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.