LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 04/2011
Bible Quotation for today/The Parable of the Wedding Feast
Matthew 22/01-14: "Jesus again used parables in talking to the people. The
Kingdom of heaven is like this. Once there was a king who prepared a wedding
feast for his son. He sent his servants to tell the invited guests to come to
the feast, but they did not want to come. So he sent other servants with this
message for the guests: My feast is ready now; my steers and prize calves have
been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast! But the
invited guests paid no attention and went about their business: one went to his
farm, another to his store, while others grabbed the servants, beat them, and
killed them. The king was very angry; so he sent his soldiers, who killed those
murderers and burned down their city. Then he called his servants and said to
them, My wedding feast is ready, but the people I invited did not deserve it.
Now go to the main streets and invite to the feast as many people as you find.
So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could
find, good and bad alike; and the wedding hall was filled with people. The king
went in to look at the guests and saw a man who was not wearing wedding clothes.
Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes? the king asked him. But
the man said nothing. Then the king told the servants, Tie him up hand and foot,
and throw him outside in the dark. There he will cry and gnash his teeth. And
Jesus concluded, Many are invited, but few are chosen
Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from
miscellaneous sources
Walid
Muallem: A mistake or a masterstroke?/By
Diana Mukkaled/
November 03/11
Why the Fall of Damascus Might Compel Hezbollah
to Turn Inward/Mona Yacoubian/November
03/11
Iran - US war: A clash of imaginations/By Amir
Taheri/November 03/11
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for
November 03/11
Syrian National Council Leader Vows to Cut Syria's Ties to Iran, Hizbullah
Hariri strikes back at
Nasrallah
Geagea to Nasrallah: If STL Were Truly an Israeli-U.S. Product, Govt. Would Have
Resigned
Ceremony
held to commemorate Rene Mouawad murder
Pentagon chief laments growing Israeli 'isolation' from Turkey, Egypt
Lebanese media: IDF bombed espionage devices uncovered by Hezbollah
PSP: Jumblat Will Only Lay a Flower on His Father's Tomb Sunday
Hezbollah: We foiled Israeli spy operation
Hezbollah slams new EU sanctions against Iran
Maronite patriarch’s
stance on civil marriage raises questions
Mikati says Lebanon “triumphed” by funding
STL
Mikati: Financing STL comes out of
commitment to Dar al-Fatwa
Mikati: Cabinet to
discuss demands of Aoun’s bloc
Mikati must now avoid a political minefield
4 Lebanese injured in gunfire along Lebanese-Syrian border
Syrian Opposition Seeks 'More Concrete' Foreign Backing
U.N. Rights Panel Slams Murder, Torture of Civilians in Syria as 11 Killed in
Friday Protests
Sanctions bite in
Syria as oil giant Shell pulls out
Report: Syria bans iPhone to cover up crackdown on anti-Assad protests
Syrian
opposition: Post-Assad regime will cut ties with Iran, Hezbollah
Biden Confers With Turkish Leaders About Syria and Iran
Ultraconservative
Islamists make gains in Egypt
Record 62% Turnout in Egypt Vote but Results Delayed
Egyptian left-wing
parties to form alliance following poor electoral showing
Russia: Sanctions on Iran 'exhausted'
Britain expels Iranian diplomats following attack on embassy in Tehran
Iranian diplomats
leave UK after expulsion order
Maronite Patriarch Beshara
Rai’s stance on civil marriage raises questions
December 03, 2011/By Van Meguerditchian/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Earlier this week, Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai voiced support for
compulsory civil marriage, saying that a law allowing optional civil marriage
would violate the Constitution. This outspoken support for civil marriage has
drawn mixed reactions from religious authorities of some of the country’s other
17 sects.Speaking at a gathering of students in Bkirki Tuesday, Rai said that
all Lebanese should have the right to marriage, regardless of their religious
beliefs. “In Lebanon, we have Christians, Muslims and atheists ... and when we
speak about an optional personal status law, we are violating Article 9 of the
Constitution,” said Rai.
Such a weighty issue will require discussions between lawmakers and religious
authorities, “but we should at least agree on optional civil marriage,” Michel
Tueini, the secretary-general of the Orthodox Gathering, told The Daily Star.
Civil marriage cannot take place inside Lebanon, but the state recognizes civil
marriages performed abroad. By some estimates, more than 2,000 Lebanese leave
the country every year to marry. Many opt for civil marriage in order to marry
someone of a different sect, as interfaith marriages cannot be performed by
religious authorities here.
“It is a complete hypocrisy on the part of the Lebanese state ... [that] on the
legal level it recognizes a couple married through a civil marriage, but the
state doesn’t carry it out in its territory,” said Tueini, who welcomed Rai’s
comments.
“The Orthodox sect has always been moderate and open to Rai’s proposals or any
other proposal that would strengthen national unity,” Tueini added.
Tueini also said that religious authorities from all sects should agree on a
comprehensive [civil marriage] law that would bring Lebanese closer. If civil
marriage becomes compulsory, “individual sects in the country fear that they
might lose their influence on their communities,” so Tueini added that optional
civil marriage should be an “intermediary solution.”
In 1998, former President Elias Hrawi introduced a draft law that would allow
Lebanese to choose between a civil or religious marriage. The Cabinet approved
the draft law but the Parliament voted against it. The country’s religious
leaders also opposed the proposal.
According to Tueini, 13 years on, the Lebanese are now ready to accept civil
marriage. “Since people are fighting for it, and they are traveling to other
countries to get married, it means people are ready. But the institutions to
carry it out don’t exist,” Tueini explained.
Mohammad Sammak, secretary- general of the Committee for Islamic-Christian
Dialogue, said a compulsory civil marriage law would significantly alter the
structure of Lebanese society.
Each Lebanese sect has its own personal status law. Legal procedures related to
marriage, inheritance, divorce and registration are handled differently in
various religious courts. “For instance, in a Sunni family, the son would
inherit double the amount of what a girl would inherit from her deceased father,
while in a Shiite family, they would receive equal inheritance,” Sammak
explained.
In creating a “dominant law” for personal status matters, Sammak said that a
“civil marriage law would break the distinction between different religious
sects.”
“Like the law drafted in [former President Elias] Hrawi’s term, such a law would
fail to pass if introduced without a prior agreement with the religious
authorities,” continued Sammak. “But Rai’s civil marriage proposal is one step
on the right path for further discussion on the matter.”
Some don’t believe such significant change is possible. Sheikh Khaldoun Oraymet,
a Sunni Muslim scholar at Dar al-Fatwa, said that “it’s not only very difficult
to pass such a law, but it is ... rejected by Islamic law.” He said there are
other ways to strengthen national unity.
“In Islam we don’t have a problem in allowing our men to marry Christian women.
But we cannot accept our women marrying Christian men because they do not
believe in Islam,” Oraymet said, adding that men are considered to be more
powerful than women, so they have the ability to convince their wives to
convert.
Disagreeing with Rai’s proposal, Oraymet said that debate over civil marriage is
a complicated one. “If by civil marriage he means mixing different Lebanese
sects together ... this conflicts with Islamic law,” said Oraymet.
Shiite Muslim cleric Sayyed Ali Fadlallah said it was natural for sects to want
to keep their members from integrating in order to protect them. “People are
free to choose their partners, but we prefer that they remain within our
traditions,” said Fadlallah, adding that the civil marriage question is part of
larger social issues.
According to Fadlallah, civil marriage would cause disintegration in family
ties. “Having civil marriage would cause family problems in Lebanese society,
and we are not willing to trigger these problems.”
Fadlallah also said that scholars and lawmakers should try to explain whether a
compulsory civil marriage law would solve problems or create them. “Such an
issue should be discussed thoroughly, but we do not support it,” Fadlallah said.
Hariri strikes back at Nasrallah
December 03, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri responded to Hezbollah’s attack
Friday, after Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah accused him of compromising on the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon for the sake of staying in power. “[Nasrallah’s] speech
expressed his deep disturbance over funding the international tribunal. The
tribunal has been funded and he contributed to that happening,” a statement
released by Hariri’s press office said. “[The] speech also expressed, with an
unprecedented bitterness, his unlimited infuriation at Saad Hariri.”
Nasrallah accused Hariri Thursday of compromising on the issue of the STL in a
bid to retain the post of prime minister earlier this year. He also portrayed
Hariri as having no interest in the stability or security of Lebanon. Nasrallah
was addressing supporters via video link following the decision to finally
provide the STL – a court that has accused Hezbollah members of assassinating
statesman Rafik Hariri – with funding for 2011. During the televised speech,
Nasrallah showed documents that he claimed were an agreement, prepared by Qatari
and Turkish officials last year, to settle the issue of the tribunal in return
for Hariri maintaining his position as prime minister. “The agreement stipulated
that Saad Hariri would cut the tribunal’s funding, withdraw Lebanese judges from
the court, and terminate ... the protocol which binds Lebanon and the court ...
in return for handing over the country to Hariri and his allies,” Nasrallah
said.
Hariri denied Nasrallah’s accusations, describing them as false and saying that
such claims reveal that Hezbollah is disturbed by Hariri’s political status.
“The question on every Lebanese citizen’s mind, especially Hezbollah supporters’
minds, is how could Hezbollah’s leadership, its secretary-general and the Shura
Council, justify funding the tribunal they claim to be Israeli?” Hariri asked.
“Isn’t it logical for them to say that funding the tribunal ... is a national
treason which requires the Lebanese judiciary to prosecute whoever supported
it?”
Nasrallah’s speech came a day after Prime Minister Najib Mikati announced he had
transferred Lebanon’s share of the tribunal’s funding which amounted to $32.6
million. Political sources told The Daily Star the money came from the budget of
the prime minister’s office and was paid through the Higher Relief Committee. In
late June, weeks after Mikati formed his Cabinet, the tribunal indicted four
Hezbollah members accused of involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
The party had denied allegations, saying the four suspects would never be
apprehended
Hezbollah has accused the U.N.-backed court of being a “U.S.-Israeli” tool aimed
at targeting the resistance and sowing sectarian strife in Lebanon. The
resistance group and its allies in the March 8 coalition, which holds a majority
in Mikati’s Cabinet, have warned that they would block any attempt to fund the
tribunal through the government. Nasrallah also accused March 14 in particular
and the Future Movement in general of seeking to instigate sectarian strife in
Lebanon, a charge denied by Hariri’s office. “Sayyed Hasan appeared very upset
by the Future Movement and by the political campaigns of the movement’s MPs, to
which he tried to give a religious and sectarian aspect, thereby denying the
fact that they are national positions that express the rejection by a large
number of Lebanese of the hegemony of the weapons,” the statement said. “His
focus on what he claims to be a sectarian aspect of the political and popular
movements in both Lebanon and Syria, and linking them in a pure sectarian frame,
are words that we refuse and will not find in the Arab Spring people who will
believe them.”
Hezbollah: We foiled Israeli spy operation
Terror group says it exposed Israeli espionage device in south Lebanon, causing
'Zionist enemy' to bomb equipment with unmanned drone
Roee Nahmias Latest Update: 12.02.11, 20:35 / Israel News
Two people were injured after an explosion was heard in southern Lebanon towns
Friday – a blast that may have been caused by an IDF drone, the Lebanese
newspaper The Daily Star reported.
Addressing reports on the incident, Hezbollah said in a statement that it "has
thwarted an Israeli spy operation by uncovering a wireless device in a valley
between the towns of Srifa and Deir Kifa."
The terror group claimed that after the device was exposed, "the Zionist enemy
bombed it with a drone. No operative was hurt." Earlier, a website associated
with the organization said that the IDF bombed an Israeli espionage facility
that has been exposed. According to the report, IAF combat planes launched a
strike on the equipment after it became evident it has been uncovered.
A Lebanese security official told local reporters that the blast occurred around
2 pm, saying that IAF planes were seen in the region. He speculated that the
aircraft's appearance was connected to the explosion. A different security
official said that the incident occurred in a Hezbollah stronghold. Others
reports estimated that the blast was tied to a Hezbollah operation, and not an
Israeli strike. The Daily Star cited security sources as saying that the
explosion may have taken place near an arms depot belonging to the organization.
The IDF did not immediately comment on the reports. Last week, Lebanese media
outlets said that a massive explosion rocked a Hezbollah stronghold near the
town of Siddiqin in southern Lebanon. The blast was alleged to have occurred at
a secret Hezbollah arms cache. The organization closed the area off to local
security forces. On Monday night two Katyusha rockets were fired from Lebanon at
the western Galilee. No one was injured, but damage was caused to property.
Ynetnews
Mikati says Lebanon “triumphed” by funding STL
December 2, 2011 /Prime Minister Najib Mikati said on Friday that Lebanon
“triumphed” after the government transferred the annual share of funding to the
UN-backed court probing the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri.
“Lebanon triumphed by funding the STL… and managed to confront [this issue]
responsibly in order to serve justice,” Mikati was quoted as saying by the
National News Agency.
He added that “the real achievement would be when the international community
fulfills its obligations toward Lebanon.”Mikati announced on Wednesday that he
transferred Lebanon’s annual share of funding to the STL court.Lebanon is
responsible for meeting 49 percent of the tribunal’s financing, which amounted
to $32 million this year.-NOW Lebanon
Mikati must now avoid a political minefield
December 03, 2011/By Hasan Lakkis/The Daily Star
Prime Minister Najib Mikati has succeeded in postponing a duel with March 14
parties by paying Lebanon’s share of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon without
provoking the ire of Hezbollah and other March 8 parties that oppose the STL’s
funding, and secured for himself the confidence of Western capitals and some
Arab capitals, particularly Riyadh. However, he will have from now until March
2012, when Lebanon is due to renew the cooperation protocol with the U.N. on the
STL, to make strenuous local, Arab and international efforts to avoid this
political minefield. The other issue that could prove to be as difficult as the
renewal of the protocol with the United Nations involves responding in kind to
Hezbollah and Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun for passing the STL’s
funding, which has enhanced Mikati’s image and standing within the Sunni
community and also at the local, Arab and international levels, by meeting
Aoun’s demands in administrative appointments. Sources in Aoun’s parliamentary
Change and Reform bloc said that the opinions expressed by some of the bloc’s
ministers on the manner followed by Mikati in funding the STL certainly did not
reflect Aoun’s viewpoint. However, they could be viewed as a pre-emptive step,
depending on the stance to be taken by Mikati on the bloc’s demands,
particularly with regard to the administrative appointments. According to the
sources, Aoun’s allies, having facilitated the funding issue, will not accept
that President Michel Sleiman and Mikati act alone when it comes to endorsing
the appointment of Christians to key state posts. They will insist on deciding
this issue before March, at least in the appointment of the president of the
Higher Judicial Council. This post is almost certain to be assigned to Judge
Tanous Mashlab. Such a step will make it easier for Hezbollah and Aoun’s bloc to
forge ahead with the issue of “false witnesses” who allegedly misled the U.N.
investigation into the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Although sources close to Mikati denied any deal had been reached with any party
concerning the passing of the STL’s funding, a number of ministers loyal to the
prime minister indicated in media interviews that the demands of Aoun’s
ministers represent demands shared by the entire government, but that the
necessary funds should be secured for them. The sources in Aoun’s bloc said that
if the FPM leader had agreed to pass the STL’s funding in exchange for promises
to meet some of his demands, he would not abandon issues that Mikati considers a
part of his prerogatives, and are linked to the fate of top-level Sunni state
employees, such as Abdel-Monem Youssef, director-general of the
Telecommunications Ministry, and the Cabinet’s Secretary-General Judge Suhail
Bouji. Pending a new Cabinet session to make up for Wednesday’s session, which
was postponed, ministerial sources in Aoun’s bloc confirmed that their
ministers, backed by Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, will not attend any
Cabinet session unless its agenda contains their demands, at the forefront of
which is the appointment of Mashlab as president of the Higher Judicial Council.
Ceremony held to commemorate Rene Mouawad murder
December 2, 2011 /A ceremony was held on Friday to commemorate the assassination
of former Lebanese President Rene Mouawad, who was killed in a bomb blast in
1989. President Michel Sleiman sponsored the event that was held at the
Conference Palace in Mount Lebanon’s Dbayeh, the National News Agency reported.
The ceremony was entitled, “our spring has bloomed… your dream is being freed,”
media outlets said. Several Lebanese public figures and party officials attended
the event, including representatives of President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister
Najib Mikati and Speaker Nabih Berri. Independence Movement leader Michel
Mouawad, the son of slain Rene, reiterated in a speech his support for the
Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which is probing ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s
murder. Mouawad also said that Lebanon should adopt “positive neutrality” in its
foreign policy, and called on the government to honor international resolutions.
Commenting on the Syrian uprising, he also said the collapse of President Bashar
al-Assad is on the way. -NOW Lebanon
Mikati: Financing STL comes out of commitment to Dar
al-Fatwa
December 1, 2011 /Prime Minister Najib Mikati said that his decision to finance
the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) reflected his commitment to the
principles of Lebanon’s highest Sunni Muslim authority, Dar al-Fatwa. “The
commitment to the STL is a practical translation of [my] commitment to the
principles of Dar al-Fatwa,” Mikati said in an interview with Al-Liwaa newspaper
published on Thursday. Earlier this year, Lebanon’s Dar al-Fatwa invited Sunni
politicians to meet, after which it issued a statement warning “against giving
up on the STL.” Mikati added that his move to transfer funds to the UN-backed
court, which is probing ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s murder, “is not the victory of
one party over the other.” “It is a national decision that protects Lebanon and
thwarts strife. The move came to [prove] Lebanon’s commitment to the
international community and to the concept of justice,” Mikati added. The
premier also reiterated his call for resuming national dialogue under the
sponsorship of President Michel Sleiman. Mikati last week threatened to resign
should his Hezbollah-dominated government refuse to fund the UN-backed court, a
source of political tension in Lebanon since its creation. The STL has indicted
four Hezbollah operatives for murdering Rafik Hariri, a popular Sunni
politician, and 21 others in a car bomb blast in Beirut in 2005.-NOW Lebanon
4 Lebanese injured in gunfire along Lebanese-Syrian border
December 02, 2011/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Four Lebanese people were injured
Friday in heavy shooting from the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon, a
Lebanese Red Cross source said.
The source, speaking to The Daily Star on condition of anonymity, said the
wounded were two men and two women. He said the casualties were taken from the
border towns of Bekaya and Arida to the Salam Hospital in Qobeiyat, north
Lebanon. Only two of them, however, have so far been identified -- Afraa Khaled
Sayyed, a 12-year-old girl, who was wounded in her left thigh, and Ibrahim
Shahwan, 40, in coma as a result of wounds he suffered to his back and legs.
Lebanese security sources reported hearing heavy tank shelling and machine-gun
fire in the border region of Wadi Khaled.
“The Wadi Khaled area is shaking with the sound of explosions from tank shelling
and heavy machine guns,” a security source told The Daily Star. Activists have
reported heavy shooting in the western Syrian town of Talkalakh, near the border
with Lebanon. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights cited
witnesses as saying shooting erupted early Friday and that dozens have been
wounded.
There also were reports of anti-government protests in Idlib province, near
Turkey. The reports could not be independently confirmed. Syria is trying to
crush an 8-month-old revolt challenging President Bashar Assad's autocratic
rule. On Thursday, the U.N.'s top human rights official said Syria has entered a
state of civil war with more than 4,000 people dead since mid-March and an
increasing number of soldiers defecting from the army to fight Assad's regime.
-- With AP
Why the Fall of Damascus Might
Compel Hezbollah to Turn Inward
Mona Yacoubian /December 1, 2011
ForeignAffairs.com
Hezbollah faces a moment of reckoning. The increasingly likely demise of Bashar
al-Assad’s regime in Damascus would deprive the militant Lebanese Shia
organization of one of its main patrons and could constrain its ability to play
an active role in regional politics. Moreover, by offering up unbridled support
for Syria, Hezbollah has placed itself at odds with the popular revolts that are
unseating autocratic rulers across the Arab world, undermining the narratives of
resistance and justice for the oppressed that it has long espoused. Facing the
loss of a key ally and with its credibility compromised, an off-balance
Hezbollah could turn inward, deepening its involvement in Lebanese politics in
order to consolidate its power.
Together with Iran, Hezbollah stands to lose the most from the fall of the
Syrian regime. Over the years, the organization and the Assad regime have
nurtured strong ties due to their often overlapping interests in Lebanon, a
proxy arena for Western confrontation with Iran and Syria. The relationship
deepened following Syria’s 2005 withdrawal from Lebanon, which forced Damascus
to rely more heavily on Hezbollah to extend its influence in the country. Assad
has reportedly supplied Hezbollah with training and access to sophisticated
weapons systems, including long-range Scud missiles, on Syrian soil.
Beyond its bilateral ties to Hezbollah, Damascus has also served as an important
conduit for Iranian arms and played a bridging role between the Persian power
and its Lebanese acolytes. Bound together by their shared hostility toward
Israel, these three allies, together with Hamas, have formed a so-called axis of
resistance to serve as a counterweight to more moderate forces in the region.
Although Hezbollah’s relationship with Iran would endure without Assad, the
alliance would lose an important center of gravity.
Moreover, the instability in Syria has deepened sectarian divisions in Lebanon,
which could further challenge Hezbollah. Lebanon’s Sunnis overwhelmingly support
the Syrian opposition and have publicly demonstrated their outrage at Damascus’
repression; the ruling March 8 bloc, comprising Hezbollah, the Shia party Amal,
and their Christian allies, has sided with Assad. Rival pro- and anti-Syrian
rallies regularly occur in Beirut and in the northern city of Tripoli, where
Sunni-Alawi clashes in June left several dead and required the Lebanese army to
quell the violence. Although Hezbollah’s military predominance in Lebanon
minimizes the prospects for renewed civil war, a surge in sectarian violence
would significantly undermine its position.
As momentous change rocks the Arab world, Hezbollah could be forced to reconcile
its long-standing dedication to resistance with the new narratives being written
on the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and Damascus. Hezbollah’s steadfast support for
Assad has already dealt its credibility a severe blow, in Lebanon and across the
region. Its pro-regime declarations stand in marked contrast to the group’s
boisterous encouragement of every other popular uprising during the Arab Spring.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s charismatic leader, was once a hero across the
Arab world but now appears increasingly tone deaf as he struggles to defend
Damascus against a growing chorus of Arab and Muslim condemnation. Established
media outlets, such as al Jazeera, as well as Arab youth using social media
sites, charge Nasrallah with hypocrisy and double standards. The revolt against
Assad has put Iran and Hezbollah on the wrong side of Arab history, and has
compromised their mantle as champions of the oppressed.
No matter what happens in Syria, Hezbollah will retain its preeminent military
and political role in Lebanon. But the likely end of the Assad regime poses an
existential dilemma for the organization, accentuating the divide between its
regional objectives of resisting the West and Israel and its local role in
Lebanon as the representative of a once marginalized Shia community. The
organization may need to recalibrate its priorities, choosing either to double
down on its military objectives or evolve into a wholly political force and
further develop as a grassroots movement with a vast political and social
network.
If Hezbollah goes with the first option, it would likely move quickly to
consolidate its control over Lebanon, possibly using military force. Such a move
might be precipitated by emboldened Sunni aggression toward Hezbollah or by
other circumstances that threaten the organization and its weapons. But
Hezbollah’s probable triumph in an armed struggle would be a pyrrhic victory,
dramatically undermining its popular credibility in Lebanon and leaving the
country highly unstable.
Hezbollah might also choose to direct its militancy toward Israel. This could
come as part of a broader struggle between Israel and Iran or as a result of
escalating tensions between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not likely to
intentionally provoke another war with Israel; both sides have acknowledged that
a third Israel-Lebanon war would be far more brutal, and encompass far more
territory, than the one in 2006. But if either Israel or Hezbollah miscalculated
and provoked a conflict, Hezbollah would be at a strategic disadvantage without
a Syrian supply line and safe haven. War with Israel could rejuvenate
Hezbollah’s resistance narrative, particularly if Israel used excessive force
that produced massive civilian casualties. But Hezbollah would pay a significant
price internally, particularly with its war-weary Shia constituency.
With all this in mind, Hezbollah may well opt for the second path, marked by an
inward turn toward Lebanese politics. In shifting toward politics, Hezbollah
would not completely abandon its regional ambitions nor its mantle of
resistance, but would focus more on a national agenda aimed at garnering power
inside Lebanon. This strategy would entail building alliances with other
Lebanese communities and consolidating its role into Lebanon’s strongest
political force. The party would be inspired by resistance to Israel, but
chiefly propelled by an agenda for political reforms in Lebanon that broaden its
political power, including proportional representation and a lowering of the
voting age. Hezbollah would build on its existing alliances with Christians,
further its attempts to build bridges to the Sunni community, and seek stronger
ties to the Druze.
Such a turn would be the logical extension of Hezbollah’s deepening involvement
in Lebanese politics since 1992, when its members were first elected to
parliament. As it has done successfully over the past year by working through
its allies to gain a majority in the Lebanese cabinet, Hezbollah would
increasingly rely on political instruments of power to protect its prerogatives,
further embedding itself in Lebanon’s fractious political arena.
As momentous change rocks the Arab world, Hezbollah could be forced to reconcile
its long-standing dedication to resistance with the new narratives being written
on the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and Damascus. The collapse of the Assad regime
-- and with it, the entire regional order -- would accelerate Hezbollah’s
impending moment of truth. In a new Middle East, Hezbollah may well opt for a
more political path, positioning itself as the champion of a once marginalized
community rather than as the defender of repressive regimes.
Hezbollah slams new EU sanctions against Iran
Dec 2, 2011,/Beirut- The Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah on Friday slammed
new sanctions by the European Union against Iran, saying 'international evil
powers once again agreed' to hit Tehran with their 'bankrupt decisions.' On
Thursday, European Union foreign ministers slapped sanctions on more than 180
Iranian companies and individuals. 'These sanctions are part of the
international campaign against Iran, Syria, the people of the region and the
axis of resistance. It targets people who resist Western hostility that has been
ongoing for decades,' the movement said in a statement. Hezbollah is trained and
financed by Iran and is supported by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Syrian opposition: Post-Assad regime will cut ties with
Iran, Hezbollah
December 2, 2011 /Syrian National Council head Burhan Ghalioun said that an
opposition-run Syria would cut ties with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, the Wall
Street Journal reported Friday. “After the fall of the Syrian regime,
[Hezbollah] won't be the same,” he told the paper. The opposition leader also
said that Syria would align itself with “the region’s major Arab powers,” a
possible reference to the Gulf states and Egypt. According to Ghalioun, Syria’s
ties with Iran are “abnormal.”“Ghalioun also called on the international
community to take aggressive new steps, including the possible establishment of
a no-fly zone in Syria,” the US daily added. “Our main objective is finding
mechanisms to protect civilians and stop the killing machine,” he also told The
Wall Street Journal. Ghalioun also said that his organization is looking to
reach out to the Syrian Christian community. “The SNC has made a special
outreach to Christians, including sending a mission to the Vatican, amid fears
that Christians' religious, economic and political rights could be curtailed in
a post-[Bashar al-] Assad Syria,” he told the newspaper. The SNC was formed as
an umbrella body to organize Syria’s disparate opposition groups, which have
been agitating for the end of a regime that has, according to the UN, killed
over 4,000 civilians since pro-democracy protests erupted in mid-March. -NOW
Lebanon
Question: "Why should I read the Old Testament?"
GotQuestions.org?
Answer: The Bible is a progressive revelation. If you skip the first half of any
good book and try to finish it; you will have a hard time understanding the
characters, the plot, and the ending. In the same way, the New Testament is only
completely understood when it is seen as being built upon the foundation of the
events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old
Testament. If we only had the New Testament, we would come to the gospels and
not know why the Jews were looking for a Messiah (a Savior King). Without the
Old Testament, we would not understand why this Messiah was coming (see Isaiah
53); we would not have been able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah
through the many detailed prophecies that were given concerning Him (e.g., His
birth place (Micah 5:2); His manner of death (Psalm 22, especially vv. 1,7-8,
14-18; Psalm 69:21, etc.), His resurrection (Psalm 16:10), and many more details
of His ministry (Isaiah 52:13.; 9:2, etc.).
Without the Old Testament, we would not understand the Jewish customs that are
mentioned in passing in the New Testament. We would not understand the
perversions the Pharisees had made to God's law as they added their traditions
to it. We would not understand why Jesus was so upset as He cleansed the temple
courtyard. We would not understand that we can make use of the same wisdom that
Christ used in His many replies to His adversaries (both human and demonic).
Without the Old Testament we would miss out on numerous detailed prophecies that
could only have come true if the Bible is God's word, not man's (see the major
and minor prophets) (e.g., Daniel 7 and following chapters). These prophecies
give specific details about the rise and fall of nations, how they will fall, if
they will rise again, which powers would be next to emerge, who the major
players would be (Cyrus, Alexander the Great, etc.), and what would happen to
their kingdoms when those players died. These detailed prophecies are so
accurate that skeptics charge they had to have been written after the fact.
The Old Testament also contains numerous lessons for us through the lives of its
many fallible characters. By observing their lives we can be encouraged to trust
God no matter what (Daniel 3), and to not compromise in the little things
(Daniel 1) so that we will be faithful later in the big things (Daniel 6). We
can learn that it is best to confess sin early and sincerely instead of
blame-shifting (1 Samuel 15). We can learn not to play with sin, because it will
find us out and its bite is deadly (See Judges 13-16). We can learn that we need
to trust (and obey) God if we expect to experience His promised-land living in
this life and His paradise in the next (Numbers 13). We learn that if we
contemplate sin, we are only setting ourselves up for committing it (Genesis 3;
Joshua 6-7). We learn that our sin has consequences not only for ourselves but
for our loved ones around us and conversely that our good behavior has rewards
not only for us but for those who are around us as well (Genesis 3; Exodus
20:5-6).
The Old Testament also contains vast quantities of wisdom that the New Testament
does not share. Many of these are contained in the Psalms and Proverbs. These
bits of wisdom reveal how I can be wiser than my teachers, what various sins
will lead to (it helps us to see the hook that the bait is hiding), and what
accomplishments in this world hold for us (nothing!). How can I recognize
whether I am a fool (moral fool, that is)? How can I inadvertently turn people
off without trying? How can I open doors to lasting success? How can I find
meaning in life? Again, there is so much there that is just waiting to be found
by one who truly wants to learn.
Without the Old Testament, we would not have a basis for standing against the
error of the politically correct perversions of our society in which evolution
is seen to be the creator of all of the species over millions of years (instead
of them being the result of special creation by God in a literal six days). We
would buy the lie that marriages and the family unit are an evolving structure
that should continue to change as society changes, instead of being seen as a
design by God for the purpose of raising up godly children and for the
protection of those who would otherwise be used and abused (most often women and
children).
Without the Old Testament, we would not understand the promises God will yet
fulfill to the Jewish nation. As a result, we would not properly see that the
Tribulation period is a seven-year period in which He will specifically be
working with the Jewish nation who rejected His first coming but who will
receive Him at His second coming. We would not understand how Christ's future
1,000-year reign fits in with His promises to the Jews, nor how the Gentiles
will fit in. Nor would we see how the end of the Bible ties up the loose ends
that were unraveled in the beginning of the Bible, how God will restore the
paradise He originally created this world to be, and how we will enjoy close
companionship with Him on a personal basis as in the Garden of Eden.
In summary, the Old Testament is a mirror that allows us to see ourselves in the
lives of Old Testament characters and helps us learn vicariously from their
lives. It sheds so much light on who God is and the wonders He has made and the
salvation He has wrought. It shares so much comfort to those in persecution or
trouble (see Psalms especially). It reveals through repeatedly fulfilled
prophecy why the Bible is unique among holy books—it alone is able to
demonstrate that it is what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God. It
reveals volumes about Christ in page after page of its writings. It contains so
much wisdom that goes beyond what is alluded to or quoted in the New Testament.
In short, if you have not yet ventured in depth into its pages, you are missing
much that God has available for you. As you read it, there will be much you do
not understand right away, but there will be much you will understand and learn
from. And as you continue to study it, asking God to teach you further, your
mining will pay off in brighter treasures still.
Biden Confers With Turkish Leaders About Syria and Iran
By MARK LANDLER/New York Times
December 2, 2011
In a session on Friday with Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul, Mr. Biden pressed
a message he has carried throughout this trip, according to a senior
administration official: Iran’s isolation is deepening, and its influence in the
region is diminishing.
It was a theme that the vice president pushed at every stop in Iraq, insisting
that the exit of the United States would not open the door to meddling by Iran,
as many there and in Washington fear. Iraqis, he argued, will resoundingly
reject Iranian efforts to dominate their country.
Speaking in an interview on Thursday, Mr. Biden said that Iran is “close to a
pariah nation.”
Mr. Biden’s comments seemed calculated to reassure allies like Turkey in a
region that is worried about a new wave of instability — not just because of
Iran’s more aggressive behavior but also because of the violence in Syria.
In his meeting with the Turkish president, the senior administration official
said, Mr. Biden acknowledged that there were fears in the Middle East about what
would happen if the uprising in Syria managed to topple President Bashar al-Assad.
But he argued that Mr. Assad himself was the greatest cause of instability and
sectarian strife. “The problem right now is Assad,” Mr. Biden said in the
interview. “Could something emerge that is more disruptive regionally? I don’t
think so, but it could.”
While Mr. Biden runs the administration’s policy on Iraq, he does not have as
central a role on Iran. But Mr. Biden, officials said, has been an influential
voice in dealing with the upheaval in the Arab world, because he has dealt with
many of the players as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
After some early differences, Turkey and the United States are now aligned in
their response to Syria. Both have called on Mr. Assad to step down and have
imposed sanctions. This week, Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, even
broached the possibility of a Turkish military incursion into Syria to impose a
safety zone if Mr. Assad did not stop killing civilians in his effort to crush
the uprising.
Mr. Biden declined to comment on the proposal beyond saying, “To the best of my
knowledge, there’s been no final decision that the Turks have taken on that.” He
said he would probably discuss it with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom
he is meeting in Istanbul on Saturday.
The subject of a safety zone did not come up in the session with Mr. Gul, the
senior administration official said.
On Iran, where Turkey has clung to the possibility of a diplomatic solution to
the confrontation over the suspect Iranian nuclear program, there is more
distance between it and the United States. Mr. Biden urged Turkey to impose new
sanctions on Iran, in written answers to questions published Friday in the
Turkish newspaper Hurriyet.
He attributed Iran’s isolation to a variety of factors: its continued work on a
nuclear program, the attack on the British Embassy in Tehran, its alleged
involvement in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and the
threats it made after Turkey’s decision to let a NATO antimissile radar facility
be based here.
While the vice president acknowledged that China and Russia were still reluctant
to strain their ties with Iran, he said that existing sanctions had already
badly rattled Iran’s leaders.
“Are the sanctions sufficient to fundamentally alter their behavior?” Mr. Biden
asked. “The jury is still out on that.” But in the meantime, he added, the
effect of the sanctions “has constrained the field on which they operate, it has
reduced their influence in the region, and it has, at a minimum, apparently,
caused significant discussion internally.”
Walid Muallem: A mistake or a masterstroke?
By Diana Mukkaled/Asharq Alawsat
Let us set aside, even if just for a moment, the feelings of discontent, rage
and disdain, and all the other emotions that have run high as a result of the
Syrian regime's bloody practices and stances, and contemplate the recent press
conference held by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. This press conference,
now becoming something of a weekly event for the Syrian regime, did not see the
announcement of a new political stance or any new political content, but rather
saw the screening of some footage which the Syrian media described as
"surprising", and which intended to confuse everybody. What is meant by
“everybody” here, as expressed by Muallem, and later the Syrian media, is the
Arab, and perhaps even the international, media outlets and satellite news
channels.
The “surprising” footage allegedly depicted scenes of killing and torture
committed by armed terrorist militants against elements of the Syrian army and
security apparatus. Yet shortly after the footage was broadcast, the scandal was
exposed. One film showed a mutilated corpse, which turned out to be that of an
Egyptian youth who was killed in the Lebanese village of Ketarmaya in 2010. At
the time, the entire world watched how this figure was killed and his body
mutilated. The other footage turned out to be footage of youths taken in the
Lebanese city of Tripoli during the battles that took place there in 2008. In
fact, it was incredibly easy and effortless for this footage to be refuted and
uncovered, something that makes the entire exercises even more strange and
puzzling.
Why did Walid Muallem, the media savvy Syrian Foreign Minister, believe it would
be easy to broadcast footage that had previously been uploaded on the world’s
largest video archive – “YouTube” – and claim that all of this had taken place
in Syria at the hands of militants and terrorists? Even after the reality of
Muallem’s video clip was exposed, Syrian official media outlets continued to
celebrate what they called a "masterstroke", by re-broadcasting the footage and
ignoring the fact that everyone is completely aware that the Syrian regime is –
for the thousandth time – telling lies.
Only two possibilities can explain the video clip shown by Walid Muallem at his
recent press conference. Firstly, someone from within the ruling authority and
the regime could have sought to lay a trap for the Syrian Foreign Minister,
aiming to humiliate him in a public manner. If this is correct, this would lead
us to believe that there is a trend within the Syrian regime that is at odds
with another trend and Muallem got caught in the crossfire, whilst the Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad views this [division] as the nature of his regime.
The second possibility is that the political apparatus of the Syrian Baathist
regime is now so exhausted that its bureaucrats can no longer distinguish
between a fictional scene and reality, or between a genuine photo and a
counterfeit. Both possibilities suggest that we are facing a new phase in the
lifespan of the Syrian regime; whether we are talking about division or a
collapse from within.
There is also a third possibility, namely that the Syrian regime's behaviour –
with regards to the media – is illogical. This is to say that a regime that has
brought out the families of murdered children – after the whole world had seen
their mutilated corpses – and coerced them into giving false testimony certainly
does not care about the differences between Ketarmaya and Homs, or between Bab
al-Tabbaneh and Jisr ash-Shugur.
There can be no doubt that the Syrian regime's actions contain a considerable
amount of violence, bloodshed and chaos, in addition to being completely
indifferent towards the intellect of its audience.
Iran - US war: A clash of imaginations
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
The way a war is waged, and to some extent its outcome, may depend on how
adversaries imagine it before it starts.
As tension rises between the Islamic Republic and potential adversaries, led by
the United States, how do both sides imagine a war that we must hope would not
happen?
In Tehran, the virtual exclusion of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from
decision-making means that, for the first time since 1989, the Islamic Republic
is under a single command symbolized by “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei.
Khamenei, who now likes to call himself “Imam”, may well be a puppet of the
military-security apparatus. But what matters for this discussion is that the
time when different voices could be heard within the establishment has ended.
The presidency has been reduced to an embarrassment and the Majlis, the supposed
legislature, has turned into a club of adulation for “the Imam.” Khamenei and
his entourage believe that war with US is inevitable.
But how do they imagine that war?
In a speech last month, Khamenei hinted that Tehran was preparing to abandon its
32-year old low intensity war against the US in favour of a high-intensity
strategy.
“We are not the type to sit back and watch as powers made of straw, and rotten
to the heart, threaten our steadfast and steel-like nation,” he said. “Faced
with aggression, we know how to be offensive.”
Four days later, the Deputy Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
General Muhammad Baqeri told the Majlis that Khamenei’s speech indicated “a
change in Iran’s Defense Doctrine.”
Baqeri indicated that Tehran's strategists believe that the US would carry out a
series of air strikes against the Islamic Republic before launching a ground
offensive. And, when the war starts on land, Iran’s huge size and difficult
terrain would defeat “the invaders”.
“The outcome of the war will be decided on land,” the general said. “And the
land of Iran belongs to the Iranian people.”
Piecing together the two speeches, it seems that Tehran imagines the war like
this: The Americans will bomb Iran’s suspected nuclear sites while assembling
forces for a land invasion. Iran will retaliate by attacking US forces in the
region while ordering the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah and the Palestinian
Islamic Jihad to fire rockets against Israel. The conflict will last a couple of
weeks after which mounting US and Israeli casualties, accompanied by worldwide
anti-war demonstrations, would force Washington to stop its “aggression”. The
“Imamate” would emerge wounded but alive, its nuclear project and prestige
intact.
What if the war doesn’t happen as Khamenei imagines?
To start with, air strikes may be more than the pinpricks Tehran imagines. Since
the Iraq war, the US has increased its fire-power fourfold. It has manufactured
“bunker-busting” bombs capable of destroying even the deepest mountain hideouts
in places like Fardo. The “bunker-busters” are the world’s most powerful
weapons, short of nuclear warheads. According to the Centre for Strategic
Studies, almost 400 of these are now “in position”, aimed at Iran.
Next, it is not certain that air strikes would be limited to nuclear sites.
Wouldn’t US strategist think of first wiping out Iran’s air, missile and naval
assets that could be used to defend the nuclear sites? And wouldn’t the attempt
to destroy such targets require the dismantling of Iran’s command-and-control
systems?
According to Dan Plesch of the London University, the US is "gearing up totally
for the destruction of Iran".
The US plan is to destroy over 10,000 targets in Iran within a few hours.
Because suspected nuclear sites do not number more than a dozen, it is obvious
that Iran’s conventional military assets and economic and industrial centres
would represent the overwhelming majority of targets.
Retaliating against US forces “in the region” won’t be relevant to the conflict.
By the end of the year there would be few US troops in Iraq for Jaish al-Mahdi
and other Iran-financed groups to harass. Attacking US forces in Afghanistan
would be declaring war on NATO.
In any case, the air strikes would be carried out by the US Air Force operating
from the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, beyond any retaliation Tehran
might imagine.
With Iran’s nuclear, military and economic assets destroyed, the US would have
little interest in invading a failed state.
Khamenei’s threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz is also dubious. Shutting the
chokepoint would need months to impact global oil supplies. Furthermore, the
inauguration of the Fujairah pipeline would reduce the effect of any closure of
Hormuz. Closing Hormuz would also shut Iran itself out of the oil market.
What about how the US imagines war with Iran?
Under Barack Obama the US has returned to the doctrine of long distance war
discarded by George W Bush with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, Washington imagines a short war from the air that would enable opponents
within the Khomeinist establishment to topple Khamenei, repeating what happened
to Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia.
But what if the Khomeinist regime, wounded but alive, accepts to halt the
nuclear project to gain time to suppress internal opponents? And what if a year
or five years later, the same regime resumes its nuclear project?
In any shape or form, the Khomeinist regime would remain a thorn in the side of
the United States and its allies. Khamenei is running a regime that cannot be
reformed. What it does is dictated by its political DNA.
The question that Obama must ask before triggering a war is whether military
action would alter that DNA?
Ultraconservative Islamists make gains in Egypt
CAIRO, (AP) — Egypt's ultraconservative Islamist party plans to push for a
stricter religious code in Egypt after claiming surprisingly strong gains in the
first round of parliamentary elections, a spokesman said Friday.
Final results are to be announced later in the day for a first phase of voting
held in half of Egypt's 18 provinces, but preliminary counts have been leaked by
judges and individual political groups.
Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Salafists appear to have
taken a strong majority of seats in the first round of Egypt's first
parliamentary vote since Hosni Mubarak's ouster, a trend that if confirmed would
give the religious parties a popular mandate in the struggle to win control from
the ruling military and ultimately reshape a key U.S. ally.
Spokesman Yousseri Hamad says the Salafi Nour party expects to get 30 percent of
the vote. Their party appeared to lead the polls in the Nile Delta province of
Kafr el-Sheik, in the rural area of Fayoum, which is known for high rates of
illiteracy and poverty, and in parts of their longtime stronghold of Alexandria.
Hamad also said the party faced its toughest challenge in Cairo because of the
small presence of Salafi supporters there.
The strong showing would put them in a position to influence policy, although
it's unclear how much power the new parliament will have with the ruling
generals still in power. For example, the military, which is not keen to see
Egypt delivered to radical Islamists, maintains that it — not the largest bloc
in parliament — will choose the next Cabinet. It is also poised to closely
oversee the drafting of a new constitution.
The Nour Party's purist pursuit of strict Shariah, or Islamic law, would also
face tough opposition from a diverse array of youth activists in the streets,
Egypt's Coptic Christian minority, as well as liberal and secular political
parties pushing for more social and political freedoms — perhaps forcing it to
veer less toward the large role that religion plays in Saudi Arabia.
The Nour Party is the main political arm of the hard-line Salafi movement, which
was inspired by the Saudi-style Wahhabi school of thought.
Salafists are newcomers on Egypt's political scene. They long shunned the
concept of democracy, saying it allows man's law to override God's. But they
formed parties and entered politics after Mubarak's ouster to position
themselves to try to make sure Shariah law is an integral part of Egypt's new
constitution.
The more moderate and pragmatic Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, has been
around since 1928 and has for decades been the largest and best organized
opposition movement in Egypt, despite being officially outlawed until Mubarak's
ouster.
Seeking to broaden its political appeal, the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice
Party has described its election platform as civil but with an Islamic
background, setting them up to be more rival than ally to harder-line Islamists.
Hamad told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that his party is
willing to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood as well as with secular and
liberal forces "if it will serve the interest of the nation."
Still, Salafi groups speak confidently about their ambition to turn Egypt into a
state where personal freedoms, including freedom of speech, women's dress and
art are constrained by Islamic Shariah codes.
"In the land of Islam, I can't let people decide what is permissible or what is
prohibited. It's God who gives the answers as to what is right and what is
wrong," Hamad said. "If God tells me you can drink whatever you want except for
alcohol, you don't leave the million things permitted and ask about the
prohibited."
Their surprisingly strong showing worries many liberals and Coptic Christians,
who make up about 10 percent of Egypt's population.
"We want democracy and what they want is anything but democratic," said Amir
Fouad, a Coptic Christian who trained as an engineer but drives a taxi because
he can't find another job. "They want Egypt to be like Saudi Arabia, all
Islamic."
Fouad, 40, said he worries the Salafists will force Christian women to wear
Islamic veils.
"I feel like it will be very hard for me to live in Egypt if they rule," he
said. "They will take Egypt backward."
Even some religious Egyptians see the Salafists as too extreme.
"I am religious and don't want laws that go against my beliefs, but there
shouldn't be religious law," said Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, a geography teacher. "I
don't want anyone imposing his religious views on me."
Islamist victory in Egypt — long considered a linchpin of regional stability —
would be the clearest signal yet that parties and candidates connected to
political Islam will emerge as the main beneficiaries of this year's Arab Spring
uprisings.
Tunisia and Morocco have both elected Islamist majorities to parliament, and
while Libya has yet to announce dates for its first elections, Islamist groups
have emerged as a strong force there since rebels overthrew Moammar Gadhafi in
August. They also play a strong opposition role in Yemen.
This week's vote, held in nine provinces, will determine about 30 percent of the
498 seats in the People's Assembly, parliament's lower house. Two more rounds,
ending in January, will cover Egypt's other 18 provinces.
The new parliament, in theory, is tasked with selecting a 100-member panel to
draft Egypt's new constitution. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which
took control of the country after Mubarak's fall in February, has suggested that
it will choose 80 of those members.
The Carter Center, which sent teams to observe the parliamentary vote, said in a
Friday statement that participation was high and that all parties appeared
committed to a democratic transition in Egypt.
The center, which visited more than 300 stations in the nine provinces that
voted, also called on election officials to better prepare workers at polling
and counting stations and issue clearer regulations about campaigning before
future rounds of voting.
Despite a legal ban on campaigning on election day, many parties actively
distributed flyers outside polling stations.
Also Friday, more than 5,000 protesters demonstrated in Cairo's Tahrir Square to
call for a speedier transition to civilian rule and trials for security officers
accused of killing protesters.
Large crowds marched into the square carrying dozens of coffins wrapped in
Egyptian flags to represent those killed in clashes with the police near the
square in the week before the elections.
Islamist groups did not join the protests, hanging their hopes — for now at
least — on the election results.
While the number of protesters was smaller that in recent weeks, many said they
had voted but still considered protest necessary.
"People haven't given up on the square just because there were elections," said
Ibrahim Hussein, who voted this week for the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and
Justice Party. "They all have the same demands and they haven't been met yet."
In Cairo's Abdeen neighborhood, a few thousand protesters marched in support of
the military, saying only it can bring stability at this time.