LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJuly 17/2011

Bible Quotation for today
Peter's Second Letter 2/10-19: "But chiefly those who walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement, and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries; 2:11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, don’t bring a railing judgment against them before the Lord. 2:12 But these, as unreasoning creatures, born natural animals to be taken and destroyed, speaking evil in matters about which they are ignorant, will in their destroying surely be destroyed, 2:13 receiving the wages of unrighteousness; people who count it pleasure to revel in the daytime, spots and blemishes, reveling in their deceit while they feast with you; 2:14 having eyes full of adultery, and who can’t cease from sin; enticing unsettled souls; having a heart trained in greed; children of cursing; 2:15 forsaking the right way, they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of wrongdoing; 2:16 but he was rebuked for his own disobedience. A mute donkey spoke with a man’s voice and stopped the madness of the prophet. 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. 2:18 For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; 2:19 promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Syria: Why the US is no longer an effective scarecrow/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid/July 16/11
Is the Lebanese cabinet on thin ice with the international community?/By: Shane Farrell/July 16/11
Washington right at the doorstep/By: Tony Badran/July 16/11
Syria Unravels/By: Diana Mukkaled/July 16/11
The "Bugbear" of Civil Strife – over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, or over Power?/By: Walid Choucair/July 16/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 16/11
Syria rights group: 41 people were killed in Friday's protests/Haaretz
Syria increasing arms shipments to Hezbollah'/J.Post
Hizballah rides high in Lebanon, installs member as security chief /DEBKAfile
Clinton fends off Arab League criticism, slams Syria again/J.Post
'A million marchers' in Syria as uprising enters its fifth month/The National
Syrian Opposition Gathers in Istanbul/Naharnet
Syrians mount biggest protests so far, 20 killed/Reuters
US on Syria's Bashar Al-Assad - Better the Devil We Know?/VOA
Key security post remains Shiite-held: sources/The Daily Star
Thorny appointment delayed until after Sleiman, Rai meet/The Daily Star
Lebanese Rival politicians rule out National Dialogue resumption/The Daily Star
Hospitality revenues plunge 40 percent in 2011/The Daily Star
Opposition claims Lebanon sidelined in Estonians' release/The Daily Star
President Gemayel: Lebanon harmed by Cabinet's double standards/The Daily Star
In South Lebanon, Mikati vows to commit to Resolution 1701/Now Lebanon
Lebanon's Prime Minister Najib Mikati commends UNIFIL during South visit/Now Lebanon
Lebanon's Environment Minister Nazem Khoury against halting Lebanon’s STL funding/Now Lebanon
Future bloc MP Hadi Hobeich: General Security chief post should be returned to Christians/Now Lebanon
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - July 16, 2011/The Daily Star
March 14 Legal Meeting on July 26 under Slogan of ‘Justice to Reach Stability/Naharnet
Estonian Cyclists Held Captive in Syria and Lebanon /Naharnet
Abbas Ibrahim’s Appointment as General Security Chief on Monday’s Cabinet Agenda /Naharnet
Suleiman Marks al-Rahi’s Visit to Jbeil with Dinner in his Honor /Naharnet
 

Hizballah rides high in Lebanon, installs member as security chief
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 16, 2011,
On the fifth anniversary of Israel's second Lebanon war this week, as former IDF generals and military experts hailed its outcome as the winning deterrent keeping the Shiite terrorist Hizballah at bay every since, Hassan Nasrallah quietly completed the organization's takeover of Lebanon's security and intelligence agencies and took delivery of advanced ballistic missiles from Syria. debkafile's counter-terror sources report that the Lebanese cabinet will Monday, July 18, go through the motions of endorsing the key appointment dictated by Hizballah promoting Brig. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim's from Deputy Director of Lebanese Military Intelligence to General Security Director
This a sensitive all-powerful post never before been held by a member of the Shiite community. It puts him – and Hizballah – in charge domestic surveillance, espionage, counterintelligence and all of Lebanon's clandestine branches. The post was formerly held by a Maronite Christian and passed to a Shiite Muslim in 1998.
The Christian president Michel Suleiman tried hard to prevent this appointment because it jeopardizes the delicate inter-communal power-sharing balance which has guarded Lebanon against civil strife in recent years. He even asked rivals in the opposition - former prime minister and Sunni leader Saad Hariri and the head of the Christian Phalangist Samir Geagea to back him up. But they turned him down, reminding him how as president he helped Hizballah install the puppet government headed by Najib Miqati. Now, they said, Suleiman must bear responsibility for the Shiite organization's expanding control of the country's military and security agencies.
After that rebuff, President Suleiman went back to Hizballah and extracted for his relative Brig. Gen. Walid Suleiman the job of Army Chief of Staff, a position comparable to Head of Operations in most Middle East armies.
debkafile's Middle East sources note that this step opened the door for Hizballah to take a hand for the first time in making top military appointments. Its oversight of domestic security will now spill over to the armed forces and military control of Lebanon's borders with Israel and Syria. Also on the agenda of the Lebanese cabinet meeting Monday, barring last-minute changes, are the extension of Said Mirza's term as Prosecutor General as well as the appointments of Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi as Internal Security Forces chief; and Col. Wissam Hassan, as head of the Intelligence Bureau.
All three are pro-Syrian and pro-Hizballah figures from northern Lebanon and personal loyalists of Prime Minister Miqati.
They have been put in place as a roadblock against the warrants the International Lebanese Tribunal is due to issue this month for the arrest and extradition of four Hizballah leaders on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.
Saturday, July 16, The Times of London confirmed from intelligence sources that Syria had accelerated its deliveries to Hizballah of high-tech weapons, including M600 - the Syrian version of the Scud D ballistic missile - whose 700-kilometer range puts much of Israel, Jordan and parts of Turkey within Hizballah's reach.
These developments show how far from reality were the self-congratulatory comments broadcast this week by Israeli generals and pundits and their view that the uprising threatening Syrian President Bashar Assad had weakened his ally Hizballah. Just the reverse: Even with his back to the wall, the Syrian ruler has clearly assigned top priority to continuing to upgrade Hizballah's war arsenal. And in Beirut, its leader Hassan Nasrallah, though still sheltering in his bunker, has never had it so good.

Clinton fends off Arab League criticism, slams Syria again
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT
07/16/2011 /WASHINGTON – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fended off criticism from the Arab League over America’s condemnation of Syria, reiterating that the current regime had lost the legitimacy to lead as it killed at least 32 civilian protesters Friday.
“[Syrian President Bashar] Assad has lost his legitimacy in the eyes of his people because of the brutality of their crackdown, including today,” Clinton said during a meeting of the Libya Contact Group in Istanbul. “And we, along with many others in the region and beyond, have said we strongly support a democratic transition.”
She noted that US officials had conducted many conversations with counterparts concerning Syria during the course of the day.
“We’ve made our views very clear, and the messages coming into Syria are remarkably similar, from everyone that I spoke with today,” she said.
Clinton was responding to comments from new Arab League head Nabil Elaraby slamming “foreign interference” in the affairs of Arab countries and declaring that Syria’s governance is “exclusively decided by the people” at a news conference he held Wednesday in Damascus after meeting with Assad.
US President Barack Obama refrained from calling Assad’s rule illegitimate until just this week, months after protesters began taking to the streets and paying with their lives. The Obama administration was much quicker to slap a similar label on the Libyan regime after leader Moammar Qadafi began to kill civilians calling for an end to his rule.
Administration officials explained the discrepancy in part because of the greater Arab support for challenging Qadafi. Syria, in contrast, retains much stronger ties and allegiances from Arab leaders, as demonstrated by Wednesday’s meeting. Clinton’s comments came as Syrian security forces killed 32 civilians, including 23 in the capital, in a crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations, the Local Coordination Committees grassroots activists' group said. Hundreds of thousands of people participated in what were the biggest protests so far against Assad, witnesses and rights groups said. The casualties represented the highest death toll in central neighborhoods of Damascus since the uprising against Assad's autocratic rule erupted four months ago in the southern part of the country. The killings prompted the opposition to cancel a "National Salvation" conference that was due to be held in Damascus Saturday after security forces killed 14 protesters in front of the wedding hall where the conference was scheduled to take place, opposition leader Walid al-Bunni told Reuters.
**Reuters contributed to this report

'Syria increasing arms shipments to Hezbollah'
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND YAAKOV KATZ
07/16/2011 11:52
Intel officials tell 'The Times' Syria gave Shi'ite group Scud D missiles putting "Israel, Jordan and large parts of Turkey within Hezbollah's range
Damascus is increasing shipments of advanced missiles and other weapons to Hezbollah amid continuing unrest in Syria, The Times of London reported Friday quoting Western intelligence officials. The officials said Syria provided Hezbollah with eight Scud D missiles that have a range of 700 kilometers
The missiles "are accurate to within tens of meters and bring all of Israel, Jordan and large parts of Turkey within Hezbollah's range," the officials were quoted by the newspaper as saying.
They also said that, "This is the fire time that a terror organization has obtained a missile of this type," which is considered a "strategic weapon" that "has been held only by national armies."
The Times also quoted an Israeli intelligence official who said Syria "was engaged in a serious arms build-up," adding that the weapons transfers started after the revolution began in Egypt
The report comes after the French paper Le Figaro reported last month that a stash of Lebanese weapons destined for Hezbollah was hidden and distributed in densely-populated urban areas including the southern Syrian city of Homs and cities just outside Damascus. In May, The Jerusalem Post reported that concern is growing among Western intelligence agencies that Hezbollah might try to transfer the advanced weaponry it reportedly maintains on Syrian soil if it feels that President Bashar Assad’s reign is on the verge of ending.
Last year, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu revealed in a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that Hezbollah was storing Scud missiles in military bases in Syria.

Suleiman Marks al-Rahi’s Visit to Jbeil with Dinner in his Honor
Naharnet /President Michel Suleiman is throwing a dinner banquet on Saturday in Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi’s honor on the occasion of his visit of the region of Jbeil, reported the daily An Nahar Saturday. Speaker Nabih Berri, his deputy Farid Makari, Prime Minister Najib Miqati his deputy Samir Moqbel, Papal Ambassador Gabriele Caccia, and a number of ministers, MPs, and heads of Christian parties, including Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel, Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh, and FPM leader MP Michel Aoun are also invited. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea will be unable to attend because he is abroad in Paris. March 14 General Secretariat coordinator Fares Soaid, who is invited to the dinner, told the daily that the meeting was scheduled months in advance, adding: “We shouldn’t look too much into it on the political level.”
“We will attend the meeting due to our moral and social obligations,” he said. Meanwhile, Suleiman’s circles to As Safir newspaper in remarks published on Saturday that a strong friendship binds the president and the patriarch, as does their interest in uniting Christian ranks. No closed-door meetings are expected to be held, strictly speeches by Suleiman and al-Rahi, they stressed. Suleiman will focus on national principles and resuming the national dialogue as the only way to end disputes, an official source told As Safir.
Al-Jumhuriya newspaper reported on Saturday that the talks at the dinner banquet will likely center on local, regional, and international developments.

Future bloc MP Hadi Hobeich: General Security chief post should be returned to Christians
July 16, 2011 /Future bloc MP Hadi Hobeich called for restoring the post of General Security chief back to Lebanon’s Christians, as it had been before being granted to the Shia since 1998.“There is a unanimous Christian agreement to grant the position back to them,” the MP told the Voice of Lebanon (93.3) radio station.
Hobeich also said that the Christian parties who take part in the government should shoulder the responsibility to restore the General Security chief post, in a reference to the Change and Reform bloc headed by MP Michel Aoun. Aoun – who is allied to the Shia group Hezbollah – said on Tuesday that “whether the position is [for Maronites] or for the Shia, it is not the end of the world.” According to unconfirmed reports, Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai, President Michel Sleiman and Aoun are working to grant the Director of the General Security position to the Maronites.-NOW Lebanon

Prime Minister Najib Mikati commends UNIFIL during South visit
July 16, 2011 /Prime Minister Najib Mikati commended UNIFIL during his Saturday visit to the peacekeeping troops’ headquarters in South Lebanon’s Naqoura.
“I wanted to visit the headquarters of the peacekeeping troops to thank UNIFIL for the noble role it is playing along with the Lebanese army to preserve security and stability in the South,” the National News Agency quoted Mikati as saying. The PM reiterated Lebanon’s commitment to UNIFIL and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 July War between Israel and Hezbollah. “Lebanon is committed to the implementation of Resolution 1701 and calls on the UN to bind Israel to its application.”
“Lebanon’s people, state and government stand behind UNIFIL.”Mikati’s cabinet, which was formed on June 13 and dominated by the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance, was granted parliament’s vote of confidence July 7.-NOW Lebanon

Is the cabinet on thin ice with the international community?
Shane Farrell, July 16, 2011 /The international community has some serious questions to grapple with now that the Lebanese cabinet is headed by the Iran- and Syria-backed March 8 coalition. The United States and United Kingdom specifically have taken issue with the cabinet, which they call “Hezbollah-led” even though the party only holds two seats. (The US calls Hezbollah a terrorist organization, while the UK feels the same about the party’s military wing.)
A significant concern for the international community is the Lebanese cabinet’s response to the recent indictment of four Hezbollah members by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), the court established to investigate the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and over 20 others in 2005.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah rejected the tribunal numerous times, stating earlier this month that no Lebanese government will be able to carry out arrest warrants in “even 300 years.”
Nevertheless, a spokesperson for UN chief Ban Ki-moon said in a press conference on July 1 that “The secretary general expects the new government of Lebanon to uphold all of Lebanon's international obligations and to cooperate with the Special Tribunal.” Others seem less convinced.
EU Foreign Affairs minister Catherine Ashton expressed her “concern” in a July 7 statement with the cabinet’s recently-released ministerial statement, which included the ambiguous clause that the cabinet would “follow up” on the tribunal in a manner that does not negatively impact on the country’s “stability, unity and civil peace.”
The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office shares Ashton’s reservations, according to an FCO spokesperson contacted by NOW Lebanon.
The French ambassador to Lebanon also criticized clause, saying it did not meet France’s expectations, while a US State Department spokesperson said the US will judge the new government according to its international obligations and commitments, including the tribunal.
In the event that the Lebanese government fails to carry out its obligations under international law, what recourse does the international community have to punish the cabinet?
Military measures aside, foreign governments could take economic measures to pressure the Lebanese government.
This appears to be most relevant to the US due to an ongoing debate in Congress regarding the continuity of American aid. The Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act (HATA) proposes to continue aid to Lebanon but with tighter controls to ensure that aid money does not reach the Party of God. Others, such as House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, hope for a complete halt to aid to Lebanon.
The US has given around $240 million to Lebanon annually in direct assistance in the past two years, and has earmarked $246.3 million for 2011, as is outlined in a Congressional report.
According to economist Sami Nader, however, halting international aid from the US to Lebanon will not have a significant impact. “What would be more harmful would be restrictions on the banking system because some banks are involved in some illicit transactions, [or] visa restrictions on Lebanese... All of this could result in withdrawal of capital from our banking system and put pressure on the whole financial [stability of the country].”
Lebanese American University Political Science professor Imad Salemeh holds a different view.
“[Financial aid] can become [a tool] of pressure on Lebanon’s government. A serious economic embargo would mean economic and political collapse in the country. There are many ways [for the US] to pressure the government to collaborate and cooperate. [However,] whether the government cares is another question.”
Former UNIFIL spokesperson Timor Goksel believes that it is extremely unlikely that Lebanon will face any significant punishment from the international community if it fails to arrest the indicted parties, especially if the government demonstrates that it has taken measures to find them. Moreover, he does not expect aid flow to Lebanon to be affected. “If the government doesn’t make radical changes to its foreign policy or its attitudes, which it doesn’t seem to be doing so far, I don’t think it will be punished,” he told NOW Lebanon.
“For the [international community], it’s a legitimate government and it will be given a chance,” he said.
When asked whether UNIFIL’s role and composition might change because of Lebanon’s failure to fulfill the requirements of the UN-sanctioned tribunal, Goksel responded, “Absolutely not.” “[The] UN is extremely careful. They are never ever going to get involved in the issue of the STL and everything else. As a UN force they will stay away from it no matter what happens,” Goksel said.Meanwhile, for Turkey, another country that plays an important role in the region, the STL is not the real issue, according to Oytun Orhan, a Middle East expert at the Ankara-based Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies. Instead, Orhan told NOW Lebanon, Turkey wants national dialogue and stability in Lebanon. Moreover, he believes that the Turkish government views the tribunal as “highly politicized” and as a “pressure tool [by international actors] on Hezbollah and Syria.” Consequently, “Turkey actually does not support the indictment process.”

Washington right at the doorstep
Tony Badran,/Now Lebanon
Assad regime supporters protest outside the US Embassy in Damascus on July 8 against a visit by Ambassador Robert Ford to the opposition hotbed city of Hama. The embassy was attacked by pro-regime protesters days later. (AFP photo/HO/SANA)
This week, the Obama administration edged closer to advocating regime change in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who last month stated that Bashar al-Assad’s legitimacy had “nearly run out,” declared on Monday after the US Embassy in Damascus had been attacked by pro-regime protesters that the Syrian president has “lost his legitimacy.” The rhetoric of the administration has shifted, and so have some of its actions. Washington is right at the doorstep, but not yet fully through that door.
The turning point came with Ambassador Robert Ford’s trip to Hama last Friday. Doubtless this overdue display of solidarity with the protesters is highly laudable, even if it raises a question as to why the administration didn’t instruct Ford to go to Deraa, Idlib or Homs, or any other city besieged and assaulted by the regime in the last four months.
But more important is the policy context in which Ford’s actions are to be read. In other words, did Ford’s trip truly signal a change in policy on the part of the Obama administration? Up to this point, the administration’s public position was defined on the one hand by the president’s call on Assad to “lead the transition or get out of the way,” and on the other by the administration’s call for a “real dialogue” between the regime and the protesters. Even after Ford’s Hama visit, a US official speaking to the Los Angeles Times last Sunday reasserted the “dialogue” mantra: “A dialogue has to be attempted. It has to be tried,” the official said.
Following the attack on the embassy, however, the tone in Washington did change. Secretary of State Clinton led the way on Monday commenting that, “From our perspective, [Assad] has lost legitimacy, he has failed to deliver on the promises he’s made.” In addition, Clinton repeated a line she had used in her op-ed in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat last month that Assad was “not indispensable,” adding to it that the US has “absolutely nothing invested” in him remaining in power.
Yet Clinton’s seemingly strong statement was tempered by the fact that it did not include any action words to go with the sharpening rhetoric. President Obama followed in the same vein and even managed to dull the edge further, saying in an interview with CBS News that “increasingly you’re seeing President Assad lose legitimacy in the eyes of his people. And that’s why we've been working at an international level, to make sure that we keep the pressure up—to see if we can bring some real change in Syria.” (Emphasis added.)
It is evident, however, that Washington has given up hope in Assad “leading the transition.” As one senior official put it to the New York Times yesterday, Assad “has shown definitively he has no interest in reform. The rationale for holding on to him has evaporated.” But yet neither Clinton nor Obama have taken the next logical step of explicitly calling on Assad to step down. Obama’s statement conspicuously left out the “get out of the way” part of his May 19 ultimatum to the Syrian dictator.
What is the end-goal of the pressure Obama described? What is the nature of the “real change” he has in mind? Is the pressure still intended to push Assad to change his behavior, or is Washington’s desired objective to see Assad out of the picture, regardless of how long that might take?
The reason why this continues to be an issue is because up until now, the administration had ceded leadership on Syria to the Turks, who have signaled that they are holding out hope for Assad to undertake convincing reformist measures. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is said to be planning a visit to Syria in coming days, following a trip to Tehran, where he reportedly tried, and failed, to get the Iranians to stop their logistical support for Assad in repressing protesters. Whether he will reiterate Turkey’s hopeful posture with Assad—thereby undercutting the US position—remains to be seen. As Mrs. Clinton heads to Turkey tomorrow, it might be the right time for Washington to inform the Turks that the US no longer sees a role for Assad other than his leaving.
On the tactical level, several observers have noted a number of avenues to step up pressure on the regime, especially through targeting the regime’s financial lifeblood, Syria’s energy sector. While administration officials had told journalists that they were looking at that option, a month later officials are saying that they’re still “weighing” such sanctions.
The administration needs to quickly move on this option, but it also should have a number of responses lined up in the event the regime escalates further. Ford’s precedent in Hama needs to be followed through lest it backfires, even if the regime, which allowed the visit to its great embarrassment, is unlikely to accommodate another.
This week’s developments have shown that America’s words and actions, not to mention leadership, matter. Moving forward, for Washington’s tactical instruments to be effective, they need to be integrated in a coherent strategic framework and a clear-cut policy objective. That objective, as per President Obama’s ultimatum, is to make Assad get out of the way.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.

In South Lebanon, Mikati vows to commit to Resolution 1701
July 16, 2011/Prime Minister Najib Mikati said on Saturday that his cabinet will fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 July War between Israel and Hezbollah. “The cabinet will fully implement Resolution 1701 and [ensure] a permanent ceasefire [in South Lebanon],” the National News Agency quoted Mikati as saying during his visit to the South. He also said that “the government will keep calling on the UN to limit Israel’s ongoing violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty.” The cabinet is also keen on working to ensure Israel’s withdrawal of the Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shouba Hills and the northern part of the Ghajar territory, the premier added. “South Lebanon’s stability is the key for the Middle East’s stability.” Mikati visited the South on Saturday to meet with Lebanese army officers and tour UNIFIL’s Naqoura headquarters. Mikati’s cabinet, which was formed on June 13 and dominated by the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance, was granted parliament’s vote of confidence July 7.

Gemayel: Lebanon harmed by Cabinet's double standards
The Daily Star/BEIRUT: Kataeb Party head Amine Gemayel accused the Cabinet of having double standards in relation to United Nations: on the one hand urging the international organization to protect Lebanon’s maritime rights while at the same time challenging the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
“We wonder how some in the Cabinet are challenging and denying international law and institutions as shown in their stance against the resolution dealing with the establishment of the tribunal, while the Cabinet is preparing itself to ask the U.N. to intervene in settling the issue of maritime border demarcation and to preserve Lebanon's right to its regional waters,” Amine Gemayel said Friday. Lebanon has asked the U.N. to assist in demarcating its maritime borders with Israel, an area that is said to contain large amounts of natural gas and oil.
“The government [of Prime Minister Najib Mikati] is asking the U.N. to protect Lebanon’s maritime rights while at the same time it denies the legitimacy of international resolutions. Explain to us this contradiction,” Gemayel told a gathering of lawyers affiliated with his party.
Accusing the government of picking and choosing which international resolutions to adhere to, Gemayel said the policy of Mikati’s Cabinet was damaging Lebanon’s credibility at the international level. “What is this selective way of dealing with international law? And what is left of Lebanon's credibility in the U.N. when it asks it one thing and acts differently regarding another issue?” Gemayel asked. The Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance, which holds the majority in Mikati’s Cabinet, has repeatedly rejected the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon, questioning its credibility and describing it as an Israeli-American tool aimed at targeting the resistance.
The tribunal, established in 2007 under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1757, is probing the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.
In late June, an STL-delegation handed Lebanon’s state prosecutor a sealed indictment and arrest warrants against four Lebanese suspects in the case. The four men, whose names were leaked to the media, are members of Hezbollah which has repeatedly denied involvement in the assassination of Hariri.
Lebanon’s new opposition, the March 14 coalition, has launched a fierce campaign against Mikati’s Cabinet, accusing it of disavowing the tribunal and criticizing its policy statement which merely “respects” and does not “commit” to resolution 1757. During the seminar, Gemayel, a member of the March 14 alliance, defended the tribunal against Hezbollah’s allegations, saying: “The tribunal is the only deterrent to stop the series of crimes and assassinations and reveal the identity of the murderers.”
He also asked Mikati’s Cabinet to extend the mandate of the STL to investigate other assassinations including that of his son - former Labor Minister Pierre Gemayel - and MP Antoine Ghanem, who was assassinated in 2006.
“If [the tribunal] proves that there is a link … between all the assassinations since Dec. 12, 2005, and those that happened after that date, the Lebanese government is asked to commit to extending the prerogative of the tribunal to include all crimes and assassinations, including the assassination of our loved ones Pierre and Antoine,” Gemayel said.
Gemayel also accused the recently formed Cabinet, which received the parliamentary vote of confidence last week, of attempting to replace the international court with a local one to try those who had asked for “freedom, sovereignty, stability and their right to know who killed their martyrs.”
“We should unite our vision toward justice because it is not merely a political ideology that can carry disputes but it is an ethical, universal principle,” he added.

Environment Minister Nazem Khoury against halting Lebanon’s STL funding
July 16, 2011 /Environment Minister Nazem Khoury said on Saturday that he is against halting Lebanon’s share of funding to the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which is probing former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination. “Lebanon does not benefit from being against the international community…and I am not in favor of halting [the country’s] funding to the STL,” Khoury told Voice of Lebanon (100.5) radio station. He also said that the tribunal “must provide tangible evidence” pertaining the Hariri assassination, adding that “we must know who was behind [the crimes] that were committed.” Asked about the border demarcation between Lebanon and Syria, the minister said that “the borders must be controlled for the benefit of both countries.”He added that Lebanon’s demarcation of its maritime borders “would be a golden opportunity.” “Who would have dreamed that [Lebanon] has oil assets?” Israel's cabinet approved last Sunday a map of the Jewish State's proposed maritime borders with Lebanon, which is to be submitted to the UN. Last month, the STL indicted four Hezbollah members for Rafik Hariri’s murder. However, the Shia group ruled out the arrest of the four suspects. The Hezbollah-led March 8 parties have opposed a clause in the Lebanese annual state budget, which pertains to the funding of the tribunal. Lebanon contributes with 49 percent of the STL’s annual funding. -NOW Lebanon

Thorny appointment delayed until after Sleiman, Rai meet
July 16, 2011
By Antoine Ghattas Saab
The Daily Star
The surprise release of seven kidnapped Estonians Thursday morning played a big part in overshadowing the first full-fledged working meeting of the Cabinet of Najib Mikati, which took place later the same day. The government made some progress on the most important “political” item on its agenda, namely the long-awaited appointments to key civil service posts. But it approved only three of the selections, one of which was the extension of the mandate of Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh.
Debate on a more contentious decision, to name a new head of General Security, was delayed because of the fear that any failure to agree would have a negative impact on an upcoming political event of considerable importance. President Michel Sleiman will host the Maronite patriarch, Beshara Rai, at his home in the Jbeil town of Amsheet for a dinner Saturday evening.
The dinner will provide Sleiman and Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, an opportunity to clear the air and establish a better political relationship. It was feared that a divisive debate during the Cabinet meeting over whether General Security should continue to be headed by a Shiite would have ruined the political atmosphere just prior to the dinner to be hosted by Sleiman, and the matter was postponed. Sources close to Baabda Palace maintain that the president does not want to tackle the vital issue of building a strong and effective state without coming to grips with the larger issue of administrative reform, across various state bodies. They said such an undertaking requires a considerable amount of precise and painstaking groundwork, whether this focuses on technical, legal or political aspects. The sources said an explicit, determined decision to carry out administrative reform is required, and not ad hoc steps – all of the problems need to be identified, with suitable solutions then proposed and acted on, as expressed by Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s belief that “every problem has a solution.”The Baabda sources added that the issue of retaining sectarian balance, as stipulated by the Taif Accord, must figure high up in the deliberations on administrative reform, since it is no less important than other aspects of the process.At the Saturday dinner gathering Sleiman, Aoun and Patriarch Rai, the president is expected to deliver a speech that stresses the need to bolster the presence of Christians throughout the country’s civil service ranks.Sleiman has devoted his personal attention in drafting the speech, which will argue that such a move would have positive repercussions for Lebanon’s Christians. The sources said the president aimed at seeing Christians recover a sense of security and self-assurance that has dissipated over the last decade.President Sleiman has been working quietly to lay the groundwork for an agreement on the top General Security post, so that the selection is based entirely on merit and allays any political or sectarian sensitivities, the sources added.The issue of civil service appointments, meanwhile, has been high on the agenda of Rai, who has chaired meeting on this issue this week. Rai’s stance is that all political factions should benefit from the coming appointment process, but on the condition that the criteria of competence is respected.

Rival politicians rule out National Dialogue resumption
July 16, 2011
y Wassim Mroueh/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Politicians from rival political camps are pessimistic about the possibility of resuming National Dialogue sessions after an eight-month hiatus, with some calling for new issues to be included on the agenda.Fares Soueid, the general coordinator of the March 14 General Secretariat, told The Daily Star there was “zero percent” chance for dialogue to resume under the current circumstances. “The March 14 coalition is not ready to waste time by participating in dialogue under the conditions and circumstances that are the same as those prior to the formation of the Cabinet.” He said that the group would only take part in talks to discuss the topic of Hezbollah’s arms. “We only accept to take part in a dialogue called by Hezbollah, prior to which the party pledges to hand over its arms to the Lebanese state under the sponsorship of the Arab League,” he added.
The March 14 group accuses Hezbollah of using force to secure a parliamentary majority, which brought Prime Minister Najib Mikati to office. Mikati’s Cabinet was given a vote of confidence earlier this month. Echoing Soueid, Baabda MP Alain Aoun ruled out the possibility of resuming dialogue sessions, but he placed the blame on the March 14 coalition.
“There should be a will for dialogue, but it seems that the opposition is heading toward a boycott of the Cabinet and the new [parliamentary] majority,” said Aoun, who is from Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement, an ally of Hezbollah.
“If they change their behavior and acknowledge that a rotation of power has taken place, then dialogue will resume, but I rule out the possibility of that,” Aoun added.
Dialogue sessions were first launched by Speaker Nabih Berri in Parliament in March 2006, when leaders from various political factions met to discuss disputed issues like the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and a national defense strategy. From 2008, the sessions were held at Baabda Palace under President Michel Sleiman.
The last session of talks was held in November last year and was boycotted by most March 8 leaders amid mounting divisions between the March 8 and March 14 coalitions over the STL.
The dispute led to the collapse of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Cabinet in January. Environment Minister Nazem Khoury, an ally of Sleiman, said that because of the deep schism in the country, the resumption of dialogue would require a new round of preparations. “There are certainly obstacles. There are deep divisions in the country and the atmosphere needs to be prepared [for resuming dialogue].” “In my opinion, changes should be made to the form and content of the National Dialogue Committee,” Khoury said.“The list of participants needs to be altered following the formation of the new Cabinet. As for content, an agenda for dialogue which satisfies both sides should be prepared and all sides must be willing to engage in dialogue,” he said.
But Khoury was adamant that previous talks had not failed.“In a country like Lebanon, dialogue cannot achieve results so quickly. People should be educated about the culture of dialogue. We got used to having our disputes resolved in conferences outside the country,” he said. “There is no justification to refer to outsiders now. We should meet and resolve our differences.”
The minister said Sleiman was working seriously to re-launch talks.
“There are attempts to reconvene dialogue sessions. A steering committee which has been meeting since three years [when Sleiman assumed office], is still meeting at Baabda Palace and discussing what could be tackled in dialogue,” he said.“The president considers dialogue to be fundamental and necessary to achieving stability and security in Lebanon,” he said. “It’s not a luxury.”Ali Hamdan, a media adviser to Berri, was more optimistic about re-launching dialogue, saying that no major obstacles prevented a resumption of talks, which he said Lebanon needs desperately.“When Speaker Berri called for reconciliation in Parliament during the discussion of the policy statement of [Mikati’s Cabinet], [head of the Future bloc] MP Fouad Siniora responded favorably,” he said, adding that in a recent interview, Hariri had also called for national reconciliation.
“There don’t seem to be major obstacles. The president has only to ready the political climate,” Hamdan said.


20 killed in biggest Syrian protests so far: witnesses
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis/AMMAN | Fri Jul 15, 2011
AMMAN (Reuters) - Syrian security forces shot dead at least 20 protesters on Friday as hundreds of thousands of people staged the biggest protests so far against President Bashar al-Assad, witnesses and rights groups said. Assad, facing the greatest challenge to 40 years of Baath Party rule, has sought to crush demonstrations that broke out in March. But although rights groups say some 1,400 civilians have been killed, the protests have grown. "These are the biggest demonstrations so far. It is a clear challenge to the authorities, especially when we see all these numbers coming out from Damascus for the first time," said Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Activists and witnesses said police fired live ammunition and teargas in the capital Damascus and suburbs, killing at least 11 people. They killed four in the southern city of Deraa, the cradle of the Syrian uprising, near the Jordanian border. Three protesters were shot dead in the northwestern province of Idlib, near the Turkish border, where troops and tanks have attacked villages, the witnesses and activists said. Two people were also killed in the city of Homs. A witness in the Rukn al-Din district of Damascus said hundreds of young men wearing white masks fought security forces with sticks and stones. "Down, down Bashar al-Assad," they chanted. "We are in Midan and they are firing teargas at us, people are chanting," a witness said by telephone from the center of Damascus.
In the city of Hama, scene of a 1982 massacre by the military, live video footage filmed by residents showed a huge crowd in the main Orontos Square shouting "the people want the overthrow of the regime." At least 350,000 people demonstrated in the eastern province of Deir al Zor, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. Syrian forces shot dead two pro-democracy protesters there on Thursday, residents said.
BIGGEST PROTESTS IN DAMASCUS
Until now, the biggest demonstrations have taken place in impoverished towns and villages outside Damascus where one in 10 of Syria's 20 million population lives. Protests in the capital have rarely mustered more than a few hundred people. Damascus has benefited from substantial foreign investment and its citizens are on average wealthier than those in the provinces. Security is also much tighter. Activists estimate the number of secret police on the streets of Damascus has more than doubled since protests started but the economy has stagnated. Faced with uncertainty, foreign investors are pulling out in droves and unemployment is rising. To counter that, Syria's main ally, Iran, is considering offering $5.8 billion in financial help, including a three-month loan worth $1.5 billion to be made available immediately, French business newspaper Les Echos said, citing a report by a Tehran think-tank linked to Iran's leadership. International sanctions are targeted at Syria's leaders, not at its banks and companies. But France and the United States are pressing for tougher penalties, and a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the crackdown, following attacks on both countries' embassies in Syria. "We have said Syria can't go back to the way it was before, that Assad has lost his legitimacy in the eyes of his own people," U.S. Secretary of States Hillary Clinton told a news conference in Istanbul. "We, along with many others in the region and beyond, have said we strongly support a democratic transition," she said. "The ultimate destiny of the Syrian regime and Syrian people lies with the people themselves."
OPPOSITION FIGURES PLAN CONFERENCE
Assad has responded to protests with a mixture of force and promises of reforms. He has given thousands of Kurds citizenship and ended a state of emergency. He has also called for dialogue but main opposition boycotted a conference organized by the government because the violence has continued.
"The authorities are reacting to the refusal of the opposition to take part in a dialogue which the regime wanted to control to cover up for the killings," opposition figure Louay Hussain told Reuters from Damascus by telephone. Emboldened by the spreading protests, prominent opposition figures and activists are to hold a conference in Istanbul on Saturday that will be closely coordinated with another conference in Damascus. Opposition figure Radwan Ziadeh told Reuters the conference would elect a 75-member National Council consisting of opposition members from inside and outside Syria. "This is the first time we have a joint dialogue (between) opposition in Syria and exiled Syrians," he said from Istanbul.
"We will elect 50 members to the National Council from inside Syria and 25 from exiled Syrians."
(Additional reporting by Mariam Karouny and Oliver Holmes in Beirut and Andrew Quinn in Istanbul; Writing by Jon Hemming, Editing by Timothy Heritage)

US on Syria's Bashar Al-Assad - Better the Devil We Know?
Cecily Hilleary | Washington 16 July/11/VOA
This week’s attack on the U.S. and French embassies in Damascus was by no means the first, according to Ted Kattouf, President and CEO of the Washington-based nonprofit Amideast and former U.S. Ambassador to Syria (2001-2003). Back in 1998, during his predecessor Ryan Clark Crocker’s tenure as Ambassador in Damascus, something similar happened.
“At that time,” Kattouf says, “there were U.N. sanctions on Iraq, and Saddam had done something to violate the sanctions, and we launched a short-term operation in Iraq.” Anti-U.S. mobs or “rent-a-thugs” as Kattouf quips, were unleashed against the U.S. mission.
“Ambassador Crocker and his wife had to take cover in a safe room upstairs, while protest mobs ransacked the lower level of their residence,” he said.
This week’s attack on the American and French embassies were triggered by the visit of U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford and French Ambassador Eric Chevallier to Hama Thursday and Friday in what has been billed as a show of solidarity with protesters, who have been targeted by government and security forces.
The attackers damaged not just buildings, but the relationship between the U.S. and Syria which, while hardly warm, has been at least accommodating in recent years.
Syria reacted angrily to Ford’s visit to Hama, accusing the U.S. of meddling in its affairs.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared Monday that the Syrian president had lost all legitimacy to remain in power. "President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him ... remaining in power," she said.
In an interview with the American CBS television network on Tuesday, President Obama echoed Clinton’s comments, saying al-Assad was “losing legitimacy in the eyes of his people,” and had missed “opportunity after opportunity” for instituting genuine reform.Rebukes, yes, say many analysts, but they were tame, stopping well short of calling for Assad to step
Rights groups estimate that since the beginning of the Syrian uprising, more than 1,400 people have been killed, mostly protesters, and more than 10,000 people remain in jail or missing altogether.Washington was comparatively quick to intervene in Egypt and Libya - what are it’s options now in Syria? Some observers are urging Washington to call on Assad to step down. Others believe the Syrian president should be referred to the International Criminal Court, like Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, and indicted for crimes against humanity.
Kattouf believes Washington has several good reasons for not responding more harshly to the Syrian crackdown, "Washington does not want to take ownership of the Syrian revolution."
“We have our hands full elsewhere, thank you,” said Kattouf. "And oh, by the way, the Syrian people haven’t asked the U.S. to intervene.”
However, in Kattouf’s opinion, Washington worries about who would step in if Bashar al-Assad were to fall. Some analysts hint that the current unrest in Syria is driven by Sunni “terrorists” and suggest that if they were to come to power, Syrians would be no better off than they were under 30 years of Assad regimes. Further, the politics of Syria are so wrapped in Middle East politics that the removal of Assad could lead to a general destabilization of the entire region.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said this week that Syria has cooperated in mopping up the damage done to the U.S. embassy and Ambassador’s residence. "We have been able, working with the Syrians, to upgrade security, get some of the repairs made that needed to be made, particularly with regard to windows and cameras and those things," Nuland told reporters, adding that Syria's Foreign Ministry returned the American flag that had been stolen from the U.S. Embassy and replaced by a Syrian flag.
Nuland also said that Syrian police have arrested six protesters who took part in the attack. “Our number one priority is to restore the security and operational effectiveness of our embassy and to see the Government of Syria meet its Vienna Convention obligations,” said the spokeswoman.
As for Ambassador Ford, whose visit to Hama triggered the attack on the embassy, he says he will continue to travel the country to meet and greet Syrians. Meanwhile, Syrian forces continue to target protesters across the country.
Former Ambassador Kattouf does not believe that change will come to Syria any time soon. He points out that Al-Assad has been promising reform ever since he succeeded his father as president 11 years ago. “You have to ask yourself,” said Kattouf. “Why have they been shooting so many people in the streets if they’re willing to reform?”

Question: "Can a Christian lose salvation?"
GotQuestions.org
Answer: Before this question is answered, the term “Christian” must be defined. A “Christian” is not a person who has said a prayer, or walked down an aisle, or been raised in a Christian family. While each of these things can be a part of the Christian experience, they are not what “makes” a Christian. A Christian is a person who has, by faith, received and fully trusted in Jesus Christ as the only Savior (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9).
So, with this definition in mind, can a Christian lose salvation? Perhaps the best way to answer this crucially important question is to examine what the Bible says occurs at salvation, and to study what losing salvation would therefore entail. Here are a few examples:
A Christian is a new creation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). This verse speaks of a person becoming an entirely new creature as a result of being “in Christ.” For a Christian to lose salvation, the new creation would have to be canceled and reversed.
A Christian is redeemed. “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:18-19). The word “redeemed” refers to a purchase being made, a price being paid. For a Christian to lose salvation, God Himself would have to revoke His purchase that He paid for with the precious blood of Christ.
A Christian is justified. “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). To “justify” means to “declare righteous.” All those who receive Jesus as Savior are “declared righteous” by God. For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to go back on His Word and “un-declare” what He had previously declared.
A Christian is promised eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Eternal life is a promise of eternity (forever) in heaven with God. God promises, “Believe and you will have eternal life.” For a Christian to lose salvation, eternal life would have to be taken away. If a Christian is promised to live forever, how then can God break this promise by taking away eternal life?
A Christian is guaranteed glorification. “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:30). As we learned in Romans 5:1, justification is declared at the moment of faith. According to Romans 8:30, glorification is guaranteed for all those whom God justifies. Glorification refers to a Christian receiving a perfect resurrection body in heaven. If a Christian can lose salvation, then Romans 8:30 is in error, because God could not guarantee glorification for all those whom He predestines, calls, and justifies.
Many more illustrations of what occurs at salvation could be shared. Even these few make it abundantly clear that a Christian cannot lose salvation. Most, if not all, of what the Bible says happens to us when we receive Jesus Christ as Savior would be invalidated if salvation could be lost. Salvation cannot be reversed. A Christian cannot be un-newly created. Redemption cannot be undone. Eternal life cannot be lost and still be considered eternal. If a Christian can lose salvation, God would have to go back on His Word and change His mind—two things that Scripture tells us God never does.
The most frequent objections to the belief that a Christian cannot lose salvation are 1) What about those who are Christians and continually live an immoral lifestyle? 2) What about those who are Christians but later reject the faith and deny Christ? The problem with these two objections is the phrase “who are Christians.” The Bible declares that a true Christian will not live a continually immoral lifestyle (1 John 3:6). The Bible declares that anyone who departs the faith is demonstrating that he never truly was a Christian (1 John 2:19). Therefore, neither objection is valid. Christians do not continually live immoral lifestyles, nor do they reject the faith and deny Christ. Such actions are proof that they were never redeemed.
No, a Christian cannot lose salvation. Nothing can separate a Christian from God’s love (Romans 8:38-39). Nothing can remove a Christian from God’s hand (John 10:28-29). God is both willing and able to guarantee and maintain the salvation He has given us. Jude 24-25, “To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.”

Opposition claims Lebanon sidelined in Estonians’ release
 July 16, 2011/By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati came under fire from opposition March 14 politicians Friday for being sidelined by France and other states in the deal that led to the release of seven kidnapped Estonians.
As-Safir newspaper called the release, which was entirely brokered and supervised by France, “a scandal,” describing the role of the Lebanese state in the case as “a witness who saw nothing.” The paper also quoted official sources as saying that what happened was “a blatant violation of Lebanese sovereignty.”
Even Interior Minister Marwan Charbel confirmed that Lebanese security forces were not involved in the release so as “not to complicate things.”
However, the release has unleashed a volley of questions about the identity and motives of the kidnapping, and whether a ransom was paid for the release of the men.
The Estonians were released Thursday morning, nearly four months after they were kidnapped at gunpoint by masked men on March 23 near Zahle shortly after re-entering Lebanon on bicycles from Syria. They flew home Thursday night.
Batroun MP Butros Harb demanded that the government issue a statement explaining the circumstances of the kidnapping.
“It is abnormal for a case of such gravity to happen and to be tackled secretly and behind the scene without transparency and without the Lebanese public being informed about the details of the case and its circumstances,” Harb said in a statement issued Friday.
“This prompts me to demand that the government issue a statement explaining the circumstances of the kidnapping and release of the seven Estonians along with the information related to the kidnapping and its causes, the identity of the kidnappers and the place where they held their hostages and those involved in this case, including armed groups, gangs and organizations be they local or regional,” Harb said.
Harb congratulated the seven Estonians on their release and thanked the states that cooperated in resolving this “mysterious case,” especially France and its intelligence services.
“But it is the right of the Lebanese to know who kidnapped the Estonians and why. And how were they released. And who carried out the raids against the abductors. What was the price of the release and what are the political and regional motives that were behind the kidnapping and release of the Estonians?” he said.
Harb said people should also be informed about the role of the Internal Security Forces, the ISF’s Information Branch, the judicial bodies affiliated with the Justice Ministry, and the Lebanese and other intelligence services in this case, asking whether the price for the safe release of the Estonians was denying the Lebanese state and its security apparatuses a role.
French Ambassador to Lebanon Denis Pietton said the release took place “as a result of efforts undertaken solely by Lebanon and Estonia,” adding that France had only provided diplomatic assistance. But Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said the release was the result of “an international operation” in which Lebanon, Estonia and other countries participated.
Western Bekaa MP Jamal Jarrah from former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s parliamentary Future bloc said the release of the Estonians was “a message of support” for Mikati. The release took place as Mikati’s 30-member Cabinet was holding its first session after winning a vote of confidence from Parliament.
“This operation [release] is like oxygen that will help the government stay alive,” Jarrah told Future News TV. “The release was a very good step. Probably it will wipe out the bad impression about Lebanon and eliminate the idea that foreigners are kidnapped here.”
Apparently referring to Syria where the U.S. and French Embassies were attacked by supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Jarrah said: “The operation [release] is a positive message to the Europeans from regional parties after the attack on their embassies in Damascus.”
Zahle MP Elie Marouni, of the Kataeb (Phalange) Party, criticized the absence of the Lebanese government from efforts to secure the Estonians’ release. “The release of the seven Estonians means that security issues are not in the hands of the Lebanese state. Security officials seemed to be the last ones to know,” Marouni told Al-Sharq radio station. He said the kidnapping had harmed Lebanon’s reputation, economy and tourism.
Another Kataeb Party official, Aley MP Fadi Habr told the Voice of Lebanon radio station that the release of the Estonians was probably a gift from Syria. “The handover [of Estonians] took place in a known area near Brital. Probably, it is a gift from sisterly Syria or from the security atmosphere that exists in that area,” he said.
For his part, Tripoli MP Mohammad Kabbara said while the kidnapping was a riddle, the release was a bigger one.
“But what was not a riddle at all was that they were kidnapped and released in an area that falls under the influence of Hezbullah and Syrian intelligence,” Kabbara said at his office in Tripoli.
“The kidnapping took place in Lebanon and the release from Lebanon without the Lebanese state having anything to do with the kidnapping,” he added.
“What was the price of the release? Was it a political price from the European Union to Syria or Hezbullah or a financial ransom and to whom? What is the meaning of their release today? Is it a Syrian attempt to get close to France which is fighting a battle to support the uprising waged by Syria’s free people?” Kabbara asked.

Hospitality revenues plunge 40 percent in 2011
 July 16, 2011/By Tamara Qiblawi The Daily Star
Hotels are seeing a drop in room occupancy this summer
BEIRUT: Revenues in the hospitality sector have dropped by roughly 40 percent compared to previous years, Association of Hotel Owners chief Pierre Achkar told The Daily Star Friday.
Occupancy rates at hotels currently stand at around 80 percent in the Beirut district, and it is around 60 percent in Mount Lebanon. Those figures stand in stark contrast to occupancy demand levels of roughly 160 percent last year.
Additionally, the high tourist season has only just begun. Hotels only started to witness spikes in tourist traffic around July 6, said Achkar. Usually, the high tourist season spans from early June to late September.
The season is also set to see an early end, with the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan around the corner. Ramadan will begin in early August, ending nearly 30 days after. During that period, the vast majority of Muslims – who make up a large portion of foreign tourists to Lebanon – will be expected to stay near home in order to observe the holy month.
Achkar estimates that Lebanon will see only 15 days of high tourist traffic this year.
The season’s late start, said Achkar, stems from two major occurrences. These are local insecurity issues left over by nearly four months of political vacuum, and regional insecurity sparked by uprisings that have taken root in various Arab countries.
“You’re considered crazy if you want to go visit Lebanon these days,” he said. “It’s a trend among the Gulf Arab countries to look away from Lebanon.”
Achkar believes that that “trend” is a reflection of the Gulf Arab states’ “lack of approval” of the newly formed government, which many have chalked up as being Hezbollah-dominated.
The government ought to step up communication with those states in order to show them the current Cabinet is not “of one color,” reckons Achkar.
Colors are considered to be fixtures of the political landscape in Lebanon, with many of the country’s parties having adopted different shades of color as their symbols.
Saudi Arabia is considered to be the most important market for tourists to Lebanon, with Jordan trailing closely behind. But nationals from both those countries have, for the most part, stayed away.
Regional uprisings have largely sidestepped the two countries. Still, the unrest has loomed as another major roadblock in travels to Lebanon.
Syria, the only country with which Lebanon shares an open land border, and considered to be off-limits to most travelers due to the unrest, has put a major dent in Lebanon travel plans.
A large portion of travelers come to Lebanon on land, explains Achkar – most Jordanians prefer the relatively cheap five hour taxi-ride between Amman and Beirut, and many Gulf tourists prefer to drive to Lebanon in their cars in order to ease their stay in the country.
“Hundreds of thousands” of Gulf cars have passed through the Lebanese-Syrian borders in the last few years, said Achkar.
As for Jordan-Lebanese travel, Achkar is pushing for Lebanese charter flights to “temporarily” fly between Amman and Beirut, because “land travel between the countries is now only a little bit cheaper than air travel.”
Costs of transportation through Syria have risen by as much as 50 percent since upheaval in that country began.
And it is not just Lebanon’s tourism that has paid the price for this turmoil, but, notably, its farming sector, which employs roughly 20 percent of Lebanon’s population.
High transport costs have compounded the already heavy burdens borne by the under-developed sector, making export a difficult feat.
Syria is one of the farming sector’s key export markets, with other trading partners also receiving Lebanese produce through land transport.
Potato farmers are currently incurring a LL100 loss per kilogram of potato because of this phenomenon, president of the Farmers’ Association Antoine Hwayek told The Daily Star

Syria: Who Is In Charge, Bashar Al-Assad or Maher Al-Assad?
Among all the information coming out of Syria, there are two pieces of news that can give us a clear idea about the political activities on both the government and opposition sides regarding the ongoing crisis in Syria. First, we have the two-day conference organized by the official commission for national dialogue. Second we have the formation of an opposition political body. The regime directing the conference failed twice. The meeting was boycotted by the opposition, and it did not issue an interesting final statement.
The meeting was a gathering of a couple hundred people, most of whom are members of the Baath ruling party. In addition, some Christian and Muslim clerics and some Syrian artists, singers and actors attended. Despite the lack of attendance, the Syrian Vice President Farouq al-Shara, who lead the meeting, considered that a “success”. The final statement of this official meeting suggested forming a commission to “propose a modern constitution”. At the same time as the meeting, the Syrian authorities did not stop shooting peaceful protestors or refrain from sending their loyalists to attack both the US and French embassies in Damascus.
Though the opposition did not attend the conference, it has organized a group of political parties and opposition figures at home and abroad. They have formed the National Coordination Committee (NCC) which is “seeking national and democratic change in Syria” as the prominent opposition leader Hassan Abdel Azim put it in an announcement. Syria’s NCC includes Arab, Kurdish and Assyrian parties, as well as nationalist and leftist parties and personalities that truly represent the opinion of the Syrian people. NCC’s formation came just days after the opposition meeting entitled “Syria for all under a democratic civil state”, which took place at Semiramis Hotel in Damascus on June 27, 2011.
This is not all. The NCC “has drafted a political document that has been sent to political parties and opposition figures for discussion and approval,” Azim told AFP in Damascus Now there is a political body for the Syrian opposition which looks for political solutions to the current crisis in Syria, instead of the military-security solutions pursued by the regime.
What the Syrian people expected to hear from President Bashar Al-Assad came from the opposition; a strategic exit is proposed by public figures who built their credibility as political prisoners in the Syrian jails of the Baath regime. The Syrians trust opponents such as Abdel Azim, Michel Kilo, Anwar al-Bunni, Hussein al-Awdat, Fayez Sara, etc., far more than they trust Syria’s Prime Minister, the defunct Baath party, or other officials included President Al-Assad who continued to fail to resolve the current crisis and seems to have no real approach to it.
NCC announced its eights conditions to the Assad regime for the July 10th conference. NCC’s conditions include the following:
a) the regime should immediately stop the “military-security option” which is reflected in the killing, arrest and humiliation of the Syrian protestors;
b) stop the official “malicious media campaign against the uprising” of the Syrian people and allow international media to report from Syria;
c) release all political prisoners as well as the people who were arrested during this current uprising;
d) form an “independent commission of investigation” making the “security services people who shoot civilians” accountable;
e) stop once and for all emergency law and other military rule;
f) recognize the “right of peaceful demonstration”;
g) clearly recognize “the need to repeal Article VIII of the Syrian Constitution” (stating that the ruling Baath party lead the state and the society) which represents “the title of the autocracy”;
and h) an immediate announcement of “holding a national public conference in order to develop an integrated program and timetable for a comprehensive political and constitutional change” in Syria. Unfortunately the conclusions of the official conference failed to reflect any of the opposition’s points.In his three speeches, Bashar Al-Assad proves that he likes the sound of his own voice and that he is still living in a state of denial. He did not propose an agenda for political reform in Syria nor did he propose an exit from the current crisis.
I think that the NCC offers an exit strategy to President Bashar Al-Assad. First the conference addresses him directly and does not fight against him nor overstep him. Second they offer doable and logical steps that the president can achieve immediately as a sign of responsibility and good intention toward his fellow citizens instead of aimlessly running in the vicious circle in which he finds himself.
Currently, there are two trends inside the Asaad family regime: the “military-security option” lead by Maher Al-Assad and the “national dialogue option” lead by President Bashar Al-Assad. While Bashar’s option has not yet seriously started, Maher’s option has been off and running since March 2011. It has lead to the killing of 1500 Syrian citizens. As opponent Michel Kilo recently pointed out, this option “will destroy Syria”.
Thirty years ago, Hafez Al-Assad escaped the deadlock of his regime by exiling his brother Rifaat, who allegedly oversaw the Hama massacre of 1982. Now, Syrian history is repeating itself with Bashar and Maher. The destiny of Assad’s regime is undoubtedly linked to the question of who will have the final word: Bashar or Maher?
Editor’s note: All photographs by Syriana 2011. Anthony Zeitouni (anthonygaz@gmail.com ) is a Washington-based analyst who was born in Beirut, Lebanon. Follow Zeitouni on Twitter: @Anthonygaz. His web site is www.anthonyzeitouni.com

Syria: Why the US is no longer an effective scarecrow
16/07/2011
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid/AsharqAlawsat
The US and French ambassadors visit to the rebel city of Hama that is rebelling against the al-Assad regime represents an important chapter in the political drama unfolding in Syria. The government thought that this would be the perfect opportunity to plant a smoking gun in the protesters hands, and so allowed the two western diplomats to visit the city, opening the way for them to bypass the huge number of military checkpoints that have been set-up between Damascus and Hama.
Following this, Syrian state media announced that US Ambassador Robert Ford had travelled to Hama in order to give the protestors instructions and to supervise a conspiracy against the Syrian regime. However the protesters were not overly-concerned with such claims and for the first time greeted western diplomats with open arms and olive branches, rather than burning flags. They are aware that the Damascus regime fears international intervention, along the lines of NATO's intervention in Libya, for this is something that would completely delegitimize the regime, with this legitimacy being transferred to the protesters. Any such intervention would certainly be stronger than the regime and its Shabiha thugs (pro-regime militia), and would be easily capable of breaking Bashar al-Assad's grip on power. The story of the US and French ambassadors visit to Hama, and allegations of the protesters ties to the West soon became the focus of Syria's propaganda strategy, with the objective of stigmatizing millions of Syrian protesters as agents of the west. However this strategy ultimately failed, and nobody within Syria or the Arab world was taken in by this. We did not see anyone burning western flags of images of western leaders, and so Syria's attempt to utilize the US and the possibility of western intervention as a scarecrow did not bear fruit. Indeed this had the complete opposite affect, with Syrians and Arabs expressing disapproval of the west's inaction and genuinely asking: why hasn't the west intervened in Syria yet?
Prior to the events in Syria, we witnessed the Gaddafi regime's attempts to convince the Libyan people and indeed the entire Arab world that they were facing a western "crusade" that was seeking to colonize Libya for oil. When this claim did not receive a favorable response, Gaddafi then came out to claim that the west was attempting to convert Libya's Muslims to Christians! However this second claim also failed to convince anyone, indeed the Libyan people began to call on the NATO forces to increase the intensity of their attacks.
As for Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who also found his regime under threat following the beginning of the "Arab Spring", he previously made a speech claiming that this was a US conspiracy to remove him from power. Of course, nobody believed him, and the Yemeni opposition continued to meet with the US ambassador to Sanaa, within the framework of discussing a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
There are a number of natural fears embedded in the Middle Eastern mentality, such as Al Qaeda, Israel, and the West. However just because such scarecrows succeeded in frightening us in the past does not mean that they will succeed in inspiring fear or mobilizing public opinion today. Over the past 5 months, people have stood firm in the face of such scare tactics, claims of conspiracy, new world orders, and claims that Israel is seeking to occupy all of Palestine. Such claims have failed in rousing the sympathies of the Arab world.
What has happened? In the past it was enough to quote a US official statement in order to mobilize public opinion in the interests of the regime. Indeed some regimes have been able to live on a diet of inflammatory statements against Israel and claims of defending the homeland against western conspiracy. However since the beginning of the Arab Spring, the people are no longer interested in such rhetoric, this has become a broken record.
We must also stress that the West is not completely innocent, and it has been involved in one way or another [in the outbreak of the Arab Spring]. However it was not the mastermind behind these surprising events, but nobody can deny that it played a supporting role. The US administration publicly granted aid to youth activities and pro-democracy groups, providing them with political – and occasionally logistical – aid. For example, Washington provided the political opposition with means of breaking the government's electronic and digital surveillance of their activities and communication. At the same time, we can safely rule out the claims that Washington was seeking to overthrow the Egyptian, or even Syrian, governments. For at most the US sought to change the behavior of these regimes, in line with its own interests, particularly as the US experience in Iraq clearly showed that local Middle Eastern culture is not yet ready for western-style democracy. However the coming days will reveal the true strength of democracy in post-revolutionary countries like Tunisia and Egypt.
As for scaring the people with threats of Israel and the West, this is a practice that no longer works. In Syria, for example the majority of protesters have suffered a long history of suppression, and they have risen up in a revolution against injustice, not in favor of any political trend of foreign country, such as the US or France. This revolution represents the majority of the Syrian people, whilst at the same time it is consistent with the West's aspiration for the country, as they view the current Syrian regime as a regional stumbling-block. Therefore such scarecrows are no longer enough to scare the people, for they view change – whatever the future may hold – to be better than the status quo.

Syria Unravels
16/07/2011
By Diana Mukkaled
AsharqAlawsat
From inside Hama: The true story."
"Interviews and eye-witness accounts obtained in Hama away from the prying eyes of the Syrian security apparatus."
"Our correspondent in Syria: Doctors treating protest casualties in secret clinics."
We have seen headlines such as this in western media outlets and newspapers over the past two weeks. These media outlets were recently granted permission by the Syrian authorities to enter the country. This new development, namely western media and press being allowed into Syria, is something that is happening for the first time since the outbreak of the popular demonstrations against the regime, which resulted in the regime's tanks, security apparatus and state media initiating a brutal campaign to suppress this uprising.
Although the regime taking this step came within the framework of it attempting to reduce internal and international pressure against it, the press correspondents are not being allowed to visit certain areas, including the anti-Bashar al-Assad demonstrations. Indeed the press is only being allowed to film and report on pro-regime demonstrations.
However it seems that the great resolve and determination of the Syrian protesters is only increasing and intensifying, to the point that they are now being able to get their message across to the foreign press correspondents. These correspondents have been stunned by the Syrian protesters initiative, for they did not wait for anybody to do them any favours but rather took their fate in their own hands and posted images and footage of the Syrian revolution on the internet themselves.
The conventional press reports that have begun to appear focusing on the Syrian protestors only confirm what we have already read, seen, and heard on the internet. The Syrian people were confronted with a vicious propaganda campaign, not to mention a brutal and violent campaign of suppression, at the hands of the Syrian regime. The Syrian regime attempted to portray the protestors as traitors, armed criminals, and foreign agents, but the facts that have begun to appear show that the Syrian protestors were ordinary people who took to the streets against the government, transforming themselves into paramedics, doctors, and citizen journalists. They took to the streets demanding freedom, filming their own peaceful protests. They defied the government sanctioned violence, exposing the regime's brutal and cruel suppression of the protests.
Indeed one protester even went so far as to film his own death! A few days ago, footage was uploaded on YouTube of a young man filming the "Shabiha" (Pro-regime militia) firing on demonstrators. The video clip then shows an unclear figure shooting at the youth, who falls to the ground, before the screen goes black.
The reports by conventional media outlets that have started coming out from Syria have broken the Syrian activists' monopoly on news coverage, without destroying the credibility of everything that they have filmed and posted on the internet over the past few months. However the fact remains that the western media's grace period in Syria will not last long, and this can be seen in the recent attack on the US and French embassies in Damascus. The Syrian regime seems to have realized that the confrontation is not taking place in the conventional media, however even if allowing the conventional media to visit the US and French embassies does not contain any political message, this will still result in a confrontation with the west.
We have all heard dozens of statements by Western officials who couple their demands for protests to be allowed to take place, with demands for free and unbiased media coverage of said protests. Any protest loses much of its significance if there is no camera recording it, and once media outlets are given the chance to get in and cover these protests, any sort of suppression or crackdown will backfire disastrously against the regime. Protests will grow stronger as more media outlets broadcast news of them and the regime would be further weakened. This is the vicious circle that the Syrian regime is trying to deal with.
The only option left for the regime is the confrontation option. Reform and dialogue are nothing more than lies being promoted by the regime to buy time. Indeed, Syrian officials were issuing calls for dialogues even while their "Shabiha" militia were shooting protests!

The "Bugbear" of Civil Strife – over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, or over Power?
Fri, 15 July 2011
Walid Choucair/Al Hayat
http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/288394
More than a year ago, civil strife was just around the corner in Lebanon. Hezbollah was warning of this possibility in a number of news conferences, held by the party's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. In June 2010, when Nasrallah warned that the indictment by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which back then was predicted to appear in a few months' time, would cause civil strife, he said that then-Prime Minister Saad Hariri "knows what he should do". This led to the hurried convening of a summit between Saudi Arabia and Syria in Damascus on 29 July; then this was followed by the visit by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz and Syrian President Bashar Assad to Beirut the next day. There, they held the famous summit during which they agreed on Arab guarantees for continued stability in Lebanon. One day before the visit to Beirut, the Syrian president had informed the Saudi monarch that the issuing of the STL indictment would lead to unrest in Lebanon, and that the leaders of Hezbollah had visited him a day earlier, to express their anxiety, and that they had occupied the country and were spread out throughout most regions of Lebanon.
In his news conferences, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah indicated that Hariri and Arab leaders could do something. This "something" was, in the view of Damascus and Hezbollah, an attempt by Saudi Arabia, with Security Council states, to halt the STL or abolish it. When everyone discovered that this was an intentionally impossible request, and as a result of Arab and international contacts, there was a focus on attempting to delay the indictment until efforts to arrive at an inter-Lebanese settlement could provide a way out of the indictment, if it actually had to be issued someday and ended up accusing Hezbollah. The pressures exerted by the party at the time, even though it always declared it did not fear the indictment, or the "strife" that was being prepared for Lebanon, led to the establishment of what was later called, in the fall of 2010, negotiations over the S-S (Saudi Arabia and Syria) agreement. This should have led to a conference of reconciliation and coming-clean about the past, thereby treating the repercussions of the STL, which could not be abolished.
A few days ago (on 2 and 5 July), Nasrallah said there would be no civil strife between the Lebanese, and particularly between Sunnis and Shiites. This was a few days after the issuing of the indictment, which remains secret. Yesterday, Hezbollah’s deputy secretary general, Sheikh Naim Qassem said, "Certain figures and media expected that a great and dangerous thing would take place in Lebanon after the issuing of the indictment. The indictment was issued, and went to Interpol. As far as we are concerned, nothing happened. It was a political-media discussion with no impact on the ground."
He, therefore, believed what Hariri said throughout 2010, namely that "there will be no civil strife in Lebanon, and we are able – Sayyed Nasrallah, Speaker Nabih Berri and I, and others – to prevent strife."
What changed between July 2010 and today, for the hints and threats of strife to disappear, as Hezbollah reassures the Lebanese that stability will not be harmed?
The only thing that is different is that Saad Hariri is not in power. Were the earlier threats about civil strife due to his being prime minister?
In fact, Hariri, while in that post, did not control things completely; his partner in government was Hezbollah, which was stronger on the ground than the state, whose government Hariri headed. In fact, the S-S agreement also covered finding a formula to move beyond the STL, through forgiveness, which would limit Hezbollah’s authority on the ground, in favor of a different type of partnership inside state institutions. It was hoped that this political settlement would unlock a dynamic of seeing the state recover some of its authority. This was the problem for Hezbollah, and not the STL indictment; it is confident about its surplus power, which allows it to confront and overcome the indictment.
A comparison of the political rhetoric that prevailed in 2010 and the discourse of today allows us to conclude that Hezbollah wanted total authority, instead of a settlement on dividing power between it and other groups or Hariri. The regional situation would not allow such a thing, while the time had not come for a settlement of that kind, especially since Iran was not a part of S-S.Another conclusion generated by this comparison is that the "bugbear" of civil strife is used a lot these days, on the occasion of Arab revolutions, when it comes to giving up power or allowing others to share it through moving to political pluralism. It is a bugbear that disappears when power comes to rest with the side that is hinting at strife.