereas Iraq had to deal with Iranian and Syrian interference in the form of export of radical ideology, jihadists, and terrorists to its neighbor, Syria's own neighbors -- Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, and even Iraq -- will have no interest in destabilizing Syria. Even Hizballah would feel compelled not to offend a powerful neighbor.
WMD fear is not a nightmare: While Syria does maintain a worrisome arsenal of chemical weapons, the threat of "loose" WMD in Syria should not be exaggerated. Chemical weapons are surprisingly difficult to use, requiring facilities to mix the chemicals as well as platforms to disperse them effectively. These obstacles make them difficult for terrorist groups to use: it is not surprising that al-Qaeda, despite all its efforts, still has not succeeded in this. Moreover, rogue proliferators of even more serious WMD than chemical weapons -- as Syria's nuclear program shows -- should not be allowed to use WMD possession as an insurance policy. Indeed, the opposite should be the case.
Pressure for Change
This analysis suggests that Western powers should not fear more assertive action in support of anti-regime protestors in Syria. Still, compared to the situation in Egypt or Libya, for example, the international community has found it exceedingly difficult to say even that Asad has lost the moral authority to govern his country. Perhaps governments around the world are wary of taking on another political campaign because they worry that it may become a slippery slope: despite their intentions, the political steps could evolve into a military campaign. Such a campaign would be inappropriate for many reasons, not least of which is that the West lacks the will and resources for a war against a fourth Muslim country. At the same time, it is important to recognize that in the case of Syria, such a campaign may not be necessary to achieve the desired results.
Indeed, Washington and other administrations should not underestimate the power that political statements, moral judgments, economic sanctions, and efforts at diplomatic isolation can have on Asad's hold on power. As is likely to be case with the new U.S. sanctions on Asad, his family, and his closest advisors, such measures can have a powerful impact on the situation inside the country. Much work will be needed in response to Syria's vicious human rights abuses and flagrant violations of international conventions. Unfortunately, Arab states and some European countries are divided on the issue, and this absence of unity makes it difficult to claim full legitimacy for tough measures against Asad.
The key to change lies in the clarity of the message broadcast to Syria. The men around Asad, the officers commanding the army, the Sunni merchant class, and the courageous protestors all need to know that the best choice is that "Asad should go." And international support for taking a chance on the "devil we don't know" will help empower Syrians to make that change.
*Amos Yadlin, the Kay Fellow in Israeli national security at The Washington Institute, is a retired major general in the Israel Defense Forces and former head of Israel's defense intelligence. Robert Satloff is executive director of the Institute.