LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJuly 09/2011

Bible Quotation for today
Psalm 124/Thanksgiving for Israel’s Deliverance: 1-5: "A Song of Ascents. Of David. If it had not been the Lord who was on our side—let Israel now say—  if it had not been the Lord who was on our side, when our enemies attacked us, then they would have swallowed us up alive, when their anger was kindled against us; then the flood would have swept us away, the torrent would have gone over us; then over us would have gone the raging waters."

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Resistance facing resistance/By: Tony Badran/July 08/11
Obama’s great escape on Syria/By: Michael Young/July 08/11
Canada Supports Intensified Restrictions on Iran/July 08/11
Canada Denounces Possible Death Sentence for Apostasy in Iran/July 08/11
Siniora and WikiLeaks/By: Hazem al-Amin/July 08/11
Why don't they tell al-Assad "now means now"?/By Mshari Al-Zaydi/July 08/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 08/11
EU, France 'concerned' by Lebanon's stance on tribunal/Daily Star
STL has become part of Lebanon's fabric: Fadlallah/Daily Star
New Video of Kidnapped Estonians Handed to their Country’s Authorities/Naharnet
March 14 will endeavor to topple Cabinet: Geagea/Daily Star
Geagea from Abu Dhabi: This is an Anti-Modernity, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Lebanon Cabinet/Naharnet
Report: Sarkozy, U.S. Officials Warned Hariri About Assassination Plot/Naharnet
Lebanon: Baabda Justice Palace Receives Hoax Bomb Threat/Naharnet
Concerned’ France Expects Lebanese Cabinet to Allow STL to Play its Role/Naharnet
Miqati from Serail: I Urge Cooperation between Opposition, Pro-Cabinet Forces to Achieve Nation’s Interest/Naharnet
Syrian Forces Storm Protest in Damascus Suburb/VOA
UN slams Israel for 'excessive force' on Nakba Day/Jesusalem Jost
Lebanon gets failing grade on MDGs/Daily Star
Lebanon lawmakers approve Hezbollah-backed government/Haaretz
US: Unsealed indictment reveals terror plot against Israel/Ynetnews
Former Israeli minister evades arrest warrant over Lebanon war/Daily Star
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - July 8, 2011/Daily Star
Berri: Cabinet’s Mission is to Deal with People’s Affairs, Make Appointments/Naqharnet
Israel, Europe Turn Back pro-Palestinian Activists/Naharnet
Palestinians to apply to Security Council next week for UN membership/DEBKAfile

EU, France 'concerned' by Lebanon's stance on tribunal
July 08, 2011 /Daily Star/PARIS: France said Friday it was "concerned" by the Lebanese government's attitude toward the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon into the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said France had noted Prime Minister Najib Mikati's promise that his Hezbollah-dominated Cabinet would continue to cooperate with the court.
"We are nevertheless concerned by the formulation used to refer to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which appears to cast doubt over the impartiality and the professionalism" of the court, spokesman Bernard Valero said. In a statement released late Thursday EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said Thursday's vote of confidence was a "welcome development," but added that she was "concerned by the absence of an explicit commitment to cooperate" with the STL.
The clause regarding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in the new Cabinet’s policy statement, which received a narrow vote of confidence in Parliament Thursday, states that the government “respects international resolutions” and “will follow the progress of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon,” and has been criticized by the opposition for lacking a clear commitment to the court. – With The Daily Star

New Video of Kidnapped Estonians Handed to their Country’s Authorities
Naharnet/A new video of the seven Estonian cyclists who were kidnapped in Lebanon in March has been handed to the Estonian authorities, a French security official revealed. According to al-Akhbar newspaper Friday, the video was delivered to Estonia some three weeks ago and it contains a plea for help from the captives. In June, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said that Lebanese authorities had information indicating that the cyclists were still alive. "According to the information I got from Lebanon's president, the kidnapped Estonians are alive and work to free them continues," Paet stated. "There are some preliminary (findings) that we have reached, but not to the extent that we can share with the media," he added while on a visit to Beirut. The seven Estonian cyclists, all in their 30s, were kidnapped on March 23 after entering Lebanon on a bicycle tour from neighboring Syria. Several people have been arrested in Lebanon in connection with the kidnapping, but there is no clear evidence as to who ordered the kidnapping or where the men are. The Estonians appealed for help in two videos posted on the Internet in April and May. The first was uploaded in the Syrian capital Damascus, investigators said, leading to speculation that the men had been moved across the border. Estonia's Prime Minister Andrus Ansip announced in June that his country remained completely in the dark, with no political or financial demands having been made so far.

Concerned’ France Expects Lebanese Cabinet to Allow STL to Play its Role
Naharnet/France said Friday it was "concerned" by the Lebanese government's attitude towards the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that will try ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s suspected assassins.
Foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said France had noted Prime Minister Najib Miqati's promise that the cabinet would continue to cooperate with the STL.
"We are nevertheless concerned by the formulation used to refer to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which appears to cast doubt over the impartiality and the professionalism" of the court, he said. On Thursday, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he was expecting the Lebanese government to facilitate the work of the tribunal.
When asked about Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s rejection to hand over the four suspects against whom arrest warrants have been issued by the STL, Juppe said: “We had always expected the Lebanese cabinet to allow the STL from playing its role.” “If that is not the case, we will draw lessons from it,” Juppe said during a press conference.
An Nahar daily said Friday that Paris believes there are different question marks on the cabinet’s policy statement on one hand and Miqati’s announcement that he was committed to the tribunal on the other. Juppe is expected to visit Beirut, the newspaper said, adding that he would invite Miqati to Paris.

Canada Supports Intensified Restrictions on Iran
http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2011/194.aspx
(No. 194 - July 8, 2011 - 10:30 a.m. ET) John Baird, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, today announced that Canada, together with the United Kingdom and the United States, is increasing restrictions on the Iranian authorities to hold them accountable for their international human rights obligations:
“Simply put, Iran’s complete disregard for human rights is unacceptable.
“The message to the Iranian leadership is clear: Iran will not take its place as a full and respected member of the international community until its government meets its international and domestic obligations.
“Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States will coordinate to prevent Iranian human rights offenders or individuals connected with the nuclear program from entering our countries.
“Canada is working with like-minded partners such as the United Kingdom and other members of the international community to encourage Iran to change its behaviour.”
A backgrounder follows.
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Backgrounder - Canada’s Response to Human Rights Situation in Iran
Despite sustained international efforts, including the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which increased measures against Iran to encourage it to comply with its international nuclear obligations, Iran not only remains intransigent on the nuclear issue but has continued human rights abuses against its own population. Among those who continue to suffer are the seven Bahá’í leaders who have remained in prison since 2008; opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who have been under house arrest since February 2010; and Sakineh Ashtiani, who continues to face the possibility of execution after a highly questionable judicial process. Numerous others have been brutally assaulted by security forces and jailed for attempting to exercise their rights to freedom of assembly and expression.
In addition to the imposition of sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act in July 2010, Canada has taken numerous other measures to hold Iran to account. Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird has issued a number of statements on the situation in Iran, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has taken a personal interest in the case of Sakineh Ashtiani. Since 2003 Canada has been the lead sponsor of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution entitled The Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Canada also takes action against individual human rights violators from Iran and elsewhere. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, under section 35 (1), contains provisions for the inadmissibility of individuals responsible for human or international rights violations. According to this legislation, any foreign national is inadmissible if he or she has committed an offence referred to in Sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Canada works in cooperation with like-minded partners, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, to make sure that such violators are flagged to visa officers around the world.
The efforts of the United Kingdom and other partners are invaluable in helping us hold Iran to account for its violations of human rights and its failure to meet its nuclear obligations.

Canada Denounces Possible Death Sentence for Apostasy in Iran
(No. 192 - July 7, 2011 - 4:45 p.m. ET) John Baird, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, today expressed concern over reports that the Iranian judiciary may sentence an Iranian Christian, Youcef Nadarkhani, to death for apostasy:
“Canada calls upon the Iranian court to respect its obligations under international human rights law, including the right to freedoms of religion and belief, and the due process of law.
“If the court decides on capital punishment, it would be the first execution based on an individual’s choice of religion or belief since 1990. Iran has consistently persecuted minorities for their religious beliefs, including the seven leaders of the Bahá’í community whose imprisonment for practising their faith was increased to 20 years.
“Freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right that Canada has championed at every opportunity in international forums. In the recent Speech from the Throne, our government renewed our pledge to create an Office of Religious Freedom to monitor and combat precisely this type of persecution around the world.
“Canada hopes that the international community will join in this call to pressure Iranian authorities to uphold the fundamental rights, to which every person is entitled.”

Report: Sarkozy, U.S. Officials Warned Hariri About Assassination Plot
Naharnet/ Former Premier Saad Hariri does not intend to return to Beirut soon after receiving information from Western leaders about the possibility of being targeted in an assassination plot, sources close to the Mustaqbal movement leader said in remarks published Friday. The sources said that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and high-ranking U.S. and U.N. officials have warned him about the plot. Hariri “is following the situation in Lebanon minute by minute and is meeting with all the (March 14) parties in the French capital to coordinate with them the steps that the opposition would take to confront the next stage,” the sources said. They added that March 14 supporters would have wanted for Hariri to take part at the large-scale meeting that the opposition held at the Bristol Hotel in Beirut on Sunday. The conferees asked Prime Minister Najib Miqati to announce openly and clearly his commitment to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon before parliament or resign.

Siniora and WikiLeaks
Hazem al-Amin, /Now Lebanon
July 8, 2011
Hezbollah has so rehashed the words “collaboration” and “treason” to the point where they are no longer serving their purpose. These words have become part of the party’s unwavering daily rhetoric despite two tough tests they have stood, namely the WikiLeaks test and the one pertaining to the network of collaborators within the party. The strangest thing of all is that these two tests did not deter Hezbollah from going all the way with treason accusations and with being choosy at that. Mohammad Jawad Khalifeh, Yassin Jaber, Ibrahim Kanaan and other March 8 figures are not traitors despite the WikiLeaks revelations about what they said to US officials. In contrast, Saad Hariri, Samir Geagea and other March 14 figures are traitors because of the revelations of WikiLeaks documents. It is worth mentioning here that there is a difference in favor of March 14 figures: Their enmity toward Hezbollah is avowed, and what they told US officials is said every day in the media, whereas Hezbollah’s allies are hiding what they really believe, which denotes a readiness to bear down on the party as soon as they get the chance to do so.
The ministerial statement discussion in parliament unveiled a hidden truth revealed by WikiLeaks regarding Hezbollah directly. When MP Nohad Mashnouq said that former PM Fouad Siniora is nearly the only Lebanese official not “suspected” by WikiLeaks, a Hezbollah MP could not control his temper and angrily said that Siniora’s “WikiLeaks” was plain for all to see on television. This flimsy reaction denotes the hardship that this truth caused for the party. Hezbollah actually wanted the WikiLeaks documents to include Fouad Siniora, and its wish was not granted. If we take things a little further down the road, we can say that the documents invoked by Hezbollah in its enmity tore down its rhetoric of treason accusations and caused it to lose its powers of persuasion within the closest of party circles.
Hezbollah silently punished its allies mentioned by WikiLeaks. Khalifeh and Jaber have been excluded from the cabinet and FPM names may not be on electoral lists in the next elections. Hezbollah pardoned Walid Jumblatt since, according to Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, he came to him, acknowledged his mistake and apologized. Yet the party is angry with Fouad Siniora because he remained out of WikiLeaks.
Hezbollah did not exploit the leaked documents intelligently; rather, the WikiLeaks knife cut the party before hurting anyone else. The same thing happened with the Arab Spring too: At first, Hezbollah hailed the Egyptian uprising, thinking it had won Egypt over, but then it lost Syria, and its pro-rebellion speech crumbled dramatically. The party supports the revolution in Bahrain and opposes it in Syria. The same WikiLeaks equation is repeating itself, as March 14 MPs are traitors for saying what they did, whereas March 8 MPs are a “false” WikiLeaks case.
The flimsy and choosy rhetoric, which comes out from an immodest heart, goes way deeper than that. A close look at the networks of Israeli collaborators that were unveiled reveals that 80% of the agents who have been identified were close to the March 8 forces, and even part of circles of influence and decision-making in them. The remaining 20% are loosely linked to March 14 forces and still, Hezbollah brandishes the sword of treason accusations at every chance and with every speech.
Assuming that Hezbollah does not aim for its treason accusation rhetoric to convince anyone, then it is addressing its base for mobilization purposes. Here, as well, we ask how convinced these bases are by this flimsy treason accusation rhetoric.
Hezbollah probably has the same disease as the one that usually affects ruling parties: With time, they lose the sensible faculty of respecting the intelligence of the masses and realize, at the same time, that their illogical rhetoric does not tarnish their cause in the eyes of their supporters. Sectarian division consolidates ties where persuasion or rhetorical cohesion fails.
**This article is a translation of the original, which was published on the NOW Arabic site on Friday July 8, 2011

“Resistance” facing resistance
Tony Badran,/Now Lebanon/July 7, 2011
Now Lebanon/At the beginning of the year, the Iran-led rejectionist axis was flying high. Hezbollah's long campaign to wrest control of the Lebanese state from the March 14 coalition finally reached fruition, while the downfall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak effectively decommissioned Iran's principal Arab nemesis. The outbreak of the Syrian uprising and the recent indictments in the Rafik Hariri murder naming Hezbollah members have dramatically altered this picture, highlighting the limitations and vulnerabilities of the Party of God and its Iranian patrons.
A strategic ally of Iran for three decades, the Syrian regime had been instrumental in Hezbollah's emergence as a fearsome paramilitary force. Its overland transshipment of weapons, intelligence cooperation and logistical support are vital, as was evident in Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel. During that conflict, Syria provided critical strategic depth to Hezbollah as well as shelter to Shia refugees.
If Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah had any doubts about whether the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would impact Syria's patronage of Hezbollah, they were answered early on. Nasrallah’s pictures and Hezbollah flags have been burned, along with those of Iran, by Syrian protesters, particularly in Sunni-majority areas. This hostility has only been exacerbated by Nasrallah’s repeated expressions of unqualified support for the Syrian president.
As Assad’s predicament worsens, the likelihood of increased Turkish involvement—perhaps with Saudi and Qatari blessing—in shaping a new political order in Syria will further complicate the strategic picture for Tehran, as it finds itself competing with Ankara over Syria’s place on the regional chessboard. Perhaps that is why Syrian and Hezbollah propaganda have recently been eager to assert that whatever reforms Assad may need to implement to stabilize the situation, he will not abandon support for the “Resistance.”
There have been several reports of Iranian assistance to the beleaguered Assad, especially in the form of advisors and technological know-how for better tracking and suppressing online communication between dissidents. While there have been unconfirmed rumors of Hezbollah fighters taking part in paramilitary reprisals against demonstrators, much more pertinent has been the speculation that Hezbollah will seek to reshuffle the political cards in Syria and bolster Assad's legitimacy by igniting a war with Israel.
There is some logic to this. Hezbollah has been known to launch attacks against Israel for diversionary purposes, and Assad has long used the threat from Israel to justify martial law. However, the uprising has demonstrated that the political utility of anti-Zionism has declined greatly for the regime. Assad's effort to capitalize on anti-Israel sentiments by dispatching Palestinian refugees to swarm the Golan Heights on Nakba Day (May 15, commemorating Israel's establishment) and Naksa Day (June 5, commemorating the start of the 1967 war) failed to achieve any tangible results on the Syrian street.
It is instructive to revisit Hezbollah’s performance on those days. On Nakba Day, Nasrallah synchronized with the Syrian command and orchestrated a similar march to the Israeli-Lebanese border. However, on Naksa Day, the Lebanese army—doubtless with Hezbollah’s acquiescence—prevented a repeat by blocking any advance to the border. On that day, Assad stood alone, as the limit of Hezbollah’s maneuverability was exposed.
Moreover, Nasrallah is keenly aware that igniting hostilities with Israel would result in massive retaliation. He also has good reason to question whether the unrest in Syria has compromised its ability to effectively support Hezbollah in the event of war with Israel. While recent French and Israeli reports have noted that Hezbollah has been transferring weapons and equipment from Syrian warehouses into Lebanon, which can be read as preparation for war, another, perhaps more likely, explanation is that Hezbollah is nervous about losing access to facilities in places like Homs and other restive areas.
Anti-Hezbollah sentiment among the Syrian protesters in these cities and towns now poses new dilemmas for Nasrallah, raising questions about the kind of reception his followers will receive in the event of a war that would certainly send hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese Shia across the border into Syria. To this vulnerability, one must add the problem of inflamed sectarian tensions within Lebanon, especially in the wake of the indictments.
Ultimately, the decision to have Hezbollah provoke a war with Israel rests neither in Assad’s nor in Nasrallah’s hands, but in Iran’s. But in the final analysis, it is unclear that such a conflict would necessarily affect the drive of the Syrian protester movement, which has shown no inclination to retreat from the streets. In other words, were Iran to employ Hezbollah in the attempt to give Assad some breathing room, the result might well be a badly damaged Hezbollah without making any difference in Assad’s fortunes.
***Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.

Obama’s great escape on Syria
Michael Young, July 8, 2011
Now Lebanon/
The Obama administration has embraced evasion and self-delusion in dealing with the ongoing repression in Syria. Until now it has avoided demanding an end to Bashar al-Assad’s rule, even though all the conditions for such a demand have been met, while peddling the absurd possibility of a dialogue between the regime and the opposition.
Assad has interpreted this irresolution as a green light to pursue the carnage. However, if we momentarily abandon the moral argument for supporting Syria’s emancipation movement and look at America’s performance in light of its own national interests, what do we see? Behavior, again, characterized by evasion and self-delusion.
When Barack Obama became president, Washington’s principal priority in the Middle East was containing Iran and ensuring that its nuclear program would not serve military ends. Yet the administration never developed a cohesive strategy to achieve those objectives. Obama accelerated the pullout of American soldiers from Iraq, to Iran’s delight, and while the US backed new sanctions against Tehran, this often seemed a substitute for a more multifaceted, versatile American approach to addressing the Iranian challenge.
One news item this week shows what the Obama administration is up against. On Wednesday, in a highly significant event, the Iranian first vice president, Muhammad-Reza Rahimi, traveled to Baghdad to preside over the signing of six cooperation agreements between Iran and Iraq. The more profound import of the visit was that Tehran is consolidating its ties with Iraq as Washington prepares to withdraw its remaining forces from there by the end of the year. Rahimi declared that “the pain of the past” was behind the two countries, and added that Iran was willing to help restore security in Iraq.
In the ambidextrous language of diplomacy, an offer to help restore security is another way of saying that one can create insecurity. Rahimi’s statement was, implicitly, a warning to the Iraqis that Iran would really much prefer that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not extend the American military mission in Iraq beyond 2011. To push that message home, in recent months Iran has supplied sophisticated weaponry and equipment to Shia militias in Iraq, allowing them to mount more effective attacks against American soldiers. Last week, for instance, three Americans were killed in a rocket attack at a base near the Iranian border.
What has the administration done to counteract this Iranian bid to expand its already substantial influence over Iraq? Very little. With Obama so keen to terminate America’s long Iraqi interregnum, his latitude to sanction Iran has been greatly reduced. This alacrity has exacerbated Washington’s vulnerabilities in Iraq, but has also severely damaged its relationship with the Gulf allies, Saudi Arabia above all. The Saudis have little faith in American protection, and the great danger is that their anxiety will lead them to further destabilize Shia-dominated Iraq by manipulating its sectarian antagonisms.
Even more puzzling, the Obama administration does not appear to have seriously debated the advantageous role Syria’s crisis might play in thwarting Iranian ambitions. It doesn’t take a particularly discerning mind to understand that the fall of the Assad regime would represent a major blow to Iran in the Levant. Yet instead of thinking the option through, Washington has continued to uphold, against the wishes of a majority of Syrian protesters, the possibility of a dialogue over reform between a sanguinary leadership and its victims.
We are not talking about Washington imposing its hegemony over Syria, let alone resorting to armed force in the country. This is not about repeating the ill-thought-through Libyan experience. Rather, the US can, and must, take a principled position in favor of democracy in Syria, which means openly advocating the departure of the Assad regime, which has lost all legitimacy. Only Washington has the authority to oversee an Arab and international diplomatic endeavor to prepare for a smooth Syrian transition.
This wouldn’t be easy, but it is doable. The Saudis and Egyptians could be persuaded to lead Arab action if they are convinced that Assad’s exit would weaken Iran. At the United Nations, the Obama administration would have a hard time with the Russians and Chinese. But as the regime in Syria loses ground, the likelihood that the confrontation there will take on an overtly sectarian coloring can only increase. Such a development would be a disaster for Syria; it could also be one for its neighbors with mixed sectarian societies. Regional peace would suffer, justifying Security Council intervention.
If the Arabs, the Security Council, and Europe (where France and the United Kingdom have been far ahead of the US on Syrian matters) can reach a consensus on a transition in Damascus, they might be able to induce the Assads to leave quietly, given certain guarantees. It is not set in stone that the family will fight to the last man, but it will fight on for as long as it sees the Americans and everybody else dithering.
The humanitarian, principled case for insisting that the Assads cede power is the most compelling. But Washington’s lethargy has been little shaken by the potential strategic benefits of a democratic change of regime in Syria, guided by Syrians. Iran is watching Syria with trepidation. However, it must find terribly reassuring Barack Obama’s ostrich-like yearning to escape fresh involvement in a Middle East trouble spot, and his incongruous assumption that Iran can somehow be restrained by an America reversing at full-speed in the region.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and author of The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle, in which he dealt extensively with the Hariri assassination and its aftermath. He tweets @BeirutCalling

Miqati from Serail: I Urge Cooperation between Opposition, Pro-Cabinet Forces to Achieve Nation’s Interest
Naharnet /An official reception was held at the Grand Serail Friday morning in honor of Prime Minister Najib Miqati after his government received the vote of confidence at parliament on Thursday, reported the National News Agency. He said upon his arrival: “My hand is extended to all sides, the opposition before the pro-government forces, in order to set aside past disputes and start a new chapter of cooperation for the sake of Lebanon.” “The parliamentary discussions of the government policy statement focused on the political matters when social issues should be no less important,” he said. The government will address the people’s concerns in the energy, economic, telecommunications, and academic fields, he continued.
“The statements at parliament revealed positions that we should take into consideration for the service of Lebanon,” the premier noted. “We welcome any productive and objective opposition and I call for cooperation between the opposition and pro-cabinet forces to achieve the nation’s interest,” Miqati declared.
“Our government won’t be a confrontational one. It is keen on Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence, safety, security, and dignity,” he stressed.
“It will only confront whoever stands in the way of these goals,” he added. The premier arrived at the Grand Serail to the sound of music played by the Internal Security Forces where the guards at the scene performed their formal salute. Miqati was greeted by cabinet Secretary General Suheil Bouji and a number of officials.
He is then scheduled to take a family vacation until the end of the weekend. Miqati had stated during his speech at the end of parliament’s discussions of the cabinet policy statement on Thursday that the government did not “ignore the issue of the possession of arms in Lebanon and its spread throughout Lebanon.” He asserted that maintaining the country’s security will be the state’s exclusive right through its security institutions and legitimate arms, revealing that it will commence the necessary contacts to remove heavy and medium arms from various cities. “Our cabinet was born out of pure Lebanese will for probably the first time in its history,” Miqati declared. The government was granted confidence after winning a majority of 68 votes.

Israel, Europe Turn Back pro-Palestinian Activists
Naharnet /Scores of pro-Palestinian protesters trying to reach Israel were blocked at airports in Europe and two American activists who arrived in Israel were deported early Friday, Israeli officials said. Israel increased security at the Ben-Gurion International Airport ahead of the activists' arrival and asked foreign airlines to prevent blacklisted travelers from boarding Israel-bound flights, as hundreds said they would travel to Israel to protest Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.
At Israel's request, several airlines barred about 200 would-be protesters from boarding flights to Israel from Europe, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.
"The companies did not allow them on the airplanes because we told them clearly they wouldn't be able to enter Israel," Rosenfeld said.
Organizers of the protest said a total of about 600 people were scheduled to take part. Israeli officials say they expect more to land later in the day.
Two activists arrived in Israel from Greece overnight and were deported, said Foreign Ministry official Oded Ben-Hur. He identified the two as Americans who had initially planned to join a protest flotilla that had intended to sail to the Gaza Strip but was foiled by the Greek government.
Ben-Hur also said an unspecified number of activists had been allowed through the terminal without incident. Israel has not publicized its criteria for denying entry, but has said peaceful visitors will not be deported.
"If there is no disturbance and no provocation, we have no reason in the world to stop them," Rosenfeld said Friday.
One of the organizers, French activist Olivia Zemor, said her group planned only nonviolent activities.
The group, "Welcome to Palestine," released a statement Friday calling the moves to prevent activists from reaching Israel "provocative, blackmailing, and illegal."
The activists have placed Israel in an awkward position.
Authorities seem torn between their determination to keep out people they consider hostile agitators and a sense that they may be taking the bait en route to another public relations debacle. Critics in Israel have said the government's high-profile reaction has only served to draw attention to the activists' attempt to gain publicity.
Israel's concern is rooted in a number of deadly run-ins with pro-Palestinian activists, both on the high seas and along the frontiers with Lebanon and Syria. The best-known, in May 2010, resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish activists in a clash with Israeli troops aboard a vessel trying to breach Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Israel now appears intent on averting a new confrontation by preventing activists from reaching the country.
In Paris, eight Tel Aviv-bound activists were blocked Thursday from boarding Malev Airlines flights to Budapest en route to Tel Aviv.
One of those turned away, Philippe Arnaud, said Malev showed him a list provided by Israeli authorities of nearly 400 people barred from Israel. German carriers Lufthansa and Air Berlin said they also received similar lists.
Arnaud said he has been investigated in France for his efforts to boycott Israeli products and was once arrested by Israel for organizing a demonstration in the West Bank.
The French Foreign Ministry said it had warned activists of "the risks inherent in this operation." In Germany, Lufthansa said it would comply with the Israeli blacklist.
During a visit to Bulgaria on Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said every country had the "basic right" to prevent suspected provocateurs from entering. "We have a restrained resolve to deal with provocations, to prevent disruptions of the public order," he said.
The activists say they are on a weeklong mission to express solidarity with the Palestinians in the West Bank and draw attention to life under Israeli occupation, including travel restrictions.
Visitors can reach the West Bank only through Israeli-controlled crossings, either through international airports or the land border with Jordan. At any given time, hundreds of foreigners, including activists and aid workers, are in the West Bank.
Citing security concerns, Israel bars most Palestinians from entering Israel or using its airport, meaning they must travel to neighboring Jordan to fly out.
Travel restrictions in the Gaza Strip, ruled by the militant Hamas group, are even more rigorous.
Israel allows few people to cross its border with Gaza, and most Gazans can travel abroad only by crossing into Egypt through their shared border.
Source Agence France

Geagea from Abu Dhabi: This is an Anti-Modernity, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Lebanon Cabinet
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea slammed on Thursday the new government, saying that it does not represent Lebanon and will set the country back to a time before the 2005 Cedar Revolution. He said during a dinner for Lebanese expatriates in Abu Dhabi: “We will work with all possible democratic means to topple this cabinet.”
“This is an anti-modernity, anti-development, anti-Arab, and anti-Lebanon government,” he declared.
“The other camp sought through the Special Tribunal for Lebanon clause in the cabinet policy statement to shy away from Lebanon’s commitment to the tribunal,” he added.
“We are now living under a government that is not demanding a solution to Hizbullah’s possession of arms, on the contrary it confirms its presence,” Geagea said.
“We have nothing but respect for Prime Minister Najib Miqati, but when they say that this is his cabinet, we wish it really was so,” he stated.
He noted that this is the “others’ cabinet”, which happens to be headed by Miqati, repeating his statements that the government actually belongs to Hizbullah and Syria.
Earlier on Thursday, Geagea told Al-Arabiya satellite TV network that Hizbullah “drew lessons” from the infamous May 2008 clashes, noting that he agrees with Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah that “there won’t be a civil strife in Lebanon during this period.” He noted that “the previous government was not March 14’s government, but rather a national unity government.”“Had the government been our government, things could’ve required a civil war to arrest the Hizbullah members” wanted by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon for an alleged role in the 2005 assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri. “But today it only takes a simple decision by Hizbullah to hand over these members,” he told his interviewer.
Answering a question on Hizbullah’s weapons, Geagea responded: “What do you want us to do should Hizbullah decide to use its weapons? At that point we have the right to defend ourselves should the State fail to defend us.”The LF leader returned to Lebanon Thursday night after a visit to the UAE that lasted several days.

Berri: Cabinet’s Mission is to Deal with People’s Affairs, Make Appointments
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri said he would help the cabinet in its mission to deal with the people’s affairs and make administrative appointments to posts in state institutions.
In remarks to Ad-Diyar daily published Friday, Berri said: “The mission of this government lies in launching a workshop, dealing with the people’s affairs and making appointments.”
He said he would “play a big role with the cabinet in this regard.” For the first time on Thursday, Berri counted the hours that 58 pro- and anti-government lawmakers had spoke at the parliament during the three-day session aimed at giving the cabinet the vote of confidence. He unveiled that March 8 MPs spoke for 7 hours and 17 minutes while March 14 lawmakers’ statements lasted for 7 hours and 3 minutes.

Palestinians to apply to Security Council next week for UN membership
DEBKAfile Exclusive
Report July 7, 2011,
On Wednesday, July 6, the Palestinian Authority notified the Obama administration that early next week it would file with the UN Security Council a request for admission to the United Nations as a full member recognized as an independent state within the 1967 borders.
But debkafile's Washington sources report the US had got in first, having agreed with European powers and Russia on a ploy for deferring the Palestinian request. The Security Council would agree to discuss it behind closed doors without setting a date. A senior American official commented: The Security Council will stall by keeping the matter "under consideration" on its regular agenda.
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas knew what was going on: That is why his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said in Washington Thursday, July 7, that there is no contradiction between the Palestinian application for UN recognition and the restart of negotiations with Israel. What Erekat had in mind was the US-French initiative -first revealed exclusively by debkafile Tuesday, July 5 – for the convening of an Israeli-Palestinian peace summit on September 2 in Paris. If this plan takes off, President Barack Obama will come to Paris to join President Nicolas Sarkozy in declaring the talks open alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
By putting of a Security Council debate, the US, France, Israel and the Palestinians have won two months to get negotiations off the ground and moving forward. The Americans hope to bring Turkey aboard for the effort, to which end it is necessary to end the quarrel between Ankara and Jerusalem in that time.
According to US and Israeli sources, Abbas was given to understand that whatever happens, even if the talks stall again, Washington would stand in the way of a Security Council discussion of the Palestinian application. Abbas would then have to decide whether to circumvent the Security Council and take the Palestinian request for recognition of its statehood to the UN General Assembly when it convenes in September.
Tuesday, July 5, debkafile's sources disclosed the US-French plan to convene an Israeli-Palestinian peace summit in Paris on Sept. 2 after ending the Libyan war.
Back to the main story: The Obama and Sarkozy administrations are working together on a plan to convene an Israel-Palestinian peace summit in Paris on Sept. 2 shortly after the Libyan war is brought to a close, debkafile's Washington and Paris exclusive sources disclose. If they can pull it off, Presidents Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy will join Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at a summit in the French capital to announce the restart of Israel-Palestinian peace talks, thereby calling off the unilateral Palestinian request for UN recognition of an independent state.
President Obama's Special Adviser Dennis Ross and senior French diplomat Jean-David Levitte are leading the effort to get this summit off the ground. According to the US-French plan, it will take place shortly after the Libyan war is brought to a close – ideally by a four-way accord between the US, France, Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan rebels or, failing agreement, by a crushing NATO military blow in which the United States will also take part. The proposed accord would be based on Muammar Qaddafi's departure and the establishment of a power-sharing transitional administration in Tripoli between the incumbent government and rebel leaders.
The US and French presidents hope to be credited at home and in the Middle East with a triple feat: two diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East and a US-French victory in Libya.
To this end, negotiations are going forward with the concerned parties. Russia and the African Union have been drawn into the drive to end the war in Libya. One stumbling block still remaining is Qaddafi's demand for his sons to be part of the proposed transitional administration in Tripoli.
To clear the way for the Paris summit, Ross recently put before Netanyahu Obama's revised formula for the starting-point of negotiations with the Palestinians: Israel would accept the 1967 borders with territorial swaps in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. Just this week, the Israeli prime minister said that if the Palestinians recognized Israel as the Jewish homeland, the other outstanding issues could be easily and quickly resolved.
However, it is not clear whether the revised formula had won prior Palestinian approval before it was presented in Jerusalem or Washington intended to later squeeze this concession out of Mahmud Abbas and so drive a crack in the deadlock which has frozen the peace track for more than seven months.
At all events, Netanyahu's reply was qualified. He accepted the new US formula in principle, but batted the ball back into the White House's court. debkafile's sources in Jerusalem and Washington disclose that he made acceptance contingent on President Obama publicly and formally affixing his signature to President Bush's letter of April 2004 to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This letter constituted a presidential commitment to support negotiations with the Palestinians based on UN Resolution 242 (which promised Israel defensible borders), to refrain from demanding Israel's return to the 1949 lines, and to acknowledge the existence of major Jewish population centers on the West Bank as demographic changes occurring in the years since the Six-Day War.
The prime minister is now waiting for an answer from the White House.
Our sources in Jerusalem explain that this exchange encapsulates the US-Israeli-Palestinian debate over how much territory the land swaps would leave Israel and the Palestinians respectively in future agreements on their borders.
Up until now, the Palestinians have insisted on a ratio of one kilometer in pre-1967 Israel for every kilometer awarded Israel on the West Bank. This ratio Jerusalem has found to be unacceptable. A comprehensive study commissioned by the prime minister's office from the National Security Council found that the big settlement blocs on the West Bank cover roughly 8 percent of West Bank area. Giving up an equal area of Israeli territory would imperil its security no less than a flat return to the 1967 borders. Israel cannot therefore afford to cede more than 4 percent of its sovereign territory at most. The Palestinian demand for parity in the mutual exchanges of land is therefore rejected by Jerusalem.
Jerusalemis reverting to the Bush letter and its reaffirmation of UN Resolution 242 – not just because it better addresses Israel's security needs more advantageous, but also because, "You can't just toss out UN Resolution 242 and Bush's letter to Sharon," Netanyahu has been saying in recent private talks. In his view, the Obama White House cannot simply ignore a presidential commitment given by his predecessor personally to an Israeli prime minister.
In the opinion of the prime minister and his advisers, the formula incorporated in Obama's May 19 speech requiring Israel to return to the 1967 borders with mutual land swaps and accept a non-demilitarized Palestinian state is tantamount to giving up on secure borders. The UN 242 and the Bush commitment upheld this principle and is therefore the option preferred in Jerusalem.

Syrian Forces Storm Protest in Damascus Suburb
VOA News/July 08, 2011
Activists in Syria say security forces have raided a Damascus suburb to quell an overnight protest ahead of more demonstrations against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad planned for Friday. Activists said Thursday security forces fired bullets at civilians participating in a nighttime demonstration. There are reports of civilian deaths, injuries, arrests and abductions from the assault. The raid comes after Syria condemned a visit by United States Ambassador Robert Ford to the key opposition city Hama.
The Syrian foreign ministry said Thursday Ford's presence in Hama without prior permission constitutes "clear evidence" of a U.S. attempt to "increase tension and damage Syria's security and stability. "In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Ford met with a dozen people in a visit designed to show solidarity with protesters. She said Ford hoped to stay in the city until Friday and that the U.S. embassy had informed the Syrian government that an embassy team was travelling to the city.
Earlier, a Syrian activist monitoring developments in Hama told VOA in a telephone interview that dozens of families fled the city Thursday fearing a military crackdown. She said security forces have surrounded Hama with tanks, and that troops have detained more than 100 people.
The activist confirmed reports from rights groups that at least 25 people have been killed and more than 40 wounded in Hama in recent days. Troops had pushed through improvised barriers and roadblocks set up by Hama residents after massive anti-government protests last week.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Syria to stop the deadly crackdown. Mr. Ban asked the Syrian leadership to grant access in the country to U.N. aid workers and a fact-finding mission. Rights groups say Syrian security forces have killed at least 1,400 civilians since mid-March while trying to suppress the anti-government uprising. The Syrian government says terrorists and Islamist militants have killed hundreds of security personnel during the same period.

UN slams Israel for ‘excessive force’ on Nakba Day
By GIL SHEFLER /J.Post
07/08/2011 01:59
IDF used “unnecessary force” against Palestinians who tried to forcibly enter Israel from Lebanon in May, UN report says. NEW YORK – The IDF used “unnecessary force” against Palestinians who tried to forcibly enter Israel from Lebanon on Nakba Day in May, according to a UN report leaked to the press on Wednesday.
The paper written by UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams pointed fingers at both sides, saying Israel used “force not commensurate to the threat” and Palestinians who tried to breach the fence near the Lebanese town of Maroun al-Ras were engaged in a “provocative and violent act.”
“Other than firing initial warning shots, the Israel Defense Forces did not use conventional crowd-control methods or any other method than lethal weapons against the demonstrators,” the report said. The investigation into the May 15 incident put the number of protesters who died in the violent clash at seven, not nine as had previously been reported. It also contested Israel’s claim that the deaths were caused by Lebanese troops trying to keep the crowd away from the border by firing warning shots, saying the fatalities were the result of live ammunition fired by Israeli soldiers at demonstrators who tried to cross the border.
Amir Weissbrod, a political consultant at the Israeli Mission to the UN, said on Thursday that Israel was disappointed in the probe carried out by Williams.
When people throw anti-tank mines,” Weissbrod said, referring to Palestinians who dug the mines from the ground then threw them at Israeli soldiers, “this it is not an ordinary protest.”
The report unfairly singled out Israel while ignoring Lebanon’s responsibility as a sovereign state to prevent hostile acts from being carried out against its neighbors from its soil, Weissbrod said. He also said the report ignored a perilous build up of weapons by Hezbollah in Lebanon aided by Syria.
“We believe there’s a significant change on the ground,” he said. “We believe [the arms build up] is not getting the appropriate attention.”
Some reports in the media said Israel was furious with Williams for his allegedly overly critical report. Weissbrod said in response to a question on the matter that the mission had expressed its position regarding the report in writing to the UN. The report concluded with by a statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon who urged Israel to demonstrate greater restraint and called on protesters to refrain from violence. “I call on the Israel Defense Forces to refrain from responding with live fire in such situations, except where clearly required in immediate self-defense,” Ban wrote. “[Protest organizers] were responsible for ensuring that demonstrators did not approach the technical fence and did not become violent.”

Real test starts for Cabinet
July 08, 2011/By Hassan Lakkis The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s government won a parliamentary vote of confidence Thursday, capping three days of a heated debate of the Cabinet’s policy statement during which March 14 lawmakers lashed out at Prime Minister Najib Mikati, accusing him of renouncing a U.N.-backed court and putting the country in a confrontation with the international community.
As soon as Speaker Nabih Berri ordered a vote of confidence, MPs from the opposition March 14 coalition stormed out of the Parliament hall, signaling their rejection of Mikati’s 30-member Cabinet in which Hezbollah and its March 8 allies have a majority.
Commenting on the March 14 MPs’ walkout, Berri said: “If you chose this democratic way, you are free to do so.”
The government won the votes of 68 MPs out of the 128-member legislature. Western Bekaa MP Robert Ghanem from the March 14 camp and Beirut MP Imad Hout from former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s parliamentary Future bloc abstained from voting.
Aley MP Talal Arslan of the March 8 alliance, who has submitted his resignation from Cabinet in protest at allotting him the minister of state portfolio, did not attend, thus denying the government one more vote. Metn MP Michel Murr, who backed Hariri against Mikati during parliamentary consultations to name a new prime minister in January, voted for the government.
Commenting on the outcome of the parliamentary debate, Mikati told reporters as he left the Parliament building: “The sessions were important with all their results. We are facing huge challenges and difficulties but they can be solved in cooperation with all.”
Mikati said the next step after the confidence vote was for President Michel Sleiman to call for a meeting of the National Dialogue Committee.
Political sources said the Cabinet will meet next week to renew the mandate of Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh and appoint a new army chief of staff.
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt told reporters after the confidence vote: “This is what I call democracy. What matters, and is essential, is that we have won confidence.”
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel said: “No one can rule alone. We will cooperate. We all have the capability and we are good at the democratic game.”
He assured the Lebanese that the security situation was under control and that Lebanon would have a promising summer. “No one is willing to rekindle strife and cause trouble,” Charbel said.
A total of 58 MPs spoke during the parliamentary debate in the past three days, focusing in their speeches more on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) than on the policy statement which outlined the government’s position on two divisive issues: Hezbollah’s arms and the STL.
March 14 MPs launched scathing verbal attacks on Mikati’s Cabinet, saying it was controlled by Hezbollah and Syria. They insisted that Mikati’s one-sided government, which did not include any representatives from the March 14 camp, was formed as a result of a Hezbollah-led coup.
The policy statement has been the target of blistering attacks by the March 14 parties since it was approved by the Cabinet last week for containing what these parties see as an ambiguous article pertaining to the STL, which is seeking to uncover the killers of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
In their speeches in the past three days, most March 14 MPs complained about the phrase “in principle” used in the STL article, arguing that it amounted to a renunciation of the tribunal.
Eight speakers addressed Parliament Thursday before Mikati took the podium to respond to March 14 MPs’ harsh criticisms, which ranged from accusing him of abandoning the STL to placing Lebanon in confrontation with the international community.
In his speech before the confidence vote, Mikati said his government would continue to cooperate with the STL, which last week issued its long-awaited indictment, accusing four Hezbollah members of involvement in Hariri’s assassination, and demanded their arrest.
The policy statement includes an ambiguously-worded clause stipulating that Lebanon will “respect” international resolutions as long as they do not threaten peace and stability.
“The government confirms it will continue the path of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon … It is determined to continue to cooperate in this regard in implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1757 which set up the tribunal with the aim of ‘achieving right and justice’ … without revenge or politicization,” Mikati said.
He rejected March 14 accusations that his government was formed to confront the international community over the STL.
“Statements claiming that the government was formed to confront the international community are refuted by our repeated commitment to respecting U.N. resolutions concerning Lebanon and our determination to reinforce Lebanon’s presence in the United Nations and the Security Council,” Mikati said. “Our government will not adopt a policy of confrontation with the international community.”
Addressing Parliament, former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora reiterated the March 14 parties’ position that Mikati came to power as a result of a Hezbollah-led coup. “What happened was not a normal democratic rotation [of power], but a change under the influence of force... It was not a change imposed by the will of the voters, but came contrary to their will,” Siniora said in his speech.
“Power was seized through the coup based on the luster of [Hezbollah’s] arms, rather than on the ballot boxes,which were in our favor and said yes to the vision of the March 14 parties,” he said.
Referring to Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, who has rejected the STL’s indictment, saying Lebanese authorities will not be able to arrest the four Hezbollah suspects even in 300 years, Siniora said, “This prompts us to ask: Where is this arrogance taking us, away from the logic of the state that unites us? … We are only demanding justice. Is demanding justice a crime?”
Addressing the session, Nabatieh MP Mohammad Raad, the head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, reiterated his party’s rejection of the STL which, he said, threatened the country’s stability.
“The tribunal will not reveal the truth or justice. It is threatening stability in Lebanon. No party can mislead the Lebanese and confiscate their decision through a false and politicized tribunal which has lost credibility and objectivity and constitutes a political tool in the hand of American and Zionist dictatorship and is aimed at stabbing the resistance, which defeated Israel, and burying the truth,” Raad said.
Future bloc MP Bahia Hariri, the sister of the slain leader, criticized Mikati for representing Beirut with only two ministers.
“Beirut had embraced our ambitions, wars, destruction, sciences and our leaders to become the city of coexistence par excellence,” she said in her speech. “The elimination of Beirut from the political map means threatening the central state and the revival of the old ugly dreams during the days of divisions and estrangement.”
Hariri said Berri’s call for reconciliation among rival factions reflected his awareness of the “horror of the crime of political isolation and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of votes who expressed their choices in the [2009] elections.”
Referring to the toppling of Hariri’s Cabinet, she said, “The crime began with [political] isolation, then with [Mikati’s] designation, later with the [Cabinet] formation and then with ambiguity. This has caused divisions with a deep effect on both young and old.”

Why don't they tell al-Assad "now means now"?
08/07/2011
By Mshari Al-Zaydi/AsharqAlawsat
It is quite clear that the international and regional position towards
the Syrian crisis is somewhat elusive. Perhaps the world is embarrassed and taken aback by the Syrian people's insistence to rise up and revolt against the al-Assad regime. There is a clear difference between the international and Arab stance towards what is happening in Libya and the people's uprising against the Gaddafi regime, and the soft statements being issued regarding the Syrian crisis. "Maybe" al-Assad will enact reforms…"Perhaps" the regime will endure…"possibly" the people will be able to achieve reform, and so on. "Maybe", "Perhaps", "Possibly", and other weak quantifiers…this is the gist of the foreign stance towards the demands being made by the Syrian protestors who have taken to the streets in the majority of Syria's cities, towns, and villages.
The US hails the dialogue conducted in the Semiramis Hotel in Damascus, whilst Russia rebukes the opposition for not accepting the regime's proposed dialogue, all the while the regime's tanks continue to flatten Idlib and Ma'arrat al-Numan, and the Shabiha [pro-government gangs] continue to commit atrocities in Homs, Hama and Aleppo. In Damascus, the regime is carrying out dialogue with its eloquent tongue, whilst it is sinking its sharp fangs into unarmed demonstrators in the rest of the Syria.
The revolutionary Syrians are louder than the silent Arabs, and talk with bitterness about Arab weakness on the part of the Arab League. Indeed Arab League Deputy Secretary General, Ahmad bin Heli, recently stated that the Arab League cannot take a position supporting the popular Syrian revolution – in the same manner that the Arab League has backed the Libyan popular revolution – because the Arab states themselves have not officially announced such a position.
So there is no ambiguity or vagueness here; the vision is clear. The stunning resilience of the Syrian people, may perhaps, force the international community – as represented by the UN Security Council – the Arab states, and major regional powers, especially Turkey, to change their stances. Another factor could be the Syrian regime's attitude. It continues to use excessive violence, spreading terror and bloodshed while relying on a confused and undecided international posture toward the future of Syrian.
We have not heard the "now means now" phrase that Obama and the US administration used with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, nor the warlike rhetoric that Sarkozy used with Gaddafi, nor even the strong words used with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, demanding his immediate departure.
Why is there a variation in stances when it comes to the Syrian crisis?
There are several interpretations for the weakness and fear with regards to stances against Syria. Some say the Arabs are not prepared to see a repeat of the chaos which broke out in Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Many believe that the Arabs are willing to coexist with al-Assad's regime in Syria, provided that Syria does not fall into the same quagmire of chaos and failure that Iraq found itself in. Even if Syria's regime survives this popular revolution, it would emerge with its wings clipped, and be much less powerful and influential than before. This might in fact be better than Syria finding itself in a protracted state of "no regime." This would see two birds being killed with one stone. We would therefore avoid total chaos erupting in Syria and, at the same time, undermine the capabilities of the al-Assad regime to cause trouble and adopt pro-Iranian regional policies.
Others say the fear is of handing the country to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the scenario that seems to be unfolding in Egypt. We must recall that the Muslim Brotherhood is considered to be the most powerful political party in Syria's opposition. Here, we would be facing dangerous, radical, political organizations racing to take power, which is something that could affect the political situation in stable Gulf States.
Whilst a third group believes that the international community is wary of taking a strong stance against the Syrian regime because of Israel. This is despite Syria's strong rhetoric against Tel Aviv, its support of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as its alliance with Iran. In reality, even though Israel is concerned by the al-Assad regime and its policies, it can still coexist with it. For Israel, that would be much better than taking a leap in the dark and potentially finding themselves facing off with a new Syrian regime across the Golan front, particularly as the sudden collapse of the Mubarak regime was bad news for Israel. Actually, this had the impact of a thunderbolt, as Egypt's future foreign policy [towards Israel] is now uncertain.
Yes, several contradictory statements have been issued in Israel about the Syrian crisis. There are those who say there is now no alternative for the al-Assad regime, or there is no need for Israel to fear the Syrian popular movement demanding democracy, and that [the uprising] is profoundly in the interests of Israel, as stated by Ehud Barak. There are also those, inside Israel and outside, particularly allies of the Jewish state, who warn against the unknown future [in Syria].
In Israel, which strongly influences U.S. foreign policy decisions, there are two basic considerations when it comes to making their own policy decisions in the region. There is the ideological consideration, based on an in-depth historical, biblical mythology regarding the borders of the Promised Land. There is also the purely practical consideration of imperialistic planning to ensure Israeli supremacy in the region, without any specific ideological considerations. The two considerations amazingly have the ability to coexist with one another, as explained by renowned Israeli historian and scholar, Israel Shahak.
Shahak believes that the major strategy adopted by Israel since the birth of the modern state of Israel is not based on Jewish ideological concepts but on purely practical and strategic considerations. Retired Israeli General Shlomo Gazit, also a former director of military intelligence offered a clear description of the principles which govern the official Israeli strategy, saying that "Israel's main task has not changed at all, and it remains of crucial importance. Its location at the center of the Arab-Muslim Middle East predestines Israel to be a devoted guardian of stability in all the countries surrounding it. Its [role] is to protect the existing regimes: to prevent or halt the processes of radicalization and to block the expansion of fundamentalist religious zealotry." (Yediot Aharonot, 27 April 1992)
Israel Shahak, the Israeli historian and researcher known for his criticism of the Israeli perception of the nature and role of the Jewish state, commented upon this in his book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years", writing that "needless to say, according to Gazit, Israel has a benevolent concern for the stability of the Arab regimes. In Gazit's view, by protecting Middle Eastern regimes, Israeli performs a vital service for 'the industrially advanced states, all of which are keenly concerned with guaranteeing the stability of the Middle East'. He argues that without Israel the existing regimes of the region would have collapsed long ago and that they remain in existence only because of Israeli threats. Whilst this view may be hypocritical, one should recall in such contexts La Rochefoucault's maxim that 'hypocrisy is the tax which wickedness pays to virtue'. Redemption of the Land is an attempt to evade paying any such tax." [Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years by Israel Shahak, Chapter 1].
This is the basic Israeli strategy with regards to influencing Western attitudes towards the Syrian crisis. Despite almost twenty years passing since the words of the Israeli strategist General Shlomo Gazit, the grand vision remains the same.
But we have to remember, before all this and after all this, that there are things which occur outside the framework of planning, outside of pen-and-paper calculations. Certain social phenomenons, such as popular uprisings, are instinctively unleashed at certain moments and under certain conditions, forging the destinies of people and nations. There is the power of dreams, and these dreams are now being brought to reality on the ground. This is something that cannot be fore-seen or predicted.
Such incidents occur like lightning from a clear sky, showing us a dazzling glimpse of the future.
In Syria, matters are still between the limits of planning and surprise. Everyone wants to steer the Syrian ship to their own harbor or port, but the first and final decision [regarding the ship's destination] lies with the sailors, the ship's passengers, and the captain…as well as the wind and the waves.

STL has become part of Lebanon's fabric: Fadlallah
July 08, 2011 /Daily Star
BEIRUT: Sayyed Ali Fadlallah said Friday that Lebanon has entered a new phase thanks to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and offered a solution for what he dubbed the “Lebanon problem.”“Lebanon has entered a new phase via the international tribunal, which one way or the other has become part of the internal Lebanese fabric and sought to create a gap in international relations,” Fadlallah said during his Friday sermon in Beirut.
"We want the new government, as has been declared, a government for the entire nation, acting on behalf of all its citizens,” Fadlallah, who is the son of the late Sayyed Ali Fadlallah, and oversees a network of charitable institutes, schools, hospitals and other bodies said.
“And we want the opposition to work for the accountability of the government, not at the expense of security and stability,” he added.
“We see the solution for the Lebanon problem in a Cabinet that governs and an opposition that monitors so that the nation will build up on performance and supervision,” Fadlallah said.
Fadlallah is the eldest son of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, the influential and controversial Shiite scholar who was known for his moderate social views and pragmatism.